InsideSources

There’s a debate brewing in the mental health community — to diagnose President Donald Trump with a personality disorder or not — and it made an appearance in New Hampshire last month.

Elizabeth Lunbeck, a professor in residence at Harvard University’s Department of the History of Science, who specializes in psychoanalysis, psychiatry and the psychotherapies, presented a psychological case study of  Trump as part of her speech, “Acting Human: The Psychopath and the Rest of Us,” on February 14 at the University of New Hampshire.

“There is value in trying to understand him,” Lunbeck said in her speech. “He’s not a policy guy, he’s all raw, unfiltered emotions.”

She guided the audience through a case study, using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to identify a variety of symptoms of potential personality disorders exhibited by Trump. For evidence, she used a collection of Trump’s tweets, speeches, and statements. Lunbeck said he falls into the categories of paranoid personality disorder, histrionic personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is the most common one Trump has been diagnosed with by several psychologists and psychiatrists.

“I think it is startling how much of this criteria fits our current president,” she said. “I suspect Trump mobilizes his own narcissism.”

Lunbeck, who also has training as a psychologist, isn’t alone in her thinking. Just take a look at these articles from The Atlantic, Vanity Fair, New York Magazine, or on Twitter, where mental health experts weighed in. Yet, others have went a step further stating he doesn’t have the mental capacity to be president, sparking criticism within the health community on whether they should be making their opinions known without a proper medical diagnosis to determine if Trump has a personality disorder.

Thirty-five U.S. psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers sent a letter to the editor of The New York Times saying Trump was mentally unfit to be president.

“We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president,” they wrote.

The group of experts said they were breaking their own ethics rules to speak saying they “fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer.”

Historically, psychiatrists stick to a self-imposed ethics standard known as the Goldwater rule, which appeared in the APA’s code of ethics in 1973. The rule actually stemmed from a political incident involving presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. In 1964, Fact magazine polled 12,356 psychiatrists on Goldwater’s mental fitness to be president, with 1,189 of the 2,417 who responded saying he was psychologically unfit for the White House. Some of the psychiatrists characterized Goldwater as “grandiose, obsessive, paranoid, or paranoid schizophrenic.” Goldwater later won a $75,000 libel lawsuit against the magazine.

Usually around the time of an election the APA has to remind psychiatrists to not make psychological diagnoses of the presidential candidates.

“The unique atmosphere of this election cycle may lead some to want to psychoanalyze the candidates,” said APA President Maria Oquendo in a letter published in August 2016. “But to do so would not only be unethical, it would be irresponsible. A patient who sees that might lose confidence in their doctor. And would likely feel stigmatized by language painting a candidate with a mental disorder (real or perceived) as ‘unfit’ or ‘unworthy’ to assume the presidency.”

It’s important to note that psychologists do not have the same ethics rule as psychiatrists, as exhibited by a Change.org petition started by psychologist John Gartner, which has nearly 30,000 signatures, and is calling for Trump to be removed from office because he is “mentally ill.”

In response to this debate, Allen Frances, a psychiatrist who helped write the DSM, wrote a separate letter to the Times denouncing the claim that Trump is mentally unfit for the presidency.

“Most amateur diagnosticians have mislabeled President Trump with the diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder,” he said. “I wrote the criteria that define this disorder, and Mr. Trump doesn’t meet them. He may be a world-class narcissist, but this doesn’t make him mentally ill, because he does not suffer from the distress and impairment required to diagnose mental disorder.”

John Mayer, professor of psychology with a focus on personality at UNH, said it’s time to get rid of the Goldwater rule because mental health professionals can offer diagnoses from a distance. He and his colleague researched the ethics of professional commentary on public figures. He points out that the press, without training, often makes those assessments for themselves.

“I do believe that it’s possible to diagnose from distances, with caveats, and watch them [public figures] over time even if we don’t know them personally,” he told NH Journal. “With public figures, they often intend to project an image of themselves, which can be quite different than who they really might be, so that makes it particularly challenging, though.”

Mayer said he supports free speech and health professionals have the right to discuss diagnoses and personality traits with people.

“Psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are among society’s assigned experts in human behavior and mental health,” he wrote in his journal article on the topic. “Judging others can be viewed as an obligation — involving a duty to educate and a duty to warn, in the case of dangerous figures.”

Frances supports the Goldwater rule and generally believes mental illnesses are over diagnosed, but he said he worries that when signers of the petition and others call Trump mentally ill, it stigmatizes people who actually suffer from those problems. It can also be a way to shut down a political discussion and distract from the more objective criticisms one could make about his time in office.

“Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy,” Frances wrote. “He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers.”

Mayer agreed and said diagnosing Trump, or other public figures, isn’t without its biases. Even if the psychologist or psychiatrist don’t know it, their own political beliefs or ideas can cloud their professional work.

“With political public figures, we have to be careful and remember that there are many reasons we judge people that have little to do with personality and more to do with political loyalties or opinions,” he said. “With President Trump, we may overlook character flaws and if we are opposed, we may be very judgmental of what his personality is actually like.”

Mayer also defended the use of diagnosing Trump and other public figures as a case study for education, like what Lunbeck did with the UNH students in February. He even does a similar exercise in his own lab where students identify public figures and look at their “healthy” personalities.

Lunbeck stood by her depiction of Trump in an interview with NH Journal a couple weeks after her talk. She added, though, that looking at Trump’s rise isn’t going to be solved by just psychoanalyzing him.

“We need economic explanations, social explanations, legal explanations, et cetera,” she said. “I think looking at the psychology can be helpful, but I don’t think we have a full understanding yet. The question still is how this man, who displayed these narcissistic behaviors became president. It’s hard to explain that, and we need many tools to explain that.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

A major union is urging college students at several campuses to protest Wednesday against the new secretary of education.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has faced fierce opposition since first being nominated Nov. 23. Labor unions have been particularly outspoken about her. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is organizing the campus protests to highlight issues facing the education system, and the administration that oversees it.

“Our nation’s higher education system is in crisis,” a video for the protest states. “Millions of families can’t afford to send their kids to college. Student debt is skyrocketing, and educators are forced to rely on government assistance. With right-wing extremists and billionaire CEOs controlling all branches of our government, our nation’s education system and core values are at risk like never before.”

DeVos is not mentioned by name in the video but is shown when it discusses right-wing extremists. She previously served as chairwoman of the Michigan Republican Party, and she also has business experience as the founder of Windquest Group. DeVos also has an extensive background in education policy. As profiled by InsideSources, she has spent nearly 30 years encouraging reforms to help children escape failing schools.

“We are taking action to take a stand against Trump’s corporate cabinet and to make real change in our higher education system,” a Facebook page for the protest states. “Let’s become an unstoppable force for change in higher ed by creating more opportunity for the next generation.”

President Donald Trump and his cabinet picks have faced constant attacks by labor unions. DeVos has been primarily criticized over her support for school choice and lack of experience in public education. The National Education Association called her dangerously unqualified.

The Senate approved her confirmation Feb. 7. after a heated partisan battle over her credentials. Vice President Mike Pence cast the deciding vote. It was the first time a vice president had to break a tie for a cabinet nomination.

The Facebook page lists about a dozen confirmed campus protests. Boston University, the University of Chicago, and Duke University are among the campuses with planned protests. It also lists a few dozen more colleges where protests might occur.

The protests were scheduled to begin at noon, but some participants got an early start. The SEIU posted pictures of a small crowd in Chicago that began protesting in the morning.

The SEIU did not respond to a request for further comment by InsideSources.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

President Donald Trump expressed concern in his address to Congress Tuesday over how imports are hardly taxed, but domestic production is. Coupled with broad tax reform, a border adjustment tax has been proposed as a way to change the uneven international playing field.

House Speaker Paul Ryan and Rep. Kevin Brady proposed a blueprint last year with the goal of overhauling the tax code. The blueprint is designed to create a more competitive system that spurs economic growth by simplifying the tax code and lowering rates. It also includes a border adjustment tax.

“American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world,” Trump said during a joint congressional session Tuesday. “When we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes — but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them almost nothing.”

The plan hasn’t been written into legislation yet, and there are still plenty of details to work out. A major piece of the plan that has sparked an intense debate is the border adjustment tax. Here is everything you need to know about that proposed tax.

 

What Exactly Is It

The border adjustment tax is a value added tax levied on imported goods. Basically, the tax is applied when a product is produced in a foreign country but sold in America. Additionally, the company will be unable to deduct the cost of importing that good as a business expense, which is currently allowed.

“Border adjustments mean that it does not matter where a company is incorporated,” the blueprint details. “Sales to U.S. customers are taxed and sales to foreign customers are exempt, regardless of whether the taxpayer is foreign or domestic.”

A border adjustment tax is also known as a destination-based cash flow tax. A destination tax is concerned with where a good travels to be sold. An origin tax, in contrast, is merely concerned with where a good is produced. A border adjustment tax would mean a company would still be taxed even if the good is produced in another country.

A cash flow tax measures the financial performance of a company, and its ability to generate cash flow. Companies are currently taxed on their worldwide profits at 35 percent. A border adjustment tax would essentially prioritize domestic production by lowering the tax rate for exports while increasing the rate for imports.

 

What It Would Look Like

An automaker, for example, might choose to move its production of cars to Mexico. The company might be seeking out a lower tax burden as well as lower labor and regulatory costs. Under the current system, that company would not be taxed for goods sold domestically because its production is elsewhere.

A border adjustment tax could completely change that. The automaker would be taxed regardless of where its production is because it imported cars to be sold domestically. A competitor, however, wouldn’t face the same tax if it produces and sells cars domestically.

 

Part of a Bigger Tax Plan

The border adjustment tax is a part of a much larger plan to overhaul the tax system. The Republican blueprint is designed to simplify the tax code and reduce rates. The hope is to consolidate the system down to three tax brackets and lower the top individual income tax rate to 33 percent.

“It’s not like you start with the border adjustments, and say let’s build up a system around that,” Carnegie Mellon University Prof. Jeff Kupfer told InsideSources. “You begin with the premise of we want to reform our corporate tax code because it’s outdated and anti-competitive and everything else, and then you begin to move from there and think what type of corporate tax system do we want.”

The plan would also lower the corporate tax rate to spur economic growth. The blueprint also streamlines college tax benefits, changes dependent tax credits for families, and reforms savings provisions for retirement. The goal is to have a plan so simple and fair it could fit on a postcard.

“We are fully supportive of comprehensive tax reform,” Americans for Prosperity senior policy analyst Mary Kate Hopkins told InsideSources. “We’re really excited to see the House, the Senate, and the White House are making this a priority. We’re excited by the idea of lower rates, broader base, simpler system, all these are great things.”

 

Keep Companies in the Country

President Trump and others also see border taxes as a way to keep companies in the country. The border adjustment tax may disincentive companies from moving their production elsewhere. Kupfer notes companies would no longer be able to avoid taxes by moving overseas.

“There’s less of an ability and incentive for companies to try to shift their production overseas,” Kupfer said. “What you’re focusing on is where the good or the service is consumed, and if it’s consumed in the United States, then it’s taxed in the United States.”

Those opposed to the border adjustment tax argue there is a better way to keep companies from fleeing. The current system imposes many tax and regulatory burdens on businesses that may force them to seek out a more competitive economy. It may be enough to just decrease those burdens.

“I think the absolute best way to keep companies here is to have a tax and regulatory regime that makes it easier to do business here,” Hopkins said. “American companies want to be headquartered here, they want to do their business here. We have a strong dollar, the rule of law, its close to where they live. So the best way to do that is to have the lowest tax rate for corporations in the world, and to have a regulatory system that makes it easy to do business.”

 

Make Up for Lost Revenue

Republicans hope to make major cuts to the tax system as part of their overhaul plan. The lower rates, however, would mean a lack of revenue to fund government expenses. The lost revenue could drastically increase the deficit which would severely worsen the debt problem. The border adjustment tax could offset the lost revenue without forcing drastic government cuts as Trump begins to implement his agenda.

Border adjustment tax critics, however, argue there is a better approach. Republicans could instead look to cut government spending to make up for the lost revenue.

“We would definitely be in favor of cutting government spending as opposed to hiking a tax on American consumers,” Hopkins said. “Republicans have been running for years on tax reform and limited government, and when you have the opportunity to tie those two things together, tying a great tax reform package with spending cuts, why would we not take that opportunity.”

 

Concern for Consumers

The economy is increasingly moving towards a more competitive global market. New technologies and trade deals have made it easier to move business operations overseas. Those opposed to the border adjustment tax fear the increased rates on imports will ultimately be felt by domestic consumers.

“It will be collected by the businesses in the form of a corporate income tax,” Hopkins said. “But that will be passed onto consumers who will end up paying more for everyday items, many of which they can’t afford to pay 20 percent more for.”

Hopkins adds the policy will ultimately become a $1.2 trillion tax increase on consumers. Corporations that import goods would essentially be left with few options but to shift the burden onto their customers.

 

Shifting the Tax Burden

Supporters of the border adjustment tax counter the harm to consumers would be mitigated. The blueprint would end up increasing taxes on imports, but it lowers corporate rates elsewhere. It essentially shifts some of that tax burden.

“I think they need to keep in mind it goes along with a much lower tax rate that they’re going to see and a variety of other things,” Kupfer said. “No matter how you look at it, it’s going to be beneficial for them. Companies and others need to keep it in the broader picture.”

Kupfer adds it’s only natural that companies are going to try to predict how it is going to impact them. He urges them, however, to look at what the plan is trying to accomplish as a whole. Hopkins counters that the border adjustment tax will still be problematic, even with the lower rates elsewhere.

“Even though the overall corporate tax rate would be cut, the increase in taxes on importers would cause their marginal tax rates to soar,” Hopkins said. “When they can no longer deduct the cost of their foreign inputs, they will be paying taxes on more money than they are actually bringing in. So that’s where the tax hike comes in, and it will be felt by consumers regardless of the overall corporate tax cut.”

Hopkins adds there are also many companies that primarily import goods. Those companies will not have their expenses offset by the lower corporate tax rate.

 

The Likelihood It Will Pass

The border adjustment tax is facing some opposition on Capitol Hill. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton and a few other GOP members have expressed concern over the border adjustment tax portion of Ryan’s plan. Many members, however, have yet to take a firm position.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP), part of the network funded primarily by the Koch brothers, and other outside groups have openly opposed the idea. The AFP considers its opposition to the border adjustment tax to be a top priority. It has launched a digital campaign and is helping to mobilize grassroots opposition.

The border adjustment tax is still receiving plenty of support from American business.  The American Made Coalition, among others, have defended it by arguing it will help the economy by keeping jobs in the country.

Lawmakers are rarely ever able to overhaul the tax system because it’s a complicated endeavor. The last major tax reform came in the 1980s. Nevertheless, the president and congressional leaders have made it a priority which is driving optimism among supporters.

“I give that a fairly strong likelihood because I think that all the forces that need to be in play to push through tax reform are in play now,” Kupfer said. “I think the forces are aligned to make something happen. The specifics of it are harder to predict in terms of exactly what’s going to shake out.”

The question then becomes what exactly those reforms will look like. The border adjustment tax and other major provisions might not make it into the final law. The details still need to be worked into legislation, and once a bill is drafted it’s likely to face debate as it works its way through the legislature.

“There is an awful lot of skepticism, particularly coming from the Senate,” Freedom Partners Spokesman Bill Riggs told InsideSources. “People are still in the education phase about the impact of this tax but when you’re talking about a $1.2 trillion tax hike that’s going to be felt largely by consumers, and could take away as much as $1,700 from the average family savings, that’s clearly going to be a cause for concern for a lot of people on the hill.”

The Annenberg Public Policy Center has called into question that $1,700 figure. It argues on its fact-check website that the net cost of imports would be unchanged because the dollar would strengthen against other currencies. It points to some economists who have concluded as much.

 

Public Opinion on Border Adjustment

While it’s not yet clear how voters will react to the full tax plan or the border adjustment tax, new polling this week helps to shed some light. A poll conducted by the American Action Network found that more than three-quarters of registered Republican voters consider tax reform a top priority, and 85 percent agree with the broad principles of the tax plan.

When American Action Network asked about Republicans’ top goals for tax reform, they prioritized: “make it easier to create jobs, raise wages, expand opportunity” and “a tax code that grows the economy, encourages job creation.”

Additionally, while the survey found Republicans believe businesses will benefit from tax reform, it also found Republicans expect individuals to benefit from lower rates and a simplified system.

The American Made Coalition, which supports border adjustment, also released polling this week. It found that 58 percent of voters, including majorities of Republicans and independents, support the outline of the border adjustment tax to lower taxes on exports and raise taxes on imports. The survey also revealed: “Regardless of party affiliation or registration, voters strongly prefer a tax code that incentivizes American manufacturing over one that incentivizes foreign goods imported for lower prices.”

 

An Efficient System

Border adjustment tax supporters see it as a more efficient system. They believe it will ultimately be easier to impose taxes on where goods are sold as opposed to where they’re made.

“Are you looking at domestic consumption as your taxable event or you’re looking at your domestic production as your taxable event,” Kupfer said. “The destination basis is a much more effective and efficient way of applying the tax for a variety of different reasons including the ease of administration, that’s the primary one I look at.”

 

The Hope for a Stronger Dollar

Border tax supporters are also hopeful the dollar will strengthen in the new system. A stronger dollar in the international markets will ultimately yield positive results for domestic businesses and the local economy.

“Like a lot of things in economics and tax, you can’t ever be a hundred percent sure of anything,” Kupfer said. “But you do have plenty of very credible economists who describe the mechanism that should take place if this type of proposal is implemented in that worldwide exchange rates and the evaluation of the dollar will adjust.”

Those opposed, however, argue economists cannot be completely certain how the dollar will react. It might take a time to adjust, and might not adjust fully to the new system.

“There’s really no way of predicting how the dollar is going to react to a border adjustment scheme,” Hopkins said. “It might appreciate upwards, but we can’t say it will appreciate quickly or completely to offset this tax.”

 

Transitions to Ease the Burden on Businesses

There are avenues lawmakers could explore to mitigate any potential problems the border adjustment tax might cause. The final legislative language, for instance, could include an adjustment period for businesses. They would then have time to transition into the new system.

“One can’t be sure of anything and how quickly some of those adjustments may occur and so transitions rules could be written into the proposal so that some of the changes can be implemented over a number of years,” Kupfer said. “That will allow adjustments to occur in a way that may not cause as much disruption as could possibly occur otherwise.”

Hopkins counters that a transition period isn’t a great idea either. She notes that transitions and special carve-outs for certain companies will start to look like the current system. The blueprint, after all, is designed to simplify the tax code.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

British political figure Nigel Farage expressed his hope Thursday, in an interview with InsideSources, that recent political shifts demonstrate the reemergence of national sovereignty.

Farage became a well-known international figure for his support of the Brexit movement. The movement has argued that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European Union. Farage is optimistic that support for his movement, and the election of President Donald Trump, demonstrates a political shift back to national independence.

“I guess in terms of this global revolution, in terms of this more conservative approach to life, believing in the nation state, believing that immigration actually does matter for the shape of our communities, I guess normally we follow America, but for once I think America has followed us,” Farage told InsideSources. “So that’s why I’m here, that’s why I’m a part of it.”

The Brexit movement became a highly controversial debate in the U.K. and abroad. U.K. voters, however, backed the movement during a national referendum last year. The American people soon after voted to elect Trump, who also championed the idea of national independence.

“I’m fascinated to watch the parallels going on in this city compared to London in the sense that we now have a government that wants to put Brexit into plan, but we have a bureaucracy, and a civil service, and media that is trying to stop us,” Farage said. “That is exactly the same here. We have a president here that is trying to put in place the things that he was elected, and everyone is trying to stop him.”

Farage is a longtime member of the European Parliament. He is also a member and vocal advocate for the U.K. Independence Party. He served as party leader for several terms but eventually resigned last year. He discussed his views during the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) outside Washington D.C.

“This concept of sovereignty, of nation-state democracy, this mattered to our forebears so much, they went to war over it,” Farage said. “We fought two world wars to preserve liberty, freedom, and democracy, and yet the social democratic politics that have overtaken Britain, Europe, and America were happy to give that all away.”

The political shift back to national sovereignty comes at a time of increased globalization. The debate has primarily centered on immigration, trade, and national security. Trump has made immigration a cornerstone of his presidency. He has called for increased border security and an immigration system that prioritizes domestic workers.

“The opposition may be noisy, but what I’m seeing in England with the polls, and what I’m seeing with Trump’s approval ratings is actually fair minded people in the middle are increasingly saying, we have a democratic result, let’s go with it,” Farage said. “Let’s give the man a chance.”

Those in support of globalization argue it will yield better economic and social results. New technologies, trade deals, and immigration have eliminated many barriers that once existed in the international markets. They believe it will open up better opportunities for companies as well as domestic and foreign workers alike.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

It’s never too early to be thinking about the 2018 midterm elections. For the incumbent party in the White House, it usually means losing seats. However, Republicans are poised to retain control of the House and Senate, barring any major catastrophe, which would give Democrats the advantage.

In New Hampshire, it could mean tough races for Democratic incumbent Reps. Carol Shea-Porter and Annie Kuster, and their final campaign finance filings for the 2016 election cycle can provide clues on what to expect for their reelection campaigns.

Assuming they run again for their seats, Kuster and Shea-Porter enter the 2018 contests with a significant difference between them in their total cash on hand.

Shea-Porter only has approximately $3,800 in the bank as a result of a tough election against former Republican Rep. Frank Guinta and Independent candidate Shawn O’Connor. Out of the 435 representatives in the House, she has the fifth lowest cash on hand total.

Kuster, on the other hand, sits modestly with just over $1 million stashed away.

The median amount that lawmakers who won their races in 2016 have in the bank is about $367,000, according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), a nonpartisan research group tracking money and lobbying in elections. Specifically for House candidates, it’s about $361,000.

Of course, for party leaders they have the biggest war chests since they are expected to raise money to help their colleagues. House Speaker Paul Ryan had the highest cash on hand in the House with $9.1 million.

“The typical pattern is that campaigns that are in tough reelections or open seat battles will almost never have any money left,” said Caleb Burns, a partner at Wiley Rein LLP, to the CRP. “But conversely, the opposite is also true, where members of Congress have extraordinarily safe seats and don’t feel the pressure of having to raise a lot of money.”

That’s especially true for New Hampshire’s representatives. Kuster was assumed to have a relatively safe seat in the Granite State’s 2nd Congressional District, while Shea-Porter in the 1st Congressional District was always going to have a tough time ousting Guinta.

So what does this mean going into next year’s race?

Well, it shouldn’t come as a surprise, but the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) included Shea-Porter and Kuster in their initial 36-member target list.

Kuster spent nearly $2.2 million against Republican challenger Jim Lawrence. He spent less than $100,000, and yet, Kuster only defeated Lawrence by 5 percent, 50-45 percent, respectively, with Libertarian John Babiarz receiving 5 percent. The NRCC figures that if they can recruit a decent candidate and put a little money into the race, they could have a chance at ousting Kuster.

For Shea-Porter, the 1st Congressional District is always a toss up, mostly because it’s been a Shea-Porter versus Guinta contest every two years since 2010. The NRCC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee usually throw a decent amount of funds toward the district’s candidates. It also helps the NRCC that Shea-Porter has been kicked out by voters before and she defeated Guinta in a crowded field. She won by a margin of 162,080 to 156,176, while independents O’Connor and Brendan Kelly and Libertarian Robert Lombardo garnered a total of 46,316 votes among them, possibly to the detriment of Guinta.

However, Republicans swept the 1st District in every other federal race. Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton by about 6,000 votes, former Sen. Kelly Ayotte beat Sen. Maggie Hassan also by about 6,000 votes, and Gov. Chris Sununu defeated former Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern by about 18,000 votes. With the right candidate, the NRCC believes they can flip the district again.

Any ideas on who’s going to run against Shea-Porter or Kuster?

As recently as Wednesday, one Republican has indicated that he’s “seriously” interested in challenging Shea-Porter in the 1st District.

John Burt, a four-term New Hampshire House member from Goffstown, told WMUR that he has spoken with conservatives throughout the state and region about running for Congress. He said he hopes to make a final decision in the coming weeks.

“I have no doubt that I can beat Carol Shea-Porter,” he said. “In 2018, it’s going to be another 2010-type sweep of Republicans heading to D.C. and also to the New Hampshire State House.”

Other Republicans being talked about as possible candidates include state Sen. Andy Sanborn from Bedford and former state commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services John Stephen, who is also a former gubernatorial and congressional candidate.

Don’t be surprised if Guinta makes another run for the seat he lost. Neither Shea-Porter nor Guinta ruled out running again in 2018 if they lost.

Earlier this month, the DCCC made Kuster the chair of its “Frontline” incumbent retention program, which gives special attention to vulnerable Democratic incumbents, so they must feel confident that she can win again in 2018.

However, former state Rep. Joe Sweeney of Salem previously told WMUR that he is “in the very early portion of exploring a run” for the 2nd District against Kuster.

“I firmly believe that Congresswoman Kuster does not adequately represent the district, and her performance and voting record presents a winnable path,” he said.

Senate President Chuck Morse could also be a potential candidate. The Salem senator is listed on the National Governors Association’s website as a former governor of New Hampshire. He served as acting governor for two days from January 3 to 5, when former Gov. Hassan resigned early to be sworn in as U.S. Senator. The New Hampshire Union Leader sees him as an option for Republican Party operatives still looking for a candidate.

Voters shouldn’t rule out seeing the two Republican frontrunners from the 2nd District GOP primary on the ballot either. Former House Majority Leader Jack Flanagan from Brookline indicated that he was hearing from supporters to run again in 2018. He lost the GOP primary to Lawrence by about 5,000 votes. Also, with Lawrence’s close finish to Kuster in the general election, he heard calls from supporters to consider yet another run. If he did, this would be his third congressional bid in six years.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Pollsters were heavily criticized after the presidential election for completely missing the mark on their predictions. Across the country, they were scratching their heads, trying to figure out how they didn’t see Republican Donald Trump defeating Democratic challenger Hillary Clinton.

Even the University of New Hampshire Survey Center had to take a step back and figure out what went wrong for them. In their last Granite State Poll before the November election, they predicted an 11-point victory for Clinton. She actually won New Hampshire by four-tenths of a percentage point, 47.6 to 47.2 percent.

Their last survey also had Democrat Colin Van Ostern beating Republican Chris Sununu by 11 percent, 55 to 44 percent, for the governor’s office. Sununu beat Van Ostern by 2 percent.

For many political strategists in the state, these way-off predictions confirmed their suspicions that the UNH survey is a “bad poll.” Even WikiLeaks exposed that the Clinton campaign didn’t think much of them.

“As always, this poll doesn’t have a good history of accuracy so we need to take it with a grain of salt,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote to Clinton about a recent UNH pre-primary poll May 5, 2015.

“The state of survey research is not static and there are a lot of technological changes and problems,” said UNH Survey Center director Andrew Smith. “We do an analysis after each election to look for biases that come into the surveys.”

Smith said he believes he found the reason why his numbers were so off during the election and he tweaked his methodology to reflect that in his most recent UNH poll released this week.

In his past polls, he would weight the sample based on age, sex, and region of the state, in addition to the number of adults and telephone lines within households.  Often pollsters will weight their samples to adjust for oversampling and undersampling of key demographics. For example, more women than men, and more older people than younger people, answer polls in the Granite State, Smith said.

Now, Smith added level of education into the mix.

“It’s a difficult variable to use and in the past it didn’t have that much political correlation when we used it, so it didn’t make a difference statistically,” he told NH Journal. “However, we saw that in this election, the percentage of people with a college education make a significant difference, and had we weighted it going into the election, we would have been dead accurate on all of the results.”

This election showed that Trump won the support of white, blue collar workers with some college education or less. He also over-performed in rural areas, while Clinton did better in more wealthy suburban areas.

Smith said he found that men with some college education, known as the Trump coalition, were not participating in the UNH surveys as much as they did when it came time to vote.

“It’s a new phenomena in New Hampshire politics,” he said. “Is it due to Trump? Probably, but it certainly made a difference in our polls. Hopefully, our methods are improved.”

The UNH Survey Center released four polls since February 10. The first one, released last Friday, was on Trump’s approval ratings in the Granite State, which found that residents are pretty divided on the president.

Forty-three percent of adults said they approve of the job Trump is doing as president, while 48 percent are disapproving of his performance, and 8 percent are neutral, the poll found.

These numbers are close to the national trend. The Pew Research Center released Thursday the findings of its survey, which found 39 percent approve of his job performance, while 56 percent disapprove.

Looking at the different regions of the state, his approval rating also varies. This is where it will be interesting to keep an eye on the UNH Survey Center to see if their new weighting of education level has an impact on the data.

In the Central/Lakes, Connecticut Valley, and Manchester area, his approval ranges from 32 to 39 percent. Along the Massachusetts border, on the Seacoast, and in the North Country, his approval rating is more positive.

“It’s not surprising anymore,” Smith said. “Democratic political strength in the central part of the state and Connecticut River Valley is still there and Republicans have been strong in Massachusetts border towns and somewhat strong in the Greater Manchester area, like in Bedford.”

Smith said he found the political dynamics of the North Country interesting because that area is becoming more Republican. For years, it used to be an area of Democratic strength due to blue collar support for Democrats with union support.

“The character and self-identification of the people in the North Country is different than the rest of the state,” he said. “They have not been doing well economically and the Democratic Party has been having difficulty holding onto these blue collar people.”

As exhibited by Trump’s win, many of these blue collar workers in New Hampshire, and in other states across the country, lent their support to the president.

“All we are seeing right now is a group of people who are quasi-Republicans, who might not have participated in politics before, or turned out greater in number, but we’ll have to see how that plays out in the next several years,” Smith said.

The other polls released this week showed that the drug crisis is still the number one issue for residents in the state, Gov. Sununu has similar approval ratings at the start of his term as his predecessors, and all of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation have positive approval ratings.

 

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Economic confidence has declined slightly, following a record surge in recent months, mostly due to concerns on the left, according to a poll released Tuesday.

President Donald Trump entered office at a time when economic confidence was near a record high. Economic confidence reached an all-time high of 11 points following the Nov. 8 election. Gallup found economic confidence has remained elevated but declined to positive 7 points in February.

“Around President Donald Trump’s inauguration last month, the index reached highs not seen before in Gallup’s nine years of tracking economic confidence,” the analysis detailed. “Although the index has dropped several points in the first half of February, it remains higher than most of the readings Gallup has recorded since 2008.”

Republicans had a dismal view of the economy leading up to the election at negative 43 points. Their confidence shot up to a positive 16 points after the election. Democrats lost only a few points at first, but that has fallen further with the new president now sworn in.

“The drop in Americans’ economic outlook is due to a decrease in optimism among Democrats and independents,” the analysis said. “Republicans, who largely prompted the recent increase in overall economic confidence, have maintained their newfound optimism.”

Democrats were considerably more confident in the economy at a positive 27 points prior to the election. Their confidence fell to a negative 41 points last week. The confidence level was notably high during the presidential transition period because the poll asks about current economic conditions and outlook.

Former President Barack Obama was still in office through most of January which helped those on the left view the current state of the economy favorably. Republicans gained confidence following the election because they had a favorable view of the future.

Gallup first began conducting its economic confidence survey back in 2008. The low level of confidence over the years is likely the result of the last recession almost a decade ago. The economic downturn was followed by a very long recovery. Trump has made job creation a critical part of his agenda.

Economic confidence has a lot of room for improvement at only 7 points. The index rates economic confidence on a scale of 200 possible points, from -100 to +100, based on two main factors. It looks at how Americans rate current economic conditions and whether they feel the economy is improving or getting worse.

The economy has shown many positive trends in recent years, but there have still been major issues. The labor market, for instance, has been steadily growing and is even close to full employment. The labor force participation rate, however, has failed to reach the level it was at before the recession.

“This imbalance can perhaps be remedied by continued progress in gross domestic product growth, low unemployment, and gains in the stock market,” the analysis said. “If positive signs such as these aren’t visible to Americans, it could further chip away at their economic outlook.”

The recession was sparked by the subprime mortgage crisis and the financial crisis of 2007. The survey found economic confidence started at negative 24 points when it was first conducted in 2008. It dropped to a record low of negative 65 points in the following year.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

A draft executive order aimed at overhauling the visa system may indicate a potential effort to benefit Republicans by changing the census.

The draft executive order is primarily aimed at making sure domestic workers are not disenfranchised by visa programs. It also includes a provision dictating that the census will include a question regarding immigration status. The draft language is contradictory but may hint towards a plan to benefit Republicans through redistricting.

“The Director of the U.S. Census Bureau shall include questions to determine U.S. citizenship and immigration status on the long-form questionnaire in the decennial census,” the provision states.

President Donald Trump won the presidency which puts his administration in charge of the census. The U.S. Census Bureau currently doesn’t ask immigration status, so including such a provision could have a huge impact. But the language is contradictory, making the exact meaning unclear. The decennial census counts every person every ten years but hasn’t included a long-form questionnaire in nearly two decades.

“So here’s the funny thing,” Berkeley Law election expert Karin Mac Donald told InsideSources. “There is no more long form questionnaire. We did away with the long form. The last long form was used in the 2000 census. So, they cannot include a question to determine U.S. citizenship and immigration status on the long form because there is no long form.”

The American Community Survey (ACS) replaced the long-form questionnaire in 2000. The ACS is conducted monthly while the decennial census is done every ten years. The ACS samples only 295,000 addresses while the decennial census aims at counting everyone in the country.

“The issue is, whoever drafted this is about 20 years behind,” Election Data Services President Kimball Brace told InsideSources. “We haven’t called it a long-form questionnaire in about 20 years. So, obviously, they’re not up to date on that side. What is intriguing, though, is that the new long form, or ACS, has a question on citizenship.”

The ACS already includes questions on citizenship status, and many other questions the old questionnaire used to include. The decennial census does not include such questions. Nevertheless, if the executive order meant the decennial census it potentially could have a huge impact on how voting districts are drawn.

“Now, once you have the data then yes, it does open up all sorts of avenues for mischief or gerrymandering or whatever you want to do,” Brace said. “But certainly Republicans have in the past looked at it as a way of pushing a little bit more their angle in terms of creating districts.”

Brace adds that more data isn’t necessarily bad for drawing voting districts and understanding communities. He has provided technical assistance, and advised redistricting commissions. But he says such information could be abused.

Gerrymandering is the process of drawing voting districts to unequally benefit one political party. The immigration questions could reveal a lot depending on how extensive they are. It could be used to identify communities with immigrant populations or even immigrants or first generation Americans that are now citizens and can legally vote.

“It’s possible, it really depends on how they word the questionnaire,” Brace said. “It’s not spelled out here, but certainly if someone wanted to move in that direction, there is something that could be said for that.”

Pew Research Center found Hispanics and Latinos are far more likely to support Democrats. Immigration and citizenship questions could also deter immigrants and visa holders from taking the census survey which would mean Democratic states with high immigrant populations, like California, could lose electoral college votes and congressional seats.

“The real harm comes from the under-count,” Brennan Center for Justice senior counsel Michael Li told InsideSources. “States that have large numbers of immigrants, if the immigrants chose not to answer the question, they don’t get counted, so the state has a fewer number of people when it comes to allocating congressional seats.”

Li adds its also unlikely that the executive order is some scheme to benefit the right. Republicans are likely to get hurt too if immigrants suddenly stopped taking the census. Texas, for instance, has gained four congressional seats over the last decade because of their population growth which was driven by immigrants.

Republican intent, and its potential consequences, may not matter at the end of the day. A plan to include citizenship on the census faces a constitutional conflict and intensively litigated case law. The U.S. Constitution dictates under the fourteenth amendment that all persons in the country have to be counted.

“The question of who gets counted goes back to the fourteenth amendment under the equal protection clause,” Mac Donald said. “It doesn’t really matter whether they’re brown, gray, green or what their immigration status is. All they’re asking is the number of persons.”

The courts have been clear that the purpose of the census is counting everyone. The census is not designed to check citizenship status. The U.S. Supreme Court is on the verge of filling an empty seat, however, and there is no guarantee this issue won’t be brought up again.

“You do run into the potential of the fourteen amendment, and there is the argument that the Supreme Court has cut off the avenue in terms of citizenship,” Brace said. “So it may be that this would be too late given where the Supreme Court is but, keep in mind, that was a close decision and now we have a new potential member depending on confirmation.”

The U.S. Census Bureau has already been preparing for the next decennial census which will be held in 2020. The data collected will determine how voting districts are drawn in 2021.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment by InsideSources.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning

The labor market continued trending in a positive direction by gaining an additional 227,000 new jobs for the month of January, according to a federal report Friday.

The economy has made significant gains over the last year following nearly a decade of slow growth. The last recession was followed by an unusually slow recovery. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found in its latest monthly jobs report the upward trend continued with 227,000 new jobs.

“Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 227,000 in January, and the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.8 percent,” the report stated. “Job gains occurred in retail trade, construction, and financial activities.”

The economy has been in a good position when in comes to the employment rate. It has even managed to reach close to full employment at 4.8 percent. The economy still faces some lingering issues from the recession, but overall things are at least looking optimistic.

“The labor market looks to be pretty strong,” Florida State University Professor Randall Holcombe told InsideSources. “The unemployment rate is holding pretty steady, under five percent. We’re adding those jobs with the unemployment rate staying steady. What that seems to suggest is more people are participating in the labor force.”

Republicans in the last election were able to gain the presidency while keeping congressional control. They have put forth a very pro-business agenda which could yield positive results. Center for American Progress economist Michael Madowitz agrees the labor market is in good shape, but is concerned the political shift could create uncertainty.

“Increased uncertainty tends not to be ideal for the economy,” Madowitz told InsideSources. “The party in power has a fairly long and ambitious agenda, and there’s invariably going to be a lot of uncertainty associated with that because you just don’t know how much they’re going to be able to pass.”

The economy has been trending in a positive direction but there is still room for improvement. The labor force participation rate, for instance, has fallen considerably since the last recession, and has failed to rebound. The participation rate increased by 0.2 percent last month, and now sits at 62.9 percent

“It was a pretty steady decline in the labor force participation rate from 2007 up through 2015,” Holcombe said. “To me, the labor force participation rate has been one of the more troubling things in the labor market over the last decade or so.”

The labor participation rate tracks the number of employed and those actively seeking work as a percentage of the total population. The participation rate factors in those who have suffered long-term joblessness. Holcombe is optimistic in that the decline leveled out last year, and has remained steady.

“It’s conceivable with the unemployment rate holding steady, with strong job performance, maybe that’s an indication that people out of the labor force are getting back in,” Holcombe said. “So just from where I’m looking at, I’m seeing some optimistic signs in the labor market.”

The participation rate has leveled out but has yet to regain what it lost over the last decade. A large population of retirees and student adults can be blamed for much of the decline. Nevertheless, there are still a concerning number of working age adults that are not in the labor force.

“The low labor force participation rate truly, we believe, is a disconnect and indicates a disconnect between the general unemployment rate, and true unemployment rate,” Job Creators Network President Alfredo Ortiz told InsideSources. “When you look at the labor force participation rate between prime age workers, that 24 to 54 year old, that’s near a generational low.”

The last recession was sparked by the subprime mortgage crisis and the financial crisis of 2007. Former President Barack Obama oversaw the recovery throughout his entire administration. President Donald Trump now faces the issues still lingering like the participation rate, underemployment, and low wages.

“One thing that President Trump has talked about is deregulation,” Holcombe said. “Regulations hold back business; add costs to business. Deregulation is one thing that we can hope for. We can hope for tax reform. That’s another thing that President Trump has talked about that would be helpful.”

Trump released a detailed tax plan during his campaign aimed at promoting economic growth. It’s designed to simplify the tax code while also lowering taxes for upper and middle-income earners. Alfredo notes that lower taxes will be very beneficial, especially for small businesses.

“There’s a lot of conversations about comprehensive tax reform,” Ortiz said. “When you relieve that small business tax on small business owners, you will see hiring like you’ve never seen before. The one thing we know about small businesses is they reinvest their dollars back into businesses whether its direct hires or whether it’s through direct investments like buying another new piece of equipment.”

The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) last year showed a positive increase after being stuck around one percent. GDP tracks the total dollar value of all goods and services produced over a specific time period. The stock market has shown positive growth as well.

Retail trade saw the most significant increase of new jobs at 46,000 followed by construction and financial activities. Mining and logging, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation, and warehousing, information, and government showed little change last month.

Average wages increased by 3 cents and now sit at $26.00 for the month of January. Wages in recent months have shown slow but positive growth. The jobs report does not include farm workers, private household employees or nonprofits.

Follow Connor on Twitter

Subscribe for the Latest From InsideSources Every Morning