Mediaboss Marketing

Democratic primary results:

Republican primary results:

In a surprisingly close race, Republican Ed Gillespie barely secured the GOP nomination in the Virginia gubernatorial primary on Tuesday after fending off a stronger-than-anticipated challenge from Corey Stewart, a controversial conservative candidate who embraced President Trump and pitched himself as an immigration hardliner and defender of Confederate monuments.

The Associated Press called the race for Gillespie just before 10:30 p.m. ET. Decision Desk HQ projected that Gillespie would win shortly before 10 p.m. ET.

Gillespie, a former Republican National Committee chair, who worked to distance himself from Trump, held a lead in most pre-election polls, while Stewart was considered a long-shot candidate. Stewart, the chair of the Prince William Board of County Supervisors, once claimed that he was Trump before Trump was Trump, and has been described by The Washington Post as Trumps Virginia Mini-Me. He formerly served as Virginia chair for the Trump campaign, but the campaign fired him after he participated in a protest at the Republican National Committee headquarters.

The fact that the Republican race turned out to be so competitive as the votes were counted is sure to set off shockwaves among Washington political observers. The Republican establishment may have prevailed Tuesday, but the close result could nevertheless convince future conservative candidates that embracing Trumps brand of politics isnt a lost cause in battleground states.

Gillespie will face off against Ralph Northam, the states current lieutenant governor, who secured the Democratic nomination, in Novembers general election to succeed outgoing Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe. Northam has denounced Trump on the campaign trail, and even called the president a narcissistic maniac in an ad.

Ahead of Tuesdays result, the Democratic primary had been viewed as the marquee contest in Virginia and an early test of Democratic voter sentiment in a battleground state in the Trump era given how competitive the race looked while the GOP primary appeared to be a near-lock for Gillespie. Northams defeat of Tom Perriello, a former representative who described himself as a pragmatic populist and won endorsements from progressive icons Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, is sure to disappoint the partys liberal wing.

Both Democrats ran on a progressive policy agenda and meted out anti-Trump attacks, but there were meaningful differences between the candidates. While he took pains to emphasize a progressive voting record and platform, Northams campaign nevertheless lacked the pointed critique of corporate power that featured prominently in Perriellos campaign as it channeled the economic populism that Sanders elevated to the forefront of American politics during the 2016 presidential primary.

It would be overly simplistic to say that Perriellos defeat was a clear-cut loss for Sanders-style progressivism. The former congressman ran on a platform that did not entirely align with that of the Vermont senators presidential primary agenda, and labeled himself a pragmatic populist. But the outcome may nevertheless be taken as a rebuke of Sanders-style populism, even if the result of any individual race has only limited power to signal broader trends in the electorate.

Its not yet clear exactly what the impact of the Republican primary result will be at the national level. On the campaign trail, Stewart framed his primary bid as a test of Trumps appeal. Stewart gained notoriety during his primary race for a series of controversial statements he made in defense of Confederate memorials. In April, the Minnesota native faced backlash after tweeting: Nothing is worse than a Yankee telling a Southerner that his monuments dont matter, in the midst of a nationwide debate over the removal of Confederate icons.

For his part, Gillespie attempted to sidestep national politics as much as possible by training his focus instead on statewide issues. Virginians are focused on Virginia, Gillespie told NBC in an interview. There were clear signs that Gillespie was attuned to the national political mood, however. During his campaign, he attempted to reach out to conservative voters concerned about illegal immigration with promises to step up enforcement.

Trump himself lost Virginia in the presidential election, so Stewarts forceful primary challenge may lead Trump supporters to argue that the presidents appeal is nevertheless broad in the battleground state. For now, however, the Republican establishment is likely breathing a sigh of relief after Tuesdays nail-biter of a GOP primary.

Democrats will start the march toward the general election in a relatively strong position. Recent polls of possible general election matchups found both Democratic candidates, Northam and Perriello, leading Gillespie by comfortable margins ahead of Tuesdays results. That may change leading up to the general election in November, but as of now, Democrats appear poised to have an edge heading into the fall.

Read more here:
The Republican Establishment Narrowly Wins in Virginia - The Atlantic

wbur

Kansas lawmakers Republicans revolt and undo their own austere tax cuts. Well unpack what happened to the GOPs Kansas Experiment.

The state of Kansas was supposed to be the great Republican model. Cut taxes deeply, said Governor Sam Brownback, and it would be like a shot of adrenaline in the heart of the Kansas economy. The taxes were cut. The adrenaline never showed. Things fell apart. Last week, Kansas Republicans revolted against their hardline governor, overrode his veto, and ditched the model. This hour On Point: The Kansas Republican revolt against supply side economics, and what it means. -- Tom Ashbrook

Jim McLean, managing director of the Kansas News Service. (@jmcleanks)

Patrick Miller, assistant professor of political science at The University of Kansas, where he focuses on local government. (@pmiller1693)

Rep. Melissa Rooker, Kansas Republican representative for the 25th district. (@MelissaRooker)

Max Ehrenfreund, policy reporter for the Washington Post. (@MaxEhrenfreund)

Kansas News Service:Kansas Lawmakers Raise Taxes And Spending Before Ending Session "Their final act was to approve a two-year budget plan that supporters say will start the process of repairing damage done by Republican Gov. Sam Brownbacks tax cuts. But the sessions climatic moment occurred a week earlier when lawmakers overrode Brownbacks veto of a bill that largely reversed those cuts. A group of moderate Republicans and Democrats elected since the passage of the tax cuts in 2012 helped lead the charge, but even some lawmakers who initially supported the cuts joined the override effort."

New York Times: Brownback Tax Cuts Set Off a Revolt by Kansas Republicans "Gov. Sam Brownbacks leadership of Kansas came to be synonymous with a single, unyielding philosophy: Cut taxes, cut the size of government, and the state will thrive. But this week, Mr. Brownbacks deeply conservative state turned on him and his austere approach. Fed up with gaping budget shortfalls, inadequate education funding and insufficient revenue, the Republican-controlled Legislature capped months of turmoil by overriding the governors veto of a bill that would undo some of his tax cuts and raise $1.2 billion over two years."

Washington Post: Republicans are predicting the beginning of the end of the tea party in Kansas "Kansas was at the heart of the tea party revolution, a red state where, six years ago, a deeply conservative group of Republicans took the state for a hard right turn. Now, after their policies failed to produce the results GOP politicians promised, the state has become host to another revolution: a resurgence of moderate Republicans."

This program aired on June 13, 2017.

Continued here:
A Failed Experiment And A Republican Revolt In Kansas | On Point - WBUR

The fate of the American health-care system now rests with a group of allegedly moderate senators, who are getting ready to approve a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, a repeal bill so monumental in its cruelty that they feel they have no choice but to draft it in secret, not let the public know what it does, hold not a single hearing or committee markup, slip it in a brown paper package to the Congressional Budget Office, then push it through to a vote before the July 4th recess before the inevitable backlash gets too loud.

We arent stupid, one GOP Senate aide told Caitlin Owens they know what would happen if they made their bill public. Even Republican senators who arent part of the 13-member working group crafting the bill havent been told exactly whats in it.

Today, we learned that in a break with long-standing precedent, Senate officials are cracking down on media access, informing reporters on Tuesday that they will no longer be allowed to film or record audio of interviews in the Senate side hallways of the Capitol without special permission. Everyone assumes that its so those senators can avoid having to appear on camera being asked uncomfortable questions about a bill that is as likely to be as popular as Ebola. As Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health Newstweetedabout the secrecy with which this bill is being advanced, I have covered every major health bill in Congress since 1986. Have NEVER seen anything like this.

This is how a party acts when it is ashamed of what it is about to do to the American people. Yet all it would take to stop this abomination is for three Republicans to stand up to their partys leaders and say, No I wont do this to my constituents. With only a 52-48 majority in the Senate, that would kill the bill. But right now, its looking as though this Coward Caucus is going to be unable to muster the necessary courage.

The Post's Libby Casey explains how television crews work in the Senate and how the rules are enforced. (Libby Casey,McKenna Ewen / The Washington Post)

To understand the magnitude of what theyre doing, lets focus on Medicaid, because it was supposed to be a sticking point on which some senators wouldnt budge, particularly those whose states accepted the ACAs expansion of the program. But according to various reports, the moderates have already caved.

Take Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a state where more than 175,000 people have gotten insurance thanks to the Medicaid expansion. For a while, Capito made noises about she wanted to preserve the expansion to protect her constituents. I mean, we cant just drop them off and wish them good luck, she said. But no more.

Last week The Hill reported that Capito now supports eliminating the expansion after all just doing it over seven years instead of the three years that the House bill required. The Charleston Gazette-Mail in Capitos home state noted that Capito had said she didnt want to drop all those West Virginians off a cliff, but Instead, she would drop them off a cliff on the installment plan around 25,000 per year for seven years.

President Trump on June 13 said Republican efforts to overhaul the U.S. health-care system will result in a "phenomenal bill" and "fantastic" outcome. Trump was hosting several Republican senators at the White House. (The Washington Post)

Or how about Ohio Sen. Rob Portman? In his state, 700,000 people gained insurance as a result of the Medicaid expansion. He drafted a letter to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) stating his opposition to the House bill because it didnt protect those who gained insurance from the expansion. Now Portman alsowants to phase out the expansion over seven years.

What about Sen. Susan Collins, supposedly the most moderate Republican in the Senate? While Maine hasnt accepted the expansion due to the resistance of Americas Worst Governor, Paul LePage, Collins has said that she would like to see her state accept the expansion (with some provisions that make it more uncomfortable for recipients, just so those poors dont get the idea that they should accept it without shame). But weve been through this dance with Collins before Democrats hope shell be a vote for moderation; she talks about how she wants to find a compromise; and in the end she votes with the GOP on every important bill.

Its important to know that the Medicaid question isnt just about the millions who would lose coverage if the expansion is eliminated. Paige Winfield Cunningham reports today that Senate Republicans are considering even deeper cuts to Medicaid than the $880 billion the House bill slashed out of the program. Theyd pay for the slower elimination of the expansion by cutting money out of the existing program, so they could get rid of all of the ACAs tax increases which mostly affected the wealthy. In other words, they want to cut Medicaid to give a tax break to rich people.

Just as critical, they want to end Medicaids status as an entitlement, meaning that the program wouldnt cover everyone whos eligible. States would get a chunk of money to spend, and if more people turned out to need coverage, tough luck for them. The states would be offered flexibility, which in practice would mean permission to kick people off the program and cut back on benefits. And dont think this is just about poor people over half of Medicaid dollars go to the elderly and disabled. That means that they arent just undoing the ACA; theyre making things substantially worse for tens of millions of Americas most vulnerable citizens than they were even before the ACA passed.

And theyre hoping they can do all this before anyone realizes what theyre up to, making this an act of both unconscionable heartlessness and epic cowardice. Their efforts to hide what theyre doing show that they are still capable of feeling some measure of shame. But it might not be enough to stop them.

Link:
How the Republican Coward Caucus is about to sell out its own constituents in secret - Washington Post (blog)

MSNBC

The scandalous secrecy surrounding the Republican health care gambit MSNBC Republican leaders are being so secretive about their health care overhaul that even other GOP senators have no idea what they'll soon be asked to pass. Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said yesterday's he's curious ... BREAKING: CMS actuary predicts 13 million will lose coverage under Republican repeal billModernHealthcare.com all 66 news articles »

Link:
The scandalous secrecy surrounding the Republican health care gambit - MSNBC

Bangup job guys.

Getty Images

When the House was busy negotiating its Obamacare repeal bill this spring, conservative Republicans said they had oneand pretty much only onegoal for the legislation: It had to bring down insurance premiums. Period.

Jordan Weissmann is Slates senior business and economics correspondent.

I can tell you that there is one score that the American people will pay attention to, Mark Meadows, chair of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said in March, after the first draft of the law emerged. And that is, does it really lower their health care costs and their premiums? Thats the only score that really matters. And if this doesnt do it, then we need to make sure that we find something that does do it.

Meadows and the Freedom Caucus of course threw their support behind the American Health Care Act in May, after negotiating a number of concessions they said would lower the cost of insurance. Actually, it drives down premiums," the North Carolina representative said on Morning Joe, adding that, "The first bill that came out actually had an increase in premiums in the short term. In fact, there wasn't any obvious way Meadows could have known what the bill would do at the time, since the Congressional Budget Office hadn't scored it yet. But the CBO's forecast eventually bore out his point: Though some people, particularly older Americans, would see the cost of insurance rise astronomically, the office concluded that by 2026, average premiums would fall across the states.

So, mission accomplished?

Nope. Not at all. It seems the CBO report left out something important: the value of government subsidies. Today, Obamacare provides tax credits to lower- and middle-income families in order to make coverage more affordable. The House bill provides tax credits, too, but they would be less generous for many households, because they're based on age rather than income. Because the CBO only tried to forecast premiums before tax credits in its analysis, it didn't actually tell us whether families would be paying more or less on average for their insurance.

Turns out they might be paying more. On Tuesday, the Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services released its own score of the House bill. It finds that gross premiumsthat is, before tax credits kick inwould fall 13 percent by 2026. Howevernet premiumsthat is, after tax creditswould rise 5 percent, because the law's subsidies would simply be worth less. What's more, average out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays would skyrocket 61 percent, in large part because the law ends the Obamacare rules that limit those expenses for poorer families. Overall, people will simply be paying more for their coverage and care ($162 a month more, on average, to be precise).

Of course, the actuary's estimates rely on a number of assumptions. For instance, it guesses that only a quarter of states will choose to waive Obamacare's insurance market regulations, such as the requirements that insurers cover certain essential medical services, as the American Health Care Act would allow them to. It's very possible that more states would take that opportunity, which could drop premiums lower.

These are also only average effects. In the end, the House bill will mean different things for different Americans. Premiums before subsidies will go down for younger, healthy customers and way up for people in their sixties, because the AHCA increases the amount insurers can charge older enrollees compared to people in their twenties. If states waive the Essential Health Benefits rules, people who need more services (like women who want childbirth coverage) will pay a lot more for them. Some upper-middle-class households that were never eligible for Obamacare's subsidies could come out ahead, meanwhile, because they would qualify for the House bill's tax credits.

Top Comment

I'm proud to announce Michigan Guy Health Insurance - for $100 a month I send you a frozen bag of peas every month to put on wherever it hurts. Take THAT high premiums! More...

Finally, it's very likely that the Senate will change the House bill's subsidy structure, and possibly make it more generousthough that would take more money.

But don't let that obscure the greater point. Conservatives said their bill would bring down the cost of insurance for families. This estimate says it's entirely possible that, overall, it won't. If that's the case, the ACHA fails at its one and only job.

More here:
The Republican Health Care Bill Would Actually Raise Insurance Premiums, Says a New Government Report - Slate Magazine (blog)