KY: Highest Medicaid-dependent counties supported Bevin

[Miles]

Article.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Ebsy]

More convincing evidence that the Democratic Party should abandon the red((atlas blue) states and their backwards sub-par citizens.

[DINGO Joe]

"Die-Hard Republican"

[Asian Nazi]

"Die-Hard Republican"

Lol

[Rockefeller GOP]

Well, I hate to say it, but time to explicitly reward your voters more than their voters.  Republicans get this and are happy to let business owners do whatever they want and pay as little in taxes as possible when they are in office.  This is where Bernie is on to something with no-cost college funded 100% by progressive taxation.

It's more that the Democratic Party base is what I might call moderately attuned to what they're "getting" in exchange for their votes. For rich Democrats, it's general support for things everyone benefits from like infrastructure and public health and education. For poor Democrats, it's policies that increase their likelihood of ceasing to be poor - help paying for school, a safety net for unexpected job loss.

Meanwhile, the Republican base is split between those who are completely attuned to what the party gives them and those who seem completely disconnected from who is buttering their bread for them. The first group are the business and corporate interest groups - they're out for very specific tax breaks and targeted legislation to benefit their industries. The second group are the unwashed hicks in Kentucky and Oklahoma and dying Rust Belt towns who gladly eat out of the government hand that feeds them while voting for people who not only want to cut the hand off but state that very explicitly and make it the very cornerstone of their campaigns.

Well, what do you think would eventually turn the rural relatively poor areas back against the business interests?  Maybe the cuts that would happen under unified Republican rule in today's partisan environment?  Or maybe it's more likely that Republicans will have to play so hard to rural and devoutly religious voters that we'll see more substantial defection among traditionally R business interests?  As of now, it seems more likely that the second option will happen first- consider corporate America's strong support for gay marriage last summer. 

The other issue is one that Matt Yglesias touched on a couple weeks ago.  I'm generally not a fan of the "corporate money is ruining politics and rigging elections" hypothesis, but he does make a compelling case that one thing corporate money has done is pressure Democrats in swing and opposition states to run all social issues, all the time campaigns and also provided a cudgel in the primary to keep rural Republicans from giving any ground on economics.  And then you get Wendy Davis's abortion flameout in Texas.  Corporate money could be propping up the Snyder/Sandoval/Hickenlooper/McAuliffe style of moderate at the expense of the Kasich/Edwards style of moderate.  And the impact is asymmetric because there are a lot of lean D states that are fine with a pro-choice, pro-immigration, anti-gun tax cutter, but very few lean R states that would even entertain such a candidate.  While there is often broad support in Middle America for economic redistribution in one sense or another, no one has been able to take up that mantle effectively.  If this model is true, it would suggest that the rural voters will actually be the ones who get fed up first, but not until a couple years after the federal GOP economic platform becomes law and impacts their lives.  Unless a federal GOP trifecta gets skittish and tries to run out the clock focusing on social and security issues, which was enough to get Bush II reelected.

Business GOPers might not like the Bible thumping, but it's better than a party whose debates consist of arguing over who will be tougher on business and big bad Wall Street for an hour.

[RFayette]

Well, I hate to say it, but time to explicitly reward your voters more than their voters.  Republicans get this and are happy to let business owners do whatever they want and pay as little in taxes as possible when they are in office.  This is where Bernie is on to something with no-cost college funded 100% by progressive taxation.

It's more that the Democratic Party base is what I might call moderately attuned to what they're "getting" in exchange for their votes. For rich Democrats, it's general support for things everyone benefits from like infrastructure and public health and education. For poor Democrats, it's policies that increase their likelihood of ceasing to be poor - help paying for school, a safety net for unexpected job loss.

Meanwhile, the Republican base is split between those who are completely attuned to what the party gives them and those who seem completely disconnected from who is buttering their bread for them. The first group are the business and corporate interest groups - they're out for very specific tax breaks and targeted legislation to benefit their industries. The second group are the unwashed hicks in Kentucky and Oklahoma and dying Rust Belt towns who gladly eat out of the government hand that feeds them while voting for people who not only want to cut the hand off but state that very explicitly and make it the very cornerstone of their campaigns.

Well, what do you think would eventually turn the rural relatively poor areas back against the business interests?  Maybe the cuts that would happen under unified Republican rule in today's partisan environment?  Or maybe it's more likely that Republicans will have to play so hard to rural and devoutly religious voters that we'll see more substantial defection among traditionally R business interests?  As of now, it seems more likely that the second option will happen first- consider corporate America's strong support for gay marriage last summer.  

The other issue is one that Matt Yglesias touched on a couple weeks ago.  I'm generally not a fan of the "corporate money is ruining politics and rigging elections" hypothesis, but he does make a compelling case that one thing corporate money has done is pressure Democrats in swing and opposition states to run all social issues, all the time campaigns and also provided a cudgel in the primary to keep rural Republicans from giving any ground on economics.  And then you get Wendy Davis's abortion flameout in Texas.  Corporate money could be propping up the Snyder/Sandoval/Hickenlooper/McAuliffe style of moderate at the expense of the Kasich/Edwards style of moderate.  And the impact is asymmetric because there are a lot of lean D states that are fine with a pro-choice, pro-immigration, anti-gun tax cutter, but very few lean R states that would even entertain such a candidate.  While there is often broad support in Middle America for economic redistribution in one sense or another, no one has been able to take up that mantle effectively.  If this model is true, it would suggest that the rural voters will actually be the ones who get fed up first, but not until a couple years after the federal GOP economic platform becomes law and impacts their lives.  Unless a federal GOP trifecta gets skittish and tries to run out the clock focusing on social and security issues, which was enough to get Bush II reelected.

Business GOPers might not like the Bible thumping, but it's better than a party whose debates consist of arguing over who will be tougher on business and big bad Wall Street for an hour.

But when push comes to shove, Democrats aren't as anti-business as they claim to be.  Just look at Obama - with the exception of a somewhat liberal healthcare law, his overall domestic record is hardly leftist, with a free trade deal and significant spending cuts (thanks to a GOP Congress).  I suppose if Democrats had a trifecta, they'd govern in a more anti-business manner, but I don't really see that right now.