++A new survey finds two-thirds of car dealers didn’t have a single electric vehicle for sale. +
++Electric cars and trucks are more popular than ever, and sales are growing, but if you want one, you’ll probably have a hard time finding an EV in stock near you. +
++Two-thirds of US car dealers surveyed in a new Sierra Club study, published Monday, didn’t have any battery electric or plug-in hybrids for sale in 2022, new or used. +
++“There are more dealerships that have electric vehicles since the last time we did this report [in 2019], but it’s still shockingly low,” said Katherine García, director of the Clean Transportation for All Campaign at the Sierra Club. +
++Transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the US, with passenger cars and trucks making up 57 percent of this share. So electrifying sedans, SUVs, and pickups is an essential component of the strategy for meeting climate change targets. The US has committed to cutting its total emissions in half from 2005 levels by 2030. Meanwhile, automakers like General Motors have committed to going all-electric, and there are looming bans on fossil fuel-powered cars in some of the largest car-buying states like California and New York. +
+ ++So what’s the holdup? +
++A big part of it is due to supply chain blockages, with shortfalls in semiconductor and battery production preventing manufacturers from making enough electrics to meet demand. Some of the largest carmakers in the world — Honda, Toyota, Stellantis — had few if any EVs and plug-in hybrid models at all for sale in North America last year. According to the Sierra Club survey, 44 percent of car dealers who didn’t have an EV on their lots would gladly sell them if they could get their hands on one. +
++“The larger bottleneck is with the manufacturers themselves,” García said. +
++But 45 percent of dealers without EVs said they wouldn’t sell them even if they were available. The structure of the car sales model can put dealers, manufacturers, and customers at odds since the economics of EVs can disrupt the business model for dealerships. It’s another critical choke point: If a dealer is resistant to stocking electric cars and trucks, a buyer might not have any nearby options for the specific EV they want since manufacturers grant dealers monopolies in a given area. +
++With the rise of all-electric carmakers like Tesla and Rivian, however, there’s a push for car companies to sell their vehicles directly to customers without the middleman. It’s forcing major auto companies and dealers to adapt and it will chart the route ahead for zero-emissions cars and trucks. +
++Why car dealers matter so much for electric cars and trucks +
++The EV buying experience varies a lot depending on what kind of car you’re looking for and where you are. Ninety percent of Mercedes-Benz dealers had an EV for sale compared to 11 percent of Honda retailers, according to the Sierra Club study. This includes used vehicles for sale that were made by another manufacturer. +
++Your best bet for finding an EV on the lot was in the southeastern US in states like Georgia and Florida, where 41 percent of dealers had an electric for sale. In Western states like California, Oregon, and Washington, only 27 percent of dealers had EVs in stock. This region also accounted for 45 percent of EV sales in the US, so the lower stock was likely due to more demand. +
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24639723/GettyImages_1238020766.jpeg)
Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty Images
++Some manufacturers are racing to keep up while also coping with recalls. Dealers in turn are adjusting to these sporadic supplies, but also trying to accommodate how EVs are changing the way they do business. +
++All states have rules that encourage or require carmakers to sell vehicles to customers through dealerships. There are close to 17,000 franchise new car dealers in the US, and they sold 13.7 million light-duty vehicles last year, according to the National Automobile Dealers Association. +
++Originally, these regulations were designed to prevent a handful of major car companies from colluding across the country and fixing prices. Dealers also expanded the footprint of carmakers and gave buyers a local point of contact. They’re technically independent franchises, which means that they can set their own prices and incentives, but carmakers have a lot of leverage in how dealerships function. +
++Vivek Astvansh, an assistant professor of marketing at Indiana University, explained that car dealers have three main functions: They sell cars and take trade-ins on behalf of the manufacturer, they provide loans to buyers, and they perform maintenance and repairs. +
++It turns out that parts and service can account for nearly half of a dealership’s profits. But EVs don’t need oil changes, spark plugs, or valve checks. “All else equal, an electric car has fewer mechanical parts than a gasoline or diesel car, which directly means that the revenue a car dealer makes from an electric car is much lower than what the dealer will make from a gas or diesel counterpart,” said Astvansh. +
++If there are any issues or recalls, many fixes for EVs can be applied over the air rather than going to a dealer. It’s a selling point for an EV buyer but a challenge for a dealer. “That is why they are hesitant to make a strong case for electric cars,” Astvansh said. +
++On the other hand, many people are buying EVs for the first time and they’re counting on dealers to teach them the ins and outs of charging, maximizing range, and taking advantage of government incentives. As cars have become less mechanical, they’ve become more computerized, creating a learning curve for first-time drivers who may not appreciate the importance of keeping their car’s software updated, for example. +
++“The foremost function that a dealer can provide is that of educating the buyers,” Astvansh said. “Customers cannot just use ChatGPT or Google and have all the information. They need to interact with a human being.” +
++But dealers have to make investments in their infrastructure to sell EVs. Ford has created an EV certification program for its dealers, which requires them to build fast chargers and train their staff to work on electrics. The top-tier certification can cost a dealership up to $1.2 million to achieve, but it gives them first crack at new EVs and allocates them more inventory. Ford said that more than half of Ford dealers in the US have signed on as the company aims to build its own EV charging network. +
+ ++“It’s good for Ford; it’s just that the initial investment is expensive,” said Devron Stevenson, general manager of Banister Ford of Marlow Heights in Maryland. Stevenson said his dealership is gearing up to install level 3 fast chargers this year that can top up an EV in minutes, but require dedicated grid connections and specialized electrical hardware. +
++Similarly, General Motors, the parent company of Chevrolet, is enacting standards for dealers. “For EVs, dealers must maintain the proper service tools, battery charging equipment, and training, as well as meeting customer experience standards,” said David Caldwell, a spokesperson for GM. “More than 90 percent of Chevrolet dealers are enrolled.” +
++But even if manufacturers build them and dealers sell them, the trickier question is whether enough people will buy electric cars and trucks to make this all worthwhile. With borrowing costs increasing, EVs are a tougher sell since on average they have a higher sticker price than their fossil fuel counterparts. Earlier this month, Ford announced a price cut of up to 8 percent on its Mustang Mach-E. For dealers, how much they invest in EV infrastructure now is a delicate balancing act. “It’s going to depend: How fast can we get them? Can we afford them? Does it make sense overall in the next 24 months? To me, it’s a bit of a toss-up,” Stevenson said. +
++What if you want to avoid the dealer altogether? +
++Dealer franchise laws across the US benefit existing dealers but pose a problem for manufacturers that want to sell directly to their customers in some states. Tesla operates a factory in Texas, but the company can’t sell its cars to Texans directly. The cars have to be shipped out of the state before delivery to a Texas buyer. +
++Other EV-only carmakers like Rivian and Lucid also sell directly to consumers. This doesn’t factor into the Sierra Club’s calculations, so EVs are more accessible to more people than the number of cars on lots lets on. +
++EV companies say that this direct-to-consumer model lets them elide the haggling of traditional car dealers and avoid the costs of maintaining dealer lots and sales staff. Twenty-three states now allow direct sales for EV-only auto companies, though they they still face restrictions in many cases. Several more states are working on laws to make direct sales easier, either by relaxing rules or granting EV makers dealer licenses. +
+/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24636481/GettyImages_1232968450.jpeg)
Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images
++Conventional automakers like Ford and Volkswagen have recently started to echo this, letting customers buy cars online and pick them up at a dealer rather than going through the sales process in person. +
++Yet even EVs need to have their tires rotated, and all-electric companies are rushing to build out service centers to handle maintenance and recalls, or leaning on traditional automakers. “How important is convenient local service to customers? Since 2021, Tesla owners have come to GM dealerships for service on more than 11,000 occasions,” Caldwell said. +
++He added that while EVs may not yet be available everywhere, the auto industry is making the largest and fastest technological change in its history. In 2020, electric cars and trucks accounted for 4.2 percent of new vehicle sales worldwide. In 2021, 8.3 percent. Last year, 14 percent. +
++“Two words: It’s happening,” Caldwell said. +
++New research suggests the party has room for improvement ahead of 2024. +
++Democrats know that Republican attacks on abortion rights will be central to their efforts to reelect Joe Biden and regain full control of Congress in 2024. +
++And for good reason — Democrats won competitive midterm races last fall while running on protecting reproductive freedom. Last month, in another high-stakes election in Wisconsin, the judicial candidate who staunchly supported abortion rights beat her anti-abortion opponent by 11 points. +
++Polls conducted over the last few months indicate that abortion remains top of mind for voters, who seem to have grown even more supportive of abortion rights than they were before the Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned the constitutional right to an abortion last June. +
++“I don’t think Democrats have fully processed that this country is now 10 to 15 percent more pro-choice than it was before Dobbs in state after state and national data,” pollster Celinda Lake said recently. +
++But there is one worrying sign for Democrats in the polling data. Over the past two weeks, for example, two new national polls and data from three focus groups conducted in swing states (Ohio, North Carolina, and Michigan) indicated that significant numbers of independent voters remain confused and skeptical about where Republicans and Democrats stand on protecting abortion rights. The upside for Democrats is they may have substantial room to grow with these voters. +
++One survey, conducted in mid-April by Marist Poll in partnership with NPR and PBS NewsHour, found 38 percent of independent voters think neither Democrats nor Republicans handle the abortion issue well, compared to just 10 percent of Democratic voters and 21 percent of Republican voters who felt the same. And when the progressive polling group Navigator asked voters in April what they thought came closest to the Democratic Party’s position on abortion, 34 percent of independents said they didn’t know enough to say, compared to just 9 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of Republicans. +
++These gaps are significant, as most US adults self-identify as independent voters — 41 percent, according to Gallup, compared to 28 percent of adults who ID as Republican and 28 percent as Democrat. “Since 2009, independent identification has grown and reached levels not seen before,” Gallup reported this year. +
++The surveys come as some abortion rights activists continue to raise frustrations with the president for what they see as his lackluster support for keeping abortion legal. While the Biden administration has done much to defend abortion rights since the Supreme Court issued its ruling last summer, the president himself has struggled to talk about abortion, relying largely on surrogates and euphemisms like “protect women’s health care” and “a woman’s right to choose.” In Biden’s recently released reelection launch video, he did not say “abortion” himself — though a woman was featured holding an “abortion is healthcare” protest sign. In February, Biden used the word “abortion” explicitly for the first time in a State of the Union address, though many activists were still upset he devoted just four sentences to the topic, and almost an hour into his speech. “It was, to be blunt, offensive,” feminist writer Jessica Valenti said after. +
++The Biden administration did not return a request for comment. +
++Bryan Bennett, a pollster with Navigator, said independents broadly report pro-choice attitudes, so the two new surveys suggest Biden and Democrats “have a real opportunity to talk more and crystallize” where they stand on abortion. +
++Bennett noted that among independent women, the gaps were even higher, with 43 percent in their latest survey saying they weren’t sure what Democrats’ position on abortion was. “Focusing on that, and trying to reach that 34 percent of independents who don’t have a position, represents a real chance to drive that [pro-abortion rights] advantage,” he said. +
++What we know about independent voters and abortion rights +
++A majority of independent voters back abortion rights, though public opinion research indicates there may be some notable differences between their views and those of self-identified Democrats. For example, while a post-Dobbs Navigator survey found 84 percent of Democrats identified as “pro-choice,” the pollsters found just 54 percent of independents did. Thirty percent of independents in the same survey identified as “pro-life,” compared to 11 percent of Democrats. +
++Heading into the 2022 midterms, pollsters found abortion rights to be a significantly motivating issue for independent voters, though again less motivating than for Democrats. A quarter of independents told Navigator the Dobbs decision made them “much more motivated” to vote in November, compared to 56 percent of Democrats. And 41 percent of independents told KFF the decision made them “more motivated” to vote, compared to 64 percent of Democrats. A Wall Street Journal poll found 9 percent of independents ranked the Supreme Court ruling as the top issue among five choices motivating them to vote, compared with 77 percent of Democrats. +
++In days immediately following the midterms, NARAL Pro-Choice America led exit surveys of voters in battleground states and found that while Democrats ranked abortion a top priority for Congress and the White House, independents did not. +
++Still, independents definitely reported broad pro-choice attitudes in NARAL’s exit survey, with 54 percent saying they’d be less likely to support Republicans if they tried to pass more abortion bans, and 74 percent of independents said women and their doctors should make decisions about abortion, not politicians. +
++When asked about the Marist/NPR survey finding high levels of distrust among independents for both Democrats and Republicans, Angela Vasquez-Giroux, NARAL’s vice president of research, noted that many voters support abortion access because they distrust politicians generally. “Voters don’t want politicians involved in their personal freedoms and personal medical decisions,” she told Vox. +
++New focus groups suggest some voters are very confused +
++In late April, Navigator hosted three focus groups with women voters to learn more about how abortion issues continue to motivate Americans politically. The participants in Ohio and North Carolina were suburban women who identified as either weak Democrats, independents, or weak Republicans; the participants in Michigan were women of color who identified as either strong Democrats, weak Democrats, or independents. +
++Each group had between seven and nine participants, and all had previously stated they either support the right to abortion or do not believe the government should prevent access to abortion even if they are personally against it. While these are tiny samples, researchers say the qualitative data from a focus group helps clarify voter beliefs and signals questions to more rigorously study in the future. +
++Vox reviewed video footage and transcripts from the three focus groups and found in each some women who support abortion rights had significant trouble identifying Democrats’ and Republicans’ stances on abortion. +
++“I think Democrats are pro-life and Republicans are against it,” said one participant in Ohio, when asked what Democrats and Republicans believe on abortion. +
++In Michigan, a woman was asked how the two parties differ on abortion and how she would describe each party’s position. +
++“I’m not sure,” the woman answered. “I really haven’t basically heard anything about which party is leaning toward it and which one isn’t.” When the focus group moderator pressed her to guess, she answered: “If I had to guess, I would say Democrat would probably be against it and Republican probably would be for it.” +
++In North Carolina, a participant said she wasn’t sure where the parties stand on abortion and had been surprised Roe v. Wade was overturned under a Democrat. +
++“Okay, but did Joe Biden have a say in whether or not it was overturned?” the focus group moderator asked. +
++“No, but he helped get the Supreme judges where they are.” The moderator then informed the woman that the most recent judges came in under Donald Trump. +
++Confusion among independents has been reflected in some other polling data. For example, in a survey conducted in the two weeks after Dobbs, 23 percent of independents said they don’t know if abortion rights were at risk in their state, compared to just 5 percent of Democrats who said the same. Likewise, while a majority of independents said in the same survey they would support a nationwide law that protects the right of a woman to have an abortion, 18 percent of independents said they weren’t sure either way, suggesting there might be more need to clarify for voters what that means. +
++One Democratic pollster, speaking on background, said the data about independents was great to have and provides “actionable information” for campaigns ahead of 2024. +
++Other leaders have been more hesitant to suggest Democrats could benefit from new tactics to target pro-choice independents — saying the recent election results in Democrats’ favor speak for themselves. +
++“Time and time again, whether it was the 2022 midterms, ballot initiatives, or special elections in Virginia and Wisconsin, voters continue to prove that they will support the candidate who will protect their reproductive freedom,” said Jenny Lawson, the vice president of organizing and electoral campaigns at Planned Parenthood Action Fund. “The data is clear and we have the receipts: Anti-abortion politicians are on the losing side of the issue.” +
++Vasquez-Giroux of NARAL also defended Biden’s rhetoric. “I think the president is doing a pretty good job of being clear about where he stands, and [regarding] the reelection video — taking one example out is not fully representative,” she said. “And you do have [Vice President] Kamala Harris out on the road talking about abortion. It should be clear where the administration stands.” +
++How much trouble you think we’re in depends on how pragmatic — and tethered to reality — you think each side is. +
++Amid a rapidly approaching debt ceiling deadline and a continued standoff between Democrats and Republicans, it may be hard to see how this crisis ends. +
++Republicans believe (correctly) that holding the debt ceiling hostage gives them more leverage to win spending cuts from Biden. Democrats believe (correctly) that this is dangerous and irresponsible behavior that risks economic devastation, and that rewarding it with policy concessions would lead to more such behavior. +
++Just how much trouble you think we’re in depends on just how pragmatic — and tethered to reality — you think each side is. +
++The question about Republicans is pretty simple: Are the adults in charge? +
++Put it another way: Is the party controlled by extremists willing to burn down the country’s credit rating if they can’t force Democrats into unthinkable concessions? Or are they taking a tough negotiating position but likely to agree to some reasonable compromise with Democrats in the end? +
++There’s a question about Democrats too: Will they conclude that they probably do have to give up something to free the hostage? +
++That is: Will Biden climb down from his “no negotiations” position soon? Or are too many in the party truly dug into the position that any debt ceiling negotiations are immoral and dangerous, clinging to the hope that Republicans will cave with no concessions? (Many liberal commentators hope Biden will take the debt limit off the table entirely by using his executive power in some way, but administration officials have publicly dismissed such ideas.) +
++The debt ceiling discourse is a bit confusing because it isn’t just about the debt ceiling. As my colleague Dylan Matthews recently explained, what Republicans actually want to negotiate over is government spending levels. And Democrats will definitely have to deal with the GOP-controlled House to get government funding bills passed through Congress — if they don’t, the government shuts down after September 30. That would be true even if there was no debt ceiling fight at all. +
++President Biden’s current position is that he is happy to negotiate with Republicans on government spending, but not on the debt ceiling. That may be hair-splitting. The question is whether he will demand the debt ceiling be taken off the table entirely before spending talks begin. If he doesn’t, then negotiations are on, and the real question is whether the two sides can find a mutually acceptable compromise on spending. +
++Only then will we learn whether the adults are in fact in charge of the GOP. +
++What a deal would theoretically entail +
++If you talk privately to informed, reasonable people on this topic, they see a pretty plausible outcome where a spending deal could be reached. +
++It starts with a number. The centerpiece of negotiations will be how much the government should allot to discretionary spending, a category of spending that excludes entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and certain other mandatory spending allotments. +
++Biden’s budget plan proposed $1.695 trillion in discretionary spending for fiscal year 2024. The bill that House Republicans just passed proposed $1.471 trillion. +
++To state the extremely obvious, a final deal would fall somewhere in between those numbers. (For comparison, last year’s level was $1.6 trillion.) +
++Of course, Democrats argue that Republicans’ number is appallingly low. David Reich of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities writes that, if defense and veterans’ programs are protected from cuts (as Republicans want), the GOP bill would end up cutting the rest of discretionary spending by 33 percent in 2024 — a massive cut. +
++Democrats will not agree to anything remotely this extreme, so Republicans will have to move up their number quite a bit. But the GOP likely won’t accept much — if any — discretionary spending increases over last year’s level. They’ll also likely be adamantly opposed to any tax increases. +
++There’s also the question of future years’ spending levels. The last big debt ceiling deal, in 2011, set spending caps lasting 10 years. The House GOP bill proposes doing that again, with only 1 percent increases in discretionary spending each year. +
++That would seem to mean enormous cuts lasting far into the future, since that wouldn’t keep up with inflation or population growth — though it’s unclear future Congresses would abide by these spending caps (they were regularly overridden over the last decade). Democrats will likely push for a shorter timespan with bigger spending increases, though it may be in both parties interest to cut a deal that would last past the 2024 election. +
++The House GOP bill also included several policy changes Democrats really do not like. The bill would roll back Biden’s increased IRS funding, block his student loan relief program, repeal the clean energy tax breaks passed in the Inflation Reduction Act, add work requirements for many Medicaid and SNAP beneficiaries, boost fossil fuel production via permitting reform, and rescind unspent Covid-19 relief money. +
++Most of those ideas seem dead on arrival. Perhaps Democrats could stomach very limited or scaled-back concessions on some of them, but the GOP shouldn’t expect much. One big exception is permitting reform — there has been interest from Democrats in striking a bipartisan deal there, though it’s unclear whether it will be ready by the debt ceiling deadline. +
++But the feasible deal would likely mainly center on setting discretionary spending somewhere close to the current level — forgoing most or all of the typical yearly increase — in a way that lets Republicans argue they won serious cuts and lets Democrats argue they avoided devastating cuts. (Depending on where you set the baseline, whether you adjust for inflation and population growth, and what happens with defense versus non-defense funding, it would likely be possible to argue it both ways.) +
++Why getting to that deal might be agony +
++The biggest question is whether enough House Republicans will be able to recognize a realistic and reasonable compromise, or whether they’ll just keep fantasizing about driving an unrealistically hard bargain where they force Democrats to give in on topics where Democrats are adamantly against giving in. +
++During the last GOP House majority, which lasted from 2011 to 2018, we repeatedly saw a dynamic where GOP leaders would try to cut a spending deal with Democrats, and hardline conservatives would recoil, arguing it wasn’t good enough. And even when leaders like Speaker John Boehner put out their own plan with the intention of unifying the party, they’d often fail to get the votes for it. +
++When Kevin McCarthy struggled for days to lock down enough hardline GOP votes to become Speaker of the House in January, it looked like we could be heading for a repeat of that dynamic — utter Republican disarray, with anti-spending hardliners so far out on a limb that it would be impossible for McCarthy to get anything through the chamber. +
++Yet McCarthy has managed to keep both the House and Senate GOP almost entirely united around his strategy so far. The House GOP passed his plan last week, and Senate Republicans are deferring to him — arguing that Biden needs to come to the table and cut a deal. +
++The anti-spending faction is, for now, on the team, and so are the moderates. (That’s why House Democrats’ hope to force a “clean” debt limit increase via a discharge petition is likely doomed — they’d need Republican moderates to join them, but those moderates haven’t split from McCarthy.) +
++But how will the Freedom Caucus types react when a deal inevitably falls far short of conservatives’ wildest dreams? Will McCarthy manage to bring them along and convince them it’s the best they could have gotten, or will they revolt and use procedural tactics to try to oust him from the speakership? +
++That’s where we again return to the question of who’s really in charge of the GOP. If the reasonable people are in charge and this is just a hardball negotiation with the goal of getting to yes in the end, then we’ll avoid disaster. If ideology, enmity, and wishful thinking about total victory carry the day, we won’t. Place your bets. +