A Demographic Edge for Hillary Clinton in 2016
Are the GOP’s 2016 presidential hopes dying out?
No matter how many GOP candidates enter the 2016 presidential sweepstakes, it will be an uphill climb for any Republican to secure the White House. That’s not simply because Democratic voters outpace Republicans by a four-point edge, according to Gallup. It’s because the GOP is dying — literally —according to an analysis published Sunday in Politico.
Seems 2.75 million Republican voters will be dead by the time the 2016 election rolls around, Daniel J. McGraw claims in what he calls his “back-of-the-napkin” math. By comparison, roughly 2.3 million Obama supporters will have died by the time the 2016 election rolls around. McGraw is right, of course, that Republicans tend to be older than Democrats, and that the surge of millennials (about 78 million) tends to vote Democratic. They’re young, energetic, tilt left on social issues like gay marriage and believe women are underrepresented in the boardroom as well as the White House.
Republicans could still connect with millennial voters on economic issues, but on the whole, the demographic trends will only make it harder for the GOP’s eventual nominee.
Related: How the Clinton Scandals Can Bring Down the Democrats
McGraw’s estimates can only go so far, though. They can’t fully account for state-by-state differences that could tilt the Electoral College, and they don’t factor in specific candidates and how they might appeal to various age groups, or not. Can a youthful Marco Rubio, for example, find a way to draw younger voters? Will Hillary Clinton trip over her political baggage, packed in part by her husband?
In the end, regardless of who is nominated by the GOP, the election will rest on the 43 percent of Americans who identify themselves as independents. Including independents, Democrats had a three-point edge as of last year. But if McGraw is right, that edge could widen before long.
Tax Refunds Rebound
Smaller refunds in the first few weeks of the current tax season were shaping up to be a political problem for Republicans, but new data from the IRS shows that the value of refund checks has snapped back and is now running 1.3 percent higher than last year. The average refund through February 23 last year was $3,103, while the average refund through February 22 of 2019 was $3,143 – a difference of $40. The chart below from J.P. Morgan shows how refunds performed over the last 3 years.
Number of the Day: $22 Trillion
The total national debt surpassed $22 trillion on Monday. Total public debt outstanding reached $22,012,840,891,685.32, to be exact. That figure is up by more than $1.3 trillion over the past 12 months and by more than $2 trillion since President Trump took office.
Chart of the Week: The Soaring Cost of Insulin
The cost of insulin used to treat Type 1 diabetes nearly doubled between 2012 and 2016, according to an analysis released this week by the Health Care Cost Institute. Researchers found that the average point-of-sale price increased “from $7.80 a day in 2012 to $15 a day in 2016 for someone using an average amount of insulin (60 units per day).” Annual spending per person on insulin rose from $2,864 to $5,705 over the five-year period. And by 2016, insulin costs accounted for nearly a third of all heath care spending for those with Type 1 diabetes (see the chart below), which rose from $12,467 in 2012 to $18,494.
Chart of the Day: Shutdown Hits Like a Hurricane
The partial government shutdown has hit the economy like a hurricane – and not just metaphorically. Analysts at the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget said Tuesday that the shutdown has now cost the economy about $26 billion, close to the average cost of $27 billion per hurricane calculated by the Congressional Budget Office for storms striking the U.S. between 2000 and 2015. From an economic point of view, it’s basically “a self-imposed natural disaster,” CRFB said.
Chart of the Week: Lowering Medicare Drug Prices
The U.S. could save billions of dollars a year if Medicare were empowered to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies, according to a paper published by JAMA Internal Medicine earlier this week. Researchers compared the prices of the top 50 oral drugs in Medicare Part D to the prices for the same drugs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, which negotiates its own prices and uses a national formulary. They found that Medicare’s total spending was much higher than it would have been with VA pricing.
In 2016, for example, Medicare Part D spent $32.5 billion on the top 50 drugs but would have spent $18 billion if VA prices were in effect – or roughly 45 percent less. And the savings would likely be larger still, Axios’s Bob Herman said, since the study did not consider high-cost injectable drugs such as insulin.
