If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly
- Thread starter xxDOYLExx
- Start date
JolietJake
Banned
Gee, i wonder who gave them that idea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Once it passes things will improve.
Anyone who is so addled as to think the GOP can make electoral gold out of bringing back preexisting conditions etc. isn't worth responding to.
Once it passes things will improve.
Anyone who is so addled as to think the GOP can make electoral gold out of bringing back preexisting conditions etc. isn't worth responding to.
Colbert did an AMAZING skit on polls last night. He made an analogy to sausage, where polls tell you what you (majority of americans) think, creating sausage, and you end up thinking that way, and the sausage gets fed back into the machine, and it ends up making more sausage.
Oh and apparently if you put glasses on a big piece of honey baked ham, it looks just like Karl Rove.
Oh and apparently if you put glasses on a big piece of honey baked ham, it looks just like Karl Rove.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Republicans are in trouble if their dipshit tea party followers don't vote for them or worse, run a candidate against them.
Jean Marie Le Pen. Look it up.
Jean Marie Le Pen. Look it up.
xxDOYLExx
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']Republicans are in trouble if their dipshit tea party followers don't vote for them or worse, run a candidate against them.
Jean Marie Le Pen. Look it up.[/QUOTE]
True. I just cant decide what the dems are thinking. Either they are noble or stupid.
Also, they have elections in France? Who knew.
Jean Marie Le Pen. Look it up.[/QUOTE]
True. I just cant decide what the dems are thinking. Either they are noble or stupid.
Also, they have elections in France? Who knew.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']True. I just cant decide what the dems are thinking. Either they are noble or stupid.[/quote]
Eh, this "the dems are screwed" framing is more the country buying the GOP's framework more than reality.
Dems are screwed if nothing gets passed on health care; they look like petulant brats who can't accomplish anything, even with a supermajority
Dems are screwed if they do pass health care because polls show it's unpopular (of course, those polls are only a portion of the story, since other polls show a majority do want health care passed, and other polls yet still show that public support jumps substantially when you ask about favoring the issues in the HCRA, and don't ask about, say, "obama's health care plan.").
What I've learned from watching the news this year? "The Dems are
ed in November come hell or high water." So there's nothing to fear; not that their should be (poor guys won't get re-elected, awwwwww, it's not like they'll have to move far to their new office job on K street anyway).
sarcasm, right?
Eh, this "the dems are screwed" framing is more the country buying the GOP's framework more than reality.
Dems are screwed if nothing gets passed on health care; they look like petulant brats who can't accomplish anything, even with a supermajority
Dems are screwed if they do pass health care because polls show it's unpopular (of course, those polls are only a portion of the story, since other polls show a majority do want health care passed, and other polls yet still show that public support jumps substantially when you ask about favoring the issues in the HCRA, and don't ask about, say, "obama's health care plan.").
What I've learned from watching the news this year? "The Dems are
ed in November come hell or high water." So there's nothing to fear; not that their should be (poor guys won't get re-elected, awwwwww, it's not like they'll have to move far to their new office job on K street anyway).sarcasm, right?
it'll be used against the dems but it'll be used against the dems even if they dont pass it
i'm on my conservative grandfather's mailing list, it's sometimes tits (not the frat-slang "good", lady parts) but usually just propaganda. there was one in particular he sent yesterday i thought others might find interesting, and in finding it i came across a couple others...
but this is the one i was looking for:
my point is yeah "dem's passed something when polls said you didn't want it" sounds kinda bad, but there are a billion things that sound bad when that's your goal, i really dont think this will make any diff at all, if they passed 100% what republicans want then they'd just distort some other facts instead of distorting healthcare facts
i'm on my conservative grandfather's mailing list, it's sometimes tits (not the frat-slang "good", lady parts) but usually just propaganda. there was one in particular he sent yesterday i thought others might find interesting, and in finding it i came across a couple others...
but this is the one i was looking for:
my point is yeah "dem's passed something when polls said you didn't want it" sounds kinda bad, but there are a billion things that sound bad when that's your goal, i really dont think this will make any diff at all, if they passed 100% what republicans want then they'd just distort some other facts instead of distorting healthcare facts
[quote name='mykevermin']Republicans are in trouble if their dipshit tea party followers don't vote for them or worse, run a candidate against them.
Jean Marie Le Pen. Look it up.[/QUOTE]
im tellin ya, were getting close to a 3 party system. itll break into what i predicted after the election (see thread).
party 1: democrats, will remain largely unchanged.
party 2: blue dogs & neocons, will come together to either become the republicans or a new party name
party 3: conservative more traditional republican party (think goldwater/reaganish) will either be republican or a new party name
Jean Marie Le Pen. Look it up.[/QUOTE]
im tellin ya, were getting close to a 3 party system. itll break into what i predicted after the election (see thread).
party 1: democrats, will remain largely unchanged.
party 2: blue dogs & neocons, will come together to either become the republicans or a new party name
party 3: conservative more traditional republican party (think goldwater/reaganish) will either be republican or a new party name
- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']im tellin ya, were getting close to a 3 party system. itll break into what i predicted after the election (see thread).
party 1: democrats, will remain largely unchanged.
party 2: blue dogs & neocons, will come together to either become the republicans or a new party name
party 3: conservative more traditional republican party (think goldwater/reaganish) will either be republican or a new party name[/QUOTE]
How is Reagan not a neocon? 43 was a carbon copy of Reagan.
party 1: democrats, will remain largely unchanged.
party 2: blue dogs & neocons, will come together to either become the republicans or a new party name
party 3: conservative more traditional republican party (think goldwater/reaganish) will either be republican or a new party name[/QUOTE]
How is Reagan not a neocon? 43 was a carbon copy of Reagan.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
haha, fair enough.
militantatheistaphob
CAG Veteran
Well hate to interrupt the two moonbats in their habitat, but your dreams will be smashed starting 2011
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Seeing the finger-pointing, in-fighting, factioning, and continued embracement of nutjob tea partiers in the right brings me to one conclusion:
The Dems will be fine in November. The right is overconfident when they have zero reason to be. We sensible folk must be vigilant and make sure we vote this year, though.
If unemployment starts to dip by May, Republicans are doubleed.
The Dems will be fine in November. The right is overconfident when they have zero reason to be. We sensible folk must be vigilant and make sure we vote this year, though.
If unemployment starts to dip by May, Republicans are double
ed.
[quote name='mykevermin']Seeing the finger-pointing, in-fighting, factioning, and continued embracement of nutjob tea partiers in the right brings me to one conclusion:
The Dems will be fine in November. The right is overconfident when they have zero reason to be. We sensible folk must be vigilant and make sure we vote this year, though.
If unemployment starts to dip by May, Republicans are doubleed.[/QUOTE]
Cause the dems don't have infighting?
Rather unrelated to the thread, I actually think they either need to make shorter terms for Senators, or term limits on Congress. Regardless of party affiliation, I desperately think we need new faces and views.
For those of you who are employed, perhaps you've seen the new employee who is always a go-getter, works the longer hours, comes up with 100 ideas, many of them pretty good, but then over time realizes the company culture is such, that they've already made a name for themselves, now it's time to post on CAG politics forums all morning rather than attend to email.
Anyway, in order to prevent the career politician that I think many of us loathe, I'd like to see limits, and potentially shorter terms. For anyone that thinks a person should hold their seat for as long as they continue to win elections, I counter with "Strom Thurmond".
The Dems will be fine in November. The right is overconfident when they have zero reason to be. We sensible folk must be vigilant and make sure we vote this year, though.
If unemployment starts to dip by May, Republicans are double
ed.[/QUOTE]Cause the dems don't have infighting?
Rather unrelated to the thread, I actually think they either need to make shorter terms for Senators, or term limits on Congress. Regardless of party affiliation, I desperately think we need new faces and views.
For those of you who are employed, perhaps you've seen the new employee who is always a go-getter, works the longer hours, comes up with 100 ideas, many of them pretty good, but then over time realizes the company culture is such, that they've already made a name for themselves, now it's time to post on CAG politics forums all morning rather than attend to email.
Anyway, in order to prevent the career politician that I think many of us loathe, I'd like to see limits, and potentially shorter terms. For anyone that thinks a person should hold their seat for as long as they continue to win elections, I counter with "Strom Thurmond".
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='berzirk']Cause the dems don't have infighting?[/quote]
Bill Owens is what happens when the right doesn't get along. More Bill Owens will happen in November.
Unemployment will be below 9% by then, and the right will continue to cater to their extreme tea partiers - but not enough to satisfy them (otherwise they wouldn't by the extreme, they'd be the moderates). Unsatisfied, TPers will vote out Republicans at best, or run third-party Doug Hoffmans at worst, leading to potential Democrat gains.
(Don't get me wrong, I don't see Democrat gains in the fall, but I see their losses being *very* sustained, maybe 6 seats in the house and 2-3 in the Senate. but I digress.)
Well, Strom Thurmond's been dead for 7 years - you could have brought up Robert Byrd or the more recently deceased Ted Kennedy as an example.
I largely agree on term limits, but not for the reasons you state. I've seen work ethic exist independent of tenure. That is, I've seen brilliant, hard working people who put decades into the same job, and I've seen new people show up with no interest whatsoever, totally useless. The "young and hungry" mentality is a red herring, not something you can empirically demonstrate, and thus isn't a particularly valid argument.
But I do agree with term limits for reasons like the mess that got us all the way to last night to pass health care reform. Obama told the last-minute "yes" Democrats that "I know this is a tough vote." The implication is obvious - they vote yes, and they get voted out in November. That's admitting that they're voting on the fear of reelection, and not the fear of doing what's morally/ethically right or what's principled. That's a horrible thing to want to run for office in fear of. Term limits would take away that fear in some small part.
Bill Owens is what happens when the right doesn't get along. More Bill Owens will happen in November.
Unemployment will be below 9% by then, and the right will continue to cater to their extreme tea partiers - but not enough to satisfy them (otherwise they wouldn't by the extreme, they'd be the moderates). Unsatisfied, TPers will vote out Republicans at best, or run third-party Doug Hoffmans at worst, leading to potential Democrat gains.
(Don't get me wrong, I don't see Democrat gains in the fall, but I see their losses being *very* sustained, maybe 6 seats in the house and 2-3 in the Senate. but I digress.)
Rather unrelated to the thread, I actually think they either need to make shorter terms for Senators, or term limits on Congress. Regardless of party affiliation, I desperately think we need new faces and views.
For those of you who are employed, perhaps you've seen the new employee who is always a go-getter, works the longer hours, comes up with 100 ideas, many of them pretty good, but then over time realizes the company culture is such, that they've already made a name for themselves, now it's time to post on CAG politics forums all morning rather than attend to email.
Anyway, in order to prevent the career politician that I think many of us loathe, I'd like to see limits, and potentially shorter terms. For anyone that thinks a person should hold their seat for as long as they continue to win elections, I counter with "Strom Thurmond".
Well, Strom Thurmond's been dead for 7 years - you could have brought up Robert Byrd or the more recently deceased Ted Kennedy as an example.
I largely agree on term limits, but not for the reasons you state. I've seen work ethic exist independent of tenure. That is, I've seen brilliant, hard working people who put decades into the same job, and I've seen new people show up with no interest whatsoever, totally useless. The "young and hungry" mentality is a red herring, not something you can empirically demonstrate, and thus isn't a particularly valid argument.
But I do agree with term limits for reasons like the mess that got us all the way to last night to pass health care reform. Obama told the last-minute "yes" Democrats that "I know this is a tough vote." The implication is obvious - they vote yes, and they get voted out in November. That's admitting that they're voting on the fear of reelection, and not the fear of doing what's morally/ethically right or what's principled. That's a horrible thing to want to run for office in fear of. Term limits would take away that fear in some small part.
Well, Strom Thurmond's been dead for 7 years - you could have brought up Robert Byrd or the more recently deceased Ted Kennedy as an example.
I've spent enough time on the CAG forums to know that you have a far greater chance of your post being read if you slam a Republican in an example, than a Democrat. It was strategery. Dead Ted was certainly a lifer who had outstayed his welcome to me.
On the topic of term limits, how bout creating a structure for Supreme Court Justices too. If an aide needs to feed Chief Justice so-and-so their pudding in the morning, I'm not sure I want them deciding on major issues in the afternoon.
I've spent enough time on the CAG forums to know that you have a far greater chance of your post being read if you slam a Republican in an example, than a Democrat. It was strategery. Dead Ted was certainly a lifer who had outstayed his welcome to me.
On the topic of term limits, how bout creating a structure for Supreme Court Justices too. If an aide needs to feed Chief Justice so-and-so their pudding in the morning, I'm not sure I want them deciding on major issues in the afternoon.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Ehh, that kinda violates the very principle of the Supreme Court.
[quote name='mykevermin']Ehh, that kinda violates the very principle of the Supreme Court.[/QUOTE]
How so?
Do you really want an ancient judge who is no longer as sharp as they used to be, making monumental decisions? I get that you don't remove at Congress or the Executive Branch's whim, but if you impose X year terms then you have some more contemporary thinkers. Perhaps in initiation, they set it so that only 2 judges limits could expire in the same 4 years to prevent the acting President from having too much influence on creating the Court to promote their political agenda.
How so?
Do you really want an ancient judge who is no longer as sharp as they used to be, making monumental decisions? I get that you don't remove at Congress or the Executive Branch's whim, but if you impose X year terms then you have some more contemporary thinkers. Perhaps in initiation, they set it so that only 2 judges limits could expire in the same 4 years to prevent the acting President from having too much influence on creating the Court to promote their political agenda.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
That mentality (fresher legal/judicial thinking) would benefit people with my ideology - progressives - more than it would conservatives.
I think that's an idea that only exists because we don't trust our elders to think or think properly - which is quite the fallacy.
I think that's an idea that only exists because we don't trust our elders to think or think properly - which is quite the fallacy.
[quote name='mykevermin']That mentality (fresher legal/judicial thinking) would benefit people with my ideology - progressives - more than it would conservatives.
I think that's an idea that only exists because we don't trust our elders to think or think properly - which is quite the fallacy.[/QUOTE]
I'm old school in the sense that I believe wisdom typically comes with age, but there is a point of diminishing returns. We've all had relatives who as they aged lost major faculties. The difference was that they were commonly retired, and had been for decades, not responsible for deciding the countries most contested legal cases. There's nothing in place to "encourage" not just an elderly justice from retiring, but one who's mental and physical health has deteriorated significantly. That's not in the best interest for the American people.
I think that's an idea that only exists because we don't trust our elders to think or think properly - which is quite the fallacy.[/QUOTE]
I'm old school in the sense that I believe wisdom typically comes with age, but there is a point of diminishing returns. We've all had relatives who as they aged lost major faculties. The difference was that they were commonly retired, and had been for decades, not responsible for deciding the countries most contested legal cases. There's nothing in place to "encourage" not just an elderly justice from retiring, but one who's mental and physical health has deteriorated significantly. That's not in the best interest for the American people.
JolietJake
Banned
Age plays a part, no matter the post that one is seeking. Remember how much fuss was made about McCain's age during the last election?
[quote name='mykevermin']Bill Owens is what happens when the right doesn't get along. More Bill Owens will happen in November.
Unemployment will be below 9% by then, and the right will continue to cater to their extreme tea partiers - but not enough to satisfy them (otherwise they wouldn't by the extreme, they'd be the moderates). Unsatisfied, TPers will vote out Republicans at best, or run third-party Doug Hoffmans at worst, leading to potential Democrat gains.
(Don't get me wrong, I don't see Democrat gains in the fall, but I see their losses being *very* sustained, maybe 6 seats in the house and 2-3 in the Senate. but I digress.)[/QUOTE]
At this point, there are five Senate seats: North Dakota, Delaware, Arkansas, Indiana, and Nevada that short of a major scandal or death, are going to be Republican gains, mostly for reasons that have nothing at all to do with health care or dissatisfaction with Democrats. Two more, Colorado and Pennsylvania, are looking very good for the GOP at the moment, but could change. Of course, the GOP also has Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio up for play that could potentially turn the other way as well.
I would say that the Democrats will probably lose the first five seats, along with maybe one or two wild cards like Illinois or Pennsylvania, but the Democrats will gain either Missouri or New Hampshire, leading to a net gain of 5 or 6 seats for the GOP in the Senate.
I have no idea what the House races are looking like at the moment, but there's no way the Democrats are going to gain any more seats there. I think a complete GOP majority in the House might be out of the question, but they could certainly pull the difference down to within 30 seats which would require a GOP gain of at least 45 or so.
Of course November is still 8 months away, and this could all change overnight let alone in 8 months. This biggest indicator is what the polls look like in a month or so once the ramifications of this Health Care bill have time to simmer.
Unemployment will be below 9% by then, and the right will continue to cater to their extreme tea partiers - but not enough to satisfy them (otherwise they wouldn't by the extreme, they'd be the moderates). Unsatisfied, TPers will vote out Republicans at best, or run third-party Doug Hoffmans at worst, leading to potential Democrat gains.
(Don't get me wrong, I don't see Democrat gains in the fall, but I see their losses being *very* sustained, maybe 6 seats in the house and 2-3 in the Senate. but I digress.)[/QUOTE]
At this point, there are five Senate seats: North Dakota, Delaware, Arkansas, Indiana, and Nevada that short of a major scandal or death, are going to be Republican gains, mostly for reasons that have nothing at all to do with health care or dissatisfaction with Democrats. Two more, Colorado and Pennsylvania, are looking very good for the GOP at the moment, but could change. Of course, the GOP also has Missouri, New Hampshire, and Ohio up for play that could potentially turn the other way as well.
I would say that the Democrats will probably lose the first five seats, along with maybe one or two wild cards like Illinois or Pennsylvania, but the Democrats will gain either Missouri or New Hampshire, leading to a net gain of 5 or 6 seats for the GOP in the Senate.
I have no idea what the House races are looking like at the moment, but there's no way the Democrats are going to gain any more seats there. I think a complete GOP majority in the House might be out of the question, but they could certainly pull the difference down to within 30 seats which would require a GOP gain of at least 45 or so.
Of course November is still 8 months away, and this could all change overnight let alone in 8 months. This biggest indicator is what the polls look like in a month or so once the ramifications of this Health Care bill have time to simmer.
@OP
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/democracy/index.html
Agreed, they watered it down and as a result, midterms will be costly.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/democracy/index.html
A new CNN poll today finds that Americans oppose the current health care plan by a margin of 59-39%, but a sizable portion of those opposed -- 13% -- oppose it because "it is not liberal enough" (see questions 20 and 21):
Thus, a majority of Americans either support the plan or believe it should be more liberal (52%), while only a minority (43%) oppose the plan on the ground that it is too liberal.
Agreed, they watered it down and as a result, midterms will be costly.
JolietJake
Banned
I keep hearing from the right about how some liberals don't even support the plan, they act as if those people are siding with the right, when the complete opposite is true. Yet it doesn't come out when the numbers are kept simple, so they can keep on claiming that and most people eat it up.
[quote name='IRHari']@OP
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/democracy/index.html
Agreed, they watered it down and as a result, midterms will be costly.[/QUOTE]
This is kinda right out of my butt, however there has gotta be a good twenty percent who oppose the bill (and would oppose any bill) just because the Right Wing Wurlitzer told them to. The merits were never even a question. Combine that with those righteously pissed (but who will probably get over it) because of how watered down the bill was goes to show how empty right wing rhetoric is.
Like I have said before, good luck campaigning for reopening the doughnut hole and some of the other positives in the bill. Triple dog dare these sick freaks to promise to bring back pre-existing conditions
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/22/democracy/index.html
Agreed, they watered it down and as a result, midterms will be costly.[/QUOTE]
This is kinda right out of my butt, however there has gotta be a good twenty percent who oppose the bill (and would oppose any bill) just because the Right Wing Wurlitzer told them to. The merits were never even a question. Combine that with those righteously pissed (but who will probably get over it) because of how watered down the bill was goes to show how empty right wing rhetoric is.
Like I have said before, good luck campaigning for reopening the doughnut hole and some of the other positives in the bill. Triple dog dare these sick freaks to promise to bring back pre-existing conditions
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Msut77']
Like I have said before, good luck campaigning for reopening the doughnut hole and some of the other positives in the bill. Triple dog dare these sick freaks to promise to bring back pre-existing conditions[/QUOTE]
True, but they won't go that route unfortunately. Boehner already said they'd go after it bit by bit, at least in terms of trying to repeal it if the Republicans get a majority.
Go after the medicare cuts (I know nothing about the cuts etc., just something he mentioned), try to get rid of the penalty for not buying insurance etc.
They'll attack what they like and try to leave the "good" parts.
Like I have said before, good luck campaigning for reopening the doughnut hole and some of the other positives in the bill. Triple dog dare these sick freaks to promise to bring back pre-existing conditions[/QUOTE]
True, but they won't go that route unfortunately. Boehner already said they'd go after it bit by bit, at least in terms of trying to repeal it if the Republicans get a majority.
Go after the medicare cuts (I know nothing about the cuts etc., just something he mentioned), try to get rid of the penalty for not buying insurance etc.
They'll attack what they like and try to leave the "good" parts.
People should read David Frum's column titled Waterloo, except he argues the Waterloo will be for the Republicans and their extremely high expectations for 2010. I think someone posted it in the other 'obamacare is deadly' thread.
Frum argued today on Hardball that when Repubs repeal it but leave in the stuff thats 'good', it'll pretty much be the same bill.
Also, how the is FOX still calling Pat Cadell a democrat? Dude was thrown under the bus and he wants his revenge ala Dick Morris.
Frum argued today on Hardball that when Repubs repeal it but leave in the stuff thats 'good', it'll pretty much be the same bill.
Also, how the
is FOX still calling Pat Cadell a democrat? Dude was thrown under the bus and he wants his revenge ala Dick Morris.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
Cadell left the Democrat Party nearly a decade before FOX News hit the airwaves for the first time.
Cons are very, very good at keeping their outrage and tantrums going for decades at a time but even this level of anger can't be sustained very long it will burn out eventually. That is assuming it has the chance to burn out before one of them tries something very stupid.
[quote name='Msut77']I really don't see any of it happening, even then they would have to convince Obama to sign it.
The chamber of commerce of all things already said to count them out of funding a repeal effort.
Like I said good luck.[/QUOTE]
Oh I agree. They won't succeed in the repeal effort.
But they will campaign between now and November on it. They'll attack the mandate/fines etc. and promise to repeal it, while saying nothing about the parts the public will like--preexisting condition reform, on parents insurance until 26 etc.
The chamber of commerce of all things already said to count them out of funding a repeal effort.
Like I said good luck.[/QUOTE]
Oh I agree. They won't succeed in the repeal effort.
But they will campaign between now and November on it. They'll attack the mandate/fines etc. and promise to repeal it, while saying nothing about the parts the public will like--preexisting condition reform, on parents insurance until 26 etc.
Papa Neorev
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='lawdood']They won't...and may never again.[/QUOTE]
yeah lol, anyone on either side of the isle thinks that they areing stupid
yeah lol, anyone on either side of the isle thinks that they are
ing stupid
[quote name='lawdood']They won't...and may never again.[/QUOTE]
The Republicans were probably thinking the same thing in the halcyon fear-mongery post-9/11 days, and look where we are now. If only that were true I'd be a happy man, but sadly that isn't how it works.
That said, I don't think things in November and especially in 2012 will be as dire for the Democrats as many are predicting. If the party truly has faith that health care reform will improve the life of Americans (and I obviously do, since I supported it) than the proof will be in the pudding. The best platform the Democrats can run on is that what they worked so hard to achieve has accomplished what they set out to do. It's certainly in our country's best interest that it does, though I know Republicans are hoping the system stays broken.
The Republicans were probably thinking the same thing in the halcyon fear-mongery post-9/11 days, and look where we are now. If only that were true I'd be a happy man, but sadly that isn't how it works.
That said, I don't think things in November and especially in 2012 will be as dire for the Democrats as many are predicting. If the party truly has faith that health care reform will improve the life of Americans (and I obviously do, since I supported it) than the proof will be in the pudding. The best platform the Democrats can run on is that what they worked so hard to achieve has accomplished what they set out to do. It's certainly in our country's best interest that it does, though I know Republicans are hoping the system stays broken.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Its only a matter of time now before the Whigs and the Federalists retake Congress.
[quote name='bvharris']The Republicans were probably thinking the same thing in the halcyon fear-mongery post-9/11 days, and look where we are now. If only that were true I'd be a happy man, but sadly that isn't how it works.
That said, I don't think things in November and especially in 2012 will be as dire for the Democrats as many are predicting. If the party truly has faith that health care reform will improve the life of Americans (and I obviously do, since I supported it) than the proof will be in the pudding. The best platform the Democrats can run on is that what they worked so hard to achieve has accomplished what they set out to do. It's certainly in our country's best interest that it does, though I know Republicans are hoping the system stays broken.[/QUOTE]
I was referring mainly to the demographic shifts that are taking place in America that are not favorable to Republicans in the future.
Gaining back 113 seats in the House? not likely. Senate majority again? possible...but not for more than a single election cycle or two most likely.
Their base is growing older and shrinking...and not likely to ever make a comeback 20 or 30 years from now.
That said, I don't think things in November and especially in 2012 will be as dire for the Democrats as many are predicting. If the party truly has faith that health care reform will improve the life of Americans (and I obviously do, since I supported it) than the proof will be in the pudding. The best platform the Democrats can run on is that what they worked so hard to achieve has accomplished what they set out to do. It's certainly in our country's best interest that it does, though I know Republicans are hoping the system stays broken.[/QUOTE]
I was referring mainly to the demographic shifts that are taking place in America that are not favorable to Republicans in the future.
Gaining back 113 seats in the House? not likely. Senate majority again? possible...but not for more than a single election cycle or two most likely.
Their base is growing older and shrinking...and not likely to ever make a comeback 20 or 30 years from now.
The problem is people tend to shift to the right as they get older (and more worried about their own bottom lines).
Even being in my early 30s, I've seen several acquaintances teeter from solid democrats to voting more often for republicans as taxes have became their main concern.
But aside from age, you have a fair point on demographic changes. The country will be majority minority by 2050 if not sooner as the country becomes more and more Hispanic, so the real key will be which side wins those votes.
Even being in my early 30s, I've seen several acquaintances teeter from solid democrats to voting more often for republicans as taxes have became their main concern.
But aside from age, you have a fair point on demographic changes. The country will be majority minority by 2050 if not sooner as the country becomes more and more Hispanic, so the real key will be which side wins those votes.
[quote name='dmaul1114']The problem is people tend to shift to the right as they get older (and more worried about their own bottom lines).
Even being in my early 30s, I've seen several acquaintances teeter from solid democrats to voting more often for republicans as taxes have became their main concern.
But aside from age, you have a fair point on demographic changes. The country will be majority minority by 2050 if not sooner as the country becomes more and more Hispanic, so the real key will be which side wins those votes.[/QUOTE]
In order for the Republicans to begin to woo those voters, they'll have to shift their focus away from the old, white Southerners who make up the largest part of their base. Old white Southern conservatives are not too keen on doing anything that benefits brown (or black) people. When one of your key issues is no amnesty/ no practical immigration reform (besides kicking all illegals out and building a giant wall), you're basically telling Hispanics "we don't like or want you brown people in our country." That's not really going over too well with that constituency.
Couple that with the Hispanic population being mostly younger than the general, older conservative base and yeah, I don't see it happening unless a MAJOR shift takes place within that party and new leaders think and act differently and stop taking their advice and talking points from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and the teabaggers.
Even being in my early 30s, I've seen several acquaintances teeter from solid democrats to voting more often for republicans as taxes have became their main concern.
But aside from age, you have a fair point on demographic changes. The country will be majority minority by 2050 if not sooner as the country becomes more and more Hispanic, so the real key will be which side wins those votes.[/QUOTE]
In order for the Republicans to begin to woo those voters, they'll have to shift their focus away from the old, white Southerners who make up the largest part of their base. Old white Southern conservatives are not too keen on doing anything that benefits brown (or black) people. When one of your key issues is no amnesty/ no practical immigration reform (besides kicking all illegals out and building a giant wall), you're basically telling Hispanics "we don't like or want you brown people in our country." That's not really going over too well with that constituency.
Couple that with the Hispanic population being mostly younger than the general, older conservative base and yeah, I don't see it happening unless a MAJOR shift takes place within that party and new leaders think and act differently and stop taking their advice and talking points from the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and the teabaggers.
fatherofcaitlyn
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 82 (100%)
I just finished reading the CCNA ICND2. In the last week, I've read about 500 pages instead of reading rense.com or here. So, I'm running real low on guano and I haven't been spreading it here.
However, I'll try to contribute now.
Let's pretend 2010 will be a repeat of 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America was the main reason for Republican gains.
I'm looking for a 2010 version of the Contract with America.
http://redstickrant.blogspot.com/2009/12/contract-with-america-2010.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464135/posts
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10915.html#comments
I'm seeing mostly bullshit and nothing unified.
So, what is the Republican agenda for 2010-2012?
Let's see: 1. Obamacare bad! You're not going to convince Obama to repeal what he just spent all of his political capital on to pass.
2. Economy bad! Yeah, it's rough out there. Supposedly, it isn't as rough out there as it was a year. So, you have to convince people Obama isn't improving things fast enough and Bunning who isn't running for reelection is a Democrat.
3. Tax and spend bad! Obama either raised taxes on everybody you know (1.4% chance) or lowered taxes on everybody you know (98.6% chance) if you're working.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/obama-has-cut-taxes-for-986-percent-of.html
4. Obama socialism bad! Patriot Act facism good! Most people are disappointed in Obama, but understand fully he is be doing a better job than McCain or Palin.
However, I'll try to contribute now.
Let's pretend 2010 will be a repeat of 1994.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America was the main reason for Republican gains.
I'm looking for a 2010 version of the Contract with America.
http://redstickrant.blogspot.com/2009/12/contract-with-america-2010.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2464135/posts
http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/10915.html#comments
I'm seeing mostly bullshit and nothing unified.
So, what is the Republican agenda for 2010-2012?
Let's see: 1. Obamacare bad! You're not going to convince Obama to repeal what he just spent all of his political capital on to pass.
2. Economy bad! Yeah, it's rough out there. Supposedly, it isn't as rough out there as it was a year. So, you have to convince people Obama isn't improving things fast enough and Bunning who isn't running for reelection is a Democrat.
3. Tax and spend bad! Obama either raised taxes on everybody you know (1.4% chance) or lowered taxes on everybody you know (98.6% chance) if you're working.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/obama-has-cut-taxes-for-986-percent-of.html
4. Obama socialism bad! Patriot Act facism good! Most people are disappointed in Obama, but understand fully he is be doing a better job than McCain or Palin.
bread's done