June 30, 2016

"After trailing Hillary Clinton by five points for the prior two weeks, Donald Trump has now taken a four-point lead."

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%.... Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%."

What happened? Trump's jobs speech on top of Brexit? The newest dollop of terrorism? Or just another fluke in the not-to-be-believed-yet polls?

93 comments:

Matthew Sablan said...

It's probably just a fluke.

We're still a nice ways out before we have to worry too much about the polls.

Though, I'm not sure which direction should worry me most.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Someone just told me that he knows he's now officially an old man because he's regularly checking the weather forecast, just to see if it changed.

Susan said...

Maybe people weren't as enthused about SOS Hillary and Senator Warren in their matching blue pantsuits as we were led to believe.

Rae said...

I've never answered a telephone poll honestly in my life. I'm otherwise mostly honest. That's what makes me doubt all polls.

WisRich said...

Too big of a swing in one week. Probably an outlier.

mikee said...

I expect the polls to show the truth (Trump leading) until it is necessary to support Hillary's campaign, at which time she will suddenly make a boring speech which will somehow result in a 10 point swing in the polls.

This election is the most corrupt in my lifetime, and will make the Florida recount (Gore's lame attempt to steal a presidential election) look like a model of probity.

Expect the Philly vote count for Hillary to exceed the number of living and dead citizens in the key precincts.

Nonapod said...

I'll just assume it's a fluke until there's a bunch of other corroborating polls. Plus the great oracle Nate Silver sez no way.

D. B. Light said...

Wait for confirmation from other polls.

tim maguire said...

I'm going with not to be believed-yet polls. They're all over the board. Just as I laughed at the stupidity of the never-Trump crowd jumping on the Bloomberg outlier as though it were his epitaph.

Brando said...

There are several polls released every day, and if you get caught up in each one you're going to end up all over the place. Yesterday Hillary up by 6! Today Trump up by 4! Tomorrow a surging Johnson (should leave that one for Lazlo)!

The more useful thing is to watch the polling trends of the averages over time, so as to correct for outliers. What it seems to be showing for the past month or so is a modest lead for Hillary. Republicans would be wise not to try and reinterpret the results to favor them as they did in 2012, so instead they can ask the important question--what will it take to gain and hold the lead?

chickelit said...

Clinton II's insistence that she is a third Obama term is probably fending off indictment but will cost her politically.

RAH said...

Events are working for Trump Plus he did 2 good speeches I was surprised these results s had not been reflected in th polls

Steve said...

If you look at the internals from Quinnipiac poll that came out yesterday you can see some of the reasons that Clinton might be falling. Pair these with lackluster economic growth, the Benghazi Report and the attack in Istanbul and maybe chicken are coming home to roost.

 52 – 40 percent that Trump would be better creating jobs;
 50 – 45 percent that Clinton would be better handling immigration;
 52 – 39 percent that Trump would be more effective handling ISIS;
 51 – 42 percent that Clinton would better respond to an international crisis


Or it is just one more poll with slightly different methodology that is just barely out of the margin of error of other recent polls and it is just a neck and neck race right now.

jacksonjay said...

"They get to chop-off heads and can't even waterboard?"

Gusty Winds said...

mikee said...

This election is the most corrupt in my lifetime, and will make the Florida recount (Gore's lame attempt to steal a presidential election) look like a model of probity.

Right on. We're supposed to trust a poll conducted by Jeff Bezos' Washington Post and George Stephanopoulos' ABC? Both Trump enemies and campaign extensions for Clinton.

Trump railing on the Chamber of Commerce yesterday was great. And the meeting between Obama, Trudeau, Pena, was like watching Disney's Three Caballeros.

james conrad said...

Or just another fluke
Yeah, i am going with the fluke dealio. I just don't think that voters who have not made a decision will do so until after the first debate which is late in the process. Until then, mostly political junkie noise.

M Jordan said...

Unless they are dishonestly conducted, no polls are outliers. They simply span the two ends of the spectrum. If the average has Hillary up 6 and the average margin of error is 4, any given poll can show her up by as much as 14 or down by as much as 2.

This poll shows Trump up 4 which indicates, even if it's on the margin extreme in his favor, that the needle is moving towards him. What is most remarkable is this against a background of three weeks of savage media coverage of him. It looks like the primaries all over.

rehajm said...

Rasmussen capable of posting some real stinkers.

traditionalguy said...

Seabiscuit just passed War Admiral on the turn and that is all he needs...no looking back.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I'll not assume that this poll is correct, but I will update my expectation slightly in Trump's favor.

P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B)

MadisonMan said...

I assume all polls are flukes. Cuts down on the time needed to interpret them.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

M Jordan said...

If the average has Hillary up 6 and the average margin of error is 4, any given poll can show her up by as much as 14 or down by as much as 2.

Any given poll can be further out than that. Further out than that gets to be pretty unlikely for any given poll, but given the large number of polls, unlikely things are likely to happen.

And, given that this is politics, dishonestly conducted polls are also likely to happen.

eric said...

So far these polls just making sense.

I've been making the argument that Trump is barely winning in solid red states yet isn't losing by a larger margin. This seems to me only possible if you've got a lot of red state people holding out hope for him to be replaced during the convention.

I believe this is true. Which says to me that after he Republican convention, a sizeable portion of the never Trump brigade may finally give up on their fantasy and finally come around to the binary choice of either Trump or Clinton.

One thinks theyd choose Trump.

traditionalguy said...

But what about Global Warming World Govrnance?

Seriously, it looks like Obama wants to see Trump win so his Global Governance Gang can pull the plug on the world economy, stick the blame Trump, and establish a need for a UN World Reserve Currency. All must be done before soaring back into power. And that also pleases Obama's women who hate Clinton totally.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Speaking of flukes, one of the things I like to do is to watch guys who are really good at cleaning and filleting fish. But inevitably, the thought occurs to me that the guys could be giant space-aliens and the fish could be people and the whole thing goes to shit.

Virgil Hilts said...

I like to think that Nate Silver made a life-long deal with Satan prior to the last election but then somehow broke the deal in mid-2015 and is now bearing the consequences.

Boxty said...

Don Surber said it's because this poll is of likely voters instead of just the broader category of registered voters which oversamples Democrats.

Rae said...

The only poll of "likely" voters is the only one with Trump ahead. Make of that what you will.

John Henry said...

Early days and polls are probably not very meaningful. Remember Silver's poll that showed Trump had only a 5% chance of getting the nomination?

However, Hilary has spent oodles and oodles of dollars and Trump has spent practically nothing.

Hilary has reserved $117mm for ads between now and November, Trump has reserved Nada.

Jeb "Please clap." Bush spent $over $100mm on his campaign and when nowhere. Trump spent very little and won hugely.

I suspect that the fact that he is not spending much on media is driving them nuts. Maybe, if he spent more like Romney, they would give him more favorable coverage. Naaaah...

Trump has raised very little money other than the $50mm that he recently gave his campaign. (He had originally loaned it but last week irrevocably forgave it, turning it into a donation)

Perhaps pols have been doing it all wrong all along?

cubanbob said...

Steve said...
If you look at the internals from Quinnipiac poll that came out yesterday you can see some of the reasons that Clinton might be falling. Pair these with lackluster economic growth, the Benghazi Report and the attack in Istanbul and maybe chicken are coming home to roost.

 52 – 40 percent that Trump would be better creating jobs;
 50 – 45 percent that Clinton would be better handling immigration;
 52 – 39 percent that Trump would be more effective handling ISIS;
 51 – 42 percent that Clinton would better respond to an international crisis


Or it is just one more poll with slightly different methodology that is just barely out of the margin of error of other recent polls and it is just a neck and neck race right now.

6/30/16, 9:29 AM"

I'm the first to admit I'm math challenged especially when it comes to statistics but a simple glance at the poll questions would seem to me that not all of the questions have the same weight in terms of importance to voters. The question then is what are the relative importance to the voter of each of the questions? It would seem to me that a percentage determined by a flat average in this case would be misleading. And the questions themselves are somewhat misleading. How is ISIS anything but an ongoing international crises? How can one be presumed to be better in terms of handling immigration when immigration is so tied to the current economic situation? The polls are measuring something but it isn't all that clear what it is they are measuring.

Unknown said...

We're screwed either way (yawn).

Barry Dauphin said...

And to think that the Sunday talk shows were ablaze with Trump's poor poll numbers.

John Henry said...

One interesting thing this year is how little Trump needs the media. He gives a speech, like the one on economics the other night. Who cares if CNN/CBS/FOX et al cover it?

How many people will watch it on the TV?

How many will watch it on Youtube, as I did after reading about it here and elsewhere?

3 points:

He does not need the media to get his message out. Perhaps some but nowhere near as much as before.

He gets his whole message, what he chooses to say, out. Not the soundbites that his fans or haters choose for us to hear.

It just occurred to me that nobody is going to watch all his speeches anyway, on TV or elsewhere. So which ones do we see? The good ones. The ones that people talk about it.

John Henry

Unknown said...

In the meantime Fox News Poll has Clinton up over Trump by 6 points.

Also, it looks like Trump's declaration that he has forgiven loans to his own campaign might be bogus, there is no proof of it.

"When Donald Trump said last Thursday he was forgiving over $45 million in personal loans he made to his campaign, the announcement drew plenty of coverage. Many even reported Trump's statement as if the deal was done.

But it's not.

A week later, NBC News has learned the FEC has posted no record of Trump converting his loans to donations. The Trump Campaign has also declined requests to share the legal paperwork required to execute the transaction, though they suggest it has been submitted.

Last week, campaign spokesperson Hope Hicks said Trump was submitting formal paperwork forgiving the loan on Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Reached by NBC this week, she said the paperwork "will be filed with the next regularly scheduled FEC report," and declined to provide any documentation.

The delay could matter, because until Trump formally forgives the loans, he maintains the legal option to use new donations to reimburse himself. (He can do so until August, under federal law.)"

n.n said...

Chaos, man. The accuracy of predictions will approach one as we approach the event.

who-knew said...

"What happened? Trump's jobs speech on top of Brexit? The newest dollop of terrorism? Or just another fluke in the not-to-be-believed-yet polls?"

This is easy ...all of the above.

shiloh said...

Posted yesterday ...

Re: Silver and polling

FWIW ...

SurveyUSA = A

*** Rasmussen *** = C+

PPP = B+

Quinnipiac = A-

Marist = A

CNN = A-

Gallup = B-

CBS/NYTimes = A-

ABC News/Washington Post = A+

Ipsos = A-

Fox News = B

NBC News/Wall St. Journal = A-

Pew = B+

Marquette U = A

>

Regardless, Keep hope alive !!!

The Godfather said...

Look, if they both get less than a majority in November, can we just have a do-over?

MaxedOutMama said...

One expects the polls to be wobbling around at this point.

But really, aren't we still back where we started in January? Hillary Clinton's name recognition was so high that it was always going to be very hard for her to gain more than a percentage point or two; the challenge was for the opposition to gain on her. She was forced to fight a holding battle to stay in the 40s, with a very low chance of ever getting to the high forties.

If she can't really go up much at all, surely it is not surprising that a lesser-known individual would makes some gains?

Also, if Hillary Clinton could stand to go out there and talk to reporters, she might be able to hold better. Right now there are so very many embarrassing questions they might ask!

shiloh said...

"Wait for confirmation from other polls."

Indeed!

PPP ~ Clinton +4

Reuters/Ipsos ~ Clinton +10 ... Poll rating A-

Fox News ~ Clinton +6

Quinnipiac ~ Clinton +2

Economist/YouGov ~ Clinton +5

NBC News/Wall St. Journal ~ Clinton +5

ABC News/Wash Post ~ Clinton +12 ... Poll rating A+

>
>
>

Althouse does try her best to appease/kowtow her 95/5 con majority and, as always, I applaud her effort!

Hey, she's nothing if not consistent ...

Brando said...

"If she can't really go up much at all, surely it is not surprising that a lesser-known individual would makes some gains?"

The notable thing here is that neither candidate can seem to crack 50%, even in a two way race (as so many go for "undecided") where everyone knows both of them so there's not likely to be a lot of "let me see if I can learn more about this Trump fellow". That's one reason I think this is going to remain close--neither seems really poised to scoop up a lot of the voters who seem to hate them both.

And yet, someone has to win this thing--but I'm guessing the winner won't crack 47%, and third parties will get in the high single digits.

Rusty said...

Shiloh looks worried.
Maybe this isn't going to turn out like he hoped.
Poor Shiloh. No free stuff for you.

shiloh said...

"winner won't crack 47%"

Bush43 47.9% in 2000 got him (8) years as president.

>

It's pretty much a given the Rep nominee won't receive 50% ...

1992 ~ 37.5% Bush41 an incum­bent pres­i­dent who won the 1st Gulf War.

1996 ~ 40.7% Dole

2000 ~ 47.9% Bush43 against a very, very weak can­di­date Gore.

2004 ~ 50.7% as an in­cum­bent wartime Rep ran against a very, very weak Kerry.

2008 ~ 45.7% as the best Reps could come up with, Mc­Cain, didn’t have a dog’s chance in hell af­ter (8) years of Cheney/​​​Bush.

2012 ~ 47.8% as Willard Mitt was a tad discombobulated.

And the electorate is rapidly changing to favor Dems even more.

Currently 48 Dems / 41 Reps as Reps continue "trying to" expand their big tent!

shiloh said...

Rusty, don't worry about me as I got used to disappointment at an early age ie McGovern '72.

After (8) years of Obama it's all icing on the cake, but if Hillary is elected I do worry about the welfare er health of many Althouse cons. Their stress level after 2012 was quite high and 2016 might drive a few off the cliff!

Hopefully many of them have Obamacare to help them cope.

John Henry said...

Thanks, whichever unknown asshole you are (asshole for continuing to be one of several unknowns)

I had understood the statement to be that Trump had made a formal foregiveness and perhaps he has.

I agree that it is sketchy that he has not made the foregiveness document public or filed it with the FEC.

Let's see if it shows up in the quarterly FEC filing in a few days and what the date is. Hopefully it will be dated last week.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Shiloh,

Do you have Obamacare?

How is that working out for you? Better or worse than what you had before?

John Henry

Nichevo said...

But but but shiloh! Oh there you are. I was worried that you wouldn't yield the balance of your time!

Ah, a McGovern voter. Nuff said. Why did you join the Navy again?

Achilles said...

"Hopefully many of them have Obamacare to help them cope."

I have a variety of coping mechanisms. F&N. Sig. Springfield. Etc.

shiloh said...

John Henry

No, I'm a veteran and use the VA. Fortunately I'm in relatively good health and only go for check-ups.

btw, what's the Reps plan to replace Obamacare?

Achilles said...

Polls are worthless without interpreting methodology. But in this election there will be no effective methodology.

Achilles said...



"btw, what's the Reps plan to replace Obamacare?"

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

Brando said...

"Polls are worthless without interpreting methodology."

Very true. If two polls say something different, it's important to break down how they did they polling. Ultimately the mistake partisans make is to try and read them in a way that supports what they already believe, but that's a good way to comfort yourself into a false sense of reality when you really need to be figuring out where your weaknesses are.

shiloh said...

"https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform"

1. Completely repeal Obamacare.

So when are Reps gonna have a filibuster-proof Republican senate? Rhetorical.

>

And do the majority of Rep senators support Trump's health plan?

Oh I'm sorry, the majority of Rep senators don't support Trump, let alone his bogus health plan.

Unknown said...

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2016/06/presidential-race-shaping-up-similarly-to-2012.html

PPP's newest national poll continues to find the Presidential race shaping up pretty similarly to how the 2012 contest played out, with Hillary Clinton holding a 4 point lead that matches Barack Obama's final margin of victory last time around. Clinton leads with 45% to 41% for Donald Trump with Gary Johnson at 5% and Jill Stein at 2%. The third party candidates are drawing their support equally from Clinton and Trump, and in a head to head contest Clinton's lead remains 4 points at 48/44.

eric said...

Blogger Achilles said...
Polls are worthless without interpreting methodology. But in this election there will be no effective methodology.


This is spot on.

People could try and figure out an effective methodology but no one has seen the turn. In the past things have been done a certain way. And it's worked. Why change the way you're doing things if the past way seems to be working?

There is something going on this election cycle that the pollsters and the media aren't seeing. Something happening that's different this time. Will it result in a Trump presidency? I have my doubts.

But I do believe that most of the polling, which works off of past data to form current assumptions, is missing something big.

And one of the reasons it's being overlooked is because of the fear of "unskewed" polls from the last cycle.

Joe said...

There has been a palpable backlash against the self-proclaimed elites who aren't even bothering to hide their contempt for anyone even questioning them. I don't know how much of this has translated into polling numbers.

Joe said...

Unknown, just how far is your head up Hillary's ass? Can you see daylight?

Danno said...

I firmly believe that accurate polling is near impossible in today's US of A. As landlines have continued to be in fewer and fewer households, and with cellphones largely not in any directories, and further without any uniform contact info on the internet, how would you ever create a random sample? So that is why there are such wide disparities in the polls.

Brando said...

After seeing Ryan's health plan, it's pretty clear that Obamacare is here to stay in one form or another. They may tweak it, call it something different, but it's the same mess. If they pass something, the only difference will be that the mess will then have the GOP's name on it.

Their best hope was with the Supreme Court, but the latest GOP Chief Justice twice decided the law must stay.

Bay Area Guy said...

Fun with numbers by Shiloh:

1992 ~ 37.5% Bush41 an incum­bent pres­i­dent who won the 1st Gulf War.

1996 ~ 40.7% Dole

2000 ~ 47.9% Bush43 against a very, very weak can­di­date Gore.

2004 ~ 50.7% as an in­cum­bent wartime Rep ran against a very, very weak Kerry.

2008 ~ 45.7% as the best Reps could come up with, Mc­Cain, didn’t have a dog’s chance in hell af­ter (8) years of Cheney/​​​Bush.

2012 ~ 47.8% as Willard Mitt was a tad discombobulated.


Mostly true!

And if you look at the 30 year-period immediately before that: 1968 - 1988, you'd see that the GOP won 5 of 6 Prez elections including 2 massive 49-state landslides.

The ebb of politics, the flow of politics.

Don't get too happy!

Go Trump!

cubanbob said...

While I would not dismiss the polls, judging from the questions asked and the non-weight given to the questions in them the results do look a bit strange. While there is no doubt that Hillary can win, still for someone who has been in the public eye for 25 years and has spent hundreds of millions in political ads in two election cycles and has the support of the media and the 'intelligentsia' and her party she should be ahead of the carnival barker (who in comparison has barely spent a dime and so far has little party support) by double digits across all polls consistently. Yet she isn't. My suggestion to Shiloh and to the various Unknowns is don't bet the ranch on Hillary, rather hedge your bets.

Sam's Hideout said...

The Godfather said...
Look, if they both get less than a majority in November, can we just have a do-over?

Actually, if no one gets an absolute majority of electors, then the House of Representatives votes among the top three. (Hey, this is actually a semi-realistic way for Gary Johnson to be elected president?!?)

tim in vermont said...

Yesterday Unknown tried to mock me for living in an alternate universe for pointing out a fresh poll that had Clinton up only by 2. Today, a second poll comes out right on top of it showing Trump ahead.

What is the saying? Once is a data point, twice is a coincidence, a third poll, and it's enemy action.

tim in vermont said...

If Hillary somehow got bumped off of the ticket, I will happily vote for Gary Johnson.

shiloh said...

B A G

Interesting during the Reps run the Dems controlled the House ie '54 to '92. Of course the Dems probably also controlled redistricting in most states as well. Plus many blue dog southern Dems who are now Reps. And the power of incumbency.

Now that Dems control the Presidency Reps control the House with the help of redistricting. One could argue Reps controlling the House ie congressional job disapproval around 80% is helping the Dems on the presidential level.

Also, higher turnout every (4) years help Dems which is why Reps are "trying" to make it harder to vote, especially older/younger and minority voters.

Indeed, the yin and yang of politics as mentioned previously, but "Reps" trying to change their "luck" by nominating Trump is a tad confusing!

Again, all I can say is thank you Rep primary voters. America salutes you!

>

Trump/Brexit have one thing in common ~ pollsters did not see it coming. Also regret as many Brits want a do over as well as many Rep voters.

Oops!

Brando said...

"While there is no doubt that Hillary can win, still for someone who has been in the public eye for 25 years and has spent hundreds of millions in political ads in two election cycles and has the support of the media and the 'intelligentsia' and her party she should be ahead of the carnival barker (who in comparison has barely spent a dime and so far has little party support) by double digits across all polls consistently. Yet she isn't. My suggestion to Shiloh and to the various Unknowns is don't bet the ranch on Hillary, rather hedge your bets."

Conversely she's been under attack (for good reason, in my view) since the early '90s, and while Trump has had his controversies over the years he also got plenty of positive press during that time too (notably, his reality show which was a prime time commercial for his supposed business brilliance and warmth).

The reason they're so close is because this country is so evenly divided culturally. People are lining up for their teams, and both candidates have high negatives that will draw out the opposing base.

Bruce Hayden said...

Don't know how anyone can get excited or bunmed out here. The MSM gets viewers by turning this into a horse race. Which means that the lead has to change back and forth a bit to keep things interesting. So, polls get biased one way, then the other way. I am sure the Hillary people know much better where she is, and hopefully, so do the Trump people. But they aren't talking.

John Henry said...

Shiloh,

I am a vet too and get my care from the VA. Not very much since I too am in good health. For all the complaints, many of them justified, I have to say that the San Juan VA Hoapital and the Ceiba outpatient clinic give me absolutely top notch care.

Also get coverage through Triple S (local Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliate) because my wife is a govt employee. That is exempt from Obamacare and does not seem to be affected.

The point I was actually trying to make, rather than prying into your medical situation, is that pretty much everyone who is all rah-rah about Obamacare (like yourself) isn't actually in the program.

Everyone I've ever talked to who actually is under Obamacare feels they were much better off before.

John Henry

Tank said...

John Henry said...

Shiloh,

I am a vet too and get my care from the VA. Not very much since I too am in good health. For all the complaints, many of them justified, I have to say that the San Juan VA Hoapital and the Ceiba outpatient clinic give me absolutely top notch care.

Also get coverage through Triple S (local Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliate) because my wife is a govt employee. That is exempt from Obamacare and does not seem to be affected.

The point I was actually trying to make, rather than prying into your medical situation, is that pretty much everyone who is all rah-rah about Obamacare (like yourself) isn't actually in the program.

Everyone I've ever talked to who actually is under Obamacare feels they were much better off before.

John Henry


Just guessing here John, but the people you know are likely not the people who are better off. You probably know the people who were lied to about their plan, their doctor and their $2,500/yr savings. Those are the victims and dupes, not the beneficiaries.

And, with respect to you and Shiloh, why don't you guys in good health NOT use the VA so as to free up more and faster room for the many vets who really do need it?

tim in vermont said...

Well, here is the third poll, so I guess it is 'enemy action'!

Donald Trump held steady against Hillary Clinton, trailing her by four points, 44%-40%, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll. That´s virtually unchanged from the start of June, when Clinton led by 45%-40%. The two are effectively tied, however, when Libertarian Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein are thrown into the mix. In that four-way matchup, Clinton leads Trump by just one point, 37% to 36%,

Note that Stein and Johnson ARE in the mix.

tim in vermont said...

37% strongly support Hillary, that number is not going to grow. At least Trump has an upside.

John Henry said...

Tank,

I won't presume to speak for Shiloh but I earned the right to use the VA. It is part of my compensation for serving in the Navy. I find it offensive to suggest that I not use something I am entitled to by right. It is not welfare. It is earned.

I do not abuse the benefit and I hope that Shiloh and others don't either. I suspect that very few do. I do not suspect Shiloh of abusing it.

John Henry

Tank said...

@John

No need to be offended. I'm just wondering, since we know there is a VA backup, why the vets in good shape don't step aside for the vets who really need it?

wildswan said...

The elites are still chattering about Brexit and in hushed voices to each other they are apparently asking whether this is an "omen". Is Trump really ahead just as Leave was? And, what a bunch of troglodytes voters have turned out to be.

Trogs for Trump
(Swing your arms, scratch under both armpits)
Uh, Uh, Uh
Trog, Trog, Trog
Trump, Trump, Trump
Uh, Uh, Uh.
(Swing your arms, scratch under both armpits)
Uh, Uh, Uh.

I am Demos the Trog

tim in vermont said...

What do you do Democrats? Stick with the crooked one and bite your nails, or replace her and coast to victory?

shiloh said...

"And, with respect to you and Shiloh, why don't you guys in good health NOT use the VA so as to free up more and faster room for the many vets who really do need it?"

Concurring with John Henry, contrary to the all the negative reports the past couple years, the VA really is one of the nation's best health care providers. And fortunately for me Ohio has a very good "network" of facilities so pretty sure no qualified vet is being denied care.

There are a few states where vets have long distances to drive to get care, but overall the VA does a pretty good job of providing care to everyone.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Shiloh,

Trump/Brexit have one thing in common ~ pollsters did not see it coming. Also regret as many Brits want a do over as well as many Rep voters.

Oops!


Heh -- you may be a tad left, but you're alright Shiloh (certainly better than the "unknown" paid Hillary trolls.


I didn't vote for Trump in the primaries. But, he won fair and square. So, it really is nothing more complicated than a binary decision: Is Hillary better for the country, than Trump?

I say Nyet.

As an individual, Hillary is crooked, a supporter of Goldman Sachs, a money-grubbing multi-millionaire who rode her husband's coattails to power. The long march.

As a policy-maker, she and Obama botched up Syria and Libya, which gave rise to Isis, our current biggest threat.

On gay rights, she was for traditional marriage, until she was against it. Bandwagon jumper.

On the economy, she will raise taxes, increase regulations, and ignore the 40+ million Americans who are no longer in the workforce. 50-year old, mostly blue-collar white guys, who generally played by the rules. They'll be voting Trump.

On most policy issues, she's either a garden variety leftist or puts her finger to the political wind and chooses (see Trade policy, TPP agreement, now against it, was for it.)

So, I'm hoping Trump wins.



Jonathan Graehl said...

Nate Silver has claimed Rassmussen is +4% GOP biased on avg.

The real evil is in reporting accurate numbers to gain credibility then dumping a big lie when it counts. Convention, debate, election. They almost all do it. Raw data or GTFO

tim in vermont said...

Nate Silver has claimed Rassmussen is +4% GOP biased on avg.

Compared to Silver's biases. But sure, they are tied in the other two polls and Trump is ahead in Rassmussen, so yeah, it's likely that they use a more Republican model. We will see who is right come election time, sometimes Rassmussen is dead on, sometimes they miss. Like anybody else, but they are not always wrong, by any means. So it really depends on a lot of factors nobody can really predict whose models are better. Brexit vote sort of hints that Rass's numbers are better, but keep hope alive Dems, Hillary has a solid 37%!

Martin said...

Rasmussen does have a history of leaning GOP, same as some other polls tend to lean Democratic.

It's too early to make a lot of polls, except that people can't resist.

Harold said...

Tank said...
@John

No need to be offended. I'm just wondering, since we know there is a VA backup, why the vets in good shape don't step aside for the vets who really need it?
**********
I don't use it because A: I'm retired, also covered under TRICARE For Life, and 2: I'm working, with a family, so I pay for coverage for myself and family. The premiums about equal my TRICARE deductible. And double coverage is great. I rarely have to pay a copay for drugs.

John Henry said...

Tank,

I doubt that I am depriving any veteran, more or less deserving, of service.

The VA has 3 classes of patient. In order of priority they are service related injury, financially needy and other veterans.

I am one of the others. I will only get seen when there is nobody from the other 2 groups in need of service. I will not get seen on a walk-in, other than to the ER. I don't thing the other two groups will either but am not certain.

I also pay for each visit. It is a bargain. $50 which includes the labs that they do a couple days prior to my appointment and an annual stool sample test. It once included, on a single visit, a GP appointment, X-Ray, cardiogram, and a 2nd GP visit in the PM. All for $50. If I did them on separate visits, each would be $50.

Right now I am taking 4 medications. I pay $8/month for each. Not bad but I can get all of them at Sam's for $6/month each. VA won't give me a prescription, though.

None of this is covered by my insurance. They send me a bill and I put it on my credit card.

If they do run short on capacity, they could shorten the visits. In my semi-annual checkup they schedule 20 minutes. Sometimes I feel like I should bring a deck of cards to help pass the time since I don't have 20 minutes of medical stuff to talk about.

They also have various clinics. I signed up once for a sleep clinic since I have long had trouble sleeping. Went to a couple of group sessions and didn't see the use of continuing. Also dietitian. My doc sent me to see her in May. She showed me how to diet and I have lost 16#s in about 40 days. First time I have been on a diet that 1) worked and 2) was easy to keep. I don't think they charge me for these clinics.

John Henry

John Henry said...

Tank,

To your point about Obamacare, I do not know anyone personally who I know is on Obamacare. It is just not something that has ever come up in conversation.

The folks I am talking about are in a variety of forums and discussion groups I hang out in, like here.

So any commenters here using Obamacare? How is it working out for you? Happy? Unhappy?

Better? Worse? than what you had?

John Henry

khesanh0802 said...

@John Henry I will tell my wife's tale of woe once again. The last year prior to Obamacare my wife's monthly premium was $365 a month with a 5,000 deductible. This year her premium would have been $775 per month an increase of over 100% in two years plus an increase in deductible and co-pays. Ah yes, the Dems say, but she gets maternity coverage (she's 61 and has had a hysterectomy), and she get's pediatric dental care (our youngest is 26) and pediatric eye exams ( see youngest's age) and I am sure there are more useful coverages. Long and short of it is that she refuses to pay the premiums and is, as our accountant calls it, "going naked". Maybe she could get some kind of subsidy, but she says we wouldn't qualify and I believe her. Obamacare is nothing but a huge transfer payment program and the transfer applies at all ages. Obamacare blew up the medical system to add at most 1/4 of the (perhaps) uninsured to the insured rolls.

I was talking with my doctor about the impact of Obamacare within the Mayo Clinic system. He said that the biggest impact that concerned him was that many of the patients he sees in a rural clinic are on medicaid under Obamacare and the inadequate reimbursement is causing the sharp pencil guys in Mayo finance to advocate cutting back hours, staffing and ultimately, he is afraid, may close the clinic. Closing the clinic will create a situation that many of the current patients will have to drive over an hour to the nearest Mayo facility. Obamacare has been a killer in rural MN

Rusty said...

JH
It doesn't make any difference what it is. It is based on a lie and forced on the people at the point of a gun.
Glad it's working out for you.

Michael K said...

"Althouse does try her best to appease/kowtow her 95/5 con majority and, as always, I applaud her effort!"

I'm sure you do. I suspect as the election season goes along, you will be less upbeat but, of course, I could be wrong.

It's interesting to me that reasonable sounding people could vote for Hillary and support her as president. She is the most corrupt person to get this close to the presidency since Aaron Burr. Democrats have swung so far left since 1972 and the changes in delegate rules, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Still I remember Truman and even FDR who had weak economic understanding but was a strong president and did a lot of good.

Hillary is the US Jeremy Corbyn.

On Obamacare, it is basically Medicaid for all. It will not survive as anything but Medicaid as soon as the people get control again.

How long that will be is a mystery but it might be next year,

Michael K said...

"she refuses to pay the premiums and is, as our accountant calls it, "going naked"

I think what is happening is that Obamacare will kill health insurance. The insurance companies hate the "health" product and wanted the government to work as big employers do, allowing the insurance companies to function as "Administrative Service Organizations" where they make their money from administering the plan and do not pay the actual bills.

What is happening and will grow is the number of people doing without who will go to doctors running cash practices, They have much lower overhead and can charge much less and do real medicine instead of the bureaucratic nightmare it has become. Most of them are older and have no student loans to pay. The younger docs are trapped into working on salary in order to service loans.

The health care "industry" adopted Obamacare with enthusiasm, mostly. Hospital bought medical practices and put doctors on salary so they could be controlled. The young doctors I talk to hate their practices. Most are GPs but even surgeons are getting restless. The big vertically integrated health corporations are going to go broke on Obamacare.

We went through a phase of "for profit" HMOs about 20 years ago and most went broke.

Eventually, and I don't know how long it will take, we will have a system of cash payment for routine care and insurance for catastrophes. It's what we should have had all along. It's what we had in the 1950s but we had to learn how moral hazard destroys systems.

It will be a rough transition for everyone. Especially the poor as Medicaid destroyed the big teaching and public hospitals that did a good job of caring for the poor before Medicaid destroyed them after 1965. Of course, illegal immigration did much of that, too.

mockturtle said...

A local physician in a small WA town is doing just that: Home visits, $50 cash. No overhead costs, no insurance. Fee for service! Who'd a thunk? A full circle.

Michael K said...

"A local physician in a small WA town is doing just that: Home visits, $50 cash."

It is a growing trend everywhere. Google "Concierge Practice." as that is the negative name the NY Times has given the trend.

John Henry said...

Michael, I believe you are a California physician. I heard something the other day that perhaps you can verify.

I heard that it is illegal for a doctor in CA to take cash from a patient, even if the patient is not under Californaid (Name?) but the doctor is part of the program.

I heard it from someone who was trying to get a dermatologist to see him but the dermatologist did not take his health plan. It did not seem like anything major so he offered to pay cash. The doctor told him he could not take cash from anyone without violating CA law.

That sounded pretty incredible but the person I heard it from is generally reliable.

Can you explain how this works?

John Henry

John Henry said...

Blogger Rusty said...

JH
It doesn't make any difference what it is. It is based on a lie and forced on the people at the point of a gun.


Huh?

What are you talking about?

John Henry

John Henry said...

I was in a town in Sanford North Carolina in April. I saw a CVS (Walgreens?) that had a walkin doctors office in the pharmacy offering $50 visits.

Back in the 90s I saw a doctor for a while who took no insurance. She charged me $40 per visit.

My wife gets our insurance at work and it is expensive but covers a lot. If it were not for that, I would look for a major medical plan, say $5 or even $10,000 deductible but high limit and find doctors who took cash for the routine stuff.


John Henry

jaed said...

I would look for a major medical plan

Possibly the reason you are perplexed by Rusty's anger about Obamacare is that you don't realize how pervasive it is. It's no longer legal to sell such a "major medical plan". They don't exist any more. The only plans permitted to be sold on the individual market are Obamacare plans.