Mediaboss Marketing

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters, April 4, Republican lawmakers are having productive talks on a new health-care reform bill but would not say if a new proposal would be put forth. (Reuters)

Republicans haven't been able to replace Obamacare, because they think the problem with it, metaphorically speaking, is that the food is terrible and the portions are too small.

That, of course, is what Woody Allen had to say about life in Annie Hall. But the same kind of contradiction you hate something, and want more of it is why Republicans haven't been able to agree on anything other than that they want to be able to saythat they repealed Obamacare. That might work on for campaigning, but, as we've seen, it's a flop in office. President Trump on Tuesday in what's become something of a weekly tradition again promisedhis party would strike a deal. But even if Republicans keep trying to come to terms on a compromise, they're going to keep tripping over the same problem. That's because no matter how much dealmaking prowess you might have, you can't make one if people want fundamentally different things.

Now, when it comes to Obamacare, there are generally two types of Republicans: ones who despise everything about it, and ones who understand nothing about it. The first group are libertarians who want to get rid of the law root-and-branch. They don't think the federal government should play any part in helping people getcoverage, or telling insurers what that has to be. Instead, they'd like to go back to a world where the sick are mostly on their own, and insurance companies are mostly free to discriminate against them. This, together with higher deductibles, is what they believe is the best way to keep costs and premiums down for everybody else. The idea, you see, is that people will spend less overall if they have to spend more out-of-pocket, and if that's too much for them, they can always be put in a slightly subsidized high-risk pool.(Emphasis on the word slightly. The Kaiser Family Foundation's Larry Levitt says that the technical term for the funding in the GOP's latest proposal is chump change.")

In other words, they want to make insurance more affordable for the young and healthy by making it unaffordable for the old and sick, and worse for everyone.

The second group are so-called moderates who oppose Obamacare entirely because of politics, not policy. Which is to say that they attack the unpopular parts of the law, like penalizing people for not getting insurance, at the same time that they support the popular parts, like banning insurance companies from discriminating against people with preexisting conditions. What they don't get, though, is that you can't have the latter without the former. If you're going to force insurers to cover sick people, then you have to force healthy people to sign up too so that premiums don't explode. And if you're going to force healthy people to sign up, then you need to help them be able to afford it.

And that brings us to the GOP's real problem. It's that a lot of Republicans secretly kind of like Obamacare, or at least they like what it does. They don't want to get rid of the way it's covered sick people or expanded coverage or let kids stay on their parent's insurance until they're 26 years old. The only thing they do want to change well, other than the name and the individual mandate is the way that premiums and deductibles have continued to march ever higher. But that, whether they realize it or not, is actually an argument that Obamacare hasn't gonefar enough. That we need bigger subsidies so people can buy better coverage that doesn't make them pay as much out-of-pocket.

So how do you reconcile the idea that the healthy should pay more and the sick pay too much with the belief that the healthy should pay less and the sick be taken care of? You don't. At least not when you're in power. When you're out of it, you can at least hide these differences behind the amorphous mantra of repeal and replace. But not anymore, not whenit'sclear that there's a philosophicaldivide between Republicans who thinkthe federal government shouldn't be involved in covering people, and ones like Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy who believethat there's a widespread recognition that the federal government, Congress, has created the right for every American to have health care. That used to be what Republicans and Democrats argued about, but, now that Obamacare has made people expect more from the government, it's what Republicans and other Republicans argue about today.

And there are going to be large portions of that.

Continue reading here:
Republicans can't find a way to repeal Obamacare because too many of them secretly love it - Washington Post

No matter where you come down on that question -- I think there were clear warning signs for Republicans in their victory -- the history of the first midterm election of a newly-elected president should scare Republicans tasked with retaining their House majority in 2018.

If past is prologue, then Mehlman's chart suggests that Republicans will face across-the-board losses in 2018 and could even lose control of the US House.

The chart documents seat losses in the House, Senate, state legislatures and governor's mansions in the first midterm election of the last eight presidents -- from John F. Kennedy in 1962 to Barack Obama in 2010.

The average loss in the House for the President's party over that period is 23 seats. If you take out the 2002 midterms -- a totally unique situation created by the terrorist attacks of 2001 -- the average loss is 26 seats. If Democrats make gains consistent with that history, they will be right on the edge of re-taking the House; the party needs a 24-seat gain for the majority in 2018.

All of which should worry Republicans more than anything that happened in Kansas on Tuesday night.

The history of Senate seat switches in a president's first midterm election is slightly less conclusive and, given the 2018 map, may be less predictive as well.

Since 1962, the average loss for the President's party in the Senate is 2.5 seats -- although three presidents (Kennedy, Richard Nixon and George W. Bush) actually picked up Senate seats in their first midterms.

As for governorships and state legislatures, Republicans are nearly maxed out in terms of gains -- meaning that the party is primed to suffer large-scale losses consistent with historical norms. (The President's party has typically lost five governor's mansions and 245 state legislative seats in the first midterm.)

Add it all up and you can see why 2018 should be a tough year for Republicans. Of course, if Trump's candidacy (and victory) proved anything, it's that history is only predictive until it isn't anymore.

See the rest here:
Forget Kansas. This chart shows why Republicans need to worry about 2018 - CNN

The battle for the Senate in 2018 is caught between two opposing forces: math and President Trump.

Let's start with math. Senate Democrats have a heckuva challenge defending their lawmakers in the 2018 midterm election: By virtue of their 2012 victories in some swing and red-leaning states, they now have to defend 25 seats, 10 of which are in states that Trump won.

In some states, like the one Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) is trying to win reelection in, Trump beat Hillary Clinton by more than 40 points! By comparison, Republicans only haveto defend nineseats, one or two of which could be considered vulnerable.

It's feasible that Republicans could expand their 52-seat majority, and, if they had a near-perfect run, get to the coveted filibuster-proof 60.

On the other hand, you have Trump. The party in power normally gets blowback in the first midterm election of a new president.And this president is at historically low approval ratingsthis early on, with warning signs that traditional GOP voters aren't thrilled with his and Congress's performance so far.

Here's another potential warning sign for Senate Republicans that Trump's shadow could undermine their position of strength: Some top potential Senate candidates are turning down the opportunity to challenge vulnerable Senate Democrats.

In Pennsylvania, four-term Rep. Patrick Meehan (R) was considering,then declined, to challenge Sen. Bob Casey. Meehan would have been a bigger name than the two state lawmakers and one borough councilman who have jumped in so far to try to challenge Casey.

In Indiana, a state Trump won by 19 points, Rep. Susan Brooks (R) said she wouldn't try to challenge Sen. Joe Donnelly (D). The IndyStar said Brooks would have been a potentially formidable opponent, though it reports two other GOP House lawmakers are considering a run as well: Reps. Luke Messer and Todd Rokita.

In Wisconsin, a state Trump won by less than a percentage point, leading potential challenger Rep. Sean P. Duffy (R) said he won't run against Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D). This is not the right time to run for Senate, he said in a statement, pointing to his eight kids. A couple of state lawmakers, a teacher, a Marine veteran and a businessman are all considering running, which could create a messy primary.

Republicans' recruitment struggles in Montana is related to Trump but in a different way. Former representativeRyan Zinke (R) was thought to be Republicans' strongest candidate to challenge one of the most vulnerable Democratic senators, Jon Tester, in a state Trump won by 29 points. Then Trump picked Zinke to be secretary of theinterior, and it isn't clear who will challenge Tester beside a first-term state senator who recently announcedhe's in.

November 2018 is still a year and a half away, so there's no rule that Senate candidates have to get in right now. But already, several potential top-tier candidates in Trump states have thought about challenging Democrats, then decided not to. That doesn't help Republicans counter a nascent narrative, both in GOP circles and outside of it, that Trump could weigh them down in 2018.

This is all playing out in the context of Democrats flush with momentum and money from a liberal base stoked to challenge Trump. Many of these Senate Democrats reported this week that they raised a record amount of money for their states a year and a half before the election. (Though Republican Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada kept pace with them, too.)

And a closer-than-expected congressional election in a red district in Kansas and a coming one in Georgia suggest that voters in traditional Republican districts aren't thrilled with their party's performance in Washington so far.

Of course, Republicans have more opportunities to knock off Democrats than just these couple ofstates we listed. And Democrats, who only have two-ish Republican states where they can feasibly play in, don't have candidates yet either.

Butsince we're going to spend the next 574 days trying to assess which opposing force is stronger in the 2018 Senate midterms math or Trump's unpopularity let's plant an early flag and say that, so far, Trump's unpopularity appears to be weighing on Senate Republicans.

Read this article:
Do Senate Republicans have a Trump recruiting problem? - Washington Post

HOOD RIVER, Ore. Rep. Greg Walden, who helped craft the failed House GOP health-careproposal as a key committee chairman, said Tuesday that Republicans may have to wait even longerto act on it.

Walden, an Oregon Republican and chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the GOP may have to use a future budget measure to pass itsversion of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

You could make an argument that says, Okay, we couldnt get it done now, Walden said in an interview.

Weve had people tell us: Why take this on first? You should have done infrastructure, you should have done tax reform, he added. It may be where we end up.

Walden was referring to the stalled American Health Care Act which he and other senior Republicans, including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) attempted to pass before lawmakers left Washington for a two-week recess. Ryan ultimately did not bring that bill to the House floor after negotiations with conservatives and moderates fell apart amid bitter infighting. Trump backed the plan and lobbied members to support it. But he vowed to move on after the plans implosion and seek the passage of his other legislative priorities.

The president may have changed his mind, however. In an interview with Fox Business on Wednesday, Trump said that health care must come first before he turns to other items on his agenda, such as a tax-code rewrite anda $1 trillion infrastructure plan.

Health care is going to happen at some point, Trump told Fox. Now, if it doesnt happen fast enough, Ill start the taxes. But the tax reform and the tax cuts are better if I can do health care first.

But the AHCA failure significantly complicates things in terms of timing and process. Republicans are using special budget rules to smooth the passage of several top priorities, including a health-care and tax revamp. Those rules allow them to pass measures with a simple majority in the Senate instead of the 60 votes typically needed to enact legislation in the Senate, where they are not expected to get any Democratic support. (Republicans have 52 seats in the Senate.)

Walden noted in the interview that health care could be considered in next years budget bill. Im not saying this is going to wait until next year, but you will have another budget next year, he explained.

It is unclear whether Walden was referring to the 2018 budget bill, which Republicans had intended to use as a vehicle for the tax overhaul that Trump now says could be on hold. The president acknowledged in the interview that the failure to enact a health-care measure means that the party has not achieved the expected savings needed to pay for a reduction in tax rates.

Walden insisted that despite GOP disarray, the health plan is still alive, pointing to efforts by Vice President Pence and other White House officials to rally support on Capitol Hill.

Theres a lot of pressure at the end to get something going, he said.

Much is riding on the GOP effort to overhaul the Affordable Care Act. Many Republicans gained their seat in past elections on promises to repeal it, and the laws marketplaces are facing serious difficulties amid reduced plan offerings and hiked premiums.

Walden called it frustrating for Republicans to falter so publicly in their efforts toward that end.

Legislatings nots easy, especially on something this big that matters so much to peoples lives, and Id rather take the time to get it right, he said.

Excerpt from:
GOP House leader says there are ways Republicans can forge ahead on health care - Washington Post

(Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

Donald Trump campaigned as an outsider who would upend years of Washington orthodoxy in matters of both war and peace an approach that helped him assemble the unconventional coalition that ultimately won him the presidency.

But in recent days, the president has done an about-face and embraced many of the policy positions he once scorned as the trappings of a foolhardy establishment.

Trump voiced support for NATO, which he called obsolete during the campaign. He walked back his pledge to label China acurrency manipulator and endorsed the Export-Import Bank, which he had opposed.

These and other recent flip-flops have soothed the nerves of many Republicans who worried he was looking to upend too much of the status quo. But they could also alienate some supporters, who see Washington co-opting yet another politician elected to reform the government.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Sean Spicer argued that it wasnt Trump who had shifted.

(Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)

If you look at whats happened, its those entities or individuals in some cases, or issues, evolving towards the presidents position, Spicer said. I think you look at the presidents position, where he wanted to see NATO in particular evolve to, and its moving exactly in the direction that he said it was in terms of its goals of increasing the amount of participation from other member countries; and two, its having a greater focus on terrorism.

NATO has been moving toward greater burden-sharing for years and has long been involved in counterterrorism, particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Spicer also pointedly declined to explain why Trump changed his position on a slate of other issues that had remained essentially unchanged since he was a candidate.

The administration has slow-walked moves toward renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, despite his railing against the deal as a candidate. And the Trump administration has approved aggressive, even hawkish stances overseas on issues such as Syria, the Islamic State and North Korea, regardless of Trumps often noninterventionist stances during the campaign.

[The Daily 202: Here are eight flip-flops since Trump was inaugurated]

Among those heartened by the changes is Elliott Abrams, a former Never Trump Republican who had a change of heart but was rejected for a senior post in Trumps State Department because he was considered too much of an establishment Republican.

I would say this is looking more now like a more conventional Republican administration, said Abrams, who served as a foreign policy adviser in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. To me, thats a very good thing.

Trumps opposition to the Export-Import Bank a government agency that subsidizes U.S. exports endeared him to movement conservatives who labeled it corporate welfare and crony capitalism. It fit well with a campaign message in which Trump railed against the global elite conspiring against the common man.

But to the thrill of establishment Republicans, corporate leaders and some Democrats, Trump reversed course this week, solidifying a shift he first signaled in February.

Instinctively, you would say, Isnt that a ridiculous thing? ... But, actually, its a very good thing, he told the Wall Street Journal in an interview this week. It turns out that ... lots of small companies are really helped!

Almost immediately, the move drew praise from Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), whose state gets an economic boost from the bank.

Well done, Mr. President, Graham said in a statement.

The thaw, especially among Republican hawks, seemed to begin in earnest last week when Trump, faced with his first major foreign policy test, sided with the use of military force in Syria. That decision which contradicted Trump stances dating to 2013 endeared him to members of Congress such as Graham and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who had criticized his isolationist campaign rhetoric.

[Three big ways Trump is starting to sound like Obama on the economy]

I think its a product of the fact that he didnt understand foreign affairs, presidential historian Tim Naftali said of the president. His business career didnt afford him much information on foreign affairs. Hes learning on the job.

On economic issues, some have speculated that Trumps shift has been linked to the growing influence of a group of advisers led by his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, many of whom are political moderates and who came to the administration from Wall Street.

The rift between Kushner-backed aides such as National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn and Republican hard-liners in the administration especially the presidents chief strategist, Stephen K. Bannon has only grown in recent weeks, raising questions about whether Trump will abandon the economic populism that got him elected in favor of a more traditional platform influenced by Wall Street.

But Trumps backers say that, from the beginning, the president assembled a Cabinet of military leaders, establishment Republicans and business leaders who would be at home in the Cabinets of more traditional Republicans. And he has pursued policies in other areas on immigration, the budget, taxes, and rolling back the Affordable Care Act that have left many conservatives content with the direction his administration is headed.

The budget hes put out is an incredible budget. Hes pushed hard to abolish Obamacare, said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. The tax bill he put forward is Reaganite in all its forms, so Im looking at a guy who did exactly what he said he was going to do on every big issue.

Both on China and NATO, he rattled the cage and got movement in the direction that he wanted, Norquist said, and, at least as of now, NATO is behaving the way he wants it to and the Chinese might be more helpful in Korea.

[President Trump, king of flip-flops (continued)]

One former Trump aide, who requested anonymity to speak candidly, said that the president is known to form initial opinions based on instinct but later to change his stance based on new information and the influence of his advisers.

He has a general reaction to something, then after he does a lot more homework on the situation, he can change his view, the former adviser said. The reason most of these voters voted on him was less because of the core issues, it was more based on the Trump decision-making, the Trump judgment.

Yet Trump promised his supporters a coalition that included larger-than-expected numbers of non-college educated, working-class voters that he would pursue populist policies that put the interests of American workers first. It remains to be seen whether these changes will be viewed as moving toward that goal.

John Weaver, a former presidential campaign aide to Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), said that so far, the dissonance between Trumps campaign pledges and his current positions havent touched on core promises, such as bringing back U.S. jobs or seeking to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

The fact that he says one thing or another about NATO has no impact on their day-to-day lives, Weaver said of Trumps supporters.

And with Trump, allies and adversaries alike are never sure he wont change his mind again.

It represents Trump is a New York City liberal returning back to form, said Rick Wilson, a Republican strategist sharply critical of Trump. People should not be surprised.

But Trump, he added, because he has a short attention span, could easily flop back.

Follow this link:
Trump as a 'conventional Republican'? That's what some in GOP ... - Washington Post