What’s on MPR News? 7/10/18


Tuesday July 10, 2018
(Subject to change as events dictate)

9 a.m. – MPR News with Kerri Miller
Are Democrats doing enough to reach rural voters? The Democratic Party is divided. The progressive wing wants to move the platform further to the left, while more moderate members are leery of losing more middle-of-the-road voters. Are there any successful progressive campaigns outside of the metro area? Or are more and more rural counties turning red?

Guest: Brian Bakst, MPR News political reporter; Philip Chen, Beloit College.

10 a.m.- 1A with Joshua Johnson
How will President Trump’s pick to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy affect access to abortion and the debate on abortion? The president promised to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade, so what happens now?

11 a.m. – MPR News at 11 (Dan Kraker hosts)
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission recently approved a new Enbridge Energy Line 3 pipeline, but emotions are still running high. This hour will feature a discussion on the future for the pipeline and its potential roadblocks.

12 p.m. – MPR News Presents
How can we move forward from Charlottesville? Three panelists at the Aspen Ideas Festival discuss what happened last August and where the country is in terms of race relations one year later.

Speakers: Melody Barnes, former domestic policy advisor in the Obama White House; Leslie Greene Bowman, president of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello; Jamelle Bouie, chief political correspondent for Slate magazine and a political analyst for CBS News; Michael Signer, former mayor of Charlottesville.

1 p.m. – The Takeaway
The intersection of surveillance and policing. Cops say databases help stop violent crimes, but some residents say they are being unfairly targeted. More on our look at the intersection of surveillance and policing.

2 p.m. – BBC NewsHour
The latest on the attempt to rescue the remaining trapped members of a soccer team in Thailand.

3 p.m. – All Things Considered
The latest on the Supreme Court nomination fight; Latinos and voting rights; faashion in the World Cup; a musician’s letter from Iraq.

6:00 p.m. – Marketplace
In California, there’s a push to expand rent control with a November ballot measure. What does that means for the state’s apartment industry?

6:30 p.m. – The Daily
President Trump has nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace Justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Given Judge Kavanaugh’s conservative record and the political math in the Senate, what happens now?

Guests: Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The New York Times, discusses the announcement; Carl Hulse, the chief Washington correspondent for The Times, assesses Judge Kavanaugh’s prospects for confirmation.

7 p.m. – The World
Alarm over Trump’s new denaturalization campaign.
The Trump Administration has set up a new task force, with 12 new lawyers. They’re reviewing the records of thousands of immigrants who have become U.S. citizens.

8 p.m. – Fresh Air
How America’s jails and prisons have become de facto mental health providers. Although these institutions aren’t equipped for the job, the incarcerated mentally ill are often mistreated, and their symptoms often only get worse.

Guest: Alisa Roth, author of the new book “Insane: America’s Criminal Treatment of Mental Illness.

  • jon

    //Are Democrats doing enough to reach rural voters?

    Should they bother?
    80% of the country lives in an urban area compared to 20% in a rural one…
    90% of minnesotans live in the twin cities, rochester, or duluth metros.

    Provided districts are still drawn by population not by land mass (and not gerrymandered to hell) what is the motivation in chasing 10% of the vote? Particularly if getting that 10% of the vote mean alienating 90% of the vote, which given the urban/rural divide it might.

    • No voter should be left behind. That said, about all that can be done is to lay out the case for a rational platform. Whether this will be able to turn the rural vote remains a question not unlike the one Thomas Frank posed in “What’s the matter with Kansas?”

      • MrE85

        Rational platforms work best when the voters are rational, too.

    • MrE85

      Perhaps we should ask rural voters if they are doing enough to elect representatives who will work in their best interests.

      • jon

        “Best interests” are frequently a matter of opinion…

        When you assume you are only one lottery ticket away from being a billionaire, you can very easily feel that your best interest is having the top tax bracket reduced from 40% to 35%…

        • MrE85

          Sometimes best interests are pretty clear. Clean, efficient government is in everyone’s best interest, as is clean air and water. Decent schools, affordable health care, more jobs and less crime. Peace, equality, and justice.

          Help rural voters get these, and they will support you, no matter what party you represent.

          • MikeB

            “Decent schools, affordable health care, more jobs and less crime.”

            Real life is not a West Wing episode. Your list makes sense in theory but people don’t vote like that, otherwise results would be significantly different.

            It’s a trust level and the GOP, aided by conservative media, has had success at grievance politics and exploiting the Us vs. Them divide. And all politics are being nationalized, I expect the divide to only grow until some external shock to the system.

          • >>I expect the divide to only grow until some external shock to the system.<<

            We might have that shock sooner rather than later.

          • MrE85

            “Your list makes sense in theory but people don’t vote like that,”

            You’re right, many people don’t vote in their best interest, and will likely do so in the future.

            We all have the opportunity to do better. If we don’t, the fault is ours.

          • MikeB

            By definition people vote in their best interest. It is up to them. They may vote against their economic interests but that’s a subset of their values.

          • MrE85

            A valid observation.

          • One of the first things I learned in the intro Ed Psych course. People always choose what they perceive as “best” in the moment, even though it may objectively be a horrible choice.

          • MikeB

            Compare the ratings for reality TV shows vs. PBS

          • Rob

            Au contraire. Grievance voting is way not the same as voting in your own best interests. Many rural folk clearly seem to be grievance voters, casting ballots against their own economic, social and political interests.

          • Sonny T

            “Real life is not a West Wing episode.” Well stated 🙂

          • If only. That show is based on a functioning democracy, even though in 7 years , President Bartlett got nothing done.

          • Jeff

            Umm… the elephant in the room is always abortion. No anti-abortion voter will ever vote for a Democrat no matter what their best interests are.

          • Sonny T

            There is a very strong anti-abortion wing of the party:

            http://democratsforlife.org/index.php/component/tags/tag/minnesota

          • Jeff

            At least at a national level I’d guess it’s more like a feather than a wing.

          • Sonny T

            Yes

        • Sonny T

          Are you referring to rural voters?

    • MikeB

      For statewide races this makes sense. But for state legislatures you have to compete in each district, otherwise you concede the House/Senate. It’s counterproductive.

      • jon

        I don’t follow your math… how does having 90% of the seats in the senate and 90% of the seats in the house result in conceding the chamber?

        Heck let’s assume that they only win 60% of the 90% of urban races they run in… still a 54% majority in both chambers…

        When you have a good chance of winning 90% of the state, you don’t waste time on the 10% you don’t stand a chance in… and you certainly don’t blow your chance at 90% to get 10%….

        In reality each party doesn’t compete in each district… sure some one might run and get the nomination… but frequently the candidate isn’t really viable, and sometimes they are down right crazy… (like tin foil hat, fluoridation of water is a government mind control plot kind of crazy…etc.) and in places with heavily gerrymandered maps there is no point in running an opposition candidate in a “safe” district… just a waste of resources…

        • MikeB

          Look at MN. The GOP has both houses. MN is a blue state overall.

          Dems have the advantage in the metro but enough to offset their losses in rural areas.

          • jon

            Now I really don’t follow your math..
            How is the 90 districts in the metro area not a majority in a house chamber of 134?
            or the ~45 in the metro for the senate… with 67 districts?

            And those numbers don’t include other large cities in the state (duluth, rochester, etc.)

            https://www.sos.state.mn.us/election-administration-campaigns/data-maps/minnesota-legislative-maps/

          • MikeB

            Your question is should Democrats bother with rural areas. I’m saying yes because of the legislature. It is not enough to state there are more urban seats. There are. Republicans are holding off enough losses in metro seats to hold both the House and Senate.

            Dems have to be competitive out state or out perform in the metro areas.

    • Rob

      The Dems are spending way too much time handwringing about how to get rural Trumpoid voters to join their side; ain’t gonna happen. Instead, Dems need to focus on mobilizing their core constituencies in the metro areas, where, as you noted, they have a distinct numerical advantage. Enough with the kumbaya stuff already.