There’s a new and important problem facing Republicans as they seek to hammer Medicaid yet again, as I explained at New York:
In the long Paul Ryan era of Republican budget-cutting efforts (when Ryan was House Budget Committee chairman and then House Speaker), Medicaid was always on the chopping block. And when the program became a key element of Democratic efforts to expand health-care coverage in the Affordable Care Act sponsored by Republicans’ top enemy, Barack Obama, Medicaid’s status as the program tea-party Republicans wanted to kill most rose into the stratosphere. No wonder that the last time the GOP had a governing trifecta, in 2017, there was no single “big beautiful bill” to implement Trump’s entire agenda, but instead an initial drive to “repeal and replace Obamacare” along with measures to deeply and permanently cut Medicaid. Rolling back health coverage for those people was Job One.
So now that Trump has returned to office with another trifecta in Congress, an alleged mandate, and a big head of steam that has overcome every inhibition based on politics, the law, or the Constitution, you’d figure that among the massive federal cuts being pursued through every avenue imaginable, deep Medicaid cuts would be the ultimate no-brainer for Republicans. Indeed, the budgetary arithmetic of Trump’s agenda all but demands big Medicaid “savings,” which is why the House budget resolution being implemented right now calls for cuts in the neighborhood of $600–$800 billion. And it’s clear that the very powerful House Freedom Caucus, thought to be especially near and dear to the president’s heart, is rabid for big Medicaid cuts.
To be sure, the extremely narrow GOP margin in the House means that so-called “moderate” Republicans (really just Republicans in marginal districts) who are chary of big Medicaid cuts are one source of intraparty pushback on this subject. But the shocking and arguably more important dynamic is that some of Trump’s most intense MAGA backers are pushing back too. OG Trump adviser Stephen Bannon issued a warning in February, as The New Republic’s Edith Olmsted reported:
“Steve Bannon, former architect of the MAGA movement turned podcaster, warned that Republicans making cuts to Medicaid would affect members of Donald Trump’s fan club.
“On the Thursday episode of War Room, while gushing over massive government spending cuts, Bannon warned that cutting Medicaid specifically would prove unpopular among the working-class members of Trump’s base, who make up some of the 80 million people who get their health care through that program.
“’Medicaid, you got to be careful, because a lot of MAGA’s on Medicaid. I’m telling you, if you don’t think so, you are deeeeeead wrong,’ Bannon said. ‘Medicaid is going to be a complicated one. Just can’t take a meat ax to it, although I would love to.’”
Bannon didn’t comment on the irony that it was the hated Obamacare that extended Medicaid eligibility deep into the MAGA ranks (with voters in deep-red Idaho, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Utah insisting on taking advantage of it), making it a dangerous target for GOP cuts. But in any event, particularly given Trump’s occasional promises that he’d leave Medicaid alone (which didn’t keep him from supporting the deep 2017 cuts), there existed some MAGA sentiment for finding “savings” elsewhere.
The volume of this sentiment went up sharply when one of the flavor-of-the-year right-wing “influencers,” Trump buddy Laura Loomer (reportedly fresh from laying waste to the National Security Council staff) went after a conservative think-tanker who was advising HFC types on how to savage Medicaid, per Politico:
“In a social media post Monday, Loomer called Brian Blase, the president of Paragon Health Institute, a ‘RINO Saboteur’ for helping draft a letter circulated by 20 House conservatives that advocated for deep cuts to Medicaid in the GOP’s domestic policy megabill.
“’In a shocking betrayal of President Donald Trump’s unwavering commitment to America’s working-class families, and his promise to protect Medicaid, [Brian Blase] … is spearheading a dangerous campaign to undermine the Republican Party’s midterm prospects,’ Loomer said on X.”
Loomer’s blast at Blase was clearly a shot across the bow of the House Freedom Caucus and other Republicans who are lusting for Medicaid cuts and/or are focused on deficit reduction as a major goal. She called Medicaid “a program critical to the heartland voters who propelled Donald Trump to his election victories” and warned that Medicaid cuts could badly damage Republicans in the 2026 midterms.
The perpetually shrewd health-care analyst Jonathan Cohn thinks MAGA ambivalence about Medicaid cuts could be a game-changer. After citing data from Trump’s own pollster showing support for Medicaid among Trump supporters, Cohn noted this could have an impact in Congress:
“Trump himself has said he is going to protect Medicaid — although, as is always the case, it’s hard to know exactly what he means, how seriously he means it, or how much thought he has even given to the matter.
“But Trump’s own uncertainty here is telling, just like the pushback to Medicaid cuts from the likes of Loomer. Together they are a sign of just how much the politics around government health care programs has changed in the last few years — and why this piece of Trump’s big, beautiful bill is proving so tough to pass.”
It wouldn’t be that surprising if there’s a thunderbolt from the White House on this subject before the House budget reconciliation bill is finalized. If there isn’t, nervous House Republicans may be forced to read his ever-changing mind.
zogby poll out saturday will have kerry up 2 in fla.
I live in Milwaukee–and have for the better part of 50 years. Sen. Russ Feingold (“McCain-Feingold”) is running for a third term against an opponent that is far right (to give you an idea how far: no abortion for ANY reason, period) and will win a relatively easy victory. I cannot imagine there will many “Bush-Feingold” ballots. The 4th Cong. District that is essentially the City of Milwaukee has an African-American woman as the Dem. nominee. Of course, this will spur voter turnout in the Milwaukee inner-city.
As far as zeitgeist is concerned, yesterday Kerry had the biggest political rally in state history in Madison, and the Milwaukee Journal (the state’s largest newspaper) endorsed Kerry in a long editorial. There is much more. But, Wisconsin is a state that I know well, geographically and politically. Kerry doesn’t get a free ride, he has to earn his votes. But, I just don’t see it happening for Bush. If, despite everything, Bush somehow wins Wisconsin, then simply color this state “red” for future elections. There is NO reason to believe this is the case.
My only fear is that Most of the states in play seem to be traditional Democratic ones. If Kerry takes the four then great (he could even lose Hawaii and one of the Maine districts and still hit 270 on the nose). But just losing one of FLOHPA makes the matah really tough. I’m not saying he can’t/won’t win, it’s just the battle seems to be uphill. Trying to keep my chin up though.
Wisconsin is turning out to be key.
Bush’s strategy is to take Florida, Iowa, and Wisconsin, figuring they will probably lose in Ohio and Penn.
The Wisconsin polls look slightly better for Bush right now, although I don’t think slightly better is good enough to carry it for him in a big turnout election. The point is, it’s a very strategic battleground state.
Back to national polls for a moment. For my course (I am a political scientist) I compiled data on the national horse-race going back to April. While trying to pick trends out of this polling data is risky, given how much the polls diverge from one another, something interesting seems to be happening.
If you graph over time the share of the two-party preference (i.e. throwing out undecideds and third-party supporters) that Bush is getting in the RV polls, the two candidates are getting closer to parity in the last week.
But if you go by the incumbent’s share of all RV respondents (i.e. including undecideds and others in the denominator), Bush is getting closer to 50%.
In other words, if these are real trends–a big if–the chances that Bush could win the popular vote are increasing. But, paradoxically, the race is simultaneously tightening, meaning a split of the popular and electoral vote could be getting more likely. All the more so given Kerry’s lead in state polls of several key battleground states that we have seen posted here.
The graphs I refer to are at http://irpshome.ucsd.edu/faculty/mshugart/pmp/links.html, at the link entitled “2004 polls update.”
While all this information looks good in favor of Kerry, we have to remember that there are even flaws as of now with Florida. Lets cross our fingers they can get it right this time
Any new numbers about the north central states, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa? I think Kerry can be still have the edge without Iowa, but the other two have me nervous.
This late news from Hawaii is troubling too. What’s up with that?
No one’s panicking here, just curious.
Wisconsin? What about Wisconsin?
Kerry can take OH, PA, MI, and still lose without Wisconsin.
(And the Dems are spending $250,000 this weekend in … Arkansas.)
Hope you’re right about Florida .. and that Dems’ votes get counted there this year!
I noted the source for all data here is pollingreport.com. The LA Times web site has an interactive map based on pollingreport.com data. (I think, but may be wrong, that gives non-members access to their members only state-by-state polling data.) The map is a lot of fun because you can color it in based on most recents polls in each state or based on your obsessive desire to see this destructive, arrogant, insular administration bounced out of the White House. When John Kerry gets to 270 it plays “Hail To The Chief.” It is at least as much fun as “How Can Gallup….”
So, if the incumbent’s lead holds in FL, it would seem that the the race comes down to WI (and perhaps even HI)?
Can one of you smart stat-heads put this talk about Hawaii to rest? …. Gore won by 20 or so points in 2000 … I simply do NOT believe that W is ahead…. I’m sure there is some kind of major flaw in this polling…. Any details?
Thanks!
eg
are the average of the polls weighted for sample size?
would it not make sense to add all the samplings together for a state and then determine percentages?
[or are all samples exactly the same size?]
would it make a difference?