(Somewhat) Legitimate Criticism of Obamacare, Part Two

I've had a great deal to say about conservative myths regarding the highly successful Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. In my last post, I commented on the fact that although it's true that some of the newly insured are using emergency rooms at public expense, those folks are also healthier, more likely to have access to preventitive care, and less likely to stick emergency rooms with expenses for which hospitals will find it difficult to get reimbursed.

This time I'll tie off the last of the partially-true criticisms of Obamare.

Criticism Two: Obamacare is driving insurance companies out of business.

True, Assurant Health of Wisconsin is closing its doors. And it's pretty clear that Assurant struggled with complying with Obamacare's new rules, such as forbidding higher premiums based on medical history and age. However, just because Assurant couldn't make it under the new rules doesn't mean that the industry in general is hurting. On the contrary. From Daniel Jennings of Seeking Alpha:

"UnitedHealth, Cigna, Aetna, and WellPoint have shown significant TTM revenue growth in the last year." "TTM revenue figures indicate that the changes to the health insurance market in the past year are having a positive impact on those companies."

Last September, Daniel Mangan of CNBC also pointed out:

"The number of insurers set to sell health plans on Obamacare exchanges in the upcoming open-enrollment period is 25 percent higher than for 2014, as 77 issuers jump into that market."

Finally, some states saw few insurers ready to operate on the exchanges in Obamacare's early days. Now choice of plans is growing. From blogger demoinesdem at bleedingheartland.com:

"The Iowa Insurance Division announced today that "seven companies have applied to offer Iowans health insurance through the federal health insurance marketplace" for 2016. This year, Coventry was the sole provider selling through the exchange, following the collapse of CoOportunity Health. Although Iowa's dominant insurance provider, Wellmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield, is staying off the exchange for another year, Coventry and Minnesota-based Medica want to sell individual plans statewide, and United Healthcare wants to sell in 76 of Iowa's 99 counties."

Criticism Three: "Giving people Medicaid insurance is almost like giving them nothing, because you can't find a doctor that will see Medicaid patients." - Republican house majority leader John Boehner

As I discussed in my last post, there's some truth to the claim that folks newly insured with Medicaid are having trouble seeing clinicians, and busy clinics are instead referring them to emergency rooms for care. This problem however is fairly limited. From Jason Millman of the Washington Post:

"The Commonwealth Fund, a health research foundation supportive of the health-care law, is out with a new survey this morning examining the experiences of the newly insured under the Affordable Care Act. The survey, conducted by SSRS between April and June, found that 60 percent of people with new coverage, either through Medicaid or a private health plan, said they had already visited a health-care provider or filled a prescription.

Just about one in five of those with new coverage, though, said they tried to find a primary care doctor — but of those, 75 percent said their search was somewhat easy or very easy. And once they found a primary care doctor, most new enrollees said they were able to make an appointment within two weeks."

 According to a study just released by the peer-reviewed journal Health Affairs, primary care has actually improved for Michigan Medicaid patients under Obamacare. The authors conclude:

"It is noteworthy that Medicaid appointment availability in Michigan increased rather than decreased during a period when approximately 350,000 adults entered the Medicaid system and the number of primary care providers likely remained stable." and that, "appointment availability increased 6 percentage points for new Medicaid patients."

Conservative cyberspace has also been circulating the claim that, "214,000 doctors refuse to take patients with insurance bought on marketplaces." Long story short, Politifact.com rates this claim as, "False."

Criticism Four: The President said, "If you like your plan you can keep it." That wasn't altogether true.

Yes, but it was about 99.8% true. At one time, we heard claims that millions had seen their policies cancelled. Here's an update on the facts, as summarized by of Forbes:

"About 2.2% of Americans who purchased coverage on their own, or 400,000 people, had individual policies cancelled, according a new analysis from the nonpartisan Urban Institute. And just 0.3% of  Americans with coverage through their employer, or 500,000 people, had their health insurance policies cancelled in 2014, the Institute said. Authors of the issue brief, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said there was no evidence of a significant number of policy cancellations in either the self-insured or small group markets."

And even among this group, we have to ask how many really lost policies they liked and planned to keep. As I've pointed out before, while it's true that certain health care plans are no longer available due to changes in the law, many of these were not insurance at all, but junk plans that didn't offer real coverage.  Furthermore, Obamacare is not the reason why most of the folks who changed plans did so. On the individual health insurance market, plans typically are sold with one-year contracts that change prices and/or benefits year-to-year. Even before Obamacare, only 17 percent of consumers in this market kept the same plan for two years or more. Fewer than one million people who previously had individual market insurance transitioned to being uninsured. And insurers were given the option of continuing even the junkiest plans for one year after Obamacare went into effect.

So, did anybody lose a real insurance plan they liked? A few did. Some folks were getting cheap insurance because their plans didn't accept anyone with preexisting conditions. Those plans are no longer allowed. Sorry folks.

Criticism Five: The President said his plan would, "cut the cost of a typical family's premium by up to $2,500 a year." That wasn't true.

This last one is hard to spin. What the President said is not true. His statement was prompted by a report that estimated the total savings of everything Obamacare would do, then divideded that figure by the number of households in the country. The problem is the President used the word "premium." While Obamacare has reduced the annual year over year increase of health care costs, it certainly has not reduced insurance premiums by a couple of hundred bucks a month.

Good night, and good luck.

Tweet

(Somewhat) Legitimate Criticism of Obamacare, Part One

Last week, the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act's federal subsidies in the case of King v. Burwell. Obamacare is here to stay. Obamacare works. The number of uninsured is at an all-time low. Obamacare greatly reduces the federal deficit. It improves solvency of the Medicare Trust. It reduces health care cost inflation. It creates jobs. It's helping the population become healthier. People who have Obamacare policies like their policies. And criticism of Obamcare by conservatives is almost entirely a pack of lies.

Now, "almost entirely a pack of lies," is not the same as, "entirely a pack of lies." Fair is fair, it's time for some thought on the criticism of Obamacare that actually has some legitimacy.

Criticism One: Obamacare was designed to reduce expensive emergency room visits. But some people with Obamacare are actually using emergency services more rather than less frequently.

According to acasignups.net, 14 million of the 32.7 million Americans who have signed up for Obamacare are lower-income folks eligible for policies under Obamacare's Medicaid expansion. These folks can now receive preventative clinical care instead of higher-priced care in emergency rooms at public expense. Reducing emergency room traffic is a specific goal of Obamacare. In 2009, President Obama said,

"One of the areas where we can potentially see some saving is a lot of those patients are being seen in the emergency room anyway, and if we are increasing prevention, if we are increasing wellness programs, we're reducing the amount of emergency room care, then that frees up doctors and resources to provide the kind of primary care that will keep people healthier, but also allow them to see more patients and hopefully give more time to patients, as well."

Unfortunately, as Ray Fisman of Slate.com explains, that's not what happening:

"The clear and compelling evidence that ER usage increases with Medicaid coverage is the latest finding to come out of the landmark Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, which randomly selected low-income uninsured adults in Oregon to receive health insurance through the state’s expansion of Medicaid."

Why are new Medicaid enrollees using the emergency room more? Fisman notes:

(1) Rather than try to see a doctor, "the uninsured typically try self-medicating first, or just wait and hope the chest pain is heartburn and not cardiac arrest."
(2) "Patients aren’t, in fact, substituting primary care for the ER to the extent that many insurance advocates have hoped they would," because a busy clinical practice may be, "booked up with regular, predictable appointments, which doesn’t leave much slack to handle these urgent (but nonemergency) cases." Overbooked clinics may then refer patients they don't have time to treat to the emergency rooms.

Also significant is a recent poll released by the American College of Emergency Physicians, in which 28% of doctors surveyed nationally saw large increases in patient volume, while 47% saw slight increases.

So does this mean the President was wrong to state that health care reform would reduce emergency room visits, and the corresponding cost to taxpayers? Not necessarily. A 2014 study in California by UCLA’s Center for Health Policy Research found that ER use was higher among new enrollees in California’s Low Income Health Program, the state's Medicaid-like program, but also found that the spike was temporary. From Olga Khazan of The Atlantic,

"In fact, after two years in the program, the enrollees used hospitals at roughly the same rate as people who had already been insured. The study authors said a likely reason for the eventual decline was that the LIHP program offered preventative care and treatment for chronic illnesses. Over time, LIHP patients were able to see regular doctors for their lingering medical issues, and they used hospitals less as a result."

A temporary increase in emergency room visits, followed by a significant decline was also observed in Massachusetts following that state's 2006 health care reform program, which was a model for Obamacare. In other words, health care reform is working as designed: people who were formerly uninsured are now getting preventative care which is keeping them healthier and out of hospitals, including emergency services.

Some other points in defense of Obamacare:

(1) Clearly some new Medicaid patients are pushing new costs onto taxpayers through hospital visits. But remember, as Ray Fisman pointed out in the Slate article linked above, "the uninsured typically try self-medicating first, or just wait and hope the chest pain is heartburn and not cardiac arrest." One of the health care reform's biggest goals is to stop people dying simply from lack of medical care in the richest country in the world. And while someone who visits the ER may cost taxpayers more than someone who just dies, and (to paraphrase Ebeneezer Scrooge), "decreases the surplus population," that investment in health care usually means another productive American citizen who can pay into the system more than they take out in entitlements. (I would just say that it's wrong to let people die from lack of health care, but I always try to make the economic argument.)

(2) The US saw steady growth in emergency room visits during the two decades before Obamacare was implemented. The pace of that growth has actually slowed in some places since Obamcare went into effect including Los Angeles County, California (which happens to be America's most populous county). From Soumya Karlamangla and Doug Smith of the L.A Times,

"During the first three months of expanded health insurance coverage required by the federal Affordable Care Act, emergency room visits by patients who didn't require hospitalization increased 1.7% in the county compared with the same period last year, a Los Angeles Times analysis of data from 75 hospitals shows. Annual ER visits in the county had increased 3% last year and 5% in 2011 and 2012."

A recent study in the peer-reviewed Journal Health Affairs also concluded that the Affordable Care Act is reducing ER visits among young adults.

(3) Some Republican-dominated states have refused to expand Medicaid. There are many negative consequences to this decision, not the least of which is withholding health insurance from people who need it. But refusal to expand Medicaid can also have negative consequences for ER service availability. As of Joshua Holland of Moyers & Company noted last year,

"These states aren’t just rejecting an opportunity to expand coverage; Obamacare assumed that expanding Medicaid would dramatically reduce the number of uninsured patients showing up at emergency rooms for treatment they couldn’t afford, so it cut funding for hospitals that treat large numbers of these patients. Without those federal dollars coming in, a number of hospitals that serve low-income populations in refusing states have already been shuttered. According to the Urban Institute study, "these 24 states are also slated to lose a $167.8 billion (31 percent) boost in Medicaid funding that was originally intended to offset major cuts to their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement.""

Obviously, if some emergency rooms close thanks to these Republican shenanigans, a greater burden will fall on those that remain open. How grim is the situation? This past March, Guy Gugliotta of the Washington Post reported that,

"48 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, the majority in Southern states, and 283 others are in trouble." He cites, "declining federal reimbursements for hospitals under the Affordable Care Act as the principal reasons for the recent closures. Besides cutting back on Medicare, the law reduced payments to hospitals for the uninsured, a decision based on the assumption that states would expand their Medicaid programs. However, almost two dozen states have refused to do so."

Florida Governor Rick Scott's refusal to expand Medicaid has crippled that state with a hospital funding crisis and a budget crisis. Governor Scott still wants federal dollars of course. He's actually demanding a return to the old, grossly inefficient system whereby millions were uninsured, went to emergency rooms for all their care, and the federal government wrote checks to hospitals to keep them in business.

(4) While some emergency rooms may be seeing more patients, those in states that have expanded Medicaid are seeing fewer who have no insurance. The LA Times article linked above noted that in Los Angeles County, emergency room patients without coverage and responsible for their own medical bills dropped from 18% to 16%. A decline in uninsured patients seeking uncompensated care increases revenue for health providers.

(5) Yes, it costs the taxpayers money to insure the uninsured who cannot pay for coverage themselves. However, from a financial standpoint, the smart thing to do is to provide very poor Americans with comprehensive services including health insurance, housing and income support. From Chris Zeigler of cracked.com:

"Boston Health Care for the Homeless tracked 119 chronically homeless people for five years. In that time, those 119 people racked up an astounding 18,834 emergency room visits, despite the fact that 33 of them died and seven were placed in a nursing home during that time. In Washington in 2002, 198 individuals generated 9,000 emergency room visits, or a little under one a week. At a minimum of $1,000 a visit, that's a heck of a medical bill that those hospitals are trying to collect from a homeless person. Unless they have a really good day panhandling, that money is coming out of your pocket.

Add in the annual cost of $24,000 if they take advantage of a shelter, plus the cost of the police to arrest and process those who misbehave (plus the round-the-clock housing, feeding and guarding they get once they're in jail), and it all adds up to a tidy sum for taxpayers to handle. Experts say it really would be cheaper just to house them and treat them.

For instance, a San Diego program found that "When patients were connected with housing, income benefits, health insurance and a primary care home, a 61 percent decrease in emergency department visits and a 62 percent decrease in inpatient days occurred over two years." Statistically, a person just doesn't get as sick, and doesn't get into as much trouble, once they have a roof over their head."

Good night, and good luck.

Tweet

2015 and 2016 Gubernatorial Election Predictions

Final Prediction 2016:
Democrats to pickup IN, MO, NC
Republicans to pickup NH, VT

Three states will hold their gubernatorial elections in 2015 and eleven will in 2016.

Delaware 2016
Rating: Likely Democratic hold
Democrat: Congressman John Carney (likely) (incumbent Jack Markell term-limited out)
Republican: State Senator Colin Bonini (likely)
Overview: (7/22/15) Rest in peace, Beau Biden. Attorney General Biden was the presumptive Democratic nominee; now the blue team can expect a spirited primary. Given that President Obama carried Delaware by nearly 20 points in 2012, this seat is probably safe.
(4/9/16) Democrats have a top-tier recruit in John Carney. This race is over.

Indiana 2016
Rating: Toss up
Republican: Lt. Governor Eric Holcomb (incumbent Mike Pence retiring)
Democrat: Former Speaker of the state House John Gregg
Overview: (5/9/15) Mike Pence was until a short time ago considered a lock for reelection, and was talked about as a strong potential nominee for President should he throw his hat into the ring. That was before Indiana's recent ugliness with a Pence-backed law allowing businesses to discriminate against gays. Bizarrely, Pence repeatedly attempted to claim that the purpose of the bill was not to enable discrimination, despite the fact that the people he invited to the law's signing ceremony were anti-equality leaders who had lobbied for the bill specifically to enable discrimination. All this has not helped Pence's public standing (hey, even in Indiana you can only lie so much), and recent polls have shown a close race between Pence and former state House Speaker John Gregg. Gregg was Pence's opponent in 2012, and lost by only 3%; a good showing considering that Mitt Romney beat President Obama in Indiana by more than 10%.
(8/29/16) A conservative-leaning Monmouth poll shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton by a whopping 11% here. The same poll shows Republican Holcomb leading Gregg by one in the gubernatorial, and, incidentally, Democrat Evan Bayh comfortably ahead in the race for the open Senate seat. I don't believe Trump is that far ahead, and other polls have shown Gregg ahead in the gubernatorial. Interestingly, Mike Pence is not helping Holcomb with campaign funding. Race is a toss up, but I think Gregg has a good chance to win.
(11/4/16) This is very close, but I'm calling if for Gregg.

Kentucky 2015
Rating: Leans Democratic hold
Democrat: Attorney General Jack Conway (incumbent Steve Beshear term-limited out)
Republican: State Agriculture Commissioner James Comer or former Louisville Hal Heiner (likely)
Overview: (5/9/15) The Republican party has pretty much run the table in the south, leaving Kentucky, with its Democratic Governor and state House majority, something of an oddity. Jack Conway is the best possible nominee for the blue team. Although Conway lost the 2010 Senate race to Rand Paul, he did collect a respectable 44.3% of the vote. The race on the other side is the epitome of Republican battles in the 21st century. James Comer, who's already won a statewide race, is facing an avalanche of personal attacks from less known, but more conservative Hal Heiner, who's being backed by the super-wealthy, super-evil Koch brothers. A divisive Republican primary can only benefit Conway, but on the other hand this is Kentucky and the Republicans will always have the inside track.
(10/26/15) Conway maintains a small but consistent lead in the polls. Republicans have never been very excited about Bevin or the quality of his campaign;  in late September the Republican Governors Association stopped airing ads on his behalf. It's possible that Republicans will get the better turnout and Bevin will win despite himself, but I'm calling it for Conway.

Louisiana 2015
Rating: Leans Democratic takeover
Republican: Senator David Vitter
Democrat: State House minority leader John Bel Edwards
Overview: (5/9/15) Even conservative sources are saying it: Governor Bobby Jindal has wrecked Louisiana. Coming into office with a huge state budget surplus, Jindal's aggressive tax cutting has created a $1.6 billion dollar budget deficit, and public services and education in Louisiana are simply disappearing. Jindal's likely successor is US Senator David Vitter, the prostitute-loving family values hypocrite. Now you might think that given the mess Republicans have made of Louisiana, Democrats might be poised for a comeback. Think again. Huge numbers of Democratic voters left Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina and never went back. Given the state's hard swing to the right, the Louisiana Democratic Party is having a difficult time finding candidates willing to be sacrificial lambs in statewide elections, and likely gubernatorial nominee John Bel Edwards doesn't have a prayer.
(10/18/15) The Democrats with a chance? Start with three consecutive polls showing that this will be a Vitter versus Edwards matchup, with Edwards winning the runoff between four and twelve points. Add to that an alleged former mistress who claims to have had Vitter's child, and that Vitter had urged her to have an abortion. This may be enough to cook Vitter's goose and send either Public Service Commissioner Scott Angelle or Lt. Governor Jay Dardeene to the runoff as Edwards' opponent. Either of those two gentlemen would be better than even money to win this race.
(10/26/15) Vitter won the jungle primary, although by a narrower margin than most expected. Conventional wisdom says Louisiana is so Republican that Vitter cannot lose no matter how may scandals he piles up, and I see no reason to doubt it.
(11/19/15) The runoff is this Saturday. Polls show Edwards with a lead between 6 and 16 points. Is that enough to win? Recently, the likely voter models used by polls in red states have been over-estimating Democratic support. Case in point, the aggregate of polls showed Democrat Conway with a slight edge in the Kentucky gubernatorial, yet he lost by 9. It's very close, but I'm calling it for Edwards.

Mississippi 2015
Rating: Guaranteed Republican hold
Republican: Phil Bryant (incumbent)
Democrat: Businessman Robert Gray
Overview: (5/9/15) Bryant will probably out-poll his opponent better than 2 to 1.
(10/26/15) Make that a Bryant win by 4 to 1. Mississippi is about as much a one-party state as it's possible to be.

Missouri 2016
Rating: Leans Democratic hold
Democrat: Attorney General Chris Koster (incumbent Jay Nixon term-limited out)
Republican: Businessman Eric Greitens
Overview: (5/9/15) Missouri is trending red; while President Obama nearly won there in 2008, he lost there in 2012 by nearly 10%. Somehow, Jay Nixon bucked the trend and was elected Missouri Governor in both those years. In 2016 Democrats should benefit from the fact that top-tier recruit Chris Koster has already been unofficially running and raising money for a long-time, while Republican support appears to be divided among several second-tier candidates.
(4/9/16) A recent poll shows Democrat Koster leading Republican Kinder by 2. With Hillary Clinton a strong candidate in Missouri, I like this office to stay blue.
(8/29/16) Eric Greitens was the surprising winner of the GOP nomination. Unfortunately for Republicans, Geritens is a political novice and has little chance of winning.
(11/4/16) Koster leads in every independent poll and I think he'll win.

Montana 2016
Rating: Likely Democratic hold
Democrat: State Attorney General Steve Bullock
Republican: Businessman Greg Gianforte
Overview: (5/9/15) President Obama is unpopular in Montana, and incumbent Governor Steve Bullock is polling no better than even against his potential Republican opponents. Thank goodness for the Montana Libertarian party. Their perennial candidate Ron Vandevender has already declared for this race. Vandevender captured 3.8% of the vote in the 2012 gubernatorial. Most of those votes came of course from folks who otherwise would have voted Republican, and, as Bullock beat his Republican opponent by only 1.5%, it's safe to say Vandevender handed Democrats the election. The same thing happened in the 2012 Montana Senate race. Incumbent Democrat Jon Tester beat his opponent by 4.0%, while the Libertarian candidate ate the Republicans' lunch in the form of 6.6% of the vote.
(4/9/16) Apparently, Republicans are not sanguine about this race; no major party leader has declared to take on Bullock. Democrats to get a free pass?

New Hampshire 2016
Rating: Toss up
Democrat: Executive Councilor Colin Van Ostern? (incumbent Margaret Hassan running for Senate)
Republican: Executive Councilor Chris Sununu (likely)
Overview: (5/9/15) Popular Governor Maggie Hassan will have no trouble fending off any of her potential Republican opponents. The real question here is whether Hassan will forgo reelection to take on Republican US Senator Kelly Ayotte. Democrats would dearly love her to do so, as polls are already showing Hassan could win. If this race does become a open seat, it might well go Republican as Jeb Bradley would be a strong candidate against whomever is next in line for the blue team.
(4/9/16) Governor Hassan's decision to run for Senate has left quite a vacuum. Both parties seem prepared to nominate lower-tier candidates (what the heck is an "executive councilor"? On the one hand, polls show Republican Sununu with the edge, on the other hand Democrats may have a big advantage at the Presidential level that provide coattails for their nominee in this race.
(11/4/16) Apparently "Sununu" is some kind of magic name in New Hampshire. Calling this one a narrow win for the GOP.

North Carolina 2016
Rating: Leans Democratic takeover
Republican: Pat McCrory incumbent
Democrat: Attorney General Roy Cooper
Libertarian: Lon Cecil
Overview: (5/9/15) Governor McCrory's approval ratings are pretty dismal. Democrats have a top-tier recruit in Roy Cooper, and he's polling well against McCrory. The blue team could also get some help in the form of the strong state Libertarian party. In 2012, Libertarian Barbara Howe captured more than 2% of the vote that would have otherwise mostly gone to the Republican candidate. Still, North Carolina is a red state and Democrats will need every break to win.
(4/9/16) As expected, polls show a very close race. If the Libertarian candidate can really pull 6% in November, I have to think McCrory is in trouble. I think the controversy surrounding North Carolina's new anti-LGBT law is not helping McCrory, but then again, who knows? This is the south we're talking about.
(8/29/16) Nothing has gone right in this race for McCrory and Cooper is now comfortably ahead in the polls.
(11/4/16) This one is close, but calling it for Cooper as he leads every polls.

North Dakota 2016
Rating: Likely Republican hold
Republican: Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem (incumbent Jack Dalrymple retiring)
Democrat: State Representative Marvin Nelson
Overview: (5/9/15) Dalrymple is more or less a lock. The only wild-card here is Democratic US Senator Heidi Heitkamp; she's threatened to jump in to this race. I very much hope that does not happen. If it does, Democrats can kiss her Senate seat goodbye.
(4/9/16) Republican Stenehjem is the stronger candidate, and in North Dakota that should be enough.

Utah 2016
Rating: Likely Republican hold
Republican: Gary Herbert (incumbent)
Democrat: ?
Overview: I had a dream where a Democrat won a statewide race in Utah. I also had a dream where it rained White Castle cheeseburgers. It's 1,600 miles from my house to the nearest White Castle.

Vermont 2016
Rating: Toss up
Democrat: Former state Transportation Secretary Sue Minter (incumbent Peter Shumlin retiring)
Republican: Lt. Governor Phil Scott
Overview: (5/9/15) Pete Shumlin was elected to a third two-year term in 2014, but only by 1% of the vote. Democrats have the Libertarian party to thank for that one, as they captured 4.4% of the vote that would otherwise have mostly gone to the Republican. Shumlin should have a much easier time of it in 2016 because it's a Presidential election year in deep-blue Vermont. In 2012, Shumlin won by more than 20% as President Obama carried Vermont better than 2 to 1 over Mitt Romney.
(4/9/16) If this were not a Presidential election year, I'd give the edge to Republican Phil Scott. But in 2012, President Obama beat Mitt Romney 66% to 31% in Vermont. With lopsided numbers like those expected again in 2016, it's unlikely any Republican can win a statewide race.
(11/4/16) A close race, and Clinton's coattails might be enough to carry Minter to victory, but Scott leads in all the polls and I'm calling this one for the GOP.

Washington 2016
Rating: Likely Democratic hold
Democrat: Jay Inslee (incumbent)
Republican: Seattle Port Commissioner Bill Bryant
Overview: (5/19/15) I live in Washington state. We've had three gubernatorial elections in a row that have been considered Democratic upsets, at least by some. In 2004, Christine Gregorie was declared the winner only after a recount. In 2008, many expected her to lose before she won comfortably. In early 2012, state Attorney General Rob McKenna was showing a wide lead in the polls over his opponent Democrat Jay Inslee; Inslee went on to win by 3% as President Obama crushed Mitt Romney in Washington by 15%. In 2016, I expect something more mundane. Republicans are talking about either Seattle Port Commissioner Bill Bryant, who doesn't seem to be much of a politician, or frequently-confused Congressman Dave Reichert as their candidate. Neither of those fellows worries me much.
(8/29/16) Bryant has not presented any kind of real challenge to Inslee in this race. Inslee will win.

West Virginia 2016
Rating: Leans Democratic hold
Democrat:  Businessman Jim Justice (incumbent Earl Ray Tomblin term-limited out)
Republican: State Senate President Bill Cole
Overview: (5/9/15) Both parties have several good potential candidates, but Democrats don't win very often in West Virginia any more. The question here is, can any Democrat get enough crossover votes to win this race, given that the Democratic Presidential nominee will probably lose West Virginia by a substantial margin? In the last four elections the answer was yes, but in those years the blue team also fielded must stronger candidates than the GOP.
(4/9/16) Jim Justice is perhaps the biggest name in business in West Virginia, and he's polling well against Republican Bill Cole. And although Romney beat Obama by 27% here in 2012, we may see a somewhat closer race at the top of the ticket this year which could help the Democratic nominee in this race.
(8/29/16) Justice is comfortably ahead in the polls; I expect him to win.

Tweet