#

Although Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million, she still lost the 2016 presidential election to Republican Donald Trump. A closer look into the votes cast reveals that one of the factors of Clinton’s loss could be attributed to her underperformance in rural areas. New research suggests that while she nearly matched Barack Obama’s 2012 performance in most urban areas, she failed to match the Democratic presidential nominees in the last five elections in the less populated areas of the country.

The research was released this week by the Carsey School of Public Policy at the University of New Hampshire and was conducted by Dante Scala — associate professor of political science and a faculty fellow at the Carsey School — and Kenneth Johnson, senior demographer at the Carsey School and professor of sociology.

The researchers examined voting along a rural to urban continuum, rather than treating rural and urban as a polarity. They found significant variations in voting behavior among both urban and rural places that persist over the last five presidential elections.

“Yet, defining 2016 as the tale of two Americas — one urban, one rural — hinders a nuanced understanding of the country’s political geography,” the researchers stated. “Many political commentators mistakenly caricature rural America as a single entity, but our research … shows that complex variations in voting patterns persist among both urban and rural places.”

Several headlines after the election pushed the urban-rural divide that existed in the election. “How the Election Revealed the Divide Between City and Country,” read a piece by The Atlantic. The researches suggest that while the overall premise is true, it’s a lot more complicated than that because political pundits don’t often include suburban voters or towns adjacent to suburbs.

Clinton received 2.1 million fewer votes in rural America than Obama did four years earlier even though 531,000 more votes were cast there in 2016. Large urban counties are the base of the Democratic Party as well as their suburbs and the cores of smaller metropolitan areas. The outer edges of smaller urban areas and the vast rural regions tend to be Republican territory.

“Through the last five presidential elections voting patterns were consistent along a rural-urban continuum,” the researchers said. “Democrats did best at the urban end of the continuum and Republicans at the rural end. What is distinctly different in 2016 is that Hillary Clinton did far worse across the entire rural end of the continuum than any Democratic candidate in the previous four presidential elections.”

Image Credit: University of New Hampshire Carsey School of Public Policy

At one end of the continuum are the urban core counties of large metropolitan areas. This is where Democrats have received their greatest support in the last five presidential elections. Al Gore and John Kerry averaged slightly less than 60 percent of the vote in these areas in 2000 and 2004. Barack Obama boosted the Democrats’ urban vote share in 2008 and 2012, and Clinton maintained it in 2016. Also, the suburbs of these large metropolitan areas gave both Obama in 2012 and Clinton slightly less than a majority (49.6 and 47.8 percent, respectively).

Next on the continuum, the suburbs of smaller urban areas are more strongly Republican. It is at this point on the rural–urban continuum that the contrast between earlier elections and 2016 is evident. Here the gap between Democratic support in 2012 and 2016 widened, which ultimately led to Clinton’s loss.

At the rural end of the continuum, counties tend to be more Republican, but there is variation within these rural areas. Democrats consistently did worse in counties remote from urban areas, and in those without large towns of 10,000 to 50,000 people. This pattern continued in 2016, but there was a substantial decline in support for Clinton across all types of rural counties. For example, in 2012, Obama received 41.6 percent of the vote in rural counties adjacent to metropolitan areas that contained a large town and 38.9 percent in those that did not. Clinton received just 33.1 percent in these adjacent large town counties and 29.7 percent in other adjacent counties.

“Certainly, these rural vote totals are dwarfed by those in urban areas. But, from the suburban periphery of smaller urban areas to the most far-flung rural areas, Clinton’s inability to match the performance of any Democratic candidate since at least 2000 contributed to her defeat in crucial swing states such as Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,” the researchers said. “Though many commentators argued that the faster population growth and growing diversity on the urban side of the rural-urban continuum would give Democrats a significant advantage in 2016, the election demonstrated that what happens at the rural end of the continuum remains important.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

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.

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.

Credit: UNH Survey Center

“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.

Some local headlines of the Betsy DeVos confirmation hearing showed Sen. Maggie Hassan making her mark early in her first term.

“Hassan emerges as fierce critic of Trump’s Cabinet nominees,” reads an article from the Associated Press. Hassan’s questioning of President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of education earned her 15 minutes in the national spotlight after she hammered DeVos on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and school vouchers.

But a look at Hassan’s record shows she has taken advantage of school choice, despite questioning DeVos about it.

Hassan sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) and voted against DeVos’s nomination on Tuesday in a committee vote. The freshman senator, whose son has cerebral palsy, is an expert on public education for students with disabilities. Her son, Ben, went to public high school.

But DeVos has received a significant amount of criticism from Senate Democrats and the media due to her lack of experience in the public school system and for being in favor of school choice and school vouchers. The National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) are also against her nomination.

However, six of the 10 Senate Democrats on the HELP committee attended private or parochial schools, or have children and grandchildren attending them, according to information obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group.

Sens. Robert Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, and Michael Bennet of Colorado sit on the committee and have never attended public school, according to the investigation.

For Hassan, her husband Tom, served as the principal of the elite Phillips Exeter Academy, where their daughter, Margaret, attended, as well. Tom was censured last year for failing to disclose sexual misconduct charges against a faculty member.

Hassan received approximately $10,000 from the NEA during her Senate campaign and the union also spent $1.5 million against her opponent, incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. AFT also spent $4,400 against Ayotte.

“It’s just bizarre to see people who have exercised those school options suggesting that it’s somehow problematic or malicious to extend those options to all families,” said Frederick Hess, executive editor of Education Next, to the Daily Caller.

Hassan’s record on school choice is also revealing. While she was a supporter of public charter schools as governor, she did veto a bill that would enable small school districts to pay tuition, at public or private schools, for students of any grade level if it is not available within their resident district.

On a recent interview with NPR, Hassan reiterated her support for charter schools, but she took issue with DeVos position of a voucher system.

“I am a proud supporter of public charter schools here in New Hampshire, as well,” she said. “But there is a real difference between public charter schools, which can be established working with local communities and educators to fill a particular need in the public school system and provide more alternatives and more choice for learning styles and families – than a voucher system, which diverts money from the public school system, generally and often doesn’t cover the full cost of the private school that the student is attending.”

During DeVos’s confirmation hearing, Hassan also questioned her on her role in her family’s foundation, the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation. While it’s being debated if DeVos was accurate with statements during the hearing about having a role or not, she is also being charged that she and her family have donated extensively to groups which promote the idea that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students must undergo “conversion therapy.”

The claim comes from Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Wis., who cites their large donations to the Focus on the Family group as evidence. Politifact found his claim to be “Mostly False” saying they found indications that the group supports conversion therapy, but there was no evidence that they believe that LGBT students must undergo it.

A recent report by The New York Times, highlights another side of DeVos not seen in public. She has supported her gay friends and advocated for LGBT rights as far back as the 1990s. This shows her coming out in support significantly earlier than a lot of Democrats who are questioning her on these beliefs.

“At that time, two colleagues recalled, she made accommodations for a transgender woman to use the women’s restroom at a Michigan Republican Party call center,” the article states. She also used her political connections to help persuade other Michigan Republicans to sign a brief urging the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in 2015, though she did not sign it herself.”

“This aspect of Ms. DeVos’s personal story is not only at odds with the public image of her and her family as prominent financiers of conservative causes, but it also stands out in a nascent administration with a number of members who have a history of opposing gay rights,” the report continued.

Hassan has been a champion for LGBT rights in New Hampshire, dating back to her time in the state Legislature. In June 2016, she issued an executive order that banned discrimination in state government based on gender identity.  

However, her colleague, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, hasn’t always been supportive of LGBT rights. Shaheen has announced that she will vote “no” on DeVos’s nomination.

As governor, Shaheen initially opposed same-sex marriage. After Vermont signed into law a “civil union” bill in 2000, Shaheen said she didn’t support it.

“I believe that marital unions should exist between men and women,” she said at the time.

However, she came out in favor of marriage for same-sex couples in 2009 and became a sponsor of the Respect for Marriage Act in the U.S. Senate. She also voted in favor of the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy in the military and supported government recognition of same-sex spouses of military members and other government personnel.

Although Hassan and Shaheen didn’t mention DeVos’s stance on LGBT student rights when they said they wouldn’t vote in favor of her nomination, it is interesting to note the differences in time of support between them of LGBT causes.

Shaheen agrees with Hassan, saying that DeVos is “unqualified” to be the next secretary of education. The full Senate is expected to vote on DeVos’s nomination on Thursday.

During the seven-hour hearing for Frank Edelblut’s nomination as the state education commissioner, there were several comparisons of the former state representative to Betsy DeVos, President Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of education.

Edelblut is to NH as DeVos is to US. We can do so much better on both levels. #nhpolitics

— Gerald W.R. Ward (@wardports) January 31, 2017

Both DeVos and Edelblut have little experience with the public school system. They are both strong supporters of school choice.

While Edelblut is a product of public schools himself, he and his wife homeschooled their seven children. Edelblut did receive his bachelor’s degree in business at a public institution, the University of Rhode Island, and eventually received a master’s in theological studies at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.

Since 2009, Edelblut has served on the board of the Patrick Henry College Foundation, which is partnered with the evangelical Christian college in Virginia. This affiliation became a contentious point during his hearing between Edelblut and Democratic Executive Councilor Andru Volinsky of Concord. According to the college website, affiliates of the school must attest to a “Statement of Biblical Worldview” and follow “God’s Creative Works,” which is the belief that God created humanity and started with Adam and Eve as the basis for human ancestry.

“You will be the chief educator to whom all of the science teachers in our state will report,” Volinsky said. “Do you subscribe to this such that the science teachers need to worry about whether you will require creationism to be taught alongside evolution?”

Edelblut said he believes “there are other understandings of human origins.”

“And finally, as the commissioner of education, I will not have jurisdiction or responsibility for the development of curricula,” he said. “That I believe remains in the domain of the science teachers and the local school boards.”

And that’s where advocates for Edelblut believe that his lack of public education experience could be one of his biggest strengths.

With Gov. Chris Sununu’s nomination of his former Republican gubernatorial primary rival (Edelblut came in a close second, only losing by about 800 votes), it signals a departure from previous state education commissioners, who all had some sort of public education experience. It was a point Volinsky wanted to make, by reading the resumes of every education commissioner for the past 40 years.

But Sununu doesn’t want another career educator in the driver’s seat. He wants Edelblut, a businessman, to be in charge of this billion dollar industry. Many opponents don’t like that he’s against Common Core and is pro-charter schools. And they say he’s looking to “destroy public education.”

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. “I want to see public education work well for all students. My job will be to implement the policies of the state board of education.”

The state board of education sets policy, curriculum, and standards for the public schools in the state. While the state education commissioner plays a role in the process, it’s ultimately not up to him to make those decisions.

Edelblut said he supported outgoing education commissioner Virginia Barry’s focus on “personalized learning.”

“Home education is personalized learning,” he said. “It recognizes that each individual student is unique, that they develop differently and at different paces.”

The same sentiments could be found in DeVos’s confirmation hearing earlier this month.

“Parents no longer believe that a one-size-fits-all model of learning meets the needs of every child,” she told the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. “And they know other options exist, whether magnet, virtual, charter, home, faith-based or any other combination.”

DeVos attended a private high school in Michigan and also received a bachelor’s in business from Calvin College. Her four children all went to private school and although she has never worked in a school, she is very philanthropic toward school systems that she personally supports. She backs school choice and school vouchers, allowing students to attend private schools with taxpayer support.

DeVos has been one of the most contentious cabinet nominees for Trump. But it can be argued that Trump and Sununu are looking at education in a similar manner. Trump sees DeVos as a strong advocate for school choice and able to use the budget for the education department to make education better for all students.

Both DeVos and Edelblut don’t necessarily have that much power when it comes to changing policy in the positions they will likely hold. They help set the agenda, but ultimately, any changes go through Congress and the states, and in New Hampshire, that means through the state board of education and the Legislature.

It’s no surprise that Trump and Sununu are facing a lot pushback on their respective nominees for education. After all, Sununu was one of Trump’s supporters during the presidential race, his support never wavering. But many supporters of the two politicians appreciate the comparison of Edelblut and DeVos. They both symbolize change and a departure from the Democratic “status-quo,” they have felt for the past eight years in D.C. and 12 years in the Granite State.

The people of New Hampshire should expect more similarities between the federal government and New Hampshire (or with Sununu and Trump) to pop up during the next two years.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

After President Donald Trump issued his immigration executive order on Friday, which put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travelers from Syria and six other countries, New Hampshire’s congressional delegation was quick to respond.

But for some of the Democratic lawmakers, their statements are at odds with their previous rhetoric and voting records.

Before getting into their statements, it’s important to reiterate what Trump’s executive order entails. You can read guides from USA Today and Reuters. But here’s the quick highlights:

1. His executive order suspends all refugee entry for 120 days.
2. It indefinitely suspends entry by Syrian refugees.
3. The order blocks for 90 days all immigration of citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, and Yemen, which are Muslim-majority countries.

Since he announced his executive order, Green Card holders and permanent residents of the United States have been detained at airports, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the order, and protests have erupted at airports across the country. Trump’s administration has made it clear that the immigration ban would not apply to Green Card holders.

Sen. Maggie Hassan probably has one of the most unclear records when it comes to immigration and Syrian refugees. Following the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Hassan became the first Democratic governor in the country to call for a pause in Syrian refugee resettlement.

“The governor has always made clear that we must ensure robust refugee screening to protect American citizens, and the governor believes that the federal government should halt acceptance of refugees from Syria until intelligence and defense officials can assure that the process for vetting all refugees, including those from Syria, is as strong as possible to ensure the safety of the American people,” said Hassan’s spokesman at the time.

And she never wavered from that position throughout the extremely close campaign against Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte. Ayotte was known for being a foreign policy and immigration hawk.

But now, it seems Hassan is singing a different tune. She called Trump’s executive order “un-American” and her office said that she never supported an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees.

“Senator Hassan believes we can strengthen the vetting process for all entryways into the country while staying true to the values that make America the greatest country on earth. She never has and never will support a policy like what the President has put into place with this executive order, which is a backdoor Muslim ban and religious test that goes against American values. Senator Hassan will work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reverse this un-American executive order that will make America less safe,” her office said in a statement to WMUR.

“Senator Hassan strongly opposes this un-American and dangerous executive order which includes an indefinite ban on Syrian refugees, something that the Senator has never supported,” her office added. “The Senator believes that we can strengthen the process for all entryways into the country while remaining true to our values and engaged in addressing this humanitarian crisis.”

So while that statement is technically correct, since she only supported a “temporary halt” in Syrian refugees, not an indefinite ban, some people are wondering where she really stands on the issue. Was she reacting to the Paris attacks with what she thought was the best decision or was she pandering to voters on her right? It’s still unclear.

@SenatorHassan yes or no? Do you support a ban on Syrian Refugees as you previously said you did? #MuslimBan #nhpolitics #NHpolitics

— Winston Smith (@RumpoleinUSA) January 30, 2017

Rep. Annie Kuster also has an interesting position on Syrian refugees and immigration policies.

Kuster called for a broad expansion of former President Barack Obama’s administration’s program to bring Syrian refugees to the United States before the Paris attacks. She joined other House Democrats in signing a letter to Obama, calling on him to increase the number of refugees to be allowed in the United States to 200,000 by the end of 2016.

But after the terrorist attacks, Kuster didn’t mention anything about bringing in more Syrian refugees. She actually voted with Republicans for a stronger vetting process.

“I am fiercely protective of our national security and believe we must be tough and smart in pursuing policies that protect Americans both at home and abroad,” she said in a statement. “As we work with our allies to defeat ISIS without endangering American lives in another civil war, we must maintain and expand rigorous screening and security checks for any Syrian refugee fleeing terrorism by seeking to enter our country.”

She joined 46 other Democrats and all of the House Republicans to pass the American Security Against Foreign Enemies Act. The bill expanded the screening process for refugees attempting to enter the United States from Iraq or Syria by requiring the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct its own background checks in addition to those conducted by the Department of Homeland Security.

In defense of her vote, Kuster told New Hampshire Public Radio that, “it doesn’t pause the program. It doesn’t apply a religious test. It’s a certification that the person does not pose a threat to the security of the United States.”

But Kuster is now the only member of New Hampshire’s congressional delegation that did not release a statement after Trump’s executive order was announced. Instead, she took to Twitter for a very brief statement that didn’t really say if she was for or against the ban.

America can & should be a beacon of hope around the world. Urge @realDonaldTrump to honor the values of inclusion that make us truly great.

— Ann McLane Kuster (@RepAnnieKuster) January 29, 2017

She followed that tweet up later with another one that said, “Not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans, we can balance security & compassion. USA founded on freedom from religious persecution.”

Both Kuster and Hassan have brought up religion in their statements, saying they believe his executive order is a religion test as a way to ban Muslims from coming to the United States. That point is still debateable and up for interpretation. There are many media reports that have former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani saying it is a “Muslim ban” as Trump put it.

But other articles say religion already plays a role in federal asylum and refugee law. David French from the National Review has an extensive piece on it and Politifact rated former Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush’s claim that religion plays a role in refugee screenings as “Mostly True.” Obviously, the law leaves much room for interpretation, so expect several legal experts to weigh in on the subject in the coming weeks.

As for Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, they both have been the most consistent in their language when discussing Syrian refugee resettlement and immigration.

Shaheen was supportive of allowing more Syrian refugees to come to America during Obama’s presidency and she hasn’t changed her mind after Trump’s executive order.

“We’re among those members of Congress who think that the United States can and should do more, both to try and take in more of the refugees who have been vetted, but also to support — in every way we can — the humanitarian crisis that has been created,” she said in 2015.

After Trump’s announcement, she said in a statement, “This executive order is un-American and grossly inhumane. We are a nation of immigrants and should remain welcoming to all nations and faiths, particularly those who are fleeing violence and oppression. Refugees, from Syria in particular, are fleeing unspeakable terror and hunger, and it’s unconscionable that the United States will no longer provide any of these refugees a safe haven.”

Shea-Porter said the United States should welcome Syrian refugees, but should also ensure they are properly vetted. She voted with House Democrats against a 2013 Republican amendment that would defund Obama’s executive orders on immigration.

“I think we’re very capable of absorbing a certain number of refugees who are fleeing their country for the same reasons that we would,” she said in 2015. “I think we all need to know exactly what kind of vetting is being done.”

She released a very straightforward statement on Saturday rejecting Trump’s actions.

“Our nation’s founders built this nation on dreams of a better, more tolerant society, and now we must stand together and defend and preserve those ideals,” she said. “I call on President Trump to immediately reverse his actions, and I invite all Granite Staters to join me in letting our refugee and immigrant neighbors know that we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them as one community.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

There are 19 groups in New Hampshire that have signed on to completely resist President Donald Trump, and they’re trying to take a page out of the Tea Party’s playbook.

A new national organization called “Indivisible” is going back to the basics: push back against Trump from the grassroots level. The group published a manifesto, essentially a manual on how to resist the Trump agenda, written by former Democratic congressional staffers.

“We examine lessons from the Tea Party’s rise and recommend two key strategic components: A local strategy targeting individual members of Congress; a defensive approach purely focused on stopping Trump from implementing an agenda built on racism, authoritarianism, and corruption,” they wrote.

Indivisible, which has more than 2,400 local groups registered with them, is advising voters to assemble at the local level and have members focus on their respective elected senators and representatives by speaking out at town hall meetings, asking their elected officials questions at local photo-ops and ceremonies, showing up at their district offices for meetings, and overwhelming their phone lines with coordinated calls.

“We can all learn from their [the Tea Party] success in influencing the national debate and the behavior of national policymakers,” the group wrote. “To their credit, they thought thoroughly about advocacy tactics.”

Many progressives are trying to recreate the circumstances that led to a wave of Republican victories in Congress and state legislatures in the 2010 midterm elections. Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, gained more seats in the Senate, and flipped several state legislative seats, mostly campaigning on conservative ideals and anti-President Barack Obama rhetoric. But liberals could find it difficult to implement a similar strategy and might find more success if they work with Trump when possible.

The Democratic Party enters the Trump presidency completely shut out of power, with Republicans in control of the White House, House, Senate, and even most state governments. And they’re already divided amongst themselves with progressives versus moderates, and whether they should oppose Trump or work with him on common interests.

Just after his first week in office, it looks like many Democrats and progressive activists want to resist him at every step. The American Civil Liberties Union already filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s executive order that temporarily bars entry to refugees from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen due to terrorism concerns. A federal judge granted an emergency stay Saturday to stop deportation of people with valid visas who landed in the United States.

But if they continue that mentality, they might run into some trouble in the 2018 midterm elections and even the 2020 presidential election. Even though the party in charge usually doesn’t do well in midterm elections, many House seats will still favor Republican control due to gerrymandering. And Democrats have to defend 10 Senate seats in Republican-controlled states. The political terrain isn’t favorable for them right now.

By refusing to compromise, Democrats may be unable to influence policy even when the president’s agenda aligns with traditional Democratic interests. It’s true that rejecting compromise can reveal internal differences and struggles within the president’s own party, such as with the ongoing Republican debate on repealing Obamacare. More damage could be done by working with Trump and exposing the internal divide in the Republican Party that’s been there since the rise of the Tea Party movement in 2009.

An area some Democrats and Trump could work on together is infrastructure spending, albeit with some disagreements on how to fund it. Trump will almost need Senate Democrats to help get it through Congress. Some of his ideas resemble the “big-government conservatism” of George W. Bush that upset many Tea Partiers. Working out a few deals with Trump could anger some Republicans, and it might do more damage to the president than being vehemently opposed to everything he does.

If the Democrats could unify around that message, they could be in much better shape to retake Congress and the presidency, and ultimately be able to govern themselves and the country better than before.

Uncompromising Democratic opposition is essentially saying the party wants to be more like the Republican Party, by trying to emulate what the Republicans did in 2009. But while the Republicans were “unified” by being anti-Obama anything, they didn’t take the time to rebuild as a party and create a clear message for the base. That was evident by the loss of Mitt Romney in 2012. And now, look at them. They ended up nominating a candidate who barely aligns with their platform. They have full control over the federal government, but they still are struggling to be unified over how to run it, as exhibited by disagreement over many of Trump’s policies.

While it’s understandable that Democrats and progressive activists would want to go about rebuilding their party the same way the Republicans did in 2009, it’s better for their party to engage with Trump in policy debates because those issues are ones they can build a campaign on, and not just on partisan rhetoric.

The Democrats have a prime opportunity to genuinely build their party from the grassroots level up. If the loss of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election taught them anything, it’s that they need to listen to the working class in Middle America again and create a message that appeals not only to their base, but also to disenfranchised voters who feel left out of the system.

It’ll prove to be difficult for them to do that though, especially with some major players on the national stage that see the party going in a different, more radical direction.

Just look at the confirmation hearing battles. Several Democratic senators who are looking to run for president in 2020 won’t vote for anything put forward by Trump out of fear from attacks to their left. John Kelly was confirmed as secretary for homeland security by a vote of 88-11. Some of those “no” votes came from Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). The more moderate Democrats might feel pressure to vote a certain way in order to follow suit, and especially when the media reports that former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, Warren, and Booker voted one way, it could make it seem like the Democrats who don’t fall in line aren’t supportive of the party.

An unpopular Trump could win another four years if the next Democratic presidential leader is too far outside of the political spectrum.

And speaking of leaders, the race for the next chair of the Democratic National Committee is revealing to show how anti-Trump and against compromise the Democratic Party could be. While members of their party were participating in the Women’s March earlier this month, most of the 10 candidates for DNC chair were at a private fundraising conference held by liberal political operative David Brock. The message that could send to grassroots leaders is that the Democratic Party hasn’t learned its lesson from its recent defeat and instead, continues to listen to big money rather than voters.

The latest forums between the candidates have also shown that there aren’t many disagreements between them; they don’t have many new ideas to jumpstart the party, and they all have zero desire to work with Trump.

“That’s a question that’s absolutely ridiculous,” said New Hampshire Democratic Party chairman Ray Buckley at one of the forums, when he was asked about working with Trump.

If the Democrats try to imitate the Tea Party movement, don’t create a unifying message for its voters, and resist Trump at every turn, then they’re in for a long eight years.

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.

Who has final say over New Hampshire’s abundance of regulations put forward by state agencies? That’s the latest battle at the State House, where a legislative committee says it is in charge, not Gov. Chris Sununu, of the process to decide on the need for administrative rules.

The Joint Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules unanimously sent a letter to Sununu on Friday saying the committee and the process that already exists “accomplishes many of the goals of your letter seeking a reduction in governmental rules and regulations.”

During his inaugural address, Sununu called for a 90-day moratorium on new regulations.

“There are a lot of regulations in this state, for such a small state,” he said. “It is unbelievable. Let’s take a pause. Let’s take a step back and figure out what we are doing and why we are doing it.”

The next day, Sununu sent a memo to agency heads and department commissioners asking them to “immediately establish a pause on any proposed adoption, amendment, re-adoption or re-adoption with amendment of administrative rules until March 31, 2017.”

The request did not apply to any proposed rule mandated by law or that was “immediately essential to the public health, safety and welfare.” By March 31, he asked the agency heads to review “each and every regulation under the agency’s jurisdiction that is currently being proposed” or is already in effect.

The bipartisan joint committee includes five state senators and five House members and is authorized, according to state law, to have final say over rules proposed by state agencies, following a detailed approval process.

In their letter to Sununu, the committee members say they’re who oversees the rulemaking process.

“The majority of rulemaking is mandated by statute, and agencies cannot choose not to adopt rules when a statute says that they shall,” the letter states.

Sen. John Reagan, R-Deerfield, who chairs the committee, told WMUR that no rule or regulation can “exceed the authority of the legislation.”

“There seems to be a lack of understanding in the corner office about what the process is to create rules,” he said. “It seems that he was trying to do what everyone promises to do in Washington, stop passing laws that proliferate bureaucratic rules.”

In fact, President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, issued a very similar memo to Sununu’s on Friday telling federal agencies to not issue any more regulations.

He told the federal agencies not to send any regulation to the Federal Register until the rule is reviewed and approved by the new head of that respective agency, who is appointed under Trump.

But Reagan said New Hampshire is different than the federal government. Rules in the Granite State expire every 10 years and must be reauthorized. This year alone, 250 rules and 41 interim rules will expire, he told WMUR.

The agencies must hold public hearings on proposed rules, which are then submitted to the committee, and the committee’s attorneys determine if a proposed rule exceeds its legislative authority.

“What we’re saying to the governor in the letter is, let the process go on because we’re already doing what you want done,” Reagan said. “As chairman, I felt it was incumbent on me to state for the sake of the committee’s reputation to say that we already do this. This is what we have been doing for all these years. We’re not challenging anybody. I just had to make a statement for the sake of the committee.”

Emily Corcoran, a law professor at the University of New Hampshire, said the committee is “reasserting their belief that they have jurisdiction [over rulemaking] and then the courts would be the arbitrator” if the moratorium were to be challenged.

“You also see some changes in power here,” she told NH Journal. “It’s the change we have when a new person with a different political view is trying to separate themselves from what their predecessor did. You also have renewed power struggles among the different branches of government vying for power.”

Corcoran also clarified that Sununu announced the moratorium through a memo instead of an executive order. While both methods essentially produce the same result and are legally binding, the memo method could send a non-confrontational message, she said.

“Executive orders are a way to reverse existing policies,” she said. “If you want to reverse a position from a previous administration, you have to do that through an executive order. To put a policy on hold or not do anything right now to reassess, it signals that there is a new sheriff in town who wants to see where things are and where things are going. It doesn’t send the signal that we are ending anything quickly or completely switching gears.”

“He’s exercising his power to give agencies guidance,” she added. “It could be that he wants to appear measured and also signal to people that voted for him that it will be different under his term than [former] Gov. [Maggie] Hassan.”

Sununu has not issued his first executive order yet.

And Sununu is not alone for calling a halt in new regulations. Missouri Republican Gov. Eric Gretiens issued a similar action this month, except through an executive order, to freeze new rules and regulations.

Arizona Republican Gov. Doug Ducey issued a continuing moratorium through an executive order on Monday. Arizona has had a moratorium on new regulations since 2009.

Even Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker issued a similar executive order halting new regulations in 2015.

While it seems like Republicans are the only ones who halt new regulations, it’s actually not partisan. Former President Barack Obama issued a moratorium, through a memo when he took office on Jan. 20, 2009, telling federal agencies to refrain from sending any new or proposed rules.

“You do tend to see that happen with new administrations,” Corcoran said. “He [Sununu] made campaign promises and he’s acting out on them.”

Sununu’s office responded to the committee’s letter on Monday, saying, “New Hampshire is an over-regulated state with too many rules stifling opportunities for economic growth.”

“As the state’s chief executive, he is leading a collaborative effort with department heads and commissioners to foster an environment in which businesses can more easily grow jobs,” said David Abrams, Sununu spokesman, in a statement to WMUR. “His carefully thought-out request has been met with enthusiasm and cooperation and we are confident that the information we have gathered will lead to meaningful reform.”

Follow Kyle on Twitter.

Sign up for NH Journal’s must-read morning political newsletter.