Midwest Direct'S Rx Card Agent Application: Fill & Download for Free

You cannot attribute the weather of any single storm or even a year of storms to climate change. You need to look at the long term trend. Generally, something is only considered climate if it spans at least 30 years. If you look at the past 30 years there is no trend of increase in the frequency or intensity of tornadoes.Currently, we are seeing a lot of tornadoes because it is tornado season. We expect to see tornado outbreaks in the Midwest at this time of year. This year is above average, but 2018 had near record low tornado activity. With or without climate change, some years will be more active than others.As a final caveat, this should not be taken as evidence against climate change either. The effect of climate change on tornadoes is uncertain. Some data suggests that warmer temperatures will provide more energy to tornadic thunderstorms. Other data suggests that a decrease in wind shear will mean fewer storms will have the spin needed to produce tornadoes. Perhaps both of these effects come together and cancel each other out. Some evidence suggests that the areas where tornadoes occur most frequently is shifting to the north and east.

I could. But this is really in the hands of the Democrats.If Democrats prioritize race and transgender issues over the working class, then the Midwest is going to fall out of their hands as soon as 2020. (Trust me, I live here.)If Democrats can show that they’ve actually done something concrete to improve Midwesterners’ lives, then obviously the Democratic Party still has a chance here. But they need to act fast, because their “brand” is running out with the tide.About race: the region is far less white than outsiders realize — after all, outsiders rarely take the trouble to visit and learn about it before speaking. But white Midwestern voters clearly don’t like being told they’re racist hicks. Even if some are, the Democrats are just going to have to find a more conciliatory tone that doesn’t turn off people “on the fence."Most Midwesterners don’t “like” Trump. He’s widely considered a prick here. Many people in flyover country absolutely despise him, but they realize that Trump has opened up an interesting breach in the wall where we can see some of the rot inside the Democratic Party. And it isn’t any fun to look at.I didn’t vote for the guy. I really, truly don’t like him. But I’m weirdly grateful for this.If Democrats are as smart as they tell us they are, they should use this opportunity for a lot of self-reflection.The Midwest took a hard beating when NAFTA ripped its guts out. (This was a bi-partisan trade deal, by the way. Bush Sr., Clinton and Gore were all in favor of it.) Democrats aren’t going to heal those wounds by prioritizing the kind of identity politics that turned off so many Midwestern swing voters to their message to begin with. You don’t double-down on an approach that failed.It doesn’t help that the Midwest isn’t a primary destination for young people. But the region does produce a lot of young people, partly because we often have larger families. Kids will certainly be born here, and a lot of evidence shows that conservatism isn’t an unpalatable option to teenagers and college students — in fact, there’s a certain “edginess” to being a conservative in a stodgy, un-reflecting, and almost puritanical liberal environment. (I live in a liberal college town and think it’s sheer claustrophobia and boredom.)As Midwestern kids — or any others — see their fussy hippie greyhair parents and grandparents getting older and more eccentric by the day, there’s a possibility that more and more kids, especially in the Midwest, where there are some sharp conservative role-models, will at least lean toward the center. (This happened to me. I described myself as an “ultra liberal” in my 20s. Today, I’m slightly right-of-center. Because I feel like that’s almost where you have to be to be a true liberal.)Re: Maine and New Hampshire. I’ve been there, but don’t know much about the vibe. The people reminded me of Midwesterners in a lot of ways. Especially out in rural areas, they’re not at all like Bostonians or New Yorkers. Even the largest cities in Maine and New Hampshire aren’t big at all, not big enough to truly dominate which way those states go.Re: the South. I lived in the South for 7 years (Kentucky and North Carolina). Parts of the South are already deep blue (a lot of Mississippi counties voted for Clinton at a higher percentage than areas expected to be solidly blue, like Dane County, Wisconsin [the “People’s Republic of Madison”]). Parts are “purple,” and I can easily see states like Texas become bluer every year. That’s partly just due to the number of people from the urban Northeast and Midwest and California who move South for jobs and school, because certain corners of the South are booming.And I don’t think for a second that the wave of Latino immigration is automatically bound to stay in the Democrats’ camp. Latinos are often quite socially conservative. Traditionally, they’ve been voting for Democrats because the Democrats have made a show of holding the door open for them. If the GOP was smart, it would court Latino voters vigorously. When Latino voters go over to the GOP — and there are many Latinos in the South and Midwest — the Democratic Party is finished. It might as well just close up shop. It’s over.If the Midwest becomes “the new South” (in a pejorative sense) that will be for entirely understandable reasons, not due to “the rise of Fascism” — rhetoric that will almost certainly drive it further toward the GOP.When I hear the most extreme and hair-on-fire Democrats asking how states like Michigan and Wisconsin (“the Blue Wall”) could have voted for Trump, my response is usually: “It happened because of you. It was a reaction to your shenanigans.” I’m not saying this was the most mature response of swing voters. But I do understand where it came from, and it wasn’t from Fascism.