Every English poet should master the rules of grammar
before he attempts to bend or break them.
Robert Graves
Tweet of the Day
Clinton's politically-convenient, self-serving excuses on the failure on her watch to upgrade Benghazi security insults our intelligence.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 23, 2015Clinton's scapegoating of Amb. Stevens for circumstances resulting in his murder is unconscionable: she is backing the bus over his grave.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 23, 2015Obama's veto of the defense bill because the Congress won't finance his domestic spending spree is unconscionable extortion on our security.— Ronald Guillemette (@raguillem) October 23, 2015Image of the Day
Students Have a Right to Report on Teacher Termination
Rand Paul on the Budget/Debt Ceiling, Eminent Domain, Medical Marijuana, the Polls, TPP
Political Potpourri
What has to be the biggest political story of the week (although Drudge is not featuring it) is two shock polls from Iowa showing Carson with a statistically significant nearly 10 point advantage over Trump. Now keep in mind we're still a few months shy of Iowa (February), we haven't really seen the negative ads yet, there will be a few debates, and I don't know the methodologies of the polls (for example, a lot of Trump's support comes allegedly from segments which do not turn out to vote or caucus as reliability). But if you go back to recent segments, I thought the race would tighten up after Trump's poor performance in the second debate. It doesn't surprise me that a social conservative leads in Iowa after the victories by Huckabee in 2008 and Santorum in 2012.
It's not the end of Trump; in 2012, both Romney and Gingrich surged back after poll reversals and/or setbacks. There were recent blowout polls in favor of Trump, e.g., an improbable 48% in Mass. and a runaway margin in Nevada, even a 10-point or better national poll or two. Quite often, Iowa and NH go different ways. Moreover, the Outsiders (Trump, Carson, and Fiorina) are still grabbing one vote out of every 2.
Drudge continues to provide a pro-Trump slant. To give a minor example, he's currently citing a post arguing almost 75% of Republicans would support a Trump nomination.
Probably the most intriguing poll of the week was a Wisconsin one showing Carson nose out a three-way tie with Trump and Rubio. Rubio's placement has been inconsistent though, although he now seems to be edging out Bush in most polls. Bush is definitely in trouble; he's recently imposed pay cuts on his campaign staff, and he's beginning to fade to one-digit standing. Defending his brother is a tactical blunder; he cannot let Trump dictate his campaign. More importantly, he's lost a few head-to-heads with Clinton; if and when he's lost the electability argument, he's done. It's very difficult to see how he recovers from here; I think if and when the Outsiders lose support, their support will migrate to people like Rubio, Paul, and Cruz, not Bush, who is almost the polar opposite of an Outsider, if for no reason than his family's stature. I think he stays in through Florida at minimum.
Fiorina seems to have lost all of her momentum from the second debate and is not placing to show in most polls. Whereas Perry and Walker have left the GOP race, there are a lot of candidates with at best nominal support: Pataki, Graham, Christie, Jindal, Santorum, and Kasich. Kasich at one point was well-positioned in NH but has faded and really isn't a factor anywhere. I would not be shocked to see Huckabee and Santorum drop out if Carson's candidacy has staying power and endorse him. I don't think Graham wants to see a humiliating defeat in his home state of SC, but he may stay in through NH. I think he might support Carson, Bush, or Rubio. I expect to see Christie to stay through NH and shift his support to a current or former governor, e.g., Bush.
Paul retains my support, but the polls are not forgiving. It's bad when the campaign hyped one poll at about 6%, above a few well-known candidates. I think he'll do better in Iowa and NH than most polls indicate--maybe not win but strong enough to get noticed, maybe even place, and I think he may win a number of state caucuses. He had been polling in the mid-teens before the Outsiders, and they obviously siphoned off his anti-establishment support. I find it very ironic that it was Trump rather than Paul to hit the Bush Administration first; of course, on Trump's part, it was more a petty shot directed at Jeb Bush.
I do think there's a lot riding on next week's debate; I think the game plan is obvious: put Trump on the defensive. Trump can't control himself, and I think his Teflon coating is wearing thin. I wouldn't be surprised by some shots at Carson. I think the big vulnerability of the Outsiders is foreign policy.
On the Dem side, half of the field has dropped out: Webb, Biden, and Chafee. The only viable one of the 3 was VP Biden. But to be honest, when he hadn't made a move before the recent first debate, I thought that he was out. It probably works to the benefit of Clinton. I did not watch the Dem debate other than a few clips, but for some blundering reason, Sanders gave Clinton a pass on the email scandal, McCarthy's gaffe on linking the politically damaging email scandal and Clinton's struggling campaign to a Congressional nvestigation, and Clinton's rope-a-dope defense in the recent House committee hearing have allowed her to get her mojo back, at least in recent Dem polls in NH where Sanders had opened up significant leads and which Clinton seems to have reversed. I don't expect for O'Malley to emerge as a threat--he hasn't benefited at all from Clinton's sagging poll numbers. Although Clinton's political skills suck, she knows how to feed Dem voters what they want to hear, and she benefits by being more electable than Sanders. The only path I see forward for the others is if Clinton's polls against GOP candidates start sliding again. If that happens though, I expect that someone like Biden, Gore or Kerry could be drafted.
Follow-Up Odds and Ends: On Daraprim (i.e., $750 pill)
The free market works. Forbes does a good job here explaining, but let me summarize: Imprimis is a generic drug formulator which provides modified compounds of drug ingredients on a patient-specific basis. Pyrimethamine, the active ingredient behind Daraprim, is off-patent; compounded meds do not have to undergo the same type of FDA scrutiny as dedicated ingredient drugs, like Daraprim. There might be other drug ingredients, say to deal with side effects, allergies, etc., from the core ingredient, in this context pyrimethamine. The bottom line is that Imprimis suggests that they can market relevant compounds for as little as $1/pill--a mere fraction of the original $13.50 or so price of the original Daraprim pill, never mind $750.
Why did Turing raise prices as much as they did? As the article implies, Turing paid Impax over $50M for the rights to Daraprim. For a drug prescribed maybe 10,000 times a year, you have to charge enough to offset that initial cost (plus make a profit). Given a 30-day supply of Daraprim now costs over $20K at most pharmacies, a $30 alternative is a no-brainer. There are layers of inspections and oversight of relevant facilities from the states and FDA.
I still don't see why, since compounding approval piggybacks off single-ingredient approvals, why generic drug makers can't simply clone the original ingredient meds. I haven't read any response from Turing to the prospective competition with Imprimis; I suspect that there will be a fair amount of fearmongering over compounding formulations facilities and/or some price cutting
Choose Life: Baby Play Time With Daddy
Political Cartoon
 |
| Courtesy of Eric Allie via IPI |
Aretha Franklin, "I Never Loved a Man (The Way I Love You)"
