Open Thread for Thursday, October 6, 2016
PRESIDENT
NATIONAL–Fairleigh Dickinson University (PublicMind)–CLINTON 50, Trump 40
NATIONAL–The Times-Picayune/Lucid–CLINTON 45, Trump 37
NATIONAL–PRRI/Atlantic–CLINTON 47, Trump 41
A week ago, before the first presidential debate, Clinton and Trump were tied among likely voters at 43%.
VIRGINIA–Ipsos–CLINTON 48, Trump 40
NEW HAMPSHIRE–Ipsos–CLINTON 47, Trump 41
NORTH CAROLINA–Ipsos–CLINTON 48, Trump 44
OHIO–Monmouth–CLINTON 44, Trump 42
OHIO–Anzalone Liszt Grove Research–CLINTON 44, Trump 42
MICHIGAN–Detroit Free Press–CLINTON 43, Trump 32
NEVADA–Emerson–CLINTON 43, TRUMP 43
ARIZONA–Emerson–CLINTON 44, Trump 42
FLORIDA–Emerson–TRUMP 45, Clinton 44
MAINE’S 2ND DISTRICT (1 ELECTORAL VOTE)–Normington Petts & Associates–CLINTON 44, Trump 40
NEW MEXICO–KOB-TV/SurveyUSA–CLINTON 4, Trump 33
TEXAS–KTVT/CBS11–TRUMP 45, Clinton 38
“Sen. Tim Kaine may have awakened Wednesday to poor reviews after the first and only vice-presidential debate, but his acerbic performance in Farmville, Va., revealed that the Clinton campaign’s strategy for these debates extends far beyond the stage,” the Washington Post reports.
“Armed with pre-planned Web videos, television ads and tweets, the campaign has used key debate moments this week and last as a cudgel against the Republican ticket, showing a level of discipline and organization largely absent from Donald Trump and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence’s campaign.”
Oh, look who's popular now…: Obama approval hits new high @CNNPolitics https://t.co/iKY2c1ZAIl
— Evan Pérez (@evanperez) October 6, 2016
“Donald Trump’s support has plunged across the swing-state map over the last 10 days, wiping out his political recovery from September and threatening to undo weeks of Republican gains in the battle for control of Congress,” the New York Times reports.
“For his party, Mr. Trump’s reversal in fortune comes at the worst possible moment: Having muted their criticism of Mr. Trump in hopes that he could at least run competitively through Election Day, Republicans must decide in the next few days, rather than weeks, whether to seek distance from his wobbly campaign.”
WSJ finds pattern of Trump donations to state AGs reviewing cases or decisions that would impact his business https://t.co/Tzo8AKniaX pic.twitter.com/TkshHDNs66
— Talking Points Memo (@TPM) October 6, 2016
“If Donald Trump is elected president and Republicans hold onto Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan is bluntly promising to ram a partisan agenda through Capitol Hill next year, with Obamacare repeal and trillion-dollar tax cuts likely at the top of the list. And Democrats would be utterly defenseless to stop them,” Politico reports.
“Typically, party leaders offer at least the pretense of seeking bipartisanship when discussing their policy plans. But Ryan is saying frankly that Republicans would use budget reconciliation — a powerful procedural tool — to bypass Democrats entirely. It’s the same tool Republicans slammed Democrats for using to pass the 2010 health care law over their objections.”
My latest piece for @WSJThinkTank:@timkaine’s (Successful) Debate Trap for @mike_pence https://t.co/DT3Awds0fe
— Mo Elleithee (@MoElleithee) October 5, 2016
Sources tell NBC News that Gov. Chris Christie is taking on an expanded role in the debate prep.
“That makes sense, given his unique strengths in the town hall format; Christie racked up dozens of them when he decamped to New Hampshire during his primary run.”
First Read: “RNC chair Reince Priebus is also helping to honcho these prep sessions, which are ‘significantly smaller’ than they used to be. Who’s missing? Gen. Mike Flynn, for one, along with Gen. Keith Kellogg, who have been sidelined to try and keep Trump focused.”
Trump’s Doing Worse Than Romney Did Among White Voters https://t.co/YizzIwzJM6
— John Stoehr (@johnastoehr) October 5, 2016
“Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are at risk of being elbowed out of the news cycle by a powerful hurricane churning toward the Southeast coast and threatening to barrel into two of their most important battlegrounds: Florida and North Carolina,” Politico reports.
“But the Clinton camp is refusing to be completely shut out of the conversation: Her team is buying airtime on the Weather Channel in a slew of major Florida media markets.”
If Pence's goal was to help Trump, "it was an abject failure." https://t.co/zn9dPBfbSk
— Patrick McHugh (@PatrickJMcHugh) October 5, 2016
Jonathan Martin and Alex Burns/NY Times:
Donald J. Trump’s support has plunged across the swing-state map over the last 10 days, wiping out his political recovery from September and threatening to undo weeks of Republican gains in the battle for control of Congress.
For his party, Mr. Trump’s reversal in fortune comes at the worst possible moment: Having muted their criticism of Mr. Trump in hopes that he could at least run competitively through Election Day, Republicans must decide in the next few days, rather than weeks, whether to seek distance from his wobbly campaign.
Should Mr. Trump falter badly in his second debate with Hillary Clinton on Sunday in St. Louis, Republican congressional candidates may take it as a cue to flee openly from their nominee, said two senior Republicans involved at high levels of the campaign who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private party strategy.
Great ad.
Janie Valencia/HuffPost with sobering news for Trump:
Donald Trump dropped in the polls following the first presidential debate, allowing Hillary Clinton to open up a significant lead. History suggests that the Republican nominee will not be able to recover.
The first presidential debate usually benefits the candidate who is running against the incumbent president’s party. In the 10 elections from 1976 through 2012, the challenger has risen in the national polls eight times, according to data compiled by FiveThirtyEight and HuffPost Pollster.
That calculation is based on the straight average of polls conducted one week before the debate and one week after the debate.
Clinton's lead with millennials:
African Americans +72
Asian Americans +65
Latinos +55
Whites +10—via GenForward: https://t.co/LuNNgvJlAj pic.twitter.com/ziRypglCv1
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 5, 2016
The Atlantic, for only the third time since their founding in the 1850’s, have endorsed a candidate: Hillary Clinton, who joins the ranks of Abraham Lincoln and Lyndon Johnson.
Today, our position is similar to the one in which The Atlantic’s editors found themselves in 1964. We are impressed by many of the qualities of the Democratic Party’s nominee for president, even as we are exasperated by others, but we are mainly concerned with the Republican Party’s nominee, Donald J. Trump, who might be the most ostentatiously unqualified major-party candidate in the 227-year history of the American presidency…
Our interest here is not to advance the prospects of the Democratic Party, nor to damage those of the Republican Party. If Hillary Clinton were facing Mitt Romney, or John McCain, or George W. Bush, or, for that matter, any of the leading candidates Trump vanquished in the Republican primaries, we would not have contemplated making this endorsement. We believe in American democracy, in which individuals from various parties of different ideological stripes can advance their ideas and compete for the affection of voters. But Trump is not a man of ideas. He is a demagogue, a xenophobe, a sexist, a know-nothing, and a liar. He is spectacularly unfit for office, and voters—the statesmen and thinkers of the ballot box—should act in defense of American democracy and elect his opponent.
Normally, I take media endorsements with no more than a grain of salt. But this is a bit different, first because of the rarity of the Atlantic endorsing anyone. Secondly, because they felt the need to do. This is as much about Trump’s unfitness for the highest office as it is about Clinton’s abilities
To quote the Atlantic ” …but she is among the most prepared candidates ever to seek the presidency. We are confident that she understands the role of the United States in the world; we have no doubt that she will apply herself assiduously to the problems confronting this country; and she has demonstrated an aptitude for analysis and hard work.”
I am convinced they are correct, that she is among the most prepared. There is probably no one among the political leadership class who has as good a grasp of the issues, foreign and domestic, as Clinton. While some may intend the label “wonk” as a criticism, I believe it is one of her finest characteristics.
Clinton has the vote of every thinking person. That might not be enough, as she needs a majority.
I was going to type “Here’s hoping 50.1% of voters are ‘thinking persons’!”, but then had the competing thought “Clinton could cruise past 60% of the popular vote and we might still have a situation where the losing candidate actively stokes the false narrative that the election was stolen from him and his supporters and for them to take up arms against their oppressors.”
[Sigh]… At least the speculation will all be over in 34 days…
adlai stevensoning again? we need a man like stevenson again (if he could ever win anything). oh how the trump people would hate him. as it is, they’ve never heard of him. by the way, “idiocracy” is being revived in theaters, and continues to run on a street corner near you.
It’s apocryphal, apparently. No contemporaneous evidence. And Obama is as close as modern America can muster.
Interesting story on Exxon’s early research into hybrid cars.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04102016/exxon-climate-change-hybrid-cars-technology-another-road-not-taken-electric-vehicle-toyota-prius
yes, obama is our stevenson. but, a winner. too bad stevenson wasn’t. this might be too much about adlai stevenson.
4 years from now, they’ll find out that Clinton paid for their endorsements.
WHO didn’t think this was going to happen and IF Hillary gets in, it will be only worse!!!
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/health/2016/10/06/del-obamacare-rates-increasing-again/91667284/
@ex-a “but, a winner. too bad stevenson wasn’t.”
Yea. Too bad, but at least DDE was no Donald Trump.
@toa “IF Hillary gets in, it will be only worse!!!”
How so??? You want Trump to bring back fake healthcare insurance?
THAT is what Obamacare ended… fake insurance (the kind they could cancel).
The direct cost of real honest insurance may be more, but in the end, the societal costs are less…
And Hillary may just bring us single payer… providing a real reduction in healthcare costs. Trump will never do that.
Single payer would be a JOKE! Look at the VA, look at medicare.
Dr’s can NOW say, that they want a certain scan done, YOU think that is going to happen with a single payer system. Your in a dream world.
@toa “Single payer would be a JOKE! Look at the VA, look at medicare.”
Look at the rest of the civilized world.
“Dr’s can NOW say, that they want a certain scan done, YOU think that is going to happen with a single payer system. Your in a dream world.”
My dream world? You mean like it works in Japan, Korea, England, Canada, Switzerland, France, Australia, Germany, Slovenia, Sweden,….
Yea. Wouldn’t that just be so terrible if healthcare went from 17% of our GDP to about 9% that the rest of the world pays. Just terrible…
But I guess you don’t mind paying double for the stuff you buy!!
I have no idea what TOA wants. He doesn’t want the ACA or single payer, so what does that leave?
And single payer works amazingly well in the countries LE listed.
@p “I have no idea what TOA wants.”
Some right wing scoundrel with a crappy news show told him the old system was better.
…and he just forgot all about pre-existing conditions and medical bankruptcies and uninsured kids and policies that can get cancelled when you get sick.
He wants to make America grate again.
I’d bet he never really had to use his old insurance, or that he was with a big company (one whose pool was so large that it insulated him). If he had individual insurance then he never used it for a serious illness, because if he had he would have found his rates going through the roof or his policy being cancelled – and his not being able to get coverage from any other insurance company due to his pre-existing condition. Or that his cheap rates were due to not covering his illness (junk insurance).
I wrote about this in 2008.
I like LE’s formulation of the argument. “Obamacare vs. Fake insurance” If the Insurance Company can cancel it when you need it, it is fake insurance.
No, are all wrong. self employed. have 50 employees and I talk to a great number of Dr’s. What the ACA did was put the state of healthcare in a flux. The insurance companies said, before all this was voted on that, healthcare would rise. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE DEMS WANTED & WASTED THE MONEY IMPLEMENTING THE UNAVOIDABLE CARE ACT! Now they’ll try to waste MORE money trying to do a single payer.
I’ve diagnosed your problem. Chronic head-up-ass.
“The insurance companies said, before all this was voted on that, healthcare would rise.” No shit? Really? Companies with guaranteed, mandated profits complained. that’s shocking.
You’ve been duped, my man. You long for the days of fake insurance and real bad news is that you can’t even flee to another country to find that scheme because nobody has it.
I have absolutely no idea what TOA wants. No to the ACA. No to single payer. No to Medicare, the VA.
What do you want TOA? Spell it out.
FYI: The state of healthcare was in flux for a large majority of Americans – people with pre-existing conditions, people who got sick and lost their health insurance, people who went bankrupt due to medical bills, etc.
I also think the ACA accomplished quite a bit and is leading to the next step – single payer. The ACA laid the foundation of: Healthcare is a right. Pre-existing conditions must be covered. No dropping people if they get sick, etc.. It’s actually quite amazing how quickly our mindset toward healthcare has changed.
“look at medicare”
@toa,
What about it? What do you want me to look at? You don’t recall the gentleman at at a 2009 town-hall meeting with Rep. Robert Inglis (R-S.C.) telling him to ‘keep your government hands off my Medicare”?
Regardless of the fact that Medicare is a government program, operated by the government, it is evident that the vast (I mean really vast) majority of the people like Medicare.
Are there issues with solvency? Sure. Could the program be better? What program can’t be improved. If you want me to get excited about Medicare and how crappy it is, you’ll have to give me some specifics, not just the crap you hear on radio.
“I also think the ACA accomplished quite a bit and is leading to the next step ”
@Pandora,
I think ACA is somewhat of a CF, but it was a first step (or maybe a stumble). Still it is a start. However, I’m not convinced that single payer is the necessary and sufficient end goal.
I’ll admit I don’t really know what the end goal should be. I do think more of a holistic approach is absolutely necessary, especially dealing with drug prices, how balance rationing with choice, hospitalization costs, etc. Health care is unaffordable for many because of costs. Yet, I see almost no action on that front. In fact, we continue to hear tales of companies jacking up prices of life saving medication, with the idea that the government will pick up the difference. Giving Medicare the authority to negotiate drug prices would be a good step. I await evidence that government is going to tackle those issues and perhaps this all will be high on Clinton’s to do list.
“Dr’s can NOW say, that they want a certain scan done, YOU think that is going to happen with a single payer system. Your in a dream world.”
What docs have you been talking to? You don’t think Dr’s hands have been tied by private insurers since, well, the beginning of private insurance?
Untenable healthcare costs are a symptom of the private insurance industry disease. Medicare already has considerable clout with negotiating hospital care costs by laying out what they’re willing to pay. Unfortunately, the downside to that in the current system is Medicare beneficiaries picking up the rest of the tab -or- buying a private Medicare supplement and paying for that, plus whatever is left on the bill.
There’s little downward pressure on costs because private insurance is there to ‘pick up’ what Medicare doesn’t rather than forcing hospitals, doctors, and other healthcare orgs to figure out how to better price their services.
The Democratic primary took single-payer off the table. Now we have to live with that choice.
There will be no single-payer as long as Tom Carper is in office.
https://youtu.be/74a77rSArVI
Winning Trump strategy for next debate per Fox panel:
1) Lie about past remarks
2) Ignore Fact Checkers
3) Talk about Benghazi
Single-payer is a name that scares everyone. Medicare is something with a high approval rating. (The VA system shouldn’t be faulted for failing to predict how many old people would move to Arizona.) When single-payer comes, it will be called “Medicare for all.” It will be accomplished by letting younger and younger people buy in, starting with all the 50-somethings who get laid off because their employers want someone whose benefits will cost less. It will be slow, steady and accomplished without screams of pain from anyone except the insurers.
ACA is an incompetent first step — it was designed by Republicans, remember — and significant only because it overcame the insurance industry’s resistance. Now that change has been proved possible, we can actually enact changes that begin to save money — and the biggest, most obvious savings is from the overhead insurance companies charge for very little service.
Little-known fact: The entire Medicare program employs fewer than 1,000 government workers. The rest of the labor, just a few thousand people, is performed by, you guessed it, insurance companies working on contract.
If this country really is strapped for cash, wouldn’t the first place to save money be on a service that the government could do much more cheaply than the private marketplace does? As several commenters noted, we pay twice as much as Europe for roughly equal results. All systems ration care. Ours alone rations on ability to pay. Why middle-class people think they will get worse, rather than better, results under an egalitarian system is part of the same mystery that has allowed the Republican Party to continue to hoodwink people about economics despite the evidence presented as early as 1982 by David Stockman that it was, to put it as politely as possible, a pile of bullshit.
So well put. The Republicans (with some significant help from the Democrats) have accomplished it by using race, sexual repression, and an affinity for a saccharine version of nostalgia to get dumb middle-class people to identify with the GOP, and with the wealthy in general, as “their team.”
This in spite of the fact that no GOP outcomes never favor the middle class.