Having touched on the different ways of sampling public opinion this morning, it was a happy coincidence to find results from the latest Gallup Panel survey, which asked respondents to describe in their own words “what comes to mind” when they think of the three leading presidential candidates.ÂÂ
The results regarding all three are interesting in their own ways, but I am focused on John McCain here because a similar February 28, 2008 Pew poll showed that voters most commonly described the presumptive GOP nominee as “old,” with “veteranâ€Â and “P.O.W.â€Â not making the list. McCain’s recent “biography tour” seemed designed to re-introduce him to voters, so does the new Gallup data show Maverick making any progress on the image front?
Not really:
The current data show that the most commonly mentioned characteristics about McCain are that he is “too old,” that he is a “good man”/”likable,” that he would give the country more of the same/be another George W. Bush, that he had a good military background, and basic dislike of him.
The full results show that the number of people who volunteer his military background may have slipped since 2006. Perhaps the best that can be said about these results would be that none of the impressions offered by adults (as opposed to registered or likely voters) was particularly strong, leaving McCain more opportunity to make a good impression.
Johnny Mac can feel a bit better about Gallup’s most recent traditional polling on the issue, which shows 66% of adults consider him to be a war hero when asked about his military service. Moreover, Rasmussen reports that likely voters trust John McCain more than Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama on most key electoral issues.
Nevertheless, the open-ended answers on McCain’s image suggest that his campaign staff’s weaknesses in staging events is contributing to his campaign getting drowned out by the coverage of the Democratic cage match. For a candidate seemingly headed toward public welfare financing and a greater reliance on free or “earned” media, McCain needs to whip his organization into shape. Whether McCain is capable of doing that remains to be seen.
McCain had a biography tour?
The Obama-Clinton thing is sucking all the oxygen out of McCain’s campaign.
I’m guessing most Americans think that there’s a Presidential campaign going on, and that it’s between Obama and Clinton.
Glad you’re keeping this political comparison well balanced, Karl. McCain has the ‘edge’ due to the problems with the Democrat candidates but I am wondering about McCain’s economic advisors (Phil Gramm as example) and his health care initiative which was in the papers yesterday…something about trying to decouple health care insurance from the employer’s ledger and pushing it unto the employee’s costs but using tax breaks to further it along with only $5000 tax credits going toward health insurance.
I am in agreement that decoupling health insurance from employment isn’t bad but only if it is fair and cost effective. Apparently, McCain’s plan will be heavily regressive and also a state funded entitlement to help private health insurers get more profits using the individual’s tax credits to go into the health insurer’s pockets.
He got drowned out by the Democrats’ blood-bath. But, as I commented before on this type of topic, there seemed to be an effort to address issues about him (temper, etc.); before they came out in the general campaign.
The effect of actually going and seeing people, we will see how that will play out. He may get good mileage from that, and doing so before the opposition gets a chance to define you, and having that up-front view placed into contrast with the other party’s bloodbath? May be very worthwhile.
He just needs to be cereal cause Baracky is way not cereal. Age as gravitas will work for him. It better. What would help a lot economics wise I think if he said hey maybe we should drill our oil what we have here in the U.S. and put people to work. But he’d rather have a holiday. God he’s so stupid sometimes it’s hard for me to quantify how much I love him.
datadave,
Re: “trying to decouple health care insurance from the employer’s ledger and pushing it unto the employee’s costs”
I haven’t studied McCain’s plan, but I can tell you that employee health care costs are always ultimately borne by the employee. They are part of the employer’s cost of labor, i.e., non-wage compensation. The historical reason the US has coupled it to employment is the precedent set when unions got FDR and Congress to give it special treatment to avoid wartime wage and price controls.
The NYT story says McCain s proposing a refundable tax credit — meaning people who pay no taxes can still get it — so it’s hard to paint that as regressive. And I’m wondering where you think the money for employer-provided insurance goes, if not into the pockets of private insurers. The amount of the credit is probably deliberately low to encourage people to buy more catastrophic coverage, rather than low-deductible policies that encourage people to pay for routine treatment with insurance. Because if you think about it, most “insurance” is not designed to pay for the routine occurrence of anything.
He’s fairly normal, haps. For his experiences and his generation, he’s fairly normal. And considering what we are looking at with the Boomers and the end-of-the Boomers the Democrats have, ‘fairly normal’ is a pretty darn good thing.
McCain will be a perfectly serviceable president I think.
[…] Protein Wisdom on whether they will or not. […]
I just gotta wonder if dave does all his work “at cost”, given how much he hates profit.
a greater reliance on free or “earned†media…
goodluckwiththat
soundslikeaplan
I understand that, Karl. As a former ’employer’ the costs accrued by the hiring of an employee are much larger than the employee knows.
however, employee doesn’t necessarily want coverage and also when health care coverage was cheaper it was a ‘given’ to prove to the employee and to other employers that one’s own establishment is a ‘real place of employment’. In fact it was an advertisement of social legitimacy.
Advertizing isn’t tacked upon the employee’s costs either but with current conservative business reasoning perhaps that’ll be next on the docket for sticking it to the ‘public’.
For larger corporations, health care was seen as a group cost in a separate ledger than individual employee costs.. and thus was in the ‘insurance ledger’ and many larger corps are ‘self-insured’, again not an individual employee’s cost. The cost of health care is tacked on individually only as a way to get the Fed. tax benefits that are given to the employer.
As someone noted, insurance is sold to the companies as ‘group rates’ and individual allotments are discouraged by the brokers. One size fits all is encouraged. Cherry-picking by the insurance company is one thing but the salesman don’t want the employers to do the cherry-picking for them. They want as many customers (fees) as possible.
Also, further reading says that McCain only wants half of the 5000 dollar tax credit for individuals as that number is for a couple or a family (although some insurance is divided into three or more categories: single, single w/ child, family and maybe there is something for two adults only.) 2500 pretty much gets me only a very basic high deductible catastrophic policy that’d only be useful for protecting assets and not much for actual ‘health’. If my assets are already small and or protected..why bother. So the rates of un-insurance would likely skyrocket. Thus causing further price increases for the remaining players in the market. (although not massive increases) http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/ tyler cowin’s got some info there.
Oh, I like my profit, but don’t like unnecessary fixed costs that limit my profit. Or my health. Getting a huge bill for a medical or dental procedure can be a ruinous to one’s health as the “disease” that was supposedly cured. And try negotiating on your ‘bill’ while your baby’s being delivered or your broken body is being fixed. That’s another reason, fee negotiation is frowned upon and upsetting to doctors as well as patients. It’s not a normal “market” of ‘choice’ and/or supply and demand.
Financial stress can lead to all sorts of maladies. Any doctor or layman who says different is just plain full of………
It’s not a normal “market†of ‘choice’ and/or supply and demand.
Of course it is, dave. Unless the government takes away your choice.
‘Financial stress can lead to all sorts of maladies’
Interesting thought however contradicts my experience. For example, one of my friends working in the corporate world receives full health insurance coverage (from physical to dental to mental) from his employer yet my friend is always going to the doctor to treat his ever developing hypochrondia; the man constantly believes he is sick with some ailment or another. I kid you not, at least once a week he schedules an appointment to see a doctor for something.
Because my friend is often not really in need of medical care and is immune from paying the tab he treats the medical profession more as some sort of social networking venue than as wellness centers.
I often wonder if he ever considers how much medical resources he is taking from people who really need the services of those in the medical profession.
That said; I still do not know how it is possible free and/or universal health care can possibly prevent and/or cure disease and death.
“I still do not know how it is possible free and/or universal health care can possibly prevent and/or cure disease and death.”–syn
Curing death is something even the private sector hasn’t gotten to, but as for the rest: if a poor person can get to see a doctor (at little or no cost) about an annoying cough, they’re a lot less likely to miss a week of work (that they also can’t afford) fighting pneumonia at a hospital. So it’s likely that money could ultimately be saved.
As for the anecdote about your friend, that just shows that deadbeats who abuse the system come from all walks of life, not just the welfare rolls. As for the notion that he/she is stealing doctor time from others, I call bullshit: if someone wanted to see that doctor and had cash, he’d get in. The process of getting an approval, billing correctly (according to each company’s different plan’s coverage schedules, subject to constant revision,) waiting for the check, and processing it is what makes private insurance a pain in the ass for physicians nationwide. The process inflates prices, wastes doctor time, necessitates the hiring of billing staff, is less efficient than government, wasteful, and doesn’t provide affordable coverage for many. Plus it keeps people in jobs they hate, is a burden on employers in ways employees rarely see, and is largely unaccountable to the users (not to say that government officials are always wonderful people that you’d love to have over for dinner, but at least you can vote their bosses out.)
Martinsville, IN has always had this reputation, feets. The ironic thing is that it’s about ten miles north of Indiana University in Bloomington. It’s nice that we put a town with such a “troubled racial past” right close to IU so that all those progressive types can look north and shudder.
“There but for the grace of Gaia…”
‘if a poor person can get to see a doctor (at little or no cost) about an annoying cough, they’re a lot less likely to miss a week of work (that they also can’t afford) fighting pneumonia at a hospital. So it’s likely that money could ultimately be saved.’
Interesting thought however from my experience as one who is an independent contractor of modest income who buys my own health insurance(I opted for the catastrophic kind) I came down with the flu and waited longer than I should have to see the doctor; it was a Friday when I called to make an appointment the receptionist said it would be two weeks before I could get an appointment then after I told her I had a MSA and that I’d be paying cash ($85.00) she suggested I come to the office immediately so she could get in in before the doctor left for the weekend. I was subscribed anitbiotics and felt better by Sunday.
“I call bullshit: if someone wanted to see that doctor and had cash, he’d get in.”
My point exactly, people who have HMOs or PPO or are provided employer coverage have a harder time getting into see the doctors because, like everyone else doctors have bills to pay and waiting for the insurance payment often places the medical profession in dire straits which then forces them to raise their prices in order to make up of revenue they must constantly fight to receive; which is why my friend schedules weekly appointments far in advance just in case he may need to see the doctor.
By the way, I’d rather spend that $85 bucks on a doctor’s visit than say $150 bucks on a Bruce Springsteen concerts or $200 bucks on the latest Bway show or $500 on a pair of Manolo shoes however, I speak only for myself and would never dream of dictating to people how, where or what they spend their own money. Some people make bad choices ie they’d rather spend the money on Hamptons sumnertime fun than to purchase their own insurance yet I am told I should be held responsible for providing another’s health care.
I’ll compromise, instead of nationalizing health care let’s nationalize entertainment and fashion by putting it under government control (after all life without art means death and people need to wear clothes to protect them from environmental elements) this way all Americans can use their hard earned money purchasing health care according to the individual need they may have. This way everyone will be happy while entertainers and designers can feel benevolent about helping share in the common good.
“The process of getting an approval, billing correctly (according to each company’s different plan’s coverage schedules, subject to constant revision,) waiting for the check, and processing it is what makes private insurance a pain in the ass for physicians nationwide”
Also, drives up the medical profession’s ‘cost of doing business’ which then drives people of lower income out of the market.
Can we get some kind of warning, like an update maybe, when a thread careens off into a healthcare discussion? I really need to avoid them, I wind up all red-faced, fists clenched screaming
“IT’S A FUCKING MONOPOLY!!1111!! WHAT PART OF MONOPOLY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND!!1!!!!!!”
at the computer monitor, and if I get fired I won’t be able to afford the sedatives.
Sorry, BMoe. It’s just that healthcare seems to be an issue that pops up everywhere because 1) It’s important 2) It is messed up 3) Every solution makes more problems 4) Most people have some anecdotal experience 5) All other anecdotes aren’t as important as mine and 6) Something must be done! But it better be the right something.
Been that way in every issue for tens of thousands of years, and yet we still have people thinking that someday mankind will come up with The Solution to Everything™.
In the meantime we sometimes find ourselves so close to the coveted perfection we can taste it, so we change something to try to get closer to it, break something else more fundamental, and fall further away from the goal.
Sometimes “the right something” is nothing.
McGeehee,
Agreed, but will those dolts who we’re gonna vote for listen? Hell no. That’s why I’m voting for the dolt with the plan that leads toward what I sorta think will be somewhat better rather than the dolt with the half-assed plan that doesn’t change much (which can be sort of a good thing) but adds more layers to the status quo (not good.)
The right something is to admit we are going in the wrong direction, and turn around and start back. Continuing in the wrong direction, just more slowly, is not a solution. Not at all.
What you mean, “we”…? ;-)
I’m still pushing for a Barack – Michelle sit down a la the “Cookie Baking” Clinton shindig. I’m reserving the ticket concession, handing out free popcorn and readjusting the recliner.
Cuz I’m a tellin’ ya, that will be some hee haw big time entertainment. Anybody got an over and under on the pained expressions on Barack’s face when Michelle drops a verbal fireball?
It makes me shiver like a new born puppy in anticipation.
Name That Presidential Candidate
Distinguished military service.
Considered a “Maverick.”
Subscribed to the broad principles of his party, yet acted often as though above party and politics.
Had a temper and even threatened Congressional leadership.
Less than 6′ ta…