Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Saturday, January 17, 2026
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 1013)
Elections

The Montana Senate race is the seventh article in a succession of articles offering expanded analysis on the ratings for the PPD 2014 Senate Map. The Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock appointed Lt. Gov. John Walsh to serve out the remainder of retiring Sen. Max Baucus’ term, in hopes to keep the red state’s Senate seat in the party.

But will that really work?

Many well-known possible Republican hopefuls, such as Rep. Steve Daines, ex-Gov. Marc Racicot and ex-Rep. Denny Rehberg (who lost to Sen. Jon Tester in 2012), were anxiously awaiting Brian Schweitzer’s decision. Tester said he would “bet the farm” on Schweitzer entering the contest, but he was wrong.

The decision by Schweitzer to pass on the Montana Senate race to replace retiring Democratic Sen. Max Baucus was devastating to the Democratic Party, and the single-most favorable development — save for ObamaCare, itself — the Republican Party could have ever asked for in their effort to retake the U.S. Senate.

Democrat Lt. Gov. John Walsh announced in a video he will enter the Montana Senate race in 2014, handing Democrats their first big-name recruit in the race for the open seat. Walsh’s video plays up his service in Iraq and his status as a political newcomer. He served as adjutant-general of the state’s National Guard before being selected as now-Gov. Steve Bullock’s (D) running-mate in the 2012 election.

At first, it appeared Walsh would have to deal with something most Democrats do not have to deal with, a primary challenger. Unlike the Republicans, the Democratic Party has a powerful establishment that quickly decides on a candidate they will get behind. However, John Bohlinger didn’t get the memo and made pretty clear he would not fall in line.

“Some Democrats, trying to clear the field for John Walsh, are frustrated by John Bohlinger’s candidacy for U.S. Senate in Montana, but at this point, it doesn’t really matter which one runs against current at-large Rep. Steve Daines next fall—they both are down double digits,” wrote Public Policy Polling in November. Not that I hold PPP is such high regard, but I tend to agree.

Democrats were ecstatic when Walsh entered the Montana Senate race — and it is worth noting that candidate recruitment weighs heavily in our PPD model — but Walsh ran in to a problem when a Montana TV station KXLH reported that Walsh was cited in a 2010 inspector general report for improperly using his position in the Guard for personal gain.

The news may throw a wrench into Democrats’ hopes for Gov. Steve Bullock to appoint him to the open seat, which many claim would give Walsh the advantage of incumbency heading into the Montana Senate race. But allegations aside, the Rothenberg Political Report has looked at such claims, and they turn out to be rocky, at best.

It may have helped Walsh against Bohlinger, who will likely just disappear after he gets appointed, but it will not do much for him in the general election.

Montana is a state where the failed rollout of ObamaCare has done the Democratic Party serious damage, with both ObamaCare and Obama’s approval in the low 30s. Prior to the ObamaCare disaster, I was just about the only pundit who rated this race “Leans Republican,” so I won’t be waiting for my inbox to fill up with a bunch of “you were right” messages for now changing the rating of this race to “Likely Republican.”

Freshman Republican Rep. Steve Daines has emerged as the clear and early favorite and, as you can see below, is well ahead of Walsh. Daines is not particularly popular in the state, but the Democratic Party, Obama and ObamaCare, are toxic.

Daines leads the GOP field, which also includes state Rep. Champ Edmunds, but he is way behind Daines with only 7 percent of the primary vote. Even if Edmunds manages to gain traction, he is still polling ahead of both Walsh and Bohlinger, with next to zero name recognition.

The Montana Senate race always was and still is considered a prime turnover pickup opportunity for the Republican Party following Democratic Sen. Max Baucus’s retirement.

Mitt Romney defeated Barack Obama 55.35 percent to 41.7 percent in November, despite Republicans having a terrible Senate candidate. The Partisan Voting Index in Montana has held steady at R+7 from 2010 to 2012, and barring a serious mistake by Daines, who benefits from statewide representation, he will be the next “Big Sky Country” senator from “The Treasure State” of Montana.

View Polling Below Or Return To PPD 2014 Senate Map

Poll Date Sample Daines (R) Walsh (D) Spread
PPP (D) 11/15 – 11/17 952 RV 52 35 Daines +17

The Montana Senate race is the seventh

Opinion

PRINCETON, N.J. — In a scientific complex on 88 bucolic acres near here, some astonishingly talented people are advancing a decades-long project to create a sun on Earth. When — not if; when — decades hence they and collaborators around the world succeed, their achievement will be more transformative of human life than any prior scientific achievement.

The Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory’s (PPPL) focus — magnetic fusion research — began at the university in 1951. It was grounded in the earlier work of a European scientist then living in Princeton. Einstein’s theory that mass could be converted into energy had been demonstrated six years earlier near Alamogordo, N.M., by fission — the splitting of atoms, which released the energy that held the atoms together. By the 1950s, however, attention was turning to an unimaginably more promising method of releasing energy from transforming matter — the way the sun does, by fusion.

Every second the sun produces a million times more energy than the world consumes in a year. But to “take a sun and put it in a box” — the description of one scientist here — requires developing the new field of plasma physics and solving the most difficult engineering problems in the history of science. The objective is to create conditions for the controlled release of huge amounts of energy from the fusion of two hydrogen isotopes, deuterium and tritium. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe; Earth’s water contains a virtually inexhaustible supply (10 million million tons) of deuterium, and tritium is “bred” in the fusion plant itself.

The sun is a huge sphere of plasma, which is a hot, electrically charged gas. The production and confinement of plasma in laboratories is now routine. The task now is to solve the problem of “net energy” — producing more electrical power than is required for the production of it.

Magnets produce a magnetic field sufficient to prevent particles heated beyond the sun’s temperature — more than 100 million degrees Celsius — from hitting the walls of the containment vessel. Understanding plasma’s behavior requires the assistance of Titan, one of the world’s fastest computers, which is located at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and can perform more than 17 quadrillion — a million billion — calculations a second.

As in today’s coal-fired power plants, the ultimate object is heat — to turn water into steam that drives generators. Fusion, however, produces no greenhouse gases, no long-lived nuclear waste and no risk of the sort of runaway reaction that occurred at Fukushima. Fusion research here and elsewhere is supported by nations with half the world’s population — China, India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the European Union. The current domestic spending pace would cost $2.5 billion over 10 years — about one-thirtieth of what may be squandered in California on a 19th-century technology (a train). By one estimate, to bring about a working fusion reactor in 20 years would cost $30 billion — approximately the cost of one week of U.S. energy consumption.

Given the societal will, commercially feasible production of fusion energy is possible in the lifetimes of most people now living. The cost of operating the PPPL complex, which a century from now might be designated a historic site, is 0.01 percent of U.S. energy spending. PPPL’s budget is a minuscule fraction of U.S. energy infrastructure investment (power plants, pipelines). Yet the laboratory, which once had a staff of 1,400, today has only 450.

The Apollo space program was much less technologically demanding and much more accessible to public understanding. It occurred in the context of U.S.-Soviet competition; it was directly relevant to national security (ballistic missiles; the coin of international prestige); it had a time frame for success — President Kennedy’s pledge to go to the moon in the 1960s — that could hold the public’s attention, and incremental progress (orbital flights) the public could comprehend.

Because the fusion energy program lacks such immediacy, transparency and glamour, it poses a much more difficult test for the political process. Because of its large scale and long time horizon, the fusion project is a perfect example of a public good the private sector cannot pursue and the public sector should not slight. Most government revenues now feed the public’s unslakable appetite for transfer payments. The challenge for today’s political class is to moderate its subservience to this appetite sufficiently to enable the basic science that will earn tomorrow’s gratitude.

George Will’s email address is [email protected].

 

The Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory's focus --

Markets, Policy

[table id=9 /]

The table above shows the latest ObamaCare enrollment numbers for the period from 10/01/13 to 11/30/13 based on data reported to the Department of Health and Human Services as of 12/10/13.

The figures are cumulative leading up to mid-December and include those determined eligible to enroll, individuals who have selected a plan either through a SMB (State-based Marketplace), or through the FFB (Federally-facilitated Marketplace), otherwise known as HealthCare.gov.

It is important to remember that the ObamaCare enrollment numbers include application/enrollments who may or may not have made the first premium payment either directly by the Marketplace or the issuer. Furthermore, because of the secrecy from the Obama administration, not only can we cannot determine how many are paying consumers, but also figures pertinent to the potential for a “death spiral,” i.e. the number of healthy vs. sick; young vs. old, etc., are not known.

The Obama administration is hoping that ObamaCare enrollment numbers hit 7 million people, whom of which actually buy health insurance on the new exchanges during the ongoing 6 month enrollment period. The last day to sign up is March 31. Users at HealthCare.gov must pick plans by Dec. 23 in order for them to kick in on New Year’s Day.

Republicans have underscored that the administration is far behind their own projected ObamaCare enrollment numbers, missing its target to enroll more than 3 million people by December 31. “These are not just arbitrary numbers,” said Sarah Swinehart, communications director for the House Ways and Means Committee, in a statement.

“Not meeting these targets will have repercussions. Americans whose plans were cancelled may not be able to enroll and premiums will skyrocket.”

Completed Applications – A total of 1,827,440 completed applications were submitted to the Marketplaces during the first two months of the initial open enrollment period (10-1-13 to 11-30- 13). This includes 675,365 completed applications (37 percent of the combined SBM-FFM total) that were submitted to the SBMs, and 1,152,075 completed applications (63 percent of the combined SBM-FFM total) that were submitted to the FFM.

Number of Persons Determined or Assessed Eligible to Enroll in Coverage Through the Marketplace – Overall, the Marketplaces have processed eligibility determinations for 84 percent (3,110,360) of the 3,692,599 total persons who have applied for coverage through the Marketplaces during the first two months of the initial open enrollment period (10-1-13 to 11-30- 13). Of these, 2,307,283 persons have been determined eligible to enroll in a plan through the Marketplace, representing 62 percent of the total persons who have applied for coverage through

the Marketplaces as a whole, and 803,077 persons have been determined or assessed eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), representing 22 percent of the total persons who have applied for coverage through the Marketplaces as a whole. Additionally, approximately 41 percent of the 2,307,283 total persons who have been determined eligible to enroll in a plan through the Marketplace have also been determined eligible to enroll in a plan with financial assistance (944,531). The remaining 1,362,752 other Marketplace plan-eligible persons includes individuals who: didn’t apply for financial assistance; applied for financial assistance and were found ineligible; applied for financial assistance and their applications are pending.

  • Number of Persons Determined Eligible to Enroll in Coverage by the SBMs – The SBMs have processed eligibility determinations for 1,315,978 persons who have applied for coverage through the SBMs (representing 90 percent of the 1,467,355 persons who applied for coverage during the first two months of the open enrollment period); however, this percentage varies by state due to differences in processing times. Within the SBMs, 781,875 persons have been determined eligible to enroll in a Marketplace plan, and 534,103 persons have been determined eligible for Medicaid or CHIP using MAGI determination criteria (representing 36 percent of the total persons who have applied for coverage through the SBMs). Additionally, approximately 47 percent (363,973) of the 781,875 total Marketplace plan eligible persons in the SBMs have also been determined eligible to enroll in a plan with financial assistance.
  • Number of Persons Determined or Assessed Eligible to Enroll in Coverage by the FFM – The FFM has processed eligibility determinations for 81 percent (1,794,382) of the 2,225,244 persons who have applied for coverage through the FFM during the first two months of the open enrollment period. Within the FFM, 1,525,408 persons have been determined eligible to enroll in a Marketplace plan (representing 69 percent of the total persons who have applied for coverage through the FFM), and 268,974 persons have been determined or assessed eligible for Medicaid or CHIP under MAGI determination criteria (representing 17 percent of the total persons who have applied for coverage through the FFM). Additionally, at least 41 percent (580,558) of the 1,525,408 total Marketplace plan eligible persons in the FFM have also been determined eligible to enroll in a plan with financial assistance.

An additional 583,473 persons who applied for coverage through the Marketplaces (including approximately 152,611 in SBMs, and 430,862 in the FFM) have eligibility determinations in the Pending/Other category, including those who: 1) have a pending eligibility determination or assessment for a Marketplace plan or Medicaid/CHIP coverage; 2) have a processed eligibility determination or assessment for a Marketplace plan or Medicaid/CHIP coverage that is not captured in the relevant column in this table for a given state due to system issues; or 3) have been deemed ineligible for Marketplace coverage.

Number of Persons Who Have Selected a Marketplace plan – Overall an estimated 364,682 (16 percent) of the persons who have been determined eligible to enroll in a plan through the Marketplace during the first two months of the initial open enrollment period (10-1-13 to 11-30- 13) have already selected a plan (including both those who have paid the first month’s premium and those who have not yet paid the first month’s premium). An additional 1,942,601 persons who have been determined eligible have not yet selected a plan through the Marketplace.

The table above shows the latest ObamaCare

Elections

Democratic Rep. Gary Peters (left), Republican Sec. of State Terri Land (right). (Photo: AP)

The Michigan Senate race is the six article in what will be a succession of articles containing expanded analysis relating to the PPD 2014 Senate Map. As is the case with Iowa, the state of Michigan was chosen for purposes of relevance and timing, as it represents the clear rightward shift we now see on the 2014 Senate Map, which is more favorable to the Republican Party than the national political landscape.

Unsurprisingly, because that’s what Democrats do, Michigan Democrats have quickly settled on an establishment candidate, Rep. Gary Peters. From the beginning, Peters was the Democratic establishment’s candidate of choice, and the lack of a competitive primary has allowed him to build up a formidable war chest.

Rep. Peters was supposed to win the Michigan Senate race and succeed retiring Democratic Sen. Carl Levin fairly easily, but as a recent MLive.com article begrudgingly observed, “Peters could end up on the losing end of a big upset in Michigan politics.”

Former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land was the first big Republican name to enter the contest, and is proving to be a nightmare for Peters.

Unfortunately for the GOP, Rep. Mike Rogers opted out of the race, as I thought him to be more than a formidable challenge. Rep. Justin Amash and others had been weighing the race, but when Land decided to run for the open seat, she discouraged competition with her ability and willingness to self-fund with her own money. Land has also hired political consultant John Yob, who is a sharp political mind with a line tapped in to the conservative grass roots.

So, why could the Michigan Senate race end in “a big upset” in November, and rated a “Toss-Up” on the PPD 2014 Senate Map?

Gary Peters, who is a former banking executive with a notoriously dull personality, said this: “If you’re covered and you like your insurance, you can keep it.” Except, of the 6 million Americans who saw their health insurance plans cancelled due to the Essential Health Benefit Standards mandated by ObamaCare,  at least 225,000 of them were Michiganders. As of November 30, just 6,847 Michigan residents have selected a plan, though those numbers include those who may or have may not yet paid their first premium.

Gray Peters is behind in the PPD average of Michigan Senate race polling against Land and 48 percent of Michiganders disapprove of ObamaCare, while just 34 percent approve, according to a December PPP survey. A survey conducted by LE&A/Denno Research in mid-November found a statistical tie, with Peters ahead by just 1 point. Their latest poll finds Peters ahead 40 to 37 percent, but they are the only polling firm who have found Peters leading in 2014.

Even if we go back to 2013, we still find just one Inside Michigan poll showing Peters ahead of Land by 5 points in October, and a September EPIC-MRA survey that again showed a 1-point margin for Peters.

Aside from the temporary damage done by the partial government shutdown, there seems to be a legitimate rightward shift following the Detroit bankruptcy, as polling before the ObamaCare rollout still showed a very, very close race.

The latest Harper Polling survey found Land beginning to break away, but more recent surveys are again showing a bit of a tighter race. In the state’s political landscape, she is well-positioned to pull off an upset.

Cook PVI was D+4 in 2010 when the Republican Party saw massive gains in the state and Rick Snyder drew considerable support from Democrats and independents, giving him an overwhelming margin of victory. In 2014, the Cook PVI for Michigan is again D+4, which puts the state above the average statistical 83 percent chance of victory threshold in the PPD model.

In fact, Gov. Snyder is also holding a lead in his reelection bid, which has Democrats quite concerned, leading them to contemplate whether or not they should write-off the gubernatorial race in hopes that Michiganders will split their tickets.

Except for ex-Republican Sen. Spencer Abraham serving one term in office following a win in the 1994 Republican Revolution, Republican Senate candidates haven’t performed very well in Michigan over the past 30 years, which should’ve have made even a lackluster candidate like Peters the favorite.

This will be one of the closest watched races for PPD. Democrats did begin the general election with a slight advantage before the failed rollout of ObamaCare and the Detroit bankruptcy, because Republicans have only won 1 of the past 12 Senate races in Michigan, and that was in 1994.

But 1994 was also the last time the Michigan Senate race was for an open seat, and the national political environment is far more favorable to the Republican Party following the recent developments. With the failed rollout of ObamaCare and Gov. Snyder truly polling strong, which was the case before the ObamaCare revelations immediately following the bankruptcy, a strong Republican candidate like Land could have a real shot at making modern history.

View Polling Below Or Return To PPD 2014 Senate Map

Poll Date Sample Land (R) Peters (D) Spread
PPD Average 2/5 – 4/9 — 40.5 38.5 Land +2.5
Mitchell Research 4/9 – 4/9 1460 LV 44 38 Land +6
PPP (D) 4/3 – 4/6 825 RV 36 41 Peters +5
MRG (R) 3/24 – 3/28 600 LV 40 38 Land +2
LE&A/Denno Research (D) 3/9 – 3/10 600 LV 37 40 Peters +3
EPIC-MRA 2/5 – 2/11 600 LV 41 38 Land +3
Rasmussen Reports 1/14 – 1/15 500 LV 37 35 Land +2
Harper (R) 1/7 – 1/8 1004 LV 44 36 Land +8
PPP (D) 12/5 – 12/8 1034 RV 42 40 Land +2
LE&A/Denno Research (D) 11/12 – 11/14 600 LV 36 37 Peters +1
Inside Michigan Politics 10/29 – 10/29 794 LV 38 43 Peters +5
EPIC-MRA 9/7 – 9/10 600 LV 37 38 Peters +1
LE&A/Denno Research (D) 7/23 – 7/24 600 LV 39 39 Tie
PPP (D) 5/30 – 6/2 697 RV 36 41 Peters +5
Mitchell Research 3/19 – 3/21 571 LV 32 33 Peters +1
Harper (R) 3/9 – 3/10 1744 LV 29 21 Land +8

(Note: PPD Averages are calculated using a weighted model that rates pollsters on performance, as well as includes only the most recent polling in order to identify up-to-date swings missed by aggregations that include stale surveys. Polling table will be updated, as well as commentary.)

The Michigan Senate race is the six

Culture, Entertainment, Opinion, Religion

A&E indefinitely suspended Phil Robertson, the patriarch of the Duck Dynasty family, after intolerant left-wing bullies went into an uproar over his comments about homosexuality to GQ magazine. What are the real motives behind G.L.A.A.D. and their left-wing allies, who try to marginalize traditional Christian values?

According the media, the vitriol response was merely a warranted response to Phil’s actual comments, which they claim implicitly compare bestiality and homosexuality, and nothing less superficial. But is that really the case, or is it perhaps something even more cynical?

When the writer asked Phil Robertson what he considered to be sinful behavior, he answered, “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

I suspect that part of this made-up controversy has a great deal to do with ignorance toward Christianity, or more plainly God and how He expects the faithful to behave. G.L.A.A.D., if they would’ve read the Bible, would know that Phil Robertson was right, homosexuality is as bad as bestiality. But then again, so is stealing, lying, swindling, adultery, drunkenness, and so on, because all sin is displeasing to God; no sin is less displeasing to God than another, because all sin separates us from Him (Note: Christ and His apostles qualified sin against the Spirit, or commission vs. omission, and frequency of sin).

While, on its face, it may be hard for some who aren’t believers or devout Christians to understand, particularly since manmade societal norms tend to overly qualify right and wrong to varying degrees. However, the laws of God are not manmade laws, and it must be understood that all sin is equally damning to our inheritance of eternal life, because all sinners can return to God for salvation without feeling afraid or ashamed that their sins are too great for His forgiveness.

Ironically, for those who understand the Christian belief system, it is G.L.A.A.D. and others who pretend to be “progressive” in thought who are truly ignorant. With that in mind to sit and boil, let’s examine the real problem with what Phil Robertson said.

We have heard many instances of traditional American Christian values being assaulted by intolerant, secular left-wing groups under the tenure of this administration, with left-wing hypocrisy emboldened by the victory of a president whose party removed God from their party platform during their national convention.

However, history tells us that none of this has to do with equality for homosexuals, as the assault on the traditional American identity has been cowardly hiding underneath the political surface for years. It began as a minority sentiment in the Progressive Movement, ultimately growing before finding a voice in Lyndon B. Johnson, who needed to reinvent the definition of “separation of church and state” in order to survive politically and pass “Great Society” reforms.

Faith-based social welfare became the enemy of the “Great Society” movement, which I’ve chronicled in my book and made available in an article published on TeaPartyTribune.com.

Proponents of big government will use any ‘useful idiot’ — or, in this case a group of them — in order to purge any and all remaining aspects of the traditional American mainstream Protestant ethic, which is not just empowering to the individual and family unit (as you can see from the success of Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty family), but professes a belief in absolute truth.

Truth, itself, is the enemy of all proponents of big government, statist regimes and ideologies, as the needs of the state are ever-changing — they “progress.”

For instance, it is for the benefit of big government to push dependency on government social welfare that is not faith-based social welfare, but it is also very expensive. Whether it sounds overly cynical or not, the policy of financing fetal fatalities through groups like Planned Parenthood is conveniently cost-saving to their mission. Thus, a citizenry that feels obliged to follow a moral law that also prohibits abortion is inconvenient to their bottom line interest.

As for the empowering American identity forged in large measure by the Protestant ethic, it must be eliminated for the role of big government to remain “necessary and proper.” According to the ethic, we are all obliged to live by the Spirit, and virtuously care for the well-being of our fellow-citizens in need, who in turn feel obliged to ensure that our generosity will not be in vain, and will answer the calling to labor and carry out other civic duties. I’ve spent years disproving the backward stigma attached to traditionalism, providing overwhelming evidence that the Protestant ethic and virtue were the secrets to our political prosperity.

The Muslim faith, for instance, doesn’t require such civic virtue, which limits government by limiting government’s necessity. This is the simple reason there isn’t left-wing outrage when Louis Farrakhan, whom Obama referred to as a hero, calls for the beheading of homosexuals. The Muslim faith, much like the Catholic faith, relies upon centralized power to corral and influence the behavior of their followers, while the traditional mainstream Protestant ethic is unwavering in their belief in what they know to be true.

Father Jonathan Morris made comments on a panel appearing with Sean Hannity last night demonstrating that the Catholic Church is a power structure that is more interested in self-preservation than whether or not their followers are living by the Spirit. He said, “being homosexual is not a sin, but homosexual acts are,” concluding that Phil Robertson made remarks that were vicious in nature.

Father Morris either didn’t read the article or is sadly following the marching orders of a church that cares more about public perception and their outlook of public sentiment. It is an odd stance from a man who serves under a church that supposedly follows the teachings of Jesus, who told us to “rejoice in our persecution, for they persecuted me first.”

Those of you who may be inclined to take offense with the comments made by Phil Robertson, I would encourage all of you to actually read the GQ article, rather than listen to pundits and talking heads who conspire to perpetuate lies beforehand. Then really think about which conflicting interests the left cares more about. Is it equality or the fundamental credibility of their ideology?

Lies and relativism for the big government cause are the real motivations behind this persecution, not truth and equality.

(Read more about the evidence and argument: Our Virtuous Republic is on sale for Christmas)

What are the real motives behind G.L.A.A.D.

News, Policy

In an 11th-hour change, the Obama administration announced significant changes to the health care law for people who recently lost their insurance coverage and are struggling to get a new plan. The latest unilateral move immediately drew criticism from the insurance industry, and Republicans.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius confirmed the changes, which include letting those individuals skirt the law’s individual mandate, in a letter to senators. She said she would allow people who got cancellations and could not find affordable new coverage to qualify for a “hardship exemption” in order to avoid a penalty next year for not having insurance.

She also announced that those individuals will be able to purchase catastrophic plans, offering the bare necessity of coverage, which were only now available for people under 30.

The move, though, to allow potentially hundreds of thousands of people to sign up for “catastrophic” coverage plans was criticized by the insurance industry as a shift that would cause “tremendous instability.”

The administration, dropped the latest ObamaCare news bomb as President Obama was ready to fly to Hawaii for Christmas vacation. They scoffed at those who are concerned about the sudden change, saying they expected it to impact fewer than 500,000 people.

Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters said, “This is a common sense clarification of the law. For the limited number of consumers whose plans have been cancelled and are seeking coverage, this is one more option.”

But an insurance industry official and spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, Robert Zirkelbach, said, “This type of last-minute change will cause tremendous instability in the marketplace and lead to further confusion and disruption for consumers.”

Democrats gave the Obama administration accolade for taking the steps insurers worry will only help to set off a death spiral, with Republicans criticizing the move as just another patch on an otherwise unworkable law.

“Holding a fire sale of cheap insurance is not a responsible fix for a broken program. This is a slap in the face to the thousands of Americans who have already purchased expensive insurance through the ObamaCare exchanges,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) said in a statement.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Vice Chairman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), described the move as “another major policy shift” from the Obama administration.

“We asked Secretary Sebelius point blank what would be the next holiday surprise, and she was silent. Yet, here we are with another major policy shift. The sad reality is that when the law takes effect come January 1, more Americans will be without coverage under Obamacare than one year ago,” Blackburn said in a statement released Thursday evening.

“Less than two weeks from going live, the White House seems to be in full panic mode. Rather than more White House delays, waivers, and exemptions, the administration should provide all Americans relief from its failed law.”

The administration estimated that less than 500,000 those who have not yet found other coverage in the wake of seeing their coverage canceled.

Insurers are now more concerned than ever that young, healthy Americans who potentially would have bought full coverage may now stay out of the market, leaving insurers with a group of patients in worse health overall. Premiums would necessarily skyrocket, causing a death spiral.

Insurers are saying the latest ObamaCare news

Opinion

WASHINGTON — The lie of the year, according to Politifact, is “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it.” But the story of the year is a nation waking up to just how radical ObamaCare is — which is why it required such outright deception to get it passed in the first place.

ObamaCare was sold as simply a refinement of the current system, retaining competition among independent insurers but making things more efficient, fair and generous. Free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke. Free mammograms and checkups for you and me. Free (or subsidized) insurance for some 30 million uninsured. And, mirabile dictu, not costing the government a dime.

In fact, ObamaCare is a full-scale federal takeover. The keep-your-plan-if-you-like-your-plan ruse was a way of saying to the millions of Americans who had insurance and liked what they had: Don’t worry. You’ll be left unmolested. For you, everything goes on as before.

That was a fraud from the very beginning. The law was designed to throw people off their private plans and into government-run exchanges where they would be made to overpay — forced to purchase government-mandated services they don’t need — as a way to subsidize others. (That’s how you get to the ostensible free lunch.)

It wasn’t until the first cancellation notices went out in late 2013 that the deception began to be understood. And felt. Six million Americans with private insurance have just lost it. And that’s just the beginning. By the Department of Health and Human Services’ own estimates, about 75 million Americans with employer-provided insurance will see their plans canceled. And millions of middle-class workers who will migrate to the exchanges and don’t qualify for government subsidies will see their premiums, deductibles and co-pays go up.

It gets worse. The dislocation extends to losing one’s doctor and drug coverage, as insurance companies narrow availability to compensate for the huge costs imposed on them by the extended coverage and “free” services the new law mandates.

But it’s not just individuals seeing their medical care turned upside down. The insurance providers, the backbone of the system, are being utterly transformed. They are rapidly becoming mere extensions of the federal government.

Look what happened just last week. Health and Human Services unilaterally and without warning changed coverage deadlines and guidelines. It asked insurers to start covering people on Jan. 1 even if they signed up as late as the day before and even if they hadn’t paid their premiums. And is “strongly encouraging” them to pay during the transition for doctor visits and medicines not covered in their current plans (if covered in the patient’s previous — canceled — plan).

On what authority does a Cabinet secretary tell private companies to pay for services not in their plans and cover people not on their rolls? Does anyone even ask? The bill itself is simply taken as a kind of blanket authorization for HHS to run, regulate and control the whole insurance system.

As if to make plain who is in charge, late Thursday night the administration did it again. It decreed that those with canceled insurance plans can now buy cheap “catastrophic” plans — that have been largely banned by Obamacare as inadequate and substandard. And HHS granted these same consumers the unique right to forgo health insurance entirely — without any penalty, something the insurance companies immediately denounced as destabilizing the risk pools of Obamacare’s own exchanges.

Three years ago I predicted that ObamaCare would turn insurers into the lapdog equivalent of utility companies. I undershot. They are being treated as wholly owned subsidiaries. Take the phrase “strongly encouraging.” Sweet persuasion? In reality, these are offers insurers can’t refuse. Disappoint your federal master and he has the power to kick you off the federal exchanges, where the health insurance business of the future is supposed to be conducted.

Moreover, if adverse selection drives insurers into a financial death spiral — too few healthy young people to offset more costly, sicker, older folks — their only recourse will be a government bailout. Do they really want to get on the wrong side of the White House, their only lifeline when facing insolvency?

I don’t care a whit for the insurance companies. They deserve what they get. They collaborated with the White House in concocting this scheme and are now being swallowed by it. But I do care about the citizenry and its access to a functioning, flourishing, choice-driven medical system.

ObamaCare posed as a free-market alternative to a British-style single-payer system. Then, during congressional debate, the White House ostentatiously rejected the so-called “public option.” But that’s irrelevant. The whole damn thing is the public option. The federal government now runs the insurance market, dictating deadlines, procedures, rates, risk assessments and coverage requirements. It’s gotten so cocky it’s now telling insurers to cover the claims that, by law, they are not required to.

Welcome 2014, our first taste of nationalized health care.

Charles Krauthammer’s email address is [email protected].

The story of the year is a

Elections, Polls

iowa senate race(Note: This article will be updated for polling and campaign developments, including campaign fundraising breaking news.)

The Iowa Senate race was the fifth article in what will be a succession of articles containing expanded analysis relating to the PPD 2014 Senate Map. The state was chosen for purposes of relevance and timing, as it represents the clear rightward shift we now see on our 2014 Senate Map Predictions, which is more favorable to the Republican Party than the national political landscape.

Democrats settled on Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley as the party’s nominee for the Iowa Senate race, but the Republican field is crowded with candidates sensing an opportunity to replace retiring Democratic Senator Tom Harkin.

Ex-U.S. Attorney Matt Whitaker, a hometown name who played football at the University of Iowa, was among the first to officially declare in the race. He started as the slight favorite to win the Republican primary, but that rating is becoming more obfuscated as time goes on.

Mark Jacobs has also officially announced he will run for the chance to take on presumptive Democratic nominee, Rep. Bruce Braley. The long list includes state Senator Joni Ernst of Red Oak, former U.S. Senate staffer to Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, David Young, college professor and conservative radio commentator Sam Clovis, attorney and author Paul Lunde and salesman Scott Schaben, both of Ames, all of which have already spent months on the campaign trail.

With the GOP field full of second-tier candidates bracing for a possibly competitive primary, conventional wisdom would hold that the unopposed Braley has an edge, which was reflected in the prior “Leans Democrat” rating on our 2014 Senate Map Predictions. However, national and state conditions as well as campaign developments, i.e. Braley caught on video belittling Iowa farmers, has made this race far more competitive than other pundits have given it credit for.

Despite the crowded, uncertain field on the Republican side, the Iowa Senate race will still likely be decided on the issues and fundamentals. Early polling conducted by Quinnipiac University and Harper Polling both found a well-known Rep. Braley slightly to moderately leading his still-unknown Republican challengers. But both also underscore the daunting challenge for Braley: Iowa voters simply want to vote Republican in 2014.

Not only is the very popular incumbent Gov. Terry Branstad spanking his Democratic rival Hatch in the Iowa governor race, but Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has a significantly higher approval rating than his Democratic counterpart, whose retirement put this seat in play. Quinnipiac found Iowa voters by a margin of 46 – 41 percent say that they want the Republican Party to control the U.S. Senate, while Harper Polling found Iowa voters by a margin of 42 – 38 percent want a Republican senator.

By a 2 to 1 margin, Iowa voters say they want a senator who opposes ObamaCare and a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and a plurality want someone opposed to stricter gun control laws. Harper Polling, as well, found by a margin of 52 – 39 percent, Iowa voters say they want a senator who opposes ObamaCare.

As it stands on the issues now, Iowa voters are firmly on the side of the Republican Party. The reasons Braley is still leading his likely Republican challengers are many, and I examined them in a recent article. Still, the race, as expected, has begun to tighten in recent surveys.

Presidential job approval is still the most influential variable in midterm elections, and Obama has a negative 38 – 59 percent job approval rating among Iowa voters, according to the Quinnipiac University poll, which is the lowest in the state yet measured by Quinnipiac. In fact, Iowa measures at one of the highest Obama disapproval states nationwide. Obama’s approval was 34 percent in the Harper Polling survey, as well.

“President Barack Obama twice carried Iowa and it was the Iowa Caucuses which began his march to the presidency, but if he were on the ballot here today he would be toast,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. Since Obama isn’t on the ballot, leaving the voters with no choice but to take it out on Democratic candidates, his disapproval is “having an impact on the prospects for Iowa Democrats who do face the voters in 2014,” Brown added.

The Cook PVI (Partisan Voting Index) in Iowa was D+1 in 2010, when the GOP won 85 percent of races more Republican than D+2. In 2010, Republicans cleaned house nationwide, making significant gains in the state of Iowa. With Gov. Terry Brandstad also on the ballot in 2014, a potential coattail effect could potentially pose further challenges to a candidate whose party is in complete opposition to the voters.

While PPD is aware that other pundits have this race rated far more favorable to Braley, for all the reasons above, I must respectfully disagree.

(Note: An updated analysis of more recent polling can be view by clicking here, or return to our 2014 Senate Map Predictions.)

The Iowa Senate race is the fifth

News, Politics

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted announced Wednesday that his office discovered another 17 non-citizens illegally cast ballots in the 2012 presidential election. Ohio voter fraud charges were rampant during early voting duration, with PPD’s own assistant editor Laura Baris, documenting a massive operation to shuttle Somali-born immigrants to illegally vote for Barack Obama through myriad tactics.

Other Ohio voter fraud charges claimed that voting machines were programmed to either double count votes for the president, which was also the case in at least one county in Palm Beach, FL, or votes intended for Romney switching to Obama, without recourse to rectify the malfunction.

Now, Husted says he has referred the latest case for possible prosecution, but Ohio officials admit that they did not stop many illegal, non-citizen voters from getting around the system.

“I have a responsibility to uphold election law, and under both federal and state law you must be a citizen to vote,” said Husted, a Republican who has aggressively tried to investigate the rampant Ohio voter fraud cases in the swing state that President Obama beat Mitt Romney by just 2 percentage points.

Husted also discovered that, despite efforts to cover their tracks, 274 non-citizens still remain on the voting rolls, blatantly demonstrating a sophisticated Ohio voter fraud operation.

As part of Ohio’s efforts to clean up the voting rolls, election officials discovered that more than 257,000 dead people were still listed as active voters, which is significant considering the 2 percent Obama victory represents just 166,214 votes out of a total of approximately 5.5 million ballots cast. According to Husted, their names have since been removed, but the damage is done.

It is safe to assume that the voter fraud can be attributed to the Democratic urban machine with the plethora of evidence from independent and government agencies. Former Justice Department whistleblower, J. Christian Adams, who left his position after the Obama administration sanctioned spigot city voter fraud, has been outspoken over the concerted, nationwide effort by Democrats to use urban voter fraud machines to overtake their massive deficits in rural and suburban counties.

Election authorities claim they have reduced the number of duplicate registrations, from 340,000 in 2011 to 4 as of November, and also that more than 370,000 Ohio voters who have moved have been contacted to update their voting information.

“Now that we have the ability to cross-check citizenship information with Ohio’s voter rolls, I will continue to be vigilant and to push the General Assembly for additional tools to modernize our elections systems, making it easy to vote and hard to cheat,” Husted said.

Those who favor the corrupted system in place, which is ripe for voter fraud, claim that voter fraud investigations are really about voter suppression, pulling the race card by egregiously stating anti-voter fraud advocates are preventing minorities and other blocs from voting.

Supporters of fair elections, however, argue their efforts are merely intended at preventing voter fraud and preserving the integrity of the electoral process.

The new investigation comes amid several recent Ohio voter fraud convictions in connection with last year’s presidential election cycle in Ohio. As of February, 2013, there are nineteen cases of Ohio voter fraud being investigated in Hamilton County — which is a traditionally Republican county Obama carried with around 27,000 votes (52.5 – 46.15 percent) — including a poll worker who was accused of voting 6 times in the November presidential election.

Melowese Richardson, 58, is serving five years in prison after being convicted of four counts of voter fraud. Prosecutors said she repeatedly had voted in the name of her sister, who has been in a coma since 2003, and that the illegal votes Richardson cast were counted in both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.

She also was accused of illegally voting in November’s election in the names of other people, including her granddaughter India Richardson, who told reporters “it wasn’t a big deal.” She proudly admitted that she voted for President Obama multiple times, which would explain some precincts reporting upwards of 125 percent voter turnout.

A Cincinnati nun also pleaded guilty to illegal voting as part of the ongoing voter fraud investigation. She, too, was an Obama supporter.

Ohio Sec. of State Jon Husted announced

Polls

A new Fox News poll found that Americans are strongly opposed to the health care law, with majorities saying they wish it had never passed, would vote to repeal it if they could, and think implementing ObamaCare should be delayed.

Perhaps even more significant, though Americans never supported the law, a strong majority believed the law would survive. However, the latest Fox News poll found just 38 percent of registered voters say they are confident that enough people will sign up for coverage, avoiding a total collapse and astronomical deficits. But far more — 60 percent — don’t think that will happen.

The number thinking ObamaCare will eventually be repealed or defunded is up to 40 percent, which is an increase of 13 points since October, while 54 percent still believe it will remain the law of the land. The number of people who believe the law will remain in place is now down 10 percent, from 64 percent measured in October.

The number of registered voters who want implementation of the law delayed continues to grow. The Fox News poll found that 67 percent think it should be postponed a year “until more details are ironed out,” which is up 4 points from last month, and up 10 points since October.

Significantly, those favoring a delay now includes a majority of Democrats, with 54 percent supporting a delay, up 10 points from 44 percent last month.

The health care law has never enjoyed majority support from the American public, and now by a margin of 54 – 38 percent they wish the law was never passed. If given the chance, 53 percent say they would vote to repeal the law, while 41 percent say they would keep it in place.

President Obama continues to see his approval rating suffer, with 41 percent of registered voters in the Fox News poll approving of his job performance, and 53 percent disapproving. The continued low approval is no doubt fueled by the fact that Americans say Obama is not trustworthy (49 – 45) and the broken promises regarding Americans’ ability to keep their health insurance plan and doctor under the new health care law.

By a 61 – 31 margin, Americans say the Obama administration knew that the president was lying when he promised them they could keep their coverage and doctors, with being “told they could keep healthcare plan” being the worst of the broken promises (32 percent), followed by “both equal” (25 percent), and 15 percent saying the lie about keeping their doctor was worse.

Only 6 percent of registered voters in the Fox News poll said that Obama is “one of the greatest” presidents, with 16 percent saying he was “great.” However, nearly a third of the country (28 percent) said that Obama was “one of the worst presidents” American has had, with 16 saying he was “below average.” Overall, negative opinions of his presidency outnumbered positive by 44 — 22 percent.

Now, 10 percent of Obama voter say they regret their vote in 2012.

A new Fox News poll found that

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe