On July 4, as Americans were gathering with family and friends to honor the nation’s 249th birthday, something else happened in Washington, DC: President Trump signed into law his first major legislative accomplishment, the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act.
Perhaps if The Liberal Patriot's Trump Derangement Syndrome contintingent spent less time responding to the winds of opinion polls and more unearthing facts and tactics it could build upon rather than sacrifice its credibility.
There's a reason and a place for alternative publications like The Liberal Patriot, and as a retired career journalist I strongly recommend subscribing to a diversity of viewpoints. But I am not going to join so many others who have abandoned the so-called "Legacy media" as biased dinosaurs when there is much to be learned still from many of them.
You don't need to attack our credibility b/c we report on what actual American voters currently think about the BBB. The WSJ editorial is another opinion piece and if it's convincing to voters, and they end up thinking the bill is great, then the polling numbers should shift and we'll report on them down the line. If not, opinion will remain negative about the cumulative effects of the bill. Evaluation of public reactions to large legislation is not "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
what actual American voters currently think about the BBB
I have serious doubts that polls show what Americans think. More like what they believe and for most, believing is a lot easier. less messy and much easier than thinking.
Actually, John, I believe I credit you with responding to what I regard as the "winds of opinion polls" while deriding your failure to examine the "facts" and misinformation that too often shape those poll results. The story behind the story, if you will, as I was taught in Journalsm 101.
The bill was just signed a few days ago. No one, including the esteemed WSJ editorial board, knows yet exactly how the complicated details of the health care and tax provisions will play out. People have perceptions of the bill, Trump supporters and the WSJ are all positive, Dems are all negative, and most regular Americans like part of what they hear and dislike other parts. Those are the facts at the moment.
I agree with you that people have, and are certainly entitled to, different views of the recently passed bill. I trust you can agree with me that whatever those views may be, they should be shaped by the facts, not distortion or scare tactics.
It's why, in the immediate case, I felt readers might find the WSJ editorial more enlightening than poll results.
"Democrats think they can ride the Medicaid scare into a midterm victory, but there’s still time for the GOP to lay out the facts. Roughly a quarter of Americans are on Medicaid, which is worse than private insurance. Food aid tops $100 billion a year and no longer shrinks as it once did when the economy is growing.
America is a generous society that cares for the vulnerable. But it should also be a land of opportunity, not a European welfare state."
it would be interesting to know how many polled, know Medicaid grew 50% from 2019, while our population grew by 2% and change.
Personally, I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact we were running a $1 trillion dollar healthcare program, basically on the honor system, when it came to income. Having people verify they are income eligible or requiring those without small children, work or volunteer, 20 hours a week, does not seem draconian to me. I have a hard time believing most people do not agree with me.
Moreover, healthcare for non citizens and those not legally in a country, is hardly the norm of the world. Wealthy Switzerland has a process for the non Swiss that show up in their ERs without insurance or the ability to pay. They stabilize them and escort them to the border, absent exigent circumstances.
One of the insurance capitals of the world, the Swiss enjoy some of the world's best healthcare, along with one of the world's highest standards of living, but they do not apologize that they cannot afford to provide free healthcare to anyone in the world, who happens to wander within their borders.
Insurance looks at any natural group and makes certain mathematical assumptions. Very grossly generally speaking, 10% of any any group will incur 50% of healthcare costs. If the group is unnatural and more people who are ill are added, an insured group will collapse, because the 10% number will rise dramatically.
Prior to the bill, I had no idea people in need of transplants, from nearly anywhere in the world can come to the US on a tourist visa, walk into certain hospitals, be treated for moths or years at taxpayer cost, while they are inserted into the line for organs. Not just children, basically anyone from anywhere. That is not only seriously unsustainable, but wholly unfair to Americans in need of organs, of very limited supply.
It’s true that Medicaid enrollment has grown dramatically—by around 50% since 2019—even as the U.S. population only grew by a little over 2%. But that jump is largely the result of two temporary but significant policy responses:
Pandemic-era protections: Under the 2020 Families First Coronavirus Response Act, states received enhanced federal funding in exchange for keeping people continuously enrolled in Medicaid. That meant no annual re-verification, so millions stayed on the rolls who might otherwise have cycled off.
Economic disruption: COVID-related job losses led many people to lose employer-provided insurance and turn to Medicaid. Even as the economy recovered, many remained eligible due to expanded criteria or lower incomes.
Much of this surge was expected to unwind starting in 2023, when the continuous coverage requirement expired. So the 50% growth isn’t necessarily a runaway trend—it reflects a deliberate and time-bound expansion of the safety net during an unprecedented crisis.
You can't fight something with nothing and all the Democrats have now is Orange Man Bad. You desperately need a positive agenda, any agenda even a bad one like NYC just proved. All the parsing of poll data in the world won't give that.
As a senior, the bill helps me. If such a showing is not in any of the polls, then the polls are worthless to me.
I would also point out, that little truth is being stated by the Democrats. Fear mongering has been their go to since they created Trump.
Why not check into the violence that the radical left is demanding and many elected Dems are buying into? It's already here. The question is, how far will it go? The coasts and places like Chicago are headed for a literal civil war. Whether the Dems admit it or not, they have stoked the flames way to much and the consequences will be sever for many, especially the innocents and less fortunate.
News coverage has seemed to be uniformly negative and even sensational, and I think that is driving lots of opinion. I'd imagine a quiz on what is actually in the bill and when various features take effect would have a pretty poor showing.
The WSJ link up above is true that Medicaid spending will have a large increase despite this bill. Cutting people off from medical care is not really a fix. A responsible party would be fixing the ACA not gutting it.
Personally, it's great for me, for the country, pretty bad. At some time the irresponsible debt will catch up to us. Denying health care to the poor is not a good way to go.
Fixing the ACA is necessary but not sufficient. There are many other problems. Corporate medicine, lawyers, insufficient supply of providers thanks to the various cartels that control the supply of those, and medical deserts (mostly rural) come to mind but given more time I could come up with more. And then there is the whole chronic illness complex of problems which is more societal than medical in origin but impacts the medical system in huge ways.
It's a huge embedded industry, and with all it's money and influence I think change would be hard. A lot of people make a lot of profit and that's where the potential savings are.
Polls, polls, polls. Nope, nope, nope. Still aren't learning our lesson? When most polls showed Harris ahead or tied, Trump was always . . . ALWAYS . . . way ahead. To beat a dead horse, I pointed this out starting as early as June when Biden was still the candidate. Voter registration, which is the REAL POLL of the 21st century, showed red states constantly gaining.
This trend has not stopped. Latest? NC D lead, which was 175,000 in June 2024, now at only 80,000 (in active voters, GOP now up by 89,000). AZ now has a GOP lead (growing every month) of 324,000 (vs. 100,000 in 2020). NV has moved into an absolute tie (Ds were up 88,000 in 2024). FL is going off the charts, adding 50,000 Rs last month. The trend is overwhelming and always in the same direction. Des Moines Co IA just flipped red.
So, please tell me which polls reflect this massive change?
I’m not convinced Democrats will know how to capitalize on public discontent over the OBBB. They rarely turn broad public opposition into effective political messaging or electoral gains. The polling is clear—independents and working-class voters dislike the bill—but Democrats have a chronic messaging problem. Instead of crafting emotionally resonant, values-driven narratives, they default to technocratic explanations and policy laundry lists that don’t move voters.
Worse, there's a real risk they’ll squander this moment by drifting further left. The party’s current flirtation with figures like Zohran Mamdani—a self-identified socialist whose priorities are far outside the mainstream—suggests a deepening disconnect with the median voter. If Mamdani and his DSA cohort gain influence, Democrats may respond to OBBB not with smart populist messaging, but with purity politics and radical policy demands that repel the very voters they need to win over.
Unless the party can make a disciplined case that OBBB benefits the rich and hurts ordinary Americans—and do so without alienating moderates or obsessing over activist pet causes—it’ll be yet another missed opportunity.
I suspect the opposition on the right is that it didn't cut spending enough.
So these voters may not be fans of the bill, but that doesn't mean they will vote for the left.
Probably correct although you would need to look at the tabs where the interesting stuff always is.
True enough, but these pollsters aren't paid to be right - they are paid to establish a narrative that confirms the bias of the people who pay them.
Perhaps if The Liberal Patriot's Trump Derangement Syndrome contintingent spent less time responding to the winds of opinion polls and more unearthing facts and tactics it could build upon rather than sacrifice its credibility.
There's a reason and a place for alternative publications like The Liberal Patriot, and as a retired career journalist I strongly recommend subscribing to a diversity of viewpoints. But I am not going to join so many others who have abandoned the so-called "Legacy media" as biased dinosaurs when there is much to be learned still from many of them.
A case in point:
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/no-one-is-gutting-the-safety-net-e3029eb4?st=voJir9
You don't need to attack our credibility b/c we report on what actual American voters currently think about the BBB. The WSJ editorial is another opinion piece and if it's convincing to voters, and they end up thinking the bill is great, then the polling numbers should shift and we'll report on them down the line. If not, opinion will remain negative about the cumulative effects of the bill. Evaluation of public reactions to large legislation is not "Trump Derangement Syndrome."
what actual American voters currently think about the BBB
I have serious doubts that polls show what Americans think. More like what they believe and for most, believing is a lot easier. less messy and much easier than thinking.
Actually, John, I believe I credit you with responding to what I regard as the "winds of opinion polls" while deriding your failure to examine the "facts" and misinformation that too often shape those poll results. The story behind the story, if you will, as I was taught in Journalsm 101.
The bill was just signed a few days ago. No one, including the esteemed WSJ editorial board, knows yet exactly how the complicated details of the health care and tax provisions will play out. People have perceptions of the bill, Trump supporters and the WSJ are all positive, Dems are all negative, and most regular Americans like part of what they hear and dislike other parts. Those are the facts at the moment.
I agree with you that people have, and are certainly entitled to, different views of the recently passed bill. I trust you can agree with me that whatever those views may be, they should be shaped by the facts, not distortion or scare tactics.
It's why, in the immediate case, I felt readers might find the WSJ editorial more enlightening than poll results.
Definitely worth the read.
"Democrats think they can ride the Medicaid scare into a midterm victory, but there’s still time for the GOP to lay out the facts. Roughly a quarter of Americans are on Medicaid, which is worse than private insurance. Food aid tops $100 billion a year and no longer shrinks as it once did when the economy is growing.
America is a generous society that cares for the vulnerable. But it should also be a land of opportunity, not a European welfare state."
it would be interesting to know how many polled, know Medicaid grew 50% from 2019, while our population grew by 2% and change.
Personally, I am still trying to wrap my head around the fact we were running a $1 trillion dollar healthcare program, basically on the honor system, when it came to income. Having people verify they are income eligible or requiring those without small children, work or volunteer, 20 hours a week, does not seem draconian to me. I have a hard time believing most people do not agree with me.
Moreover, healthcare for non citizens and those not legally in a country, is hardly the norm of the world. Wealthy Switzerland has a process for the non Swiss that show up in their ERs without insurance or the ability to pay. They stabilize them and escort them to the border, absent exigent circumstances.
One of the insurance capitals of the world, the Swiss enjoy some of the world's best healthcare, along with one of the world's highest standards of living, but they do not apologize that they cannot afford to provide free healthcare to anyone in the world, who happens to wander within their borders.
Insurance looks at any natural group and makes certain mathematical assumptions. Very grossly generally speaking, 10% of any any group will incur 50% of healthcare costs. If the group is unnatural and more people who are ill are added, an insured group will collapse, because the 10% number will rise dramatically.
Prior to the bill, I had no idea people in need of transplants, from nearly anywhere in the world can come to the US on a tourist visa, walk into certain hospitals, be treated for moths or years at taxpayer cost, while they are inserted into the line for organs. Not just children, basically anyone from anywhere. That is not only seriously unsustainable, but wholly unfair to Americans in need of organs, of very limited supply.
It’s true that Medicaid enrollment has grown dramatically—by around 50% since 2019—even as the U.S. population only grew by a little over 2%. But that jump is largely the result of two temporary but significant policy responses:
Pandemic-era protections: Under the 2020 Families First Coronavirus Response Act, states received enhanced federal funding in exchange for keeping people continuously enrolled in Medicaid. That meant no annual re-verification, so millions stayed on the rolls who might otherwise have cycled off.
Economic disruption: COVID-related job losses led many people to lose employer-provided insurance and turn to Medicaid. Even as the economy recovered, many remained eligible due to expanded criteria or lower incomes.
Much of this surge was expected to unwind starting in 2023, when the continuous coverage requirement expired. So the 50% growth isn’t necessarily a runaway trend—it reflects a deliberate and time-bound expansion of the safety net during an unprecedented crisis.
You can't fight something with nothing and all the Democrats have now is Orange Man Bad. You desperately need a positive agenda, any agenda even a bad one like NYC just proved. All the parsing of poll data in the world won't give that.
As a senior, the bill helps me. If such a showing is not in any of the polls, then the polls are worthless to me.
I would also point out, that little truth is being stated by the Democrats. Fear mongering has been their go to since they created Trump.
Why not check into the violence that the radical left is demanding and many elected Dems are buying into? It's already here. The question is, how far will it go? The coasts and places like Chicago are headed for a literal civil war. Whether the Dems admit it or not, they have stoked the flames way to much and the consequences will be sever for many, especially the innocents and less fortunate.
News coverage has seemed to be uniformly negative and even sensational, and I think that is driving lots of opinion. I'd imagine a quiz on what is actually in the bill and when various features take effect would have a pretty poor showing.
The WSJ link up above is true that Medicaid spending will have a large increase despite this bill. Cutting people off from medical care is not really a fix. A responsible party would be fixing the ACA not gutting it.
Personally, it's great for me, for the country, pretty bad. At some time the irresponsible debt will catch up to us. Denying health care to the poor is not a good way to go.
Fixing the ACA is necessary but not sufficient. There are many other problems. Corporate medicine, lawyers, insufficient supply of providers thanks to the various cartels that control the supply of those, and medical deserts (mostly rural) come to mind but given more time I could come up with more. And then there is the whole chronic illness complex of problems which is more societal than medical in origin but impacts the medical system in huge ways.
It's a huge embedded industry, and with all it's money and influence I think change would be hard. A lot of people make a lot of profit and that's where the potential savings are.
Polls, polls, polls. Nope, nope, nope. Still aren't learning our lesson? When most polls showed Harris ahead or tied, Trump was always . . . ALWAYS . . . way ahead. To beat a dead horse, I pointed this out starting as early as June when Biden was still the candidate. Voter registration, which is the REAL POLL of the 21st century, showed red states constantly gaining.
This trend has not stopped. Latest? NC D lead, which was 175,000 in June 2024, now at only 80,000 (in active voters, GOP now up by 89,000). AZ now has a GOP lead (growing every month) of 324,000 (vs. 100,000 in 2020). NV has moved into an absolute tie (Ds were up 88,000 in 2024). FL is going off the charts, adding 50,000 Rs last month. The trend is overwhelming and always in the same direction. Des Moines Co IA just flipped red.
So, please tell me which polls reflect this massive change?
I’m not convinced Democrats will know how to capitalize on public discontent over the OBBB. They rarely turn broad public opposition into effective political messaging or electoral gains. The polling is clear—independents and working-class voters dislike the bill—but Democrats have a chronic messaging problem. Instead of crafting emotionally resonant, values-driven narratives, they default to technocratic explanations and policy laundry lists that don’t move voters.
Worse, there's a real risk they’ll squander this moment by drifting further left. The party’s current flirtation with figures like Zohran Mamdani—a self-identified socialist whose priorities are far outside the mainstream—suggests a deepening disconnect with the median voter. If Mamdani and his DSA cohort gain influence, Democrats may respond to OBBB not with smart populist messaging, but with purity politics and radical policy demands that repel the very voters they need to win over.
Unless the party can make a disciplined case that OBBB benefits the rich and hurts ordinary Americans—and do so without alienating moderates or obsessing over activist pet causes—it’ll be yet another missed opportunity.