Latest news with #CooperativeElectionStudy
Newsweek
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Immigrants Are Embracing Trump's Crackdown on Immigration
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. New data shows a growing number of immigrant voters are backing Donald Trump and his hardline immigration agenda—marking a dramatic reversal from past elections. Why It Matters The Trump administration has pledged to carry out the largest mass deportation in U.S. history and has conducted numerous ICE raids, some of which have swept up people with proper documentation. Trump's aggressive stance on immigration has resulted in widespread protests, especially in Los Angeles, where Trump authorized the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles after reported violence against law enforcement, specifically ICE agents carrying out deportation raids in the city. But despite the unrest, data suggests that Trump's messaging on border enforcement and immigration control may be resonating with segments of the immigrant community. President Donald Trump speaks during an event to sign a bill blocking California's rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025,... President Donald Trump speaks during an event to sign a bill blocking California's rule banning the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035, in the East Room of the White House, Thursday, June 12, 2025, in Washington. More Alex Brandon/AP What To Know According to an analysis of the American National Election Studies (ANES) by CNN's Harry Enten, immigrant voters, who favored Democrats by 32 points on immigration policy in 2020, now trust Republicans more on the issue by 8 points—a staggering 40-point swing. Trump's share of the immigrant vote has steadily increased—from 36 percent in 2016 to 39 percent in 2020 and now to 47 percent in 2024, based on Cooperative Election Study (CES) data analyzed by Enten. Perhaps even more telling is how immigrant voters feel about immigrants who are in the country illegally. In 2020, their net favorability stood at +23 points. This year that has flipped to -6—a 29-point decline in support for undocumented immigrants among immigrants themselves. Enten did not specify which demographics were included in his aggregate. It comes as polls suggest that Trump's hardline immigration stance is resonating with much of the public. In a sharp turnaround from his first term, Trump now holds a net positive approval rating on immigration, rising from -21 in June 2017 to +1 today, according to CNN's Harry Enten—his biggest gain on any issue. A YouGov/CBS News poll conducted June 4-6 found 54 percent of Americans support Trump's deportation program targeting undocumented immigrants, surpassing his ratings on the economy (42 percent) and inflation (39 percent). Additionally, 51 percent approve of ICE conducting searches. An RMG Research poll echoed that result, with 58 percent backing the deportation efforts. And in an Insider Advantage survey, 59 percent approved of Trump's decision to send National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to the protests. But the support has limits. Some polls show that Trump's handling of deportations is broadly unpopular. A survey conducted by YouGov/Economist found that just 39 percent of respondents approve of how the former president is managing deportations, while 50 percent disapprove, giving him a net approval rating of minus 11. A separate Quinnipiac poll showed even deeper dissatisfaction, with 40 percent approval and 56 percent disapproval—netting a negative 16-point rating on the issue. Meanwhile, 56 percent disapprove of how Trump's mass deportation program is being implemented, according to the CBS/YouGov poll. A separate YouGov survey found only 39 percent approve of the administration's overall approach to deportations, while 50 percent disapprove. The issue remains deeply polarizing as 93 percent of Republicans support the deportation plan, compared to just 18 percent of Democrats. Independents are divided. Nearly half of Americans believe Trump is going further than he promised during his campaign. His military deployment is even more controversial. A June 9-10 YouGov poll found only 34 percent of Americans support sending Marines to Los Angeles, while 47 percent disapprove. A majority—56 percent—say state and local governments, not the federal government, should handle the situation. But among immigrant voters, Trump's immigration policy appears to be resonating. Experts say that immigrants are increasingly backing Donald Trump's hardline immigration stance due to frustration over what they see as a broken and unfair system. Thomas Gift, a political science professor at University College London, told Newsweek that many immigrants feel betrayed by current immigration policies, especially ones created under President Joe Biden. "Part of this shift likely stems from frustration among immigrants who feel they 'followed the rules' and now resent those who entered the country unlawfully," Gift explained. Jeremy Beck, co-president of the immigration reduction group NumbersUSA, told Newsweek that more immigrants came to the U.S. between 2021 and 2025 than during any other period in history—"more than half of them illegally." Between 2021 and 2024, there were over 10.8 million total illegal border encounters, according to the Department of Homeland Security, far exceeding the 2.8 million total from 2017–2020. That surge, he said, has spurred a backlash even among immigrant voters who helped form Trump's "winning coalition in November." These voters, he added, sent a "decisive message" to Washington: "Manage immigration at levels we can sustain, and credibly enforce the limits." The shift is also visible in the broader electorate. Beck pointed to Latino-majority districts in Texas and Colorado where Trump or immigration hardliners performed strongly. Trump made historic gains among Hispanic voters in 2024, with only 55 percent supporting Kamala Harris to Trump's 43 percent—an 8-point increase from 2020 and the highest percentage for a Republican presidential candidate since such data has been tracked. Beck concluded that Trump's "willingness to enforce immigration laws gives him a clear advantage" with voters—especially immigrants who went through the legal process. "After the border crisis, voters are aware of how important it is to manage immigration policy in the national interest," he said. But Maria Cristina Garcia, Professor of American Studies at Cornell University, cautioned against drawing broad conclusions from polling on immigrant views toward immigration enforcement and support for Donald Trump. "This poll as represented here in the video doesn't really tell me much," she said, emphasizing that Latino and immigrant communities are far from monolithic. Garcia argued that attitudes on immigration vary significantly depending on national origin, geography, and personal history. "People of Mexican ancestry who live in border counties along the Rio Grande... are likely more hawkish on immigration than, say, a Dominican American in Washington Heights in NYC," she explained. Similarly, Cuban Americans differ in outlook depending on when and why they migrated to the U.S. But she noted that economic conditions strongly influence immigration attitudes, which could explain their support for Trump: "Historically, U.S. citizens (including the foreign-born) have been more likely to demand bars to immigration when the economy sputters and they experience more pressure on their day-to-day lives." Gift echoed this, explaining that, like other Americans, immigrants are feeling the economic pressure from illegal immigration, including "stresses on public services, housing shortages, and rising competition in certain labor markets." Beck, meanwhile, noted that immigrants are often the first to feel the impact of mass migration: "They tend to work in the same occupations. They feel the downward pressure on their wages, and witness the degradation of workplace conditions for themselves as well as new arrivals." According to a 2024 report, approximately 36 percent of immigrants lived in lower-income households, compared to 29 percent of U.S.-born individuals. And a recent survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) indicates that 43 percent of immigrants anticipate their financial situation will worsen in the coming year, compared to approximately 33 percent of U.S.-born individuals. Trump has sought to attribute economic pressures like this to illegal immigration. During a June 2024 presidential debate, Trump claimed that illegal immigrants were "taking Black jobs" and argued they were "killing" working opportunities for minority communities. "His big kill on the Black people is the millions of people that he's allowed to come in... They're taking Black jobs now... and they're taking Hispanic jobs," he said. And in a March 2025 speech to Congress, Trump blamed "open-border" policies for causing widespread strain—implying economic stress on hospitals, schools, and communities, which often correlates with inflation concerns. "Joe Biden didn't just open our borders—he flew illegal aliens over them to overwhelm our schools, hospitals and communities," he said. For Beck, this is why immigration resonates so strongly with immigrant voters grappling with economic anxiety. "The party that can set enforceable limits on immigration that serve the interests of immigrant voters could achieve a lasting realignment," he said. What People Are Saying Enten said: "There is no bloc of voters that shifted more to the right from 2020 to 2024 than immigrant voters." Thomas Gift said: "Part of this shift likely stems from frustration among immigrants who feel they "followed the rules" and now resent those who entered the country unlawfully or are seen as having bypassed the legal process. Like other Americans, immigrants themselves are affected by many of the same perceived challenges associated with illegal immigration, such as stresses on public services, housing shortages, and rising competition in certain labor markets. These numbers show just how far Biden's alleged "open border policies" have shifted immigrants toward supporting the Republican Party." Maria Cristina said: "This poll as represented here in the video doesn't really tell me much, though. "Let's say these pollsters just focused on Latinos who are foreign-born citizens. You're likely to find differences across Latino groups and geographic regions. People of Mexican ancestry who live in border counties along the Rio Grande, for example, are likely more hawkish on immigration than, say, a Dominican American in Washington Heights in NYC. A Cuban American who arrived in the 1960s and has no family left in Cuba might be more hawkish than a Cuban-born US citizen who arrived in 1996 and hopes to one day sponsor a family member. The more interesting question (to me) is why are some groups more hawkish than others? What is it about their experience that has led them to hold certain perspectives? "For many foreign-born citizens (like all citizens in general), perspectives on immigration are tied to the state of the economy. Historically, US citizens (including the foreign-born) have been more likely to demand bars to immigration when the economy sputters and they experience more pressure on their day-to-day lives. "As for why some immigrants voted for much depends on the group. Immigrants that fled a communist country, for example, might believe the MAGA-GOP's falsehood that Democrats are socialists or communists and worry about it. Or they might worry about the culture wars and feel that the Democratic party disregards their more religious or patriarchal values. There are many different reasons for the shift to the GOP. If so, voting GOP doesn't necessarily mean they liked Trump. Indeed, I'd like to see a polling question of GOP voters on whether they actually liked Trump." "But in the end, immigrants are most concerned about the economy and the opportunities they believe will be available to them." Jeremy Beck said: "Those are remarkable findings, although not entirely surprising. Whenever immigration levels spike, recent immigrants are among the first Americans to feel the impact. They tend to work in the same occupations. They feel the downward pressure on their wages, and witness the degradation of workplace conditions for themselves as well as new arrivals. They see the exploitation. They live in communities overwhelmed by unsustainable numbers. Mass immigration's strain on infrastructure, hospitals, schools, and homeless shelters affects foreign-born citizens directly and indirectly. "More people came to the U.S. between 2021-2025 than in any other period in history; more than half of them illegally. The shift in immigrant voters is part of a broader shift in American voters who live off of their wages as opposed to their stock portfolios. These immigrant voters were part of Trump's winning coalition in November and they delivered a decisive message to Washington, D.C. last November: Manage immigration at levels we can sustain, and credibly enforce the limits. Enten's polling should not be surprising to anyone who remembers the shift toward Trump in majority-Latino districts in South Texas. Or in Colorado's 8th district, which is 40 percent Latino, where two candidates campaigned on who was tougher on immigration enforcement. The border crisis was tied with inflation for the top reason voters did not vote for Vice President Harris; and thirty six percent of Latino voters cited immigration as a top concern. One out of four Democratic voters believe the Party deliberately open the border. President Trump willingness to enforce immigration laws gives him a clear advantage with these voters. Many immigrant voters who themselves work through a sometimes difficult legal process understandably rejected policies that led to a crisis in which millions of people who should not have been admitted to the U.S. were released into the country outside of the legal system established by Congress. "After the border crisis, voters are aware of how important it is to manage immigration policy in the national interest. The party that voters trust to fully enforce the law within the limits of the law has an advantage. The party that can set enforceable limits on immigration that serve the interests of immigrant voters could achieve a lasting realignment." What Happens Next Trump's approval rating among immigrant voters is likely to fluctuate. Meanwhile, coordinated nationwide protests against Trump and his administration's policies are also planned to take place in cities in all 50 states on the president's birthday on June 14.
New York Post
03-06-2025
- Health
- New York Post
Is it any wonder liberals are having a mental health crisis?
Liberals are more than twice as likely to say they have poor mental health — while conservatives are more than twice as likely to say their mental well-being is 'excellent.' Is it any wonder? Conservatives promote family and religious values and pro-community messaging. The left is the party of grievance politics and 'yes you can't' messaging. Advertisement 9 Liberals are twice as likely to say they have poor mental health, according to self-reported data. pressmaster – Now, data collected from the 2022 Cooperative Election Study from Tufts University and reported by statistician and political commentator Nate Silver reveals that, among voters who said their mental health was poor, 45% identified as politically liberal and just 19% were conservatives. Conversely, those who said they had excellent mental health identified as conservative 51% of the time, while 20% were liberal. 9 Nate Silver published data showing liberals have worse mental health outcomes on his Substack. Slaven Vlasic Advertisement The stark lifestyle differences between the two are illuminating. For one thing, Democrats have ceded a virtual monopoly on pro-family and pro-religious messaging to Republicans — the very values that can promote life meaning, interpersonal connection and mental well-being. Conservatives traditionally promote family values, and it's long been known that people who have other people who rely on them, like spouses and children, fare better than people who only worry about themselves. Take, for example, Fay Dubinsky, a 28-year-old Zoomer who actually describes herself as a happy member of the most depressed generation on record. Advertisement 9 Fay Dubinsky says her marriage and child give her meaning and purpose. Courtesy of Fay Dubinsky 'I take time for myself, but so much of my day is to help others, to take care of my family, to take care of my baby,' Dubinsky, a mother of a two-year-old, told The Post. 'People my age, their life is about them, and serving themselves, and always seeking out more pleasure.' Some 86% of conservatives identify with a religion, according to Pew. And religious people are more likely to self-describe as 'very happy' in the United States, likely because they have a connection to a higher purpose beyond the earthly world. This likewise applies to Dubinsky: 'I grew up Jewish and religious, and I think that's probably one of the reasons that I'm not depressed or anxious. I have so much meaning in my life, and that's not typical for my generation.' Advertisement 9 Religious people tend to report greater happiness in the United States. tutye – But it's also about the messaging coming from conservative politicians about self-reliance and self-confidence, two traits highly associated with mental well-being, according to mental health professionals and organizations alike. The right traditionally espouses pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps messaging — teaching people they can rely on their hard work and resolve to get by. On the flip side, Democrats have embraced just about the opposite of all of these values. Self-reliance?The libs aren't fans. 9 Young men have shifted to the right as Democrats embraced grievance politics. Michael Nigro Identity politics have overtaken the Democratic party, as lefty leaders insist that immutable characteristics like race and gender are constantly holding citizens back from their potential. Only government intervention — and a vote for their side — can fix it, they claim. It's the sort of ideology that saw the Biden administration attempt to give out loans exclusively to black farmers. What sort of message does that send? 9 The Biden Administration attempted to deliver loans to black farmers, while excluding other groups. Bloomberg via Getty Images Advertisement Or how about the endless insistence that non-white voters would be disenfranchised if voter ID laws were put in place, because they couldn't possibly be expected to produce identification like everyone else? Democrats have also become the party of handouts and free things — from student loan forgiveness to endless stimulus checks — implying that Americans can't get along without their help in a world stacked against them. 'Today the game is rigged — rigged to work for those who have money and power,' Elizabeth Warren declared in her memoir 'A Fighting Chance.' It's an ironic title, considering how the Massachusetts senator is pretty much implying regular Americans don't have one. 9 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said one's Zip code 'determines your destiny.' Paul Kitagaki Jr./ZUMA Press Wire / Advertisement 'I was born in a place where your Zip code determines your destiny,' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, a graduate of Boston University and nationally famous politician, told her constituents who are from that same area. And sometimes it's not even clear who exactly is holding people back … but it's definitely someone. 'There will be a resistance to your ambition, there will be people who say to you, 'You are out of your lane.'' Kamala Harris bafflingly said in 2020. 'They are burdened by only having the capacity to see what has always been instead of what can be. But don't you let that burden you.' 9 Kamala Harris has alluded to 'burdens' borne by the American people. AP Advertisement There's a term in psychology called the 'locus of control,' which refers to your sense of whether things happen to you or whether you make things happen. No surprise that the latter — a greater sense of agency — is associated with vastly better mental health. When you stop thinking everything is working against you and start taking power over what you can control, the world becomes a far less scary place. Unfortunately, the left has taught its voters to externalize their locus of control, according to Greg Lukianoff, co-author of 'The Coddling of the American Mind.' 9 'The Coddling of the American Mind' theorized that some progressive ideas were making people depressed and anxious. Advertisement 'Progressivism, with its emphasis on victimhood and vulnerability to impersonal forces … weakens the sense of agency and, frankly, contributes to depression and anxiety,' he told The Post. 'As the political left reevaluates its strategies on everything from abundance to identity, it should also consider adopting an ideology that empowers individuals, fosters an internal sense of control and doesn't fuel emotional suffering.' It's no wonder, then, that the party of self-pity is also the party of poor mental health.
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Medicaid cuts will harm rural Republican communities most
Though President Trump promised a 'big beautiful' budget bill, what narrowly passed the House of Representatives in the early morning hours of May 22 will be anything but a big beautiful win for millions of marginalized Americans, and Medicaid beneficiaries won't be the only ones who feel the pinch. In fact, if passed, this legislation would destabilize the publicly insured and privately insured alike, especially in America's many rural communities. Trump's budget dramatically reduces the robustness of the federal social safety net, on which three in ten Americans (including nearly half of children) rely for critical programs ranging from health care to food security. Most drastically, the bill is set to cut Medicaid by nearly $800 billion over 10 years, add burdensome and ineffective work requirements and kick as many as 13 million people off their health insurance. These cuts will have demonstrably negative consequences for millions of Americans, including those who are not themselves enrolled in Medicaid. The irony is that despite nearly every Republican House member voting for its passage, it is rural, Republican majority communities that will face the most extreme consequences. Nineteen percent of Americans, or over 72 million, are insured by Medicaid and the share of the 66 million rural Americans on Medicaid is even higher at 23 percent. And not only do America's rural communities tend to vote more conservatively, but this is even true of Medicaid beneficiaries, the very people whose health coverage Republican legislators seek to strip away. Survey data from the Cooperative Election Study reveal that the majority of rural Medicaid beneficiaries in Republican states and districts are people who identify as Republicans. This is especially true in Republican congressional districts and states with Republican senators. For example, a majority of residents in districts held by some Republican congressmen — Reps. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.) come to mind specifically — are enrolled in Medicaid (54 percent and 64 percent, respectively). About 40 percent of residents of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are enrolled in Medicaid. What's more, in most of these cases, the beneficiaries are Republican voters themselves. Meanwhile, in states with two Republican senators like Arkansas and Kentucky, nearly 30 percent of residents are enrolled in Medicaid, and between 40 and 55 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries reside in Republican-leaning rural areas. In each of these instances, survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation show that the majority of even Republican beneficiaries approve of Medicaid. Not only do 61 percent of Republicans see Medicaid as important to their communities, but 67 percent of Republicans want Congress to preserve or increase Medicaid funding. Political scientist David Mayhew famously argued that members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection. Yet even with broad public support for Medicaid and health care's salience in the minds of voters, Republicans' efforts to cut Medicaid would remove health insurance from their own voters. Beyond the effects experienced by enrollees directly, the proposed Medicaid cuts will reverberate throughout and harm all residents of rural communities by undermining the financial security of rural hospitals. According to estimates from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, not only have nearly 200 rural hospitals already closed in the last two decades, but over 300 rural hospitals face 'immediate risk' of closure in the coming years. What's more, the vast majority of these vulnerable hospitals are in Republican majority communities in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. A key reason why these hospitals face closure is due to 'uncompensated care' costs, which accrue when uninsured or underinsured patients seek medical treatment for which they are unable to pay. Not only do rural hospitals experience higher rates of uncompensated care, but it proves more debilitating than in the case of research hospitals, which can steady themselves with higher insurance reimbursement rates and subsidies. Medicaid expansion has proven critical in strengthening these hospitals' financial security, because it drastically decreased the percentage of people showing up at hospitals without health insurance. The result has been that more rural hospitals have been able to remain open. In contrast, roughly 80 percent of rural hospitals that have closed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act have been in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid. The economic and health effects of rural hospital closures are catastrophic for all residents of affected communities, regardless of their insurance status. Numerous studies have shown that rural hospital closures lead to significant increases in mortality. Additionally, birthing outcomes and access to obstetric-gynecological care tend to suffer following closures. Many of these negative effects are driven by the drastically increased distances individuals must travel to receive care. When a rural hospital closes, patients are left to travel on average 20 miles farther to receive common health care services, and 40 miles farther for specialized care. That time is precious in the setting of acute health problems. Regardless of one's insurance status or provider, the farther you are from a hospital following a car crash or after a stroke, the worse the consequences. For most closures, Republican voters themselves and those with lower incomes are the people who face the longest distances to care following closures. Cutting Medicaid will only further restrict access to care and worsen health outcomes for rural people, regardless of insurance status. Outside of the immediate health effects, hospitals are typically the largest employers in congressional districts, and that is no less true in rural communities. In fact, the health care sector can supply as many as 10 percent of the jobs in a rural community. While some have argued that rural hospital closures are a symptom of communities' economic decline, their effects are also unmistakable, leading to a marked increase in unemployment and a reduction in residents' average income. In his recent New York Times op-ed, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) argued against Trump's budget. He wrote that while Trump promised to protect working-class tax cuts and social insurance programs such as Medicaid, the 'Wall Street wing' was instead seeking to slash health insurance for the working poor in a manner that he characterized as 'both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' The data are clear and Hawley is correct. Trump's budget will actively harm the health and incomes of rural communities and Republican voters, well beyond those who themselves are enrolled in Medicaid. Michael Shepherd is an assistant professor of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan. Miranda Yaver is an assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at the University of Pittsburgh. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
02-06-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Medicaid cuts will harm rural Republican communities most
Though President Trump promised a 'big beautiful' budget bill, what narrowly passed the House of Representatives in the early morning hours of May 22 will be anything but a big beautiful win for millions of marginalized Americans, and Medicaid beneficiaries won't be the only ones who feel the pinch. In fact, if passed, this legislation would destabilize the publicly insured and privately insured alike, especially in America's many rural communities. Trump's budget dramatically reduces the robustness of the federal social safety net, on which three in ten Americans (including nearly half of children) rely for critical programs ranging from health care to food security. Most drastically, the bill is set to cut Medicaid by nearly $800 billion over 10 years, add burdensome and ineffective work requirements and kick as many as 13 million people off their health insurance. These cuts will have demonstrably negative consequences for millions of Americans, including those who are not themselves enrolled in Medicaid. The irony is that despite nearly every Republican House member voting for its passage, it is rural, Republican majority communities that will face the most extreme consequences. Nineteen percent of Americans, or over 72 million, are insured by Medicaid and the share of the 66 million rural Americans on Medicaid is even higher at 23 percent. And not only do America's rural communities tend to vote more conservatively, but this is even true of Medicaid beneficiaries, the very people whose health coverage Republican legislators seek to strip away. Survey data from the Cooperative Election Study reveal that the majority of rural Medicaid beneficiaries in Republican states and districts are people who identify as Republicans. This is especially true in Republican congressional districts and states with Republican senators. For example, a majority of residents in districts held by some Republican congressmen — Reps. Hal Rogers (R-Ky.) and David Valadao (R-Calif.) come to mind specifically — are enrolled in Medicaid (54 percent and 64 percent, respectively). About 40 percent of residents of House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are enrolled in Medicaid. What's more, in most of these cases, the beneficiaries are Republican voters themselves. Meanwhile, in states with two Republican senators like Arkansas and Kentucky, nearly 30 percent of residents are enrolled in Medicaid, and between 40 and 55 percent of Medicaid beneficiaries reside in Republican-leaning rural areas. In each of these instances, survey data from the Kaiser Family Foundation show that the majority of even Republican beneficiaries approve of Medicaid. Not only do 61 percent of Republicans see Medicaid as important to their communities, but 67 percent of Republicans want Congress to preserve or increase Medicaid funding. Political scientist David Mayhew famously argued that members of Congress are single-minded seekers of reelection. Yet even with broad public support for Medicaid and health care's salience in the minds of voters, Republicans' efforts to cut Medicaid would remove health insurance from their own voters. Beyond the effects experienced by enrollees directly, the proposed Medicaid cuts will reverberate throughout and harm all residents of rural communities by undermining the financial security of rural hospitals. According to estimates from the Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, not only have nearly 200 rural hospitals already closed in the last two decades, but over 300 rural hospitals face 'immediate risk' of closure in the coming years. What's more, the vast majority of these vulnerable hospitals are in Republican majority communities in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. A key reason why these hospitals face closure is due to 'uncompensated care' costs, which accrue when uninsured or underinsured patients seek medical treatment for which they are unable to pay. Not only do rural hospitals experience higher rates of uncompensated care, but it proves more debilitating than in the case of research hospitals, which can steady themselves with higher insurance reimbursement rates and subsidies. Medicaid expansion has proven critical in strengthening these hospitals' financial security, because it drastically decreased the percentage of people showing up at hospitals without health insurance. The result has been that more rural hospitals have been able to remain open. In contrast, roughly 80 percent of rural hospitals that have closed since the passage of the Affordable Care Act have been in the Republican states that failed to expand Medicaid. The economic and health effects of rural hospital closures are catastrophic for all residents of affected communities, regardless of their insurance status. Numerous studies have shown that rural hospital closures lead to significant increases in mortality. Additionally, birthing outcomes and access to obstetric-gynecological care tend to suffer following closures. Many of these negative effects are driven by the drastically increased distances individuals must travel to receive care. When a rural hospital closes, patients are left to travel on average 20 miles farther to receive common health care services, and 40 miles farther for specialized care. That time is precious in the setting of acute health problems. Regardless of one's insurance status or provider, the farther you are from a hospital following a car crash or after a stroke, the worse the consequences. For most closures, Republican voters themselves and those with lower incomes are the people who face the longest distances to care following closures. Cutting Medicaid will only further restrict access to care and worsen health outcomes for rural people, regardless of insurance status. Outside of the immediate health effects, hospitals are typically the largest employers in congressional districts, and that is no less true in rural communities. In fact, the health care sector can supply as many as 10 percent of the jobs in a rural community. While some have argued that rural hospital closures are a symptom of communities' economic decline, their effects are also unmistakable, leading to a marked increase in unemployment and a reduction in residents' average income. In his recent New York Times op-ed, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) argued against Trump's budget. He wrote that while Trump promised to protect working-class tax cuts and social insurance programs such as Medicaid, the 'Wall Street wing' was instead seeking to slash health insurance for the working poor in a manner that he characterized as 'both morally wrong and politically suicidal.' The data are clear and Hawley is correct. Trump's budget will actively harm the health and incomes of rural communities and Republican voters, well beyond those who themselves are enrolled in Medicaid. Michael Shepherd is an assistant professor of Health Management and Policy at the University of Michigan. Miranda Yaver is an assistant professor of Health Policy and Management at the University of Pittsburgh.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As Trump's ratings slide, polling data reveals the scale of Fox News's influence on US politics
Donald Trump's ratings continue to slide on most issues. Recent Economist/YouGov polling across the US, completed on May 9-12, shows 51% think the country is on the wrong track, while only 45% have a favourable impression of his job as president. On inflation and prices in the shops, only 35% approve of his handling of this policy. Trump seems to be scoring particularly badly with young voters. Around 62% of young people (18 to 29s) have an unfavourable opinion of the president, compared with 53% of the over-65s. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to pursue an agenda to close down, or shackle, much of the media it considers not on his side. Funding for national public service radio NPR and television PBS, as well as the global news service Voice of America, is under threat. Some national news outlets are under investigation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for their coverage. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. In a speech in March, Trump said broadcasters CNN and MSNBC, and some newspapers he didn't name 'literally write 97.6% bad about me'. He added: 'It has to stop. It has to be illegal.' The Trump team clearly see the role of the media as important to establishing and retaining support, and have taken steps to shake up White House coverage – including by changing who can attend the White House press pool. About seven in ten members of the American public say they are following the news for updates on the Trump administration. It is interesting, therefore, to consider the role of the media in influencing Trump's popularity, and insights can be found in the massive US Cooperative Election Study, conducted during the presidential contest last year. That survey showed 57% of Americans had watched TV news in the previous 24 hours. Around 81% had used social media during the same period, but only 20% had used it to comment on politics. There is a lot of attention being paid to fake news on the internet, which is helping to cause polarisation in the US. But when it comes to news about politics, TV coverage is still very important for most Americans. The survey asked respondents about the TV news channels they watched, and Fox News came out on top with 47% of the viewers. ABC came second with 37%, and CBS and CNN tied on 35%. Fox News is Trump's favourite TV station, with its rightwing populist agenda and regular output of Trump-friendly news. Relationship between Trump voters and Fox News's audience in 2024 US presidential election: The Cooperative Election Study had 60,000 respondents, which provides reasonably sized samples in each of the 50 states. The Trump vote varied quite a lot across states, with only 34% of voters in Maryland supporting him, compared with 72% in Wyoming. The electoral college formally decides the results of presidential elections, and this is based on states – so, looking at voting in this way can be quite revealing. The connection between watching Fox News and Trump's vote share can be seen in the chart above. It varies from 21% who watched the channel in Vermont to 60% in West Virginia. Vermont is represented in Congress by Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist from a radical political tradition, and only 32% voted for Trump there. In contrast, West Virginia is part of the rust belt of impoverished states hit by deindustrialisation and the decline of the coal mining industry, and 71% voted for Trump there. We can use a regression model (which looks at the relationship between variables) to predict support for Trump using key measures that drive the vote share for Trump in each state. The model uses three variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy, which means while not perfect, it gives a very accurate prediction of Trump's vote. Not surprisingly, partisanship – that is, the percentage of registered Republicans in each state – is one of the key metrics. In addition, ideology – the percentage of respondents who say they are conservatives – is another. Perhaps more surprisingly, the third important predictor is viewership of Fox News. The relationship between watching the channel and voting for Trump is very strong at the state level. Also, the more time people spend watching the channel, the more likely they are to have voted for Trump. Impact of key factors on Trump voting in 2024 US election: This chart calculates the relationship between watching Fox News and other factors and the strength of a state's support for Trump in 2024. If a variable is a perfect predictor of Trump voting, it would score 1.0 on the scale. If it is a perfect non-predictor, it would score 0. So, the most important predictor of being a Trump voter was the presence of conservatives in a state, followed by the percentage of registered Republicans, and the third was watching Fox News. A high score on all three meant greater support for Trump. To illustrate this, 45% of Texans considered themselves conservatives, 33% were registered Republicans, and 51% watched Fox News. Using these measures, the model predicts that 57% would vote for Trump. In fact, 56% voted for him in that state in 2024. So, while the prediction was not perfect, it was very close. A similar predictive model can be used to forecast former Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris's vote shares by state. In her case, we need four variables to predict the results with 95% accuracy – the percentage of registered Democrats, liberals and moderates in a state, and also Fox News viewership. Not surprisingly in Harris's case, the relationship between Fox News viewing and voting is strongly negative (correlation = -0.64). When viewership was high, the Harris vote was low. Years ago, the 'fairness doctrine' used to mandate US broadcasters to fairly reflect different viewpoints on controversial issues in their coverage. Candidates for public office were entitled to equal air time. But this rule was removed by the FCC in 1987, and has led to an era of some broadcasters becoming far more partisan. The FCC decision followed a period of debate and challenges to the fairness doctrine. This led to its abolition under Ronald Reagan, the Republican president who inspired Project 2025 – the document that in turn appears to be inspiring the Trump government's policy agenda. When the Trump era is over, incumbent Democrats are going to have to repair US institutions that this administration has damaged. If they want to do something about the polarisation of US politics, they may also need to restore the fairness doctrine. Had it not been removed in the first place, it is possible that Harris would have won the 2024 presidential election, since Fox News would not exist in its present form. Whatever happens next, the US media is likely to play an important role. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.
