Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

POLL: Pew National Survey


Pew Research Center

National
Obama 54, Clinton 41
Obama 47, McCain 44... Clinton 48, McCain 44

Also

  • "Favorable opinions of Obama among independent voters, who have provided him strong support in several of his primary election victories, also have declined over the course of the campaign. Obama's favorable ratings among this pivotal group have fallen from 62% in late February to just 49% in the current poll."

  • "Obama has a clear advantage over McCain on several major issues. In particular, voters say the Illinois Democrat could do better in improving economic conditions, dealing with the nation's energy problems, and improving the healthcare system."

  • "However, more voters continue to say that McCain is about right in his approach to foreign policy and national security issues than say that about Obama (51% vs. 43%). The view that Obama is not tough enough on foreign policy has not receded since earlier in the year."

Full results here.

 

Comments
Mike_in_CA:

evidence that the extended and vicious primary and attacks from Clinton on the presumptive nominee have hurt him. One snippet from the text that struck me was that Obama's favorability numbers among Clinton-supporting white women has slipped from 58% in February to 43% in May!! He lost 15% among this group, and it can probably all be attributed to the drawn out attacks on Obama through the spring...

All evidence that negative opinions of the Dem nominee from Clinton supporters are hardening and could be getting much more difficult to win back if this thing keeps going...

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

evidence that the extended and vicious primary and attacks from Clinton on the presumptive nominee have hurt him. One snippet from the text that struck me was that Obama's favorability numbers among Clinton-supporting white women has slipped from 58% in February to 43% in May!! He lost 15% among this group, and it can probably all be attributed to the drawn out attacks on Obama through the spring...

All evidence that negative opinions of the Dem nominee from Clinton supporters are hardening and could be getting much more difficult to win back if this thing keeps going...

____________________

Ciccina:

Mike_in_CA, the only way in which Hillary is responsible for Obama's negatives is that in contrast to her, Obama looks like a lightweight. If she were not running, perhaps Obama would look better. But knowing that there is a more experienced, more policy-smart and more resilient choice does make Obama look relatively inferior.

____________________

dontbemadcauseyoulost:

ciccina - WRONG AGAIN!! OOOPS, you got caught!

Here, let me refute your lies once again-

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/incoming.html

By the way, that "lightweight" just mopped the floor with her.

____________________

jackal51:

Mike - right on. I have suspected for some time that Obama should have taken the gloves off months ago and stepped on her throat while she was down, but he treated her with kid gloves as evidenced by the last debate. The strategy was so he wouldn't be seen as the "big black man" attacking a "poor old white woman".

I believe his advisors told him that women wouldn't vote for him in the fall if he goes that route. Well, people are dumb and couldn't see what was actually happening. Well, Pablano has some excellent analysis in the link above....it is staggering actually.

____________________

An interesting question to answer, Mark: has a presidential candidate's favorability rating ever improved over the course of the general (not primary) election? I think the answer will be "no" for most candidates due to the heightened critical media attention and attacks from the opponent during the general. Perahps I can evision a scenario where a first term president improves, since their negative information is already well-known and voters shift to them when the shine of their challenger becomes tarnished.

____________________

Andrew_in_California:

Hillary is willing to sabotage democrat's chances at the whitehouse more than just debate Obama and keep the game competitive and remember that they are team-mates at the end of the day. Bad sportsmanship from Hillary is dragging both of them down and turning people into soccer hooligans where they would rather die than support Obama.

____________________

Patrick:

It's hilarious that some Obama supporters blame Clinton for his negatives going up and his support eroding with key demographic groups. I mean, really, didn't you think the "magic" was going to wear off Obama once people got to know him? The guy got a total 'free ride' and practically no real scrutiny from the national media (with the single exception of Fox News maybe) right up until the Rev. Wright story broke. Even the Rezko real estate deal wasn't widely reported outside Chicago. There's clearly a major case of "buyer's remorse" going on among independents and key demographic groups. And if he isn't able to turn it around, he's goint to be the next McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry (who all had the same exact problem).

____________________

kingsbridge77:

Sexist attacks against Clinton, including the sale of a popular shirt that reads "bro's before ho's", Chris Matthews' assertion that Clinton is where she is only because his man cheated on her, etc., are contributing to white women turning sour against Obama.

____________________

Ciccina:

Why do Obama supporters refuse to acknowledge any responsibility on the part of their candidate for any kind of negative? All I can say is that this kind of defensiveness - if it exists on the inside of the campaign too - is a very bad omen for Obama's chances in the general. They should be learning and changing, not positioning themselves as passively subject to the tactics of other campaigns. Because very, very soon, they're not going to have HRC to blame for all their problems, and they've going to have to stand on their own "two feet."

I can't wait to see what that looks like.

____________________

Ciccina:

and another thing...

Just checked out the Poblano link. What he claims is ludicrous. First of all, just what exactly is he excluding when he says he doesn't includes releases that mention the candidate? Second, since when are attacks only carried out through widely disseminated press releases? We all know Axelrod and co. have held daily conference calls with the media in which he frequently attacks and/or ridicules Clinton. We also know that they've circulated memos and other materials 'below the radar.' For example, Stephanopolous openly questioned Axelrod about sending around an attack on Hillary regarding the RFK reference. I doubt that was done as a widely disseminated, official press release, especially since Axelrod refused to confirm or deny. In addition, the campaign regularly sends out talking points to bloggers etc. But I take it this sort of thing didn't make it into Poblano's analysis.

Third, not all attacks need to include typical "attack" language or even mention the targeted candidate. Simply repeating that you are the only candidate who has high ethics, or the only candidate with good moral character, does the job nicely. Fourth, Obama's attacks have been carried out quite effectively by his proxies throughout the media. When the NYTimes runs 5 or more columns *weekly* - often more than 1 daily - attacking your opponent, for weeks on end, you don't really need to put your fingerprints all it, do you? And If you think Obama's campaign hasn't been cultivating those pundits, you're quite naive. There's a reason why the pundits, the bloggers, and the Obama supporters, move from attack to attack in lockstep with each other (one week saying she has no experience, the next week saying she's too close to lobbyists, etc).

Fifth, there's a difference, at least to me, between "attack" (which connotes unfair or unjustified) and criticsm (which highlights a legitimate difference of opinion or action). For example, criticizing Obama's health care plan claims and his maligning of mandates is not an unfair "attack" - its legitimate criticism. Claiming your opponent is "too ambitious," knowing that ambition is often seen as a perjorative for a woman but never for a man, is quite a different matter.

The only finding Poblano could legitimately derive from his analysis is that the Obama campaign has made a concerted effort to keep their official fingerprints off of attacks - a kind of feeble 'plausible deniability' that Poblano went for in a big way.

Good lord, I have respect for Poblano's other work but this piece was pure drivel.

____________________

Hassan:

Hi All

Thanks for your many many comments, I have been reading many comments between Clinton and Obama supporters the past week on pollster.com.

As someone who is an avid supporter of both Clinton and Obama--and who will support the Democratic nominee, and work his heart out for her/him--I am looking forward to competing with the Republicans on issues and policies.

Although sometimes structured above as a tit-for-tat, I honestly feel that Clinton and Obama supporters each have great arguments--because both candidates are amazing, with their specific cluster of strengths and weaknesses. I can't wait till we can move on--unite--and work together to hopefully re-write the future of our policies. We have such brilliant commentary and enthusiasm for our candidates, and I have no doubt that it will be great to read your comments during the general election.

warmly
Hassan

____________________

KS:

Wake up, Obama supporters. There will be no uniting. If he is nominated, he will have to win with the blacks and eggheads. We, Hillary voters, will go for McCain. Not only we will not vote for him, we will work full time to pull him down.

____________________

Pavo1313:

Are the clinton-only supporters are really spiteful enough to vote against their own interests? If McCain is elected:

1. The right to abortion ends. Two supreme court justices are nearly certain to be replaced, and they're both liberal.

2. The War continues indefinitely

3. We will have a president who is clueless about the economy by his own admission. Get ready for more inflation. Remember back when the American dollar was worth more than the Canadian dollar? yeah...

In all honestly, if people really let spite guide their vote, they will deserve what they get. And I think I'll lose faith in this country once and for all.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Pavo, a few things.

1. A low dollar is good for American exports because more people will buy our stuff. The US doesn't rely on other countries for capital imports, so a low dollar is a good thing. Moreover, the strength of a currency does not reflect economic strength (the Canadian economy contracted this quarter, while America's continues to grow). Ontario, Canada's economic heartland, went from being the richest province 15 years ago to a have-not province. Canada is far from hunky-dory, and a lot of that is because of the high dollar.

2. It is incredibly stupid to assume that Clinton-McCain voters (of which I would be if I could vote) are too dumb to understand their own interests. Allow me to explain WHY somebody might legitimately have a Clinton>McCain>Obama preference structure.

Firstly, I grew up in a parliamentary democracy, dominated by substantive politicians that must work their way to the top. From my experience, experience matters - so insofar as I vote for personal characteristics, McCain is more similar than Clinton.

Secondly, while I think the Iraq war was a dumb idea, I do not support a kneejerk rapid withdrawal, nor an invasion of Pakistan, nor unilateral talks with Iran (I'm all for talking to bad guys, but interests drive politics, and unless you have the strength to coerce bad guys, or a novel arrangement to bring them into the international system, mere chatter is a waste of time, or worse, appeasement). So on foreign policy I am between Clinton and McCain (closer to Clinton).

Thirdly, on healthcare it is completely rational to favour Clinton, followed by McCain. Clinton's plan is easily the best because it reduces costs by bringing everybody - including healthy uninsured people - into the system. Nothing is more expensive than emergency care, so it makes sense to get a plan for everybody. Obama's plan does not use mandates, and so, costs would be higher than under Clintons. McCain is not offering expanded health coverage, but does have proposals to improve the flexibility of the free market system, and he is not beholden to the trial lawyer lobby (and thus will not veto tort reform).

Clinton is the more centrist Democrat - that is why she is more electable, but also why many of her supporters will RATIONALLY choose McCain over Obama. So please, don't tell me my values and preferences are "spite".

____________________

Nickberry:

I agree with eternaltriangle. Those Clinton supporters who say they are voting for McCain are NOT voting based on spite, but rather because they are more moderate and Obama is too liberal.... or they feel more comfortable with Clinton and McCain because they are both well known and experienced.

1. The overturning or Roe vs. Wade is highly unlikely. Even most GOP analysists/consultants consider that the decision will stand (stare decisis) mostly because of its longevity and acceptance by most Americans. The only thing to change that would be for Congress to pass new law, which is also highly unlikely especially since it is trending Democrat.

Please also note that McCain is bipartisan and will work with the Democratic Senate (who have final advise and consent) to put forward acceptable nominees.

2. McCain will be working on a resolution to the war... as he as stated... and as he would be mandated to do because of the strain on our military. Please remember that McCain totally disagreed with Bush's war strategy (i.e. Rumsfield et al) and McCain is the one to propose and push the surge so that diplomatic efforts had time to succeed. It is not McCain's fault that Condi et al are incompetent. McCain will appoint new people (some Democrats). You can count on that.

3. McCain has just as much savvy on the economy as Obama, which is not saying much for Obama, eh? By the way, when is Obama going to start talking about the economy in this early battle against McCain. It seems like Obama is trying to take on the issues in which McCain is strongest (Foreign Policy, National Security, Military/Veterans) and it ain't working out too well for him.

____________________

burrito:

To Michael McDonald:

Please forgive me, but you are wrong. There are several cases in which this happened. To give a recent example, in 1992, Bill Clinton was 3rd on the polls going into the General Election ... As we all know, he end up winning !!

To eternaltriangle:

I wish to know where you got your degree in Economics. Since when a weak economy (or national currency) is good? The only ones that are favored by it (and not much really) are a very small percentage of the population of a country (the very rich). You do not see any country trying to make their currency weaker, do you? This is an absurd argument.

As to trying to rationalize why a Democrat would vote for a Republican that would continue with the same policies that have brought down this country to the brink of collapse, is obtuse.

____________________

Ciccina:

@ Pavo, burrito,

Take it from someone who is one, the women who support Clinton but not Obama come in at least two varieties -

- one, progressive women who are disgusted with the way Clinton was treated and related issues. Most of us will never vote for McCain. We will either stay home, vote down-ballot only, support a third party or do a symbolic write-in, knowing full well that we are acting as spoilers.

- two, independent swing voters, esp. married, suburban women. They are the ones who will swing to McCain because he seems more centrist, more experienced, and, I think most of all, more responsible.

Try to remember that "women," even "white women," are not one undifferentiated mass and do have quite rational reasons for their behavior. Also, a word to the wise - never, ever try to lecture a woman - especially type 1 - on the danger to Roe as if that's something she simply "forgot." It comes off as very patronizing.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

My degree in economics (I do have one) is from University of Toronto. The value of a currency is not reflective of the strength of the economy. There are ways in which they relate, but they could very well go in opposite directions.

For instance, the Great Depression started in 1924 in Britain because then-chancellor of the exchequer, Winston Churchill brought Britain back to the gold standard (an international system of fixed exchange rates), at Britain's pre-war currency value. Other countries had also returned to the gold standard after WWI, but they had all devalued their currencies. As a result British exports were too expensive for others to buy.

As an Obamabot, surely you buy Obama's pandering on trade. If that is the case you should support a weak dollar, since it makes Americans LESS likely to buy foreign goods, and makes foreigners MORE likely to buy American goods. That kind of exchange rate protectionism is part of how Japan and South Korea have been able to get so rich.

What causes currency values to change? Confidence in the future of the US economy certainly matters, as does confidence in the survival of US hegemony. The US dollar is the currency of international trade, and so, there is a premium to that. So yes, weakening the US might weaken the dollar. However, the most important factor in the value of the dollar is international portfolio investment. When you lower interest rates (as has taken place in the US) the currency value will drop. Interest rates drop during recessions, but there are plenty of other times when they drop for other reasons (eg. if your central bank follows the Greenspan hypothesis).

Alternately, I might construct a simple example:
Here is an economy, where the GDP (y) made up of domestic consumption (c), imports (m) and exports (x):
Y = C + X(yf) - M(yd)

The stuff in brackets reflects that exports are a function of foreign gdp, and imports, of domestic GDP. Lets say I invent some new product that increases the GDP by 10%, however this technology is not adopted overseas. GDP will rise by 10%, and Americans will start buying more overseas goods - with at least some proportion of their incomes. This will increase the demand for foreign currencies, relative to the US, and reduce the value of the dollar. So the dollar's value can drop because the economy is doing well too.

So lets recap:

"Is a low dollar bad?"
A: not necessarily, it increase exports.

"I'm dumb and I still think it is bad."
A: okay, well even if it is bad, a low dollar
is not necessarily caused by a weak economy. Increases in GDP, for instance, increase demand for imports, and lower the dollar.

"Oh, I see that I was entirely wrong and apologize for implicitly insulting the University of Toronto. You have inspired me to learn the ways of the world, and cast aside my Obamabot programming. How foolish I was to think slogans and charisma could make up for substance.

A: Now you're getting it, Jimmy! I was glad to help.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

I'm sorry, but nobody has commented on these claims from above about why someone would move from Clinton to McCain, and they need de-bunking:

>

um, both Clinton and Obama have advocated for a withdrawal beginning on Day One, look it up. If you support Clinton's withdrawal plan then you move to Obama. If you don't support immediate withdrawal then you are McCain from the start...

>

hahaha, i'm sorry, but this is the MOST ludicrous thing I've ever heard. If we needed to rank plans in order of "inclusiveness" and "universality" it would easily be Clinton, Obama, McCain. Have you even HEARD of what McCain is proposing? You obviously have no idea or you wouldn't have made this remark. You deserve to be called out for it because it's completely ridiculous...

>

Again, absurd. McCain has essentially proposed to further privatize the health care industry, and ifyou read his plan there is no mention of cutting costs for ordinary people. Come on, grow up.

I understand you might be bitter for supporting the losing candidate, but trying to rationalize your anger/bitterness/desire to make an 'opposition vote' with faulty arguments like yours is just embarassing. At least be up front about it:
"I'm upset that Clinton lost, and I blame Obama, so I can't vote for him." Don't blather on about how the natural progression is from Clinton to McCain, because it just isn't. Get real.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

I'm sorry, but nobody has commented on these claims from above about why someone would move from Clinton to McCain, and they need de-bunking:

"Secondly, while I think the Iraq war was a dumb idea, I do not support a kneejerk rapid withdrawal,"

um, both Clinton and Obama have advocated for a withdrawal beginning on Day One, look it up. If you support Clinton's withdrawal plan then you move to Obama. If you don't support immediate withdrawal then you are McCain from the start...

"Thirdly, on healthcare it is completely rational to favour Clinton, followed by McCain."

hahaha, i'm sorry, but this is the MOST ludicrous thing I've ever heard. If we needed to rank plans in order of "inclusiveness" and "universality" it would easily be Clinton, Obama, McCain. Have you even HEARD of what McCain is proposing? You obviously have no idea or you wouldn't have made this remark. You deserve to be called out for it because it's completely ridiculous...

"McCain is not offering expanded health coverage, but does have proposals to improve the flexibility of the free market system, and he is not beholden to the trial lawyer lobby (and thus will not veto tort reform)."

Again, absurd. McCain has essentially proposed to further privatize the health care industry, and ifyou read his plan there is no mention of cutting costs for ordinary people. Come on, grow up.

I understand you might be bitter for supporting the losing candidate, but trying to rationalize your anger/bitterness/desire to make an 'opposition vote' with faulty arguments like yours is just embarassing. At least be up front about it:
"I'm upset that Clinton lost, and I blame Obama, so I can't vote for him." Don't blather on about how the natural progression is from Clinton to McCain, because it just isn't. Get real.

(sorry, my first post had omissions)

____________________

Ciccina:

Mike_in_CA, here is your answer re: Iraq.

I don't think he will get us out of Iraq any sooner than McCain.

One reason: he doesn't know what he's doing, and the Generals will never take their marching orders from a neophyte. Remember how they resisted Clinton because he didn't have a military background? Maybe you don't. Well, they did. A lot.

Two: you cannot trust what he says.

You need to watch this segment of the BBC interview with Samantha Power, Obama's foreign policy advisor, conducted right before she got sacked for her "monster" comment.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_2ziykixN-M&feature=related

At 2:50 you will hear her say that Obama is the only one who has a plan to get us out of Iraq within 16 months.

When pressed on whether 16 months is feasible (would that our journos were this professional), she concedes that Obama has been told by the generals that at most he will be able to safely remove 1 or 2 combat brigades after 16 months. She also says that he will revisit this information after he is elected.

Pressed on whether Obama is contradicting himself - given that he has said quite emphatically that he is the only one with a concrete plan for withdrawal - she says (sorry if I don't get this exactly right, but you should watch it for yourself):

"He can't make a committment now not knowing what conditions will be like later. After he is elected, he will sit down [with experts] to craft a new plan. But it would be the height of ideology to say, 'I said it and therefore I have to do it.'"

Incidentally, the Obama quote the interviewer pulls out - "we have a message that will ring out across this country as a hymn that will heal this nation and repair the world" - may sound inspiring to some people, but to me it sounds hair-raisingly propagandistic.

McCain sounds like he would for the most part continue Bush's policies (very bad), but there is one thing (IMHO) he has going for him: if he decides the US needs to pull out, the military will listen to him and they'd be able to work together. Of course, if he decides to do something evil, that plus becomes a big minus.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Mike in CA, if you are going to tell me what my interests are, you should at least read my reasoning. Instead you have oversimplified complex issues.

-On healthcare
I have one main objective, which is not universality (I don't care about the moral implications of the uninsured) but lower costs. The same operations here can cost as much as ten times more as in Canada (here I am talking about the basic cost of doing the operation, not the amount one pays directly). Keep in mind I am not necessarily talking about the cost I pay, but the basic cost of delivering healthcare.

Clinton brings healthy people into the system because she employs mandates, reducing costs.

McCain is tougher on tort law, and for limiting regulation of HMO's. This will reduce costs.

Obama does not support mandates, does not have a universal healthcare plan, and is beholden to trial lawyers. Hence, from my perspective, his plan is the worst plan. Obama's plan is an example of a compromise that is worse than either extreme policy.

-On Iraq

My preferred policy on Iraq is probably closest to Biden's - I support a continued US presence but with guidelines and a plan for political reform, especially since the surge has been militarily successful. None of the candidates left in the race reflect this position, and you are probably right that McCain is the closest.

My thinking on Iraq weighs two things, mainly:
-the cost of remaining in Iraq (diplomatic cost, body count, and money)
-the risk of mid-east instability (if Iraq falls apart, and the oil-rich Shiite south become an Iranian puppet state, that won't exactly be a good day for America)

Why is Clinton better on these fronts? Firstly, she does not plan on essentially invading Pakistan - an action that would increase mideast stability. While she supports a pullout, her plan is more gradual, and thus gives the US more time to stabilize Iraq (putting it closer to my ideal point). Secondly, you ignored my experience point, but that is partly why I believe Clinton can be more effective than Obama in this situation, since she has more national security experience.

These aren't the only issues I have in mind, but they are probably the ones most people think about so I mentioned them. I also view Clinton's DLC ties quite favourably, and Obama's ACORN ties and voting record rather unfavourably. I am not a Republican (or a Democrat), but I probably would have voted GOP from 1972-1988.

____________________

eternaltriangle:

Mike in CA, if you are going to tell me what my interests are, you should at least read my reasoning. Instead you have oversimplified complex issues.

-On healthcare
I have one main objective, which is not universality (I don't care about the moral implications of the uninsured) but lower costs. The same operations here can cost as much as ten times more as in Canada (here I am talking about the basic cost of doing the operation, not the amount one pays directly). Keep in mind I am not necessarily talking about the cost I pay, but the basic cost of delivering healthcare.

Clinton brings healthy people into the system because she employs mandates, reducing costs.

McCain is tougher on tort law, and for limiting regulation of HMO's. This will reduce costs.

Obama does not support mandates, does not have a universal healthcare plan, and is beholden to trial lawyers. Hence, from my perspective, his plan is the worst plan. Obama's plan is an example of a compromise that is worse than either extreme policy.

-On Iraq

My preferred policy on Iraq is probably closest to Biden's - I support a continued US presence but with guidelines and a plan for political reform, especially since the surge has been militarily successful. None of the candidates left in the race reflect this position, and you are probably right that McCain is the closest.

My thinking on Iraq weighs two things, mainly:
-the cost of remaining in Iraq (diplomatic cost, body count, and money)
-the risk of mid-east instability (if Iraq falls apart, and the oil-rich Shiite south become an Iranian puppet state, that won't exactly be a good day for America)

Why is Clinton better on these fronts? Firstly, she does not plan on essentially invading Pakistan - an action that would increase mideast stability. While she supports a pullout, her plan is more gradual, and thus gives the US more time to stabilize Iraq (putting it closer to my ideal point). Secondly, you ignored my experience point, but that is partly why I believe Clinton can be more effective than Obama in this situation, since she has more national security experience.

On abortion

I am pro-choice, but also support the partial birth abortion ban (which Obama opposes), so Clinton is closest to my ideal point. McCain's stated views are that he would appoint judges like Alito and Roberts. Firstly, Alito and Roberts are not as conservative as you think - nor was their appointment aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade (Republicans like Roe v. Wade, nothing has done more to get poor people to vote for them). Alito and Roberts were appointed to expand presidential powers - neither is a constructionist a la Robert Bork. Secondly, McCain will be restrained by a Democratic majority in the house and senate.

These aren't the only issues I have in mind, but they are probably the ones most people think about so I mentioned them. With most people, however, you can't simplify their preferences by looking at just two issues. Some things they dislike about McCain may be outweighed by other things they like.

I also view Clinton's DLC ties quite favourably, and Obama's ACORN ties and voting record rather unfavourably. I am not a Republican (or a Democrat), but I probably would have voted GOP from 1968-1988.

____________________

Mike_in_CA:

"but that is partly why I believe Clinton can be more effective than Obama in this situation, since she has more national security experience."

ok, thanks for falling for the spin. Please name Clinton's foreign policy "experience." What major treaties has she negotiated? What wars has she administered? Please, inform me.

"Clinton brings healthy people into the system because she employs mandates, reducing costs."

Ok, you're a self-proclaimed economist. Please describe how enforcing mandates will reduce costs. Making blanket statements does not prove your supreme knowledge of everything. Tell me. How does Clinton's plan reduce costs specifically through mandates? And then, tell me how Obama's does not.

Your argument springs a leak when you quote, "Keep in mind I am not necessarily talking about the cost I pay, but the basic cost of delivering healthcare."

Under the current conditions, wrapping mandates into an already cumbersome market-dominated healthcare system is not going to do anything to reduce the costs of "delivering healthcare" as you state. In the short term it would drive them up. As you know, the increased demand for services will push the price that healthcare companies charge through the roof. Under both democrats' plans employers would subsidize a lot of the initial skyrocket in prices.

McCain's plan is an absolute joke. Limiting regulation on HMO's may, in theory, reduce costs by freeing up less overhead costs for healthcare companies, but as we can see from the current system, removing government regulations would probably only worsen the situation for the average payer in the long term. McCain's plan advocates the ultimate hands-off which, in strict capitalist market theory would help lower prices, but in practice probably wouldn't. Clinton's plan is the diametric opposite, and would induce the most government inerference in the industry. For the average person, Clinton's plan would probably be the best in terms of coverage but it certainly wouldn't be the cheapest, ESPECIALLY with the mandates which would cost both the consumer AND the government, especially in the short term. Admittedly, Obama's plan is not perfect, and it isn't as inclusive as Clinton's but it would be a) relatively cheaper to administer as it would not suddenly burden the industry and our hospitals/doctors with an influx of patients/need for services, and b) relatively easy to push through a Congress that has thus been very resilient to moving toward government controlled healthcare.

Unfortunately, you are either for or against government regulated health care (or single-payer). By supporting Clinton and then moving to McCain and citing "reducing costs" as you rationale (which is likely not even true) you contradict even your most fundamental argument. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

____________________

burrito:

Well, this website sucks ... I responded to all the comments that were made and my post are not getting published ... hmmm ...

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR