{"id":4496,"date":"2021-02-20T21:25:39","date_gmt":"2021-02-20T21:25:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=4496"},"modified":"2021-02-20T21:25:39","modified_gmt":"2021-02-20T21:25:39","slug":"what-democrats-can-learn-from-nebraskas-shift-to-the-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lonecandle.com\/?p=4496","title":{"rendered":"What Democrats Can Learn From Nebraska\u2019s Shift To The Right"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\n\n“in 1989, I entered a world where Nebraska straddled the middle of the political spectrum. But since then, the state has drifted so far from the center it\u2019s hard to remember it was ever there. Using DW-NOMINATE data from the congressional vote tallying website Voteview<\/a>, we can see just how far Nebraska\u2019s political representatives have drifted rightward in the last thirty years. As you can see in the chart below, the average ideology score of Nebraska\u2019s U.S. representatives and senators, as measured by DW-NOMINATE\u2019s first dimension, shifted more than half a point between 1990 and 2020.1<\/sup><\/a> Put in today\u2019s terms, in 1990, the average Nebraskan in Congress was similar in ideology to outgoing Democratic Sen. Doug Jones of Alabama, a moderate; whereas today she would more closely resemble Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who isn\u2019t the most conservative Republican in Congress (that\u2019s Sen. Mike Lee), but still drifts pretty far to the right on the ideological spectrum.”
…
“the Electoral College has always favored smaller states like Nebraska. But it is only somewhat recently that these states have heavily favored Republicans.”
…
“So what\u2019s driving Nebraska\u2019s (and other states\u2019) rightward shift? In part, it has to do with the nationalization of American politics<\/a>. Since the 1990s, Democratic voters have moved to the left<\/a> on issues such as health care and immigration, while Republicans have become more likely to identify as conservative<\/a> as their moderate candidates have dwindled<\/a>. And in turn, this nationalization and polarization has made it more difficult for local candidates to successfully create their own platforms. For example, as governor and senator, Nelson often broke from his own party in an attempt to attract conservative voters, taking stances like advocating for a \u201chard barrier\u201d<\/a> to prevent illegal immigration or supporting various anti-abortion measures. But the days of candidates creating their own platforms are largely over, and the share of registered Democratic voters in Nebraska has also dropped<\/a>.” 
…
“This trend extends to lower levels of government, too, like the state legislature and city councils. Republican state lawmakers have also tried to eliminate prenatal care<\/a> and repeal in-state tuition<\/a> for immigrants, while giving local police the power to question the immigration status<\/a> of anyone they suspect of living in the country illegally. A few towns have even passed ordinances<\/a> that formally ban<\/a> undocumented immigrants from renting property. All this is happening in a state that, until recently<\/a>, settled a high number of refugees<\/a>.
Meanwhile, on the education front, Republican lawmakers have leaned into national Republicans\u2019 growing aversion<\/a> toward public education, trying to eliminate<\/a> Nebraska\u2019s democratically elected board of education, while perpetual tax cuts and exemptions have led to two-thirds of Nebraska\u2019s school districts receiving no general financial assistance from the state<\/a>, which has contributed to public schools in rural Nebraska having \u201cthe most inequitable [state aid] distribution in the nation,\u201d according to a nationwide study by the think tank, The Rural School and Community Trust<\/a>. This is all in a state where Republicans once implemented income and sales taxes to increase K-12 schools\u2019 funding<\/a>, among a host of other progressive legislation.
But lest one think the effects of nationalization have completely remade states like Nebraska, many Nebraskans disagree with the GOP\u2019s positions. Through ballot initiatives, for instance, Nebraska voters have approved a higher minimum wage<\/a>, Medicaid expansion<\/a> and casino gambling<\/a>, even though Republicans officials, who continue to cruise to statewide victories, have opposed<\/a>these<\/a>measures<\/a>.” 
…
“\u201cIf you ask people to vote for things that might be in their own interest, and you explain the issue to them in one paragraph on the ballot, they will vote for the thing that is good for them,\u201d said Ari Kohen, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. \u201cBut you can\u2019t ask them to give up their party affiliation.\u201d
People are reluctant to switch parties<\/a>, but they can be swayed to change their mind about a specific cause, particularly when an issue is presented outside of a partisan context. State Sen. Tony Vargas, a Democrat in Omaha, told me that he thought Medicaid expansion passed \u2014 even though Nelson encountered a brouhaha<\/a> over a similar issue just eight years prior\u2014 because it wasn\u2019t tied to a particular politician or party. \u201cIf our ballot said \u2018expanding Obamacare,\u2019 I feel like people would have voted against it,\u201d Vargas said. \u201cInstead, we said \u2018expanding Medicaid and addressing the gap.\u2019 \u2026 It\u2019s a lot harder to attack the issue. It\u2019s much easier to attack the person.\u201d”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
What Democrats Can Learn From Nebraska’s Shift To The Right<\/a><\/blockquote>