All politics are local? Not in this election

posted in: News | 0

David Lauter | (TNS) Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Asked at a candidate debate this week about President Joe Biden’s border policies, Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez didn’t hesitate.

“My seriousness in taking on the Biden administration’s failed border security policies” has been key to congressional action on the subject, she said. “It’s not racist to want to secure the southern border.”

A day earlier, Democratic congressional candidate Janelle Stelson was similarly direct at her debate when asked whether Biden’s border efforts had failed.

“Yes. I don’t think they acted fast enough,” she said.

“We have to secure the border,” Stelson added. “We need to send people who cross illegally … back home.”

And here’s Democratic candidate Kirsten Engel responding to a similar query at her debate:

“President Biden? Let’s be real. He was late to see what a crisis it was becoming,” she said. “We need to secure the border.”

National issue top voters’ concerns

Perez represents a district in southwestern Washington state. Stelson is trying to oust a six-term Republican incumbent in central Pennsylvania. Engel hopes to unseat a freshman Republican in southern Arizona. All three races are among the closest in the country.

Thousands of miles separate their districts, which also differ significantly in politics and demographics. But a listener tuning in to the candidates’ debates this week could easily lose track of which was which.

The late House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. famously used to say that “all politics is local.” Four decades later, almost the opposite is true.

Local questions do still crop up occasionally: Perez and her opponent, Joe Kent, differed about plans for rebuilding the I-5 bridge over the Columbia River. Engel and her opponent, Republican Rep. Juan Ciscomani, talked briefly about water policy.

But the decline of local news, the nationalization of grassroots fundraising, the increased power of party leaders in Congress and the intense polarization of politics have combined to marginalize regional differences.

Democrats shift on the border

In their place, campaigns now turn on a small set of national issues — this year primarily the cost of living, abortion and the border. Candidates, coached by party strategists using party-financed polls that test messages for their electoral effectiveness, wind up using almost identical language to address issues.

That’s why Democratic candidates in swing districts have embraced tough border security measures and efforts to restrict asylum petitions.

Their positions borrow from the playbook that Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi used to win a hotly contested special election in New York’s Long Island suburbs early this year, and they sharply diverge from those the party’s candidates took as recently as 2020.

That frustrates advocates for immigrants, who say Democrats have wrongly accepted Republican framing of border issues and have adopted policies that will create further hardship for migrants. But the shift matches the movement of public opinion, which has become far less sympathetic to immigrants over the course of Biden’s term.

The nationalization of congressional races and the shift on border policy are two of the lessons that jump out from half a dozen congressional debates that aired over the past week — courtesy of C-SPAN, which rebroadcasts most of them.

Extreme candidates may hinder GOP

Here’s another: The choice by Republican primary voters to embrace extremist candidates in some swing districts continues to hamper the party’s chances of holding on to the House majority.

Perez’s Vancouver-area district in southwest Washington provides one of this year’s clearest examples.

The district leans to the GOP; Trump carried the district by eight points in 2016 and four in 2020. But Perez squeaked through in 2022, defeating Kent 50% to 49%.

Kent, a former Army Special Forces officer, was a polarizing candidate who had defeated a moderate Republican incumbent in the primary that year. He took part in demonstrations on behalf of people convicted or accused of storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, called for Anthony Fauci to be charged with murder and espoused many of Vladimir Putin’s arguments for invading Ukraine.

This time around, national Republican leaders hoped that some other Republican would replace Kent as the party’s nominee, but he easily made his way through the state’s top-two primary, setting up a rematch with Perez.

In their debate, she highlighted his inflammatory rhetoric.

On immigration, for example, Perez used what’s now a standard Democratic line — noting that Republicans killed a bipartisan border security bill this year in deference to Trump. The former president wanted to keep the border in crisis, the better to make it a campaign issue, Democrats say.

“Joe [Kent] and his buddies, they supported killing the most conservative, bipartisan immigration bill we’ve seen in a generation,” she said.

But she went a step further, citing a town hall two years ago in which Kent appeared to agree with a right-wing questioner who called for a 20-year ban on all immigration in order to forestall the “demographic replacement that’s happening.”

Kent “wants a white majority. I want a secure border,” Perez said.

In response, Kent denied advocating a white majority, but did endorse mass deportations of immigrants in the country without legal authorization.

He also repeated his calls for ending aid to Ukraine, saying U.S. money was only prolonging the war and putting humanity “closer to World War III than we’ve ever been.”

Newscaster takes on former Freedom Caucus leader

On the other side of the country, in south-central Pennsylvania, Republicans face a similar dynamic with their incumbent, Rep. Scott Perry.

The former head of the House Freedom Caucus, Perry is one of the few members of that far-right group to represent a closely divided district, rather than one that is solidly Republican.

Since first being elected in 2012, Perry has won five times, but in recent years, his district has grown more Democratic. Republicans have lost ground in the suburbs of Harrisburg, the state capital, and across the Susquehanna River to the west, where the growing population of Cumberland County is increasingly Democratic.

As the district has changed, Perry has become an increasingly uncomfortable fit.

According to the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 riot, he took a prominent part in meetings with Trump advisers on efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. In 2022, FBI agents seized his cellphone as part of the investigation into the election plot. In 2023, after Republicans took control of the House, he was one of the 20 far-right lawmakers who repeatedly held up Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s election as speaker.

His opponent, Stelson, worked for 38 years as a television reporter and anchor for stations in the area. That has given her wide, favorable name recognition.

“The viewers have gotten to know me as a trusted, nonpartisan voice,” she said during the debate, contrasting her pragmatism with Perry, whom she characterized as “the chief obstructionist” in a Congress that has accomplished little.

The long shadow of Dobbs

A former registered Republican, Stelson says she decided to run for office after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe vs. Wade and ended the nationwide guarantee of abortion rights.

Stelson repeatedly hit Perry for his past backing of a nationwide abortion ban without exceptions.

The decision over ending a pregnancy should be left to women and their doctors, she said.

“There’s no reason why Scott Perry knows better than they do what to do with their own bodies in their most intimate decisions.”

Perry insisted that he does support exceptions for cases of rape and incest or to protect a pregnant person’s life, but added that “we need to be mindful … that there are two lives at stake here.”

“I defend, vehemently, the sanctity of life,” he said.

Similar exchanges over abortion took place in each of this week’s debates, and they highlighted how the shift in public opinion since the Dobbs decision has changed both parties’ approaches to the issue.

Democrats shift left on abortion

In the 2022 midterm elections, a backlash against Dobbs helped power Democratic victories in swing states.

At the time, many Republican candidates were caught flatfooted on the issue. This time, they’ve largely coalesced around the position Trump advocates, saying that they support the high court’s ruling and that decisions over abortion should be made at the state level, not nationally.

Democrats have sought to convince voters that those statements can’t be trusted and that if they have the majority, Republicans will try to restrict abortion nationwide.

Republicans counter that their opponents are the real extremists, saying the Democrats won’t agree to any limits on when abortions should be allowed.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Trump’s economic plans would worsen inflation, experts say

National Politics |


Abortion emerges as most important election issue for young women, poll finds

National Politics |


Harris zeros in on Black men, Trump focuses on women as both seek to fire up key voting blocs

National Politics |


Trump’s Pennsylvania town hall, with S.D. Gov. Noem, turns into impromptu concert after medical incidents

National Politics |


Harris v. Trump on student loans: Where the candidates stand

Democrats used to shy away from discussions of so-called late-term abortions — those occurring after 24 weeks of pregnancy, typically because of lethal fetal abnormalities or risk to the woman’s life. They account for less than 1% of all abortions in the U.S.

Today, Democrats are more comfortable pushing back on GOP efforts to set limits.

“There’s no timetable. Pregnancies can go bad at any point,” Engel said in her debate, setting out what is increasingly the party’s prevailing view.

“Women have lost their lives” because of state laws that restrict abortions, she said. And even when those laws have exceptions designed to allow abortions in certain circumstances, “these exceptions don’t work.”

“This is not something we leave to politicians.”

Abortion, immigration, inflation: If polls are accurate, the two sides have largely fought to a draw on those issues. On average, Democrats hold about a one-point edge when polls ask voters which party they want to see in control of Congress after this election.

Enough races remain as toss-ups that either party could win control of the House. But in our increasingly parliamentary system, where national trends have swamped local issues, here’s one prediction: Whichever party wins the White House will probably gain control of the House as well.

___

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit at latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Walz to unveil Harris’ plan for rural voters as campaign looks to cut into Trump’s edge

posted in: Politics | 0

By ZEKE MILLER AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democratic vice presidential nominee Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz on Tuesday will unveil his ticket’s plans to improve the lives of rural voters, as Vice President Kamala Harris looks to cut into former President Donald Trump’s support.

The Harris-Walz plan includes a focus on improving rural health care, such as plans to recruit 10,000 new health care professionals in rural and tribal areas through scholarships, loan forgiveness and new grant programs, as well as economic and agricultural policy priorities. The plan was detailed to The Associated Press by a senior campaign official on the condition of anonymity ahead of its official release on Tuesday.

It marks a concerted effort by the Democratic campaign to make a dent in the historically Trump-leaning voting bloc in the closing three weeks before Election Day. Trump carried rural voters by a nearly two-to-one margin in 2020, according to AP VoteCast. In the closely contested race, both Democrats and Republicans are reaching out beyond their historic bases in hopes of winning over a sliver of voters that could ultimately prove decisive.

Walz is set to announce the plan during a stop in rural Lawrence County in western Pennsylvania, one of the marquee battlegrounds of the 2024 contest. He is also starring in a new radio ad for the campaign highlighting his roots in a small town of 400 people and his time coaching football, while attacking Trump and his running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Trump’s economic plans would worsen inflation, experts say

National Politics |


Abortion emerges as most important election issue for young women, poll finds

National Politics |


Harris zeros in on Black men, Trump focuses on women as both seek to fire up key voting blocs

National Politics |


Trump’s Pennsylvania town hall, with S.D. Gov. Noem, turns into impromptu concert after medical incidents

National Politics |


Harris v. Trump on student loans: Where the candidates stand

“In a small town, you don’t focus on the politics, you focus on taking care of your neighbors and minding your own damn business,” Walz says in the ad, which the campaign said will air across more than 500 rural radio stations in Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. “Now Donald Trump and JD Vance, they don’t think like us. They’re in it for themselves.”

The Harris-Walz plan calls on Congress to permanently extend telemedicine coverage under Medicare, a pandemic-era benefit that helped millions access care that is set to expire at the end of 2024. They are also calling for grants to support volunteer EMS programs to cut in half the number of Americans living more than 25 minutes away from an ambulance.

It also urges Congress to restore the Affordable Connectivity Program, a program launched by President Joe Biden that expired in June that provided up to $30 off home internet bills, and for lawmakers to require equipment manufacturers to grant farmers the right to repair their products.

Twins players Carlos Santana, Willi Castro named Gold Glove Award finalists

posted in: News | 0

Carlos Santana is one step closer to fulfilling a promise he made to his mother before the 2024 season.

The Twins’ veteran first baseman was named a Rawlings Gold Glove Award finalist for the second straight year. In addition to Santana, Twins utilityman Willi Castro was named a finalist, as well, in a utility category that was created three years ago.

Neither Santana, 38, nor Castro, 27, has ever won a Gold Glove.

Before the season began, Santana, who wore a pink glove this year to honor his mother, said she asked him what he still wanted to accomplish before he retired. He responded by telling her he would like to be rewarded for his defense and take home a Gold Glove Award.

“This is what I want,” he said in September. “This is what I promised to my mom. I want to win. If I win and they told me, it’s the most new positive (thing) here in my life.”

Santana seemingly has a great chance of winning the award, finishing first among all first basemen with 14 Outs Above Average. His eight Defensive Runs Saved led all American League first basemen.

Nathaniel Lowe of the Texas Rangers and Ryan Mountcastle of the Baltimore Orioles are the other two finalists at the position. Castro joins Mauricio Dubón (Astros) and Dylan Moore (Mariners) as the utility finalists.

The versatile Castro made history this season becoming the only player in Major League Baseball history to play in at least 25 games at five different positions (2B, 3B, SS, LF, CF).

Castro, who played in a team-leading 158 games, filled in at third base when Royce Lewis got hurt, at shortstop when Carlos Correa landed on the injured list and center field when Byron Buxton went down early. He finished the year with 40 games at second base, 37 at third, 56 at short, 34 in left field and 30 in center.

Often, he appeared at multiple positions within a game, allowing manager Rocco Baldelli the flexibility to make the in-game moves he desired.

The finalists were determined by voting from managers and coaches in concert with the SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) Defensive Index, which makes up 25 percent of the selection.

The winners will be announced on Nov. 3 during a special “Baseball Tonight” show on ESPN that will begin at 7:30 p.m. CT. The Twins have not had a Gold Glove winner Buxton (CF) and Brian Dozier (2B) won in 2017.

Trump’s economic plans would worsen inflation, experts say

posted in: Politics | 0

By PAUL WISEMAN and CHRISTOPHER RUGABER AP Economics Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — With characteristic bravado, Donald Trump has vowed that if voters return him to the White House, “inflation will vanish completely.”

It’s a message tailored for Americans who are still exasperated by the jump in consumer prices that began 3 1/2 years ago.

Yet most mainstream economists say Trump’s policy proposals wouldn’t vanquish inflation. They’d make it worse. They warn that his plans to impose huge tariffs on imported goods, deport millions of migrant workers and demand a voice in the Federal Reserve’s interest rate policies would likely send prices surging.

Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists signed a letter in June expressing fear that Trump’s proposals would “reignite’’ inflation, which has plummeted since peaking at 9.1% in 2022 and is nearly back to the Fed’s 2% target.

The Nobel economists noted that they aren’t alone in sounding the alarm.

“Nonpartisan researchers,” they said, “predict that if Donald Trump successfully enacts his agenda, it will increase inflation.”

Last month, the Peterson Institute for International Economics predicted that Trump’s policies — the deportations, import taxes and efforts to erode the Fed’s independence — would drive consumer prices sharply higher two years into his second term. Peterson’s analysis concluded that inflation, which would otherwise register 1.9% in 2026, would instead jump to between 6% and 9.3% if Trump’s economic proposals were adopted.

Many economists aren’t thrilled with Vice President Kamala Harris’ economic agenda, either. They dismiss, for example, her proposal to combat price gouging as an ineffective tool against high grocery prices. But they don’t regard her policies as particularly inflationary.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, and two colleagues have estimated that Harris’ policies would leave the inflation outlook virtually unchanged, even if she enjoyed a Democratic majority in both chambers of Congress. An unfettered Trump, by contrast, would leave prices higher by 1.1 percentage points in 2025 and 0.8 percentage points in 2026, they concluded.

FILE – An array of solar panels float on top of a water storage pond in Sayreville, N.J., April 10, 2023. (AP Photo/Seth Wenig, File)

Consumers end up paying for tariffs

Taxes on imports — tariffs — are Trump’s go-to economic policy. He argues that tariffs protect American factory jobs from foreign competition and deliver a host of other benefits.

While in office, Trump started a trade war with China, imposing high tariffs on most Chinese goods. He also raised import taxes on foreign steel and aluminum, washing machines and solar panels. He has still grander plans for a second term: Trump wants to impose a 60% tariff on all Chinese goods and a “universal’’ tariff of 10% or 20% on everything else that enters the United States.

Trump insists that the cost of taxing imported goods is absorbed by the foreign countries that produce those goods. The truth, though, is that U.S. importers pay the tariff — and then typically pass along that cost to consumers in the form of higher prices, which is how Americans themselves end up bearing the cost of tariffs.

What’s more, as tariffs raise the cost of imports, the weakened competition from foreign products makes it easier for U.S. producers to raise their own prices.

“There’s no question that tariffs are inflationary,’’ said Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which studies the costs of government policies. “Exactly how much – that’s where economists can debate it.”

The inflationary impact of tariffs can depend on how consumers react to higher import prices: Do they keep buying the costlier foreign stuff — whether a coffeemaker from China, a box of Swiss chocolates or car made in Mexico? Or do they shift to an American-made alternative product? Or stop buying such goods altogether?

Kimberly Clausing and Mary Lovely of the Peterson Institute have calculated that Trump’s proposed 60% tax on Chinese imports and his high-end 20% tariff on everything else would, in combination, impose an after-tax loss on a typical American household of $2,600 a year.

Trump has made some implausible claims for protectionist policies. Asked how he would lower grocery prices — a particular irritant to many Americans — Trump has said the nation should limit the importation of food because America’s farmers are “being decimated’’ by foreign competition.

“It’s sort of nonsensical to say that I am worried about high food prices, so I want to put a tax on food imports,” said Clausing, who is also a UCLA economist specializing in tax policy. “As you tax them, the food in the grocery store absolutely gets more expensive.”

A huge proportion of food consumed in the United States — about 60% of fresh fruit and 38% of vegetables — are imported, according to Department of Agriculture data. Less than 1% of the bananas Americans eat are grown domestically. The vast majority are imported. The United States grows less than 1% of the coffee it consumes. It imports more than 70% of its seafood.

“Trump is using tariffs as a political device to signal his strong skepticism around globalization broadly — ‘America First,’ ” said Zandi of Moody’s Analytics. “That this policy stance is inflationary is very difficult for most voters to grasp, especially when they are being told the opposite.’’

The Trump campaign points out that U.S. inflation remained low even as Trump aggressively imposed tariffs as president. Consumer prices rose just 1.9% in 2018, 2.3% in 2019 and 1.4% in 2020. And they note that, once in office, the Biden-Harris administration retained most of Trump’s tariffs, though Harris has criticized his plans to vastly expand their use.

“In his first term, President Trump instituted tariffs against China that created jobs, spurred investment and resulted in no inflation,’’ Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, has said.

But Zandi of Moody’s Analytics noted that the sheer magnitude of Trump’s new tariff proposals has vastly changed the calculations.

“The Trump tariffs in 2018-19 didn’t have as large an impact as the tariffs were only just over $300 billion in mostly Chinese imports,’’ he said. “The former president is now talking about tariffs on over $3 trillion in imported goods across all countries.’’

And the inflationary backdrop was radically different during Trump’s first term. Back then, the Fed worried mainly about raising inflation up, not down, to its 2% target. The economy’s unexpectedly high-octane rebound from the COVID-19 recession of 2020 caused severe shortages of parts and labor and unleashed inflationary pressures that had lain dormant for decades.

FILE – A member of the Texas delegation holds a sign during the Republican National Convention on July 17, 2024, in Milwaukee. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke, File)

Trump would reverse an immigration surge that helped ease inflation

Trump, who has invoked incendiary rhetoric and spread falsehoods demonizing immigrants, has promised the “largest deportation operation in the history of our country.” He says it would target the millions of foreigners living in the United States illegally.

A surge in immigrants, like the one the United States has experienced the past few years, tends to make it easier for businesses to hire workers. The result is that can help cool inflation by easing the pressure on employers to sharply raise pay and to pass on their higher labor costs to their customers by increasing prices.

New immigrants also spend money, notably on housing, and so, at least in theory, can fuel upward pressure on prices and rents. But many economists say they doubt that that’s happening now. Paul Ashworth of Capital Economics notes that today’s immigrants are highly likely to work and less likely to spend than native-born Americans, in part because they typically send money back to relatives in their home countries. Many economists, in fact, say the overall effect of increased immigration has been to help tame inflation while avoiding a painful recession — in other words, to achieve an economic “soft landing.”

The Congressional Budget Office reported in January that net immigration — arrivals minus departures — reached 3.3 million in 2023, more than triple what it had expected. Employers needed the new arrivals. With the economy having roared out of the pandemic recession, companies were struggling to hire enough workers to keep up with customer orders, especially because so many native-born baby boomers were entering or nearing retirement.

Immigrants filled the gap. Over the past four years, the number of people in the United States who either have a job or are looking for one rose by nearly 8.5 million. Roughly 72% of them were foreign born.

Economists Wendy Edelberg and Tara Watson of the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project found that by raising the supply of workers. the influx of immigrants allowed the United States to generate jobs without overheating and accelerating inflation.

In the past, economists generally estimated that America’s employers could add no more than 100,000 jobs a month without overheating the economy and igniting inflation. But when Edelberg and Watson included the immigration surge in their calculations, they found that monthly job growth could reach 160,000 to 200,000 without exerting upward pressure on inflation.

Trump’s mass deportations, if carried out, would change everything. The Peterson Institute calculates that the U.S. inflation rate would be 3.5 percentage points higher in 2026 if a second Trump administration managed to deport all 8.3 million undocumented immigrant workers who are thought to be working in the United States.

A politicized Fed would make inflation-fighting harder

Trump alarmed many economists in August by saying he would seek to have “a say” in the Fed’s interest rate decisions.

The Fed is the government’s chief inflation-fighter. It attacks high inflation by raising interest rates to try to restrain borrowing and spending, slow the economy and cool the rate of price increases. In March 2022, the Fed initiated an aggressive series of rate hikes to combat the worst bout of inflation in four decades. From a peak of 9.1%, inflation has dropped back close to the Fed’s 2% target.

Related Articles

National Politics |


Abortion emerges as most important election issue for young women, poll finds

National Politics |


Harris zeros in on Black men, Trump focuses on women as both seek to fire up key voting blocs

National Politics |


Trump’s Pennsylvania town hall, with S.D. Gov. Noem, turns into impromptu concert after medical incidents

National Politics |


Harris v. Trump on student loans: Where the candidates stand

National Politics |


Legislative majorities giving one party all the power are in play in several states

Economic research has found that the Fed and other central banks can effectively manage inflation only if they’re kept independent of political pressure. That’s because raising rates to fight inflation typically slows the economy and sometimes causes a recession. Politicians generally prefer that the Fed not raise rates, the result of which could imperil their re-elections.

As president, Trump frequently hounded Jerome Powell, the Fed chair he had chosen, to lower rates to try to juice the economy. For many economists, Trump’s public pressure on Powell exceeded even the attempts that Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon made to push previous Fed chairs to keep rates low — moves that were widely blamed for helping spur the chronic inflation of the late 1960s and ’70s.

“The perception that the central bank was dancing to a president’s preferred tune … would compromise its ability to raise interest rates when it believed that to be necessary in order to combat inflation,” said Samuel Gregg, a political economist at the free-market think tank American Institute for Economic Research.

The Peterson Institute report found that upending the Fed’s independence would persistently increase inflation by 2 percentage points a year.

“While Trump promises to ‘make the foreigners pay,’ ‘’ the researchers concluded in their Peterson report, ”our analysis shows his policies will end up making Americans pay the most.”