Trump Still Doesn’t Have a Health Care Plan. He Does Have a $6.6 Billion Medicare Bribe for Seniors.

sipaphotoseleven075077-Trumphealthcare

At long last, President Donald Trump has announced his health care plan. The problem is, it’s not a health care plan. It’s an empty promise attached to a federally funded bribe. 

The saga of how we got here is a long and annoying one, filled with policy arcana that is both incredibly important and almost entirely irrelevant since it is so often discarded in favor of political imperatives. Trump has rendered the entire health care debate into a glum farce. 

From practically the moment he began running for president, Trump promised to repeal and replace Obamacare, the health care law signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama. Republicans in Congress spent most of the first year of Trump’s presidency working on various repeal and replace plans, but they never coalesced around a single proposal, and the final attempts were essentially legislative shells structured so that the details could be filled in later. Even as the GOP attempted to pass actual replacement legislation, it could not, in the end, describe what that replacement would be. No major health care bill was ever signed into law.

Still, Trump persisted in promising that a new health care plan was forthcoming, saying on multiple occasions over the last several months that it was imminent—just two or three weeks away. 

At no point did Trump provide any substantive details about what would be in his new plan; at most, he would promise that it would offer some form of protection to people with preexisting health conditions, without explaining precisely how. That promise was complicated by the fact that Trump was backing a legally dubious lawsuit to overturn Obamacare, including its rules governing how insurers must treat people with preexisting conditions. 

There were legitimate arguments to be made that those rules raised premium prices for buyers of individual market health insurance, and even that they provided some incentives for insurance companies to provide worse coverage to the chronically ill. But Trump wasn’t making those arguments. Instead, when asked about Obamacare’s preexisting conditions rules, he would say, with characteristically jumbled syntax, something that sounded roughly like a promise to keep those rules in place. Trump was not teasing an alternative mechanism, or offering a critique of Obamacare; he was trying to have it both ways, pushing to strike down Obamacare in the courts while insisting that he would preserve its core insurance regulations.  

Last Thursday, with the election barely more than a month away, Trump revealed his vision for health care, including his plan for protecting preexisting conditions. It is exactly as substantive as his earlier promises to protect preexisting conditions, which is to say that it is almost completely without substance. To protect people with preexisting conditions, Trump said he would sign an executive order declaring that it is the policy of the United States to protect people with preexisting conditions. 

That is not a policy mechanism. It is not legislative edict. It is a statement of intent, backed up by nothing. It is equivalent to declaring that it is the policy of the United States that henceforth all watermelons shall be seedless. That might be desirable, but it is not going to happen without a mechanism in place to make it happen. It is not a plan, because Trump—still—does not actually have one. 

Instead, he has a gimmick. At the same speech last week, Trump said  he would send 33 million seniors $200 prescription drug gift cards. Think of it as the political equivalent of a retailer offering a holiday promotion, except the holiday in question here is the election. That is Trump’s preelection pitch to seniors: Here’s $200. 

If enacted, Trump’s gift card program would cost about $6.6 billion. In theory, that money would come from savings from a prescription drug program referred to as “most-favored-nation” pricing, which would guarantee the United States doesn’t pay more for drugs than other countries. But that program hasn’t gone into effect yet, and the administration has been tellingly quiet about the specifics, with one White House official telling reporters: “Unfortunately, the details of the offsetting requirements [of the Medicare drug pricing program] are still yet to come. Expect more details out of the White House in the near future.” As always with Trump and health care, the specifics will arrive later. 

Nor is it clear whether the program could even legally operate through Medicare’s demonstrations program. That program was intended to allow small-scale experiments with payment models, which, if successful, could then be scaled up to provide savings to the program as a whole. Trump’s plan to give $200 gift cards to 33 million seniors looks less like a small-scale experiment designed to find a way to save Medicare money and more like a program of taxpayer-funded bribery. 

Which, needless to say, is also not a health care plan in any meaningful sense. Because Trump never really has a plan. He has gimmicks and delaying tactics. That’s it.

Occasionally, when I complain that neither Trump nor most of his fellow Republicans have health care plans to speak of, libertarian-minded readers respond that politicians shouldn’t have health care plans, because the federal government shouldn’t be in the business of managing American health care at all. 

I agree that the federal role in health care should be significantly diminished. The problem with this is that the federal government is already in the business of managing American health care. One could plausibly argue that spending money on health care is the primary thing the federal government does. 

In 2019, the federal government spent about $630 billion on Medicare alone, an amount projected to rise to about $1.3 trillion in 2029. One of Medicare’s key trust funds is set to become insolvent in 2026, yet Trump has promised not to touch the program. Major health care programs—particularly Medicare and Medicaid—are among the largest federal budget items and biggest drivers of long-term federal debt. About one-sixth of the total economy is devoted to health care, and by the end of the decade it will be closer to one-fifth; about half of that spending comes from the federal government. Meanwhile, health insurance post-Obamacare has remained unaffordable for many middle-class families; longstanding tax incentives for employer-subsidized health insurance create logistical headaches and problematic incentives for insurers. Pricing for health care services is opaque and maddening.

No plan means no effort to address any of those issues. It means leaving the status quo, with all its problems, in place. Which, on the evidence, appears to be Trump’s actual plan. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3cFlk93
via IFTTT

Twitter Wants You To Believe Universal Mail-In Ballots Are Safe… Despite Mounting Evidence Showing Otherwise

Twitter Wants You To Believe Universal Mail-In Ballots Are Safe… Despite Mounting Evidence Showing Otherwise

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 13:20

Authored by Sara Carter via SaraACarter.com,

Twitter fact-checkers don’t believe in the mounting evidence of voter fraud across the country due to issues with universal mail- in ballots. In fact, the social media platform doesn’t even want you to question it.

President Donald Trump Tweeted out a simple statement of fact “the ballots being returned to states cannot be accurately counted. Many things are already going very wrong!”

Twitter – which is supposed to be a platform of free discourse – again acted as a publisher to fact check the President, putting a link below his Tweet in red saying “learn how voting by mail is safe and secure.”

But look at this major issue with vote-by-mail ballots in New York City – the The New York Post, Breitbart and others reported this year in the Democratic primary that 26 percent of mail in votes were disqualified (roughly 84,208 ballots.) Wow, that’s a lot of voters.

The New York City Board of Elections disqualified 84,208 vote-by-mail ballots — 26% of the total cast — in the June 23 Democratic presidential primary, according to a report cited Wednesday evening by the New York Post.

Moreover, look at what is happening now in Minnesota in Rep. Ilhan Omar’s district. Project Veritas’s expose on voter fraud exposes what could potentially be criminal activity by voter harvesting. It appears based on the undercover video that people are paying for ballots – that’s a big problem, especially when you can get hundreds of universal ballots at elderly care facilities, and other similar living situations.

Imagine what will happen in the presidential election if there is massive questions over mail in ballots? Remember these are not absentee ballots, which a person makes a personal request to have mailed to their home.

Here’s a voter fraud fact sheet a former intern, Benjamin Wilson, for SaraACarter.com put together for my podcast.

Voter Fraud Fact Sheet Contradicts Twitter Censorship of Facts

  • According to the Heritage Foundation: 1,290 proven instances of voter fraud​ in the country. 1,113 criminal convictions​ relating to voter fraud.

  • According to U.S. Election Assistance Commission surveys, millions of mailed ballots have been misdirected or gone missing in prior elections.

Examples:

  • Paterson, NJ, May 12, 2020 municipal election: 13,556 votes were counted in the six ward races and 3,204 were ​rejected

  • A town over, in Haledon, a post office spokesman saw a bundle of 300 Paterson city ballots bundled in a mailbox there. A statement from postal inspectors said that their findings were sent to the attorney general’s office and the Board of Elections. ​The mayor of Paterson says the voting problems could be criminal.

  • Gordon, AL: Former mayor Elbert Melton was​ forced from office​ after being convicted of absentee voter fraud, he was sentenced to a year in jail in Jan. 2019, Melton’s arrest warrants say he’s accused of willfully and unlawfully falsifying absentee ballots or verification documents.

  • Congressional District 9, NC: An ​entirely new re-do election was called ​after voter fraud was found rampant in the original election.

  • A hearing before the Board of Elections declared a new election necessary after testimony was outlined how a political operative had orchestrated an absentee ballot scheme to try to sway the race

  • Madera County, CA: Woman charged with 12 counts of voter fraud after ​she submitted several falsified voter registration cards in Madera.

  • Concord, NH: A couple casted ballots in​ two states​ and were indicted for voter fraud. Authorities used the Interstate Voter Crosscheck Program to see the Flemings allegedly submitted absentee ballots in Hampton while also casting ballots in Belchertown, Massachusetts, during the Nov. 8, 2016, election.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jfnfUe Tyler Durden

“Crash-Up Risk”: What If The Election Is Not The “Doomsday Event” The VIX Expects It To Be

“Crash-Up Risk”: What If The Election Is Not The “Doomsday Event” The VIX Expects It To Be

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 13:02

While JPMorgan could not agree last week if the month-end pension and fund flows (which according to one JPM quant at $200bn would be the largest forced selling since March, and according to another would be a “tailwind” for equities) would be positive or negative for stocks, one look at market gamma suggests that contrary to expectations for a violent month-end in either direction, we may get just the opposite.

As Nomura’s Charlie McElligott writes this morning, when looking at where the VIX curve stands right now…

… this steepness of implied vol in the front-end for the U.S. election event-risk as shown in the chart below, coupled with the now consensus belief “doomsday” permutations which could see a the final election result dragged out into year end or even 2021, “has created a dynamic which keeps realized vol “stuck” in no man’s land, because Dealers are then likely being incentivized (from both pnl- and risk-mgmt- perspectives) to be “long vol, long gamma.”

Indeed, as McElligott shows, dealers are currently in “long Gamma” territory – but just barely – for both SPX SPY after the rally back up to current spot (“Gamma Neutral” level at 3310, ex 10/02 at 3298) and QQQ (“Gamma Neutral” level at 273.37, ex 10/02 at 276.14)

According to the Nomura strategist, this modest gamma positioning will “keep things in-check” from a realized vol perspective as we approach the election where a worst-case scenario is currently being priced in by the market (unless of course there were a macro catalyst for the curve to flatten- or invert-).

Yet while equity vol is already pricing in a “doomsday” election scenario, the scenario McElligott thinks is mispriced – with surging implied vol premium due to the election concerns, which extends into Dec and Jan – is one where the “extended chaos” scenario does not realize, and instead we get an earlier final determination than said consensus “lingering disarray” view and/or a large, clear-cut Biden electoral win.

To this point, a rather impactful chart from the NYT yday showing that Biden has enough electoral votes to win over three unique modeling scenarios: 1) Electoral votes counting only states where a candidate leads by 3 or more; 2) electoral votes if polling leads translate perfectly to results (with the caveat that they of course will not); and 3) electoral votes if state poll are as wrong as they were in 2016

While many traders will disagree with McElligott’s sanguine take on the election especially since even Trump has said ultimately SCOTUS will decide the next president which means the election won’t be decided until well into 2021, the Nomura strategist contends that such a dynamic where all this “doomsday prepping” suddenly is decaying powerfully against the event-risk hedgers, would force a potential puke of said “crash” back into the Street “which could mechanically (and counterintuitively) catapult markets higher, EVEN IF the market narrative on risk sentiment into Biden’s “negative for growth” higher tax-, higher regulation- framework is believed to be headwind for corporates/equities.”

That said, there is a counter “sell flow” to consider into this “mechanical bid” which sees investors turning “hard sellers” in the case of a clear Biden win, as most will expect a large Capital Gains tax increase coming in Year 1 of Biden regime (although a note from Goldman earlier today tried to mitigate this possibility, more on that later).

Nonetheless, according to McElligott, this possibility is not necessarily best expressed in an “SPX Higher” hedge trade, and instead “it might be more about a dispersion trade, as we see some higher beta ETFs explode higher.”

This VIX “uncoiling”, along of course with a positive vaccine surprise between now and then, means that market “crash-UP” risk is more pronounced than “crash-DOWN” – especially with VIX already pricing in election doomsday, across risk proxy ETFs “with 3m Call Skew %iles way up in long-term, multi-decade ranks into the 80s and 90s %iles.”

 

Incidentally, as Nomura shows, the vol-implied election moves are getting “pretty spicy”, as the 16Oct20 20Nov20 18Dec20 ATM vols show:

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2EIMbo2 Tyler Durden

Gold Futures Jump Back To $1900 As Real Yields Tumble

Gold Futures Jump Back To $1900 As Real Yields Tumble

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 12:45

Gold futures surged back to $1900 this morning…

Bouncing perfectly off its 100DMA…

While the USD is not fading dramatically, it is the renewed tumble in real yields that appears to be triggering a renewed dip-buying feast in precious metals…

Source: Bloomberg

Silver is outperforming gold once again today, back above $24…

…with gold/silver back below 80x…

Source: Bloomberg

Of course the dollar’s recent rebound is nothing compared to the collapse of the fiat currency against gold in the last two years…

Source: Bloomberg

As Michael Maharrey recently commented on precious metals’ weakness, “in order to believe the gold bull run is over, you have to believe the Federal Reserve is actually going to tighten monetary policy and the dollar is going to remain strong. That seems rather unbelievable.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3ieoLEP Tyler Durden

Trump Campaign Rejects Biden Request For Debate Break Every 30 Mins, Demands ‘Ear-Piece’ Inspections

Trump Campaign Rejects Biden Request For Debate Break Every 30 Mins, Demands ‘Ear-Piece’ Inspections

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 12:25

Update (1230ET): As NYPost’s Ebony Bowden reports, despite agreeing to ear-piece inspections days ago, the Biden campaign has now refused…

Is all this “ear-piece” malarkey just nonsense? You decide…

*  *  *

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

According to Fox News, the Biden campaign requested a break after every 30 minutes of tonight’s upcoming debate, but Team Trump rejected the proposal.

The Trump campaign also reportedly asked for ear pieces to be inspected to ensure Biden wasn’t being fed lines by his staffers.

This followed an embarrassing incident last week when Biden appeared to be reading from a teleprompter during a Telemundo interview, a claim the Biden campaign denied.

The news about Biden requesting a break every half an hour is sure to amplify concerns amongst his supporters that the former Vice President cannot last the pace.

Biden has made innumerable verbal slip-ups and gaffes during 3 minute television interviews, so how he will perform over a 90 minute debate is open to question.

As we highlighted earlier, Neo-con Bill Kristol, who endorsed Biden back in March, suggested he was afraid to watch tonight’s debate and would tune in to something else instead to relieve his anxiety.

Questions have swirled for months over whether Biden would even show up for the debates, with Nancy Pelosi repeatedly suggesting he should skip them altogether.

*  *  *

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Also, I urgently need your financial support here.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GlUTsI Tyler Durden

Schumer Refuses To Meet With Amy Coney Barrett

Schumer Refuses To Meet With Amy Coney Barrett

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 12:10

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) is refusing to meet with Trump Supreme Court Pick Amy Coney Barrett – presumably as part of Democrats’ strategy to delegitimize all things Trump (despite the fact that they pushed for Obama to fill a Supreme Court vacancy during an election year).

“I am not going to meet with Judge Barrett. Why would I meet with a nominee of such an illegitimate process and one who is determined to get rid of the Affordable Care Act?,” Tweeted Schumer on Tuesday.

Schumer joins Democratic Sens. Mazie Hirono (HI) and Richard Blumenthal (CT) in refusing to meet the Supreme Court nominee – essentially throwing a temper tantrum because there’s virtually nothing Democrats can do to block Barrett’s confirmation unless several Republican Senators were to change their minds.

One Democrat who does want to meet Barrett is Cory Booker (NJ) – who told “Meet the Press” recently that “It’s my intention to do so … I’m going to make it very clear. One of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized.

On Saturday, President Trump announced Barrett as his pick to fill the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died on September 8th after a long battle with pancreatic cancer.

Maybe Schumer should listen to Obama and Biden on the topic of Supreme Court nominations in an election year?

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3i9IZ2l Tyler Durden

Bad News Piles Up For ECB As Deflation In Germany Hits Five Year High

Bad News Piles Up For ECB As Deflation In Germany Hits Five Year High

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 11:55

As if Christine Lagarde didn’t have her hands full with what appears to be an incipient revolt by the dwindling handful of Northern European hawks at the central bank, earlier today Germany delivered the worst possible news for the ECB when it revealed that its latest inflation rate fell even further below zero as a fresh wave of the coronavirus pandemic hit domestic demand, adding to the case for more monetary stimulus from the European Central Bank.

German consumer prices dropped 0.4% y/y in September, the biggest drop since the start of 2015. Europe’s largest economy is suffering a double blow from tepid consumption and a sales-tax cut the government introduced earlier this year to bolster the economy.

The drop, which was larger than all but one economist forecast polled by Bloomberg, followed a report showing consumer prices in Spain slid for a sixth straight month, and suggests broader euro area inflation may print below the -0.2% expected by economists. September data for the 19-nation bloc are due on Friday.

The dismal German inflation print validates Nordea’s forecast for Thursday’s euro area print: according to Andreas Steno Larsen, European HICP will see 0% core inflation and -0.5% in headline inflation “with the risk tilted to the downside.”

As Nordea confirms “this is bad news for an already struggling ECB and clearly on the low side to the ECB’s own projections. If old patterns hold between wage growth and inflation, the ECB may be in for a rough ride during the beginning of 2021. It is possible to manage a truckload of debt but not in an outright deflationary environment.”

While a fresh surge in deflation won’t surprise the ECB – Lagarde has flagged such declines for the coming months – some policy makers have started sounding the alarm. ECB Executive Board member Fabio Panetta and uber dove has argued that the risk of providing too much stimulus is smaller than being “too shy,” and Bank of Spain Governor Pablo Hernandez de Cos said weak price pressures show there is “no room for complacency.”

Economists expect the ECB to boost its 1.35 trillion ($1.6 trillion) emergency bond-buying program later this year, most likely in December when new forecasts become available.

Meanwhile, according to the ECB’s own forecasts, inflation is unlikely to reach its target of just under 2% for the foreseeable future, with a stronger euro an additional burden.

As Bloomberg notes, Lagarde and many of her colleagues, including ECB chief economist Philip Lane, will speak during a conference on Wednesday.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2GcZTQJ Tyler Durden

California Teacher Threatens To Kick Student Out Of Virtual Class Over Pro-Trump Flag

California Teacher Threatens To Kick Student Out Of Virtual Class Over Pro-Trump Flag

Tyler Durden

Tue, 09/29/2020 – 11:39

Authored by GQ Pan via The Epoch Times,

A high school student in Colusa, California, said his teacher threatened to remove him from a virtual classroom for displaying a “Trump 2020” flag pinned to his bedroom wall.

The student’s mother told CBS Sacramento that her 16-year-old son was attending an online class for Colusa High School from his bedroom where the pro-Trump flag is displayed on the wall. His chemistry teacher, who apparently disagreed with the political message, demanded that he take it down or adjust the camera angle so that the flag can’t be seen.

“Since school has begun, my son has had this Trump flag hanging in his background,” the student’s mother told the news outlet.

One student took a recording of the online class when the incident took place. In the video obtained by CBS Sacramento, the teacher can be heard counting to 15 while repeating her demand.

“You can sit up, remove the flag, or reposition your camera within the next 15 seconds or I’m kicking you out of class,” the teacher said. She didn’t make it to 10 before the student waved goodbye and logged himself out of the virtual classroom.

The student’s mother said she doesn’t blame the teacher, who has since apologized for the incident.

“She is a new teacher and it’s a mistake,” she said. “There hasn’t been any guidance given to her as a teacher for the school.”

The Colusa County Code of Conduct includes a dress code ban for clothing with “vulgar, obscene, or profane” messages, or messages which “degrade any race or other group of individuals,” but doesn’t mention anything about political statements. California’s state law generally allows students to express their political views by wearing buttons and other insignia on campuses.

In July, an 18-year-old student said her university threatened to cancel her admission after she posted a pro-Trump TikTok video that featured a Trump flag.

Samantha Pfefferle, a freshman at Marquette University, shared the video in which she dances outside her home, where a “Trump 2020” flag is displayed. The video is titled “When the libs find their way to your page,” with captions such as “When people see that I support Trump,” “Then try to hate on me,” and “And think I’ll change my views.”

The young Trump supporter said she has been bullied, harassed, and received death threats from students on campus following the video. Marquette’s dean of undergraduate admissions, Brian Troyer, also contacted Pfefferle, telling her that the Milwaukee-based school might reconsider her admission.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3jkxeI4 Tyler Durden

Don’t Sell Weapons to the UAE

The Pentagon

The proposed sale of F-35 stealth fighter jets and other weaponry to the United Arab Emirates has mainly drawn scrutiny for its potential effects on the new U.S.-brokered deal normalizing relations between the UAE and Israel. “We have a clear policy about maintaining our advantage and will protest any weaponry that might damage that advantage,” said Eli Cohen, Israel’s intelligence minister, shortly before the agreement was signed.

Cohen’s comments fueled fears of a Middle Eastern arms race should the sale go through. That possibility is troubling, but there’s a more immediate consequence to consider: The UAE is part of the U.S.-enabled, Saudi-led coalition intervening in Yemen’s civil war—and that coalition is responsible for the worst man-made humanitarian disaster in the world. Selling not merely arms but a whole weapons platform (with its implicit promise of additional future sales) to the UAE is a mistake. It does not contribute to U.S. security, and it risks further implicating our government in indefensible carelessness about civilian casualties.

Legal scholars already warn that Washington’s support for the Yemen intervention, which began during former President Barack Obama’s administration and has continued under President Donald Trump over broad congressional objection, could put U.S. officials at risk of war crime prosecution. The likelihood may seem low as the United States is not a party to the International Criminal Court (ICC), and the Trump administration has said it considers the ICC to have “no jurisdiction, no legitimacy, and no authority” where America is concerned. Still, as The New York Times reported, “some State Department officials who shepherd arms sales overseas are worried enough to consider retaining their own legal counsel and have discussed the possibility of being arrested while vacationing abroad.”

Though both the Obama and Trump administrations took some measures to mitigate harm to civilians, neither ended U.S. facilitation of coalition attacks, and Trump’s secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, resumed weapons sales to the UAE and Saudi Arabia after Congress blocked them for two years. Pompeo was able to bypass the congressional suspension with an emergency. Though subsequent internal review determined this move was legal, it found Pompeo’s State Department “did not fully assess risks and implement mitigation measures to reduce civilian casualties.” The declaration was also supposed to be a “one-time event,” in Pompeo’s words. A second emergency declaration to push through this UAE sale would make that a lie.

Most of the attention to the crisis in Yemen and the United States’ role therein has centered on the Saudi regime, whose air campaign has been responsible for high-profile airstrikes on civilian targets, like the school bus bombing (an attack conducted, incidentally, with an American bomb). But the “UAE served as the backbone of the coalition’s ground war in Yemen and was involved with allied Yemeni militias in running a series of secret torture facilities there,” notes the Center for International Policy’s William D. Hartung at The Washington Post. “It continues to arm, train, and pay the salaries of militias that have engaged in systematic human rights abuses.” Selling weapons to the UAE would again stamp all that brutality and extremism with American approval in contravention of everything the United States is supposed to represent.

But we do not have to make this sale. Like Saudi Arabia, the UAE is not a treaty ally of the United States. Its regime is oppressive at home and commits war crimes abroad. We do not owe the Emirati government this sale, nor does it make sense from any strategic or humanitarian perspective.

It will not make the United States safer, and it can only exacerbate the crisis in Yemen. It might even aid the Iran-linked Yemeni rebels Washington opposes, as past weapons transfers to the UAE have landed in the hands of extremist groups—those very rebels included. Though ostensibly a way to smooth the negotiating process, this sale could ultimately undermine the UAE-Israel deal while causing alarm among other regional powers, like Qatar. Arms race fears may prove justified, but even if they don’t, arming the UAE is no step toward peace.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/346sa3z
via IFTTT

Third Parties: Barred From the Debates, Impacting Polls Only Marginally

JoJorgensen

It’s late September in a presidential election year, just prior to the first debate, so that can mean only one thing: Any sign of third-party life must be extinguished, with prejudice.

“Green Party candidates in 2000 and 2016 fundamentally changed the course of the 21st century,” celebrity historian Douglas Brinkley warned the Associated Press, disregarding the work of serious journalists who have concluded the contrary from last cycle’s numbers. “Trump has a terrible electoral map right now. The math is leaning against him. A vital third-party candidate would likely help him tremendously.”

Presidentially, Two Parties Is Plenty,” declared the headline over a similarly fact-cavalier scolding by New York Times Op-Ed establishmentarian Gail Collins.

Luckily for the two-party enforcement squad, support for third parties in 2020 shows every sign of being drastically reduced. But is there polling evidence for the notion that the remaining nonconformists could, in Collins’ words, “screw things up for the person most voters would actually prefer in the real world”?

Not really, no. Over the past month, I count just nine polls that have asked the same set of respondents who they’d vote for with and without third-party and independent options. In three of those polls, the margin between Democratic nominee Joe Biden and Republican incumbent Donald Trump has remained the same. In four others, the margin changes by 1 lone percentage point (three pro-Biden, one pro-Trump). In one Kentucky survey, the inclusion of third parties extends Trump’s lead by 2 percentage points, and in one national poll, they decrease Biden’s advantage by 4.

Nine is a small number of polls, and the support for the Libertarian Party’s Jo Jorgensen and the Green Party’s Howie Hawkins is often lower than the margin of error, so one shouldn’t extrapolate overmuch from these results. But there are other ways of thinking about the question.

Third-party vote tallies after election day almost always undershoot preelection polls, by around one-third in normal years. There is ample reason to suspect that 2020 for third parties will resemble more the wipeout of the 2018 midterms rather than a typical cycle. With Jorgensen averaging around 2.8 percent nationally and Hawkins 1.3, that already small number of voters could still shrink further in a hurry.

Ah, but where will they go? This is how the above poll results can mislead. Late-deciding voters in 2016, like independents, disproportionately took a flyer on the outsider real estate mogul. As the Washington Post observed at the time, “The number of undecided and third-party-supporting voters who were still free agents in the final week was as many as 1 in 8 voters nationally—an uncharacteristically high number for the eve of an election.”

This year the number of undecideds is uncharacteristically low. As Ohio Northern University political scientist Robert Alexander recently told The Bulwark, “A number of polls in 2016 found that 13-15% were going into the last days of the election undecided or considering a third party. You just don’t see that this time around.”

Independents this time around prefer Biden by double digits. Voters who went third party in 2016 are backing the Democrat this year by even greater margins. Barring unforeseen circumstances in a race that has been unusually stable, it is hard to imagine that the combined 10 percent or so of current third-party and undecided voters will defect in large numbers at the last minute to the now-known incumbent.

The political air is thicker than ever with catastrophic claims that this election, damn it, will determine whether the republic can last, and so it doesn’t matter whether you even think that you live in a state whose presidential outcome is foreknown. Against that backdrop, here’s a thought for the Douglas Brinkleys and Gail Collinses of the world: Maybe the people who encounter your arguments 24 hours a day and still decide to vote Libertarian or Green are just…not Democrats or Republicans. Maybe the two parties need to do more than exist to earn votes.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30i2gc0
via IFTTT