The 103rd annual Hobo day parade at SDSU will be starting here in a little bit, and my crew is ready for the festivities!

  
Stay tuned!

Just to be clear, I don’t think the current state of the horse race in the Presidential race is the best predictor of the ultimate outcome this far from actual voting.   The ground can shift because of a change in prominence of issues (e.g. a major national security matter), perception of positions or the candidate, and changes in the fortunes of one of the leaders, etc. I see a path for all the top six candidates to get the nomination.

What is interesting in the polls is trying to discern how voters appear to be forming their choices.

Over the past few months, the viable candidates’ support has vacillated in a very small range except for Carson. Which leads me to two questions: Why is Carson surging? And is that surge sustainable. To do that, I decided to drill down on the Quiniapac Iowa poll. I’ve always liked Quinniapiac polls especially at this stage because they provide information beyond the horse race and give insight into voter’s mindset/priorities with the question: “Thinking about the Republican nominee for president in 2016, which of the following is most important to you?” and how the candidates stack up on that factor.

Shares values (28%): If a candidate shares my values, it gives me significant confidence they would make decisions that coincide with my values. Even if I disagree on a particular issue, I can get some consolation that if I had the same information maybe I’d choose as they choose. This is always a major consideration in selecting the President. Its where stands on issues are incorporated. A candidate who agrees with me on the issues “shares my values” and vice versa. Carson +72%, Rubio +49%, Cruz + 44%, Fiorina +35%, Bush +9%, Trump -10%

Honest/Trustworthy (23%): Again, this related to values. However, I can never recall in the past where this was necessary to ask because it was assumed all candidates in both parties were essentially honest and trustworthy.  Carson +81%, Rubio +60%, Cruz + 56%, Fiorina +48%, Bush +31%, Trump +3%

Strong Leadership (19%): This factor gets into ability to actually do the job and produce accomplishment. Trump +62%, Carson +57%, Rubio +57%, Cruz + 51%, Fiorina +51%, Bush +38%

Best chance of winning (13%): This factor is a reflection of the GOP primary voter of an understanding a Republican candidate is more often than not better at representing their values than a Democrat. Quinniapac didn’t ask who voters thought had the best chance of winning. I suspect they didn’t ask as it is a guess into the hearts and minds of others and is so volatile it is probably useless data at this time. I suspect it becomes a more important factor just before people vote.

Cares about the needs and problems of people like me (9%): Most Americans think beyond themselves and to the greater good so while important, it usually isn’t as important as “shared values” or “right experience.” However, this is also where stands on issues show up but more with regard to priority of issues by the candidate. A candidate who doesn’t focus on the economy when I’m having economic problems will be perceived to not care about me and my problems. Carson +78%, Rubio +57%, Cruz +53%, Fiorina +45%, Bush +13%, Trump +3%

Right Experience (5%): This factor goes to proven ability to do the job day-in and day-out. In the past, after “shared values” this was a very significant factor. The fact it is down relative to other factors is an expression of the frustration with “experience” making a difference. Bush +55%, Cruz +50%, Rubio +49%, Carson +22%, Trump +15%, Fiorina +14%

Because Quinniapiac didn’t ask voters to rank the importance of the issues I used Gallup which consistently monitors issues for relative importance aggregating Gallups detail into generalities (for instance, lumping foreign policy, international issues and defense together). Quinniapiac asked who voters thought best could handle the following issues:

Economy (29%): Trump 41%, Carson 12%, Cruz 8%, Fiorina 8%, Rubio 6%, Bush 5%

Social Issues (25%): Carson 31%, Cruz 13%, Trump 11%, Rubio 9%, Fiorina 8%, Bush 3%

Foreign Policy (12%): The upcoming CNBC debate is focused on foreign policy. These numbers could change significantly. Rubio 18%, Trump 17%, Cruz 11%, Carson 9%, Bush 8%, Fiorina 6%.

Illegal Immigration (12%): Trump 37%, Rubio 15%, Cruz 14%, Carson 9%, Bush 5%, Fiorina 1%

Finally, Quinniapiac asked what is the best profile to be President. What the following seems to indicate when over 50% of GOP voters support people who have never held office is profile isn’t a significant factor at least at this point in the campaign.

Governor: 38%, Never held office (no experience): 34%, Senator: 15%.

Finally, there is the question of which candidates voters “would definitely NOT support for the Republican nomination?”

Carson (4%), Rubio (5%), Cruz (7%), Fiorina (8%), Bush (21%), & Trump (30%). If these numbers continue to hold, Bush and Trump appear to be the least likely to prevail in a small field unless they are the last two standing.

The combination of all these factors is essentially summarized in the Favorable/Unfavorable perception of the candidate as a whole.

Carson +74%: Carson appears to have a virtual halo above him. While there is likely a strong desire by the other candidates to attack him because he is now leading in Iowa, personally attacking a saint is likely to splash more mud on the attacker than Carson. Because he doesn’t have a record, it will be hard to attack him on issues. This suggests the only way to impact Carson’s support is to make experience the defining issue, whether it be Trump and Fiorina highlighting running a business, Bush running a State, or Rubio & Cruz dealing with the issues of the day in a very real way.

Rubio +55%, Cruz +47%, Fiorina +43%: These three candidates have positioned themselves to pounce on a shake-up both above and below themselves but there may be room for only one to actually get traction from the shake-up. While not suggesting they become fatalistic or passive, their fortunes to large degree depend on the success and failure of other candidates.

Trump +10%: Trump has 43% of the Iowa caucus goers who see him in a negative light despite dominating on leadership, the economy, and illegal immigration. He has to address these current realities or his prospects will dim: Frankly, Trump isn’t “Great” when voters are asked if he shares their values, is honesty/trustworthy, or cares about their problems. A certain segment may agree with him on some specifics but as voters get closer to actually voting, failing the “good neighbor” test will not produce good results. Trump may have killed himself with this response Iowa caucus goers now prefer Carson: “#BenCarson is now leading in the #polls in #Iowa. Too much #Monsanto in the #corn creates issues in the brain?”

Bush -8%: As dugger & Spencer (posted in another thread) noted, this is definitely a problem. Currently 51% of Iowa caucus goers perceive him negatively. Despite being a former Governor (leading profile of voters) and leading with the right experience, Bush is at the bottom or next to the bottom on the issues, leadership, and caring about what voters care about. “Resume” (which also works against him because of his last name) will not cut it.

In short, right now, something tells me I’d rather be Rubio, Cruz or Fiorina right now. If any of them can finish in the top three in IA, NH or SC, their star will rise. Carson’s bubble is inflated beyond what is sustainable, Trump’s “bubble” seems to be so fixed it can’t grow, and because Bush’s “bubble” appears to have a big hole, ironically after earlier being the favorite, if Bush gets the nomination he will be known as the surprise nominee. If Carson, Trump, or Bush don’t get in the top three in at least two of the first three states, their stars will fade.

 Personal comment: I can see no reason for Gilmore, Jindal, Huckabee, Kasich, Christie and Pataki to stay in the race. That said, I think Graham (supporting material intervention in the Middle East) and Paul (opposing intervention in the Middle East) should stay in the race because this is an issue that deserves its own debate.

P.S. Bush’s announcement today of cutting senior staff and other expenses is getting mixed reviews but most reactions are an assertion he is running out of cash. I have a different reaction because the scope isn’t significant enough to extend his runway materially. Campaigns can’t fire the candidate but they can change the team. His prior team was not helping him go forward. To do nothing was more likely going to lead to nothing different and frankly, he needs to do something different. What is clear is the cuts appear to direct resources away from March primary states while preserving organization and advertising funds for Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. This tells me Bush’s team recognizes finishing 6^th in the first three states may result in him not getting to compete in the March primary states.

For those who think it mean anything, current offshore betting odds on who wins the nomination:

Rubio: 30% (up 1%), Bush: 20% (down 4%), Trump: 16% (up 2%), Carson: 10% (up 2%), Cruz: 6% (flat), Fiorina: 6% (up 1%).

If one were to bet $100 on all six, one would lose $600 if it the winner were not listed above, lose $265 if Rubio wins, lose $100 if Bush wins, and win money if Trump, Carson, Cruz or Fiorina won (at least $1,000 if it were Cruz or Fiorina). If one were to bet on the three I mention above I think are in the best position, one would lose $300 if Trump, Carson, Bush or someone not listed above were to be nominated and win $35 if it is Rubio, $1,300 if Cruz, and $1,500 if Fiorina. If I were a betting man (and this were legal), I’d make the latter bet.

That said, because betting with money tends to minimize one’s preference and emotion, Bush’s odds should give pause to anyone who wants to count Bush out. And, not get to excited by Trump’s or Carson’s current standing in the polls.

BTW, the betters give Sanders a better chance of winning the Democrat nomination than they give Trump, Carson, Cruz or Fiorina. Draw your own conclusions.

South Dakota Attorney General Jackley to Challenge EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published the rule establishing performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing fossil fuel fired power plants.

“We all recognize the importance of protecting our environment and developing energy efficiency, but I am concerned the EPA has once again exceeded its authority granted by Congress and reduced the decision-making authority of our State. The EPA’s actions will directly affect energy costs and potential energy availability to South Dakota consumers. I intend to work with other State Attorneys General to protect our State decision-making authority and our consumers who heavily depend on energy in their everyday lives,” said Jackley.

In 2014, several states submitted extensive comments on the Proposed Rule, explaining the Proposed Rule was unlawful. In addition, they also noted the EPA’s failure to comply with notice and comment requirements. Now over a year later, these comments and related concerns have not been addressed as the EPA moves forward with the implementation of the rule.

Participating states include: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

-30-

OFFICIAL: New South Dakota license plate design for 2016 unveiled by @SDRevenue . https://t.co/Yt5zBeqXjo pic.twitter.com/wnBkgaUuJI

— SD Revenue (@SDRevenue) October 23, 2015

What do you think? Is it time for a change of pace?

President Holding Defense Hostage, Says Noem

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Kristi Noem today strongly denounced President Obama’s veto of H.R.1735, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The NDAA is an annual legislative item that sets the nation’s defense priorities.  Since an NDAA was first passed more than 50 years ago, the legislation has been vetoed only four times; today marks the fifth.

“Taking our national defense hostage and using that as leverage to increase government spending is a dangerous and unprecedented move to make,” said Noem.  “Every other NDAA veto has been issued over defense policy decisions.  This is the first time a Commander in Chief has chosen to sacrifice national security for other reasons.  The decision is unacceptable.”

The 2016 NDAA passed the U.S. House of Representatives on May 15 by a margin of 269-151, with broadly bipartisan support.  The legislation includes a 1.3 percent pay raise for troops, improves access to mental health care for veterans, offers greater protections against sexual assault, and provides necessary resources in the fight against ISIL, Russian aggression, and cyber threats.

“The NDAA gives our troops the resources and authorizations they need to keep this country safe,” said Noem.  “More specifically, this legislation increases pay for our troops and their families.  It enhances the military retirement system and makes much-needed improvements to the way mental health care is handled for veterans.  It strengthens our cyber defenses, reinforces our mission to defeat ISIL, and enables us to counter Russian aggression.  The NDAA accomplishes all of this while reflecting Congress’s balanced budget plan.  It’s a strong and broadly bipartisan piece of legislation.  I will work to gain the votes necessary to override this dangerous veto.”

The House of Representatives is currently scheduled to vote on a veto override on November 5.

###

‎ Thune Statement on President’s NDAA Veto

“At a time of numerous threats to our nation, a presidential veto of this critical legislation is unconscionable.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today released the following statement after President Obama vetoed the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

“Today the president demonstrated he is willing to put politics ahead of the security of our nation by vetoing this bipartisan bill. This veto jeopardizes funding for the Long Range Strike Bomber and readiness for the B-1B bombers based at Ellsworth Air Force Base, as well as additional funding that our military needs to protect our country. At a time of numerous threats to our nation, a presidential veto of this critical legislation is unconscionable. Members of Congress must now work together to override this dangerous veto and provide our troops the support they need.”

###

Rounds: Obama NDAA Veto a Slap in the Face to our Troops 

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today made the following statement after President Obama vetoed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA):

“Having just returned from the Middle East where I met with government and military officials, it is evident the need to provide a stable and clear path forward in our military endeavors. It is very disappointing that the President would veto this military authorization bill, simply because he wants to spend more money on agencies like the IRS and EPA. Holding our military men and women as hostages for this political agenda is not acceptable.”

President Obama vetoed the bill even though it met the funding levels he had requested. It now heads back to the House and Senate, where a 2/3 majority in each chamber will be required to override the veto.

###

Thune Requests Update on IHS Effort to Modernize Purchased and Referred Care Program

“By bringing payments under the IHS PRC program in line with other federal health care programs, we will be able to stretch limited dollars and expand access to care in Indian Country.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today requested an update from Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell on a pending Indian Health Services (IHS) regulation that would extend access to IHS contract care. The pending regulation would expand Medicare-like rate payment methodologies to all health care services contracted under the Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) program, bringing uniformity to reimbursement rates for contract health care services and establishing reimbursement levels that are in line with services like Medicare, Tricare, and VA benefits. First proposed in late 2014, this regulation has yet to be finalized.

“While the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which I supported, made needed reforms to health care in Indian Country, considerable work remains to ensure that IHS patients have access to the health care they need,” said Thune. “By bringing payments under the IHS PRC program in line with other federal health care programs, we will be able to stretch limited dollars and expand access to care in Indian Country. The PRC program is not meeting the needs of tribal citizens or being accountable to providers outside the IHS system. I look forward to working with tribes, providers, and the IHS on workable and common-sense solutions to modernize Purchased and Referred Care and ultimately improve the quality of this important program.”

Physicians and other non-hospital providers currently contracting with IHS through the PRC program are often paid at different rates than what is paid for identical services that are provided under Medicare, Tricare, or VA benefits.

In response to ongoing concerns from private health care providers in South Dakota that contract with IHS, Thune’s letter also requests information on IHS efforts to improve its claims administration process. The request is a follow-up to a 2014 staff-led working group that Thune convened, which included private providers, IHS, and tribal stakeholders, during which the claims administration process under the PRC program was discussed.

Full text of the letter can be found below:

The Honorable Sylvia Mathews Burwell
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20201

Dear Secretary Burwell:

I write today regarding an ongoing rulemaking at the Indian Health Service (IHS) with respect to Medicare-like rate (MLR) payment methodologies in the Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) program, formerly Contract Health Service.

As you know, current law requires only Medicare participating hospitals to accept MLR for services contracted by the IHS.  While in some cases IHS or tribes have negotiated lower rates, the current regulatory structure has led IHS to pay for physician and other non-hospital services at billed charges – often much higher than rates paid by insurers and other federal health care programs.  Pursuant to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, in 2013, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released its findings on this issue.  The GAO recommended Congress consider capping rates in this  program, which could save the IHS PRC program millions of dollars annually and ultimately expand patient care.

While Congress has not yet acted, in December 2014, the IHS published a notice of proposed rulemaking to expand the MLR to all health care services contracted under the PRC program.  In the course of the rulemaking process, a number of issues were raised by stakeholders and I am hopeful the final rule will reflect a consideration of many of these concerns and ideas.  I was pleased to see that the rule noted that access to care should not be negatively impacted as this regulatory change moves forward.  As almost a year has passed, I am interested in learning where you and the department are in the rulemaking process and when you expect this rule to be finalized and published.

As you make changes to reimbursement, it is imperative that improvements in IHS program administration follow.  Providers continue to express frustration with claims administration in the PRC program.  While a MLR may be appropriate, providers should also expect timely payment and a modernized claims process.  In working with tribes, private providers, and the fiscal intermediary, efficiencies in the existing process must be developed.  Last fall, my office gathered stakeholders from IHS, private providers, and tribal health care officials to initiate a dialogue on this issue.  Since that time, discussions have continued, but unfortunately, problems remain.  I would like an update from you on the continuing involvement of IHS staff in the Great Plains Area and headquarters office to identify efficiencies and continue these discussions in South Dakota and across the country.

I support your policy goal to bring IHS reimbursement in line with other federal programs and expand services.  At the same time, claims administration must be improved.  I urge you to advance this rulemaking and other associated changes that will ensure patients receive needed care while providers are reimbursed in a timely, efficient manner.  I have been exploring these issues over the last several years and I welcome the opportunity to work with you to advance these policy goals.  I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

###

From my mailbox comes a sign that Kristi is gearing up for the campaign in 2016:

Noem October 2015 Fundraising Letter