The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

"Zero evidence" is obviously hyperbole. That said, if this is the evidence you were looking at in forming your opinions, I can only conclude you ignored all other available evidence.

As even the evidence you cited suggests, those who cared most about health care voted against Brown and for Coakley. Given that this is obviously the biggest domestic issue on people's radar today, that isn't a small point- particularly if you are trying to make the case that the election was a referendum on Democrats and health care. If it were a referendum on health care as you argue, the people who most care about it voted and spoke- a majority support health care. How does that support your claim?

Most of the rest of your evidence is that Scott Brown campaigned for or against certain things which are associated with the Democratic party. Sure, he did. Am I to believe, then, that most voters thought he would be in favor of the Democratic party platform one month before the election? Because a month before the election, he was down 30 points in the polls. Did people's opinions change to the tune of 35 points in one month on fairly significant issues, even though there was almost no change or news regarding any of those issues at all in that month period? If people didn't like those positions at all, wouldn't they automatically default to supporting the Republican as opposed to the Democrat one month before the election? Even if you know absolutely nothing about either candidate, if the issues you cited were highly important to people, why start with the presumption that you favor the Democrat? Or are you suggesting that his arguments were so persuasive a full 35% of voters changed their mind on those issues in a one month span?

We can at least agree that the data points in Virginia and New Jersey are even less useful in finding a conclusion that voters were rejecting Obama or the Democratic party. Where we disagree is on your statement that "Obama spent a significant amount of time campaigning for both Democrats, far more than Coakley's one-day visit." For Deeds, Obama spent two days campaigning for the candidate- once in August, once in October. I suppose that is a 100% increase over his time with Coakley, but to call 2 days "significant" seems like a huge stretch. As for Corzine, I have found news of 3 visits by Obama over a five month span (it isn't as if Obama was thrilled with Corzine either, as the WH approached the NJ Senate President and asked him to run instead of Corzine in July of 2009).

*Shrug* Judging the electorate is a notoriously difficult thing to do. You're welcome to your opinion. The end effect is that MA voters made it much more difficult to pass health care, and in the end, I guess that's the only data point that really matters. If you want to go on thinking that it was nothing more than a Coakley effect, and that the voters are in love with ObamaCare, then I guess I'll see you in November.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Certainly no more of a "trick" than the filibuster, which you are fine with. If you want all "tricks" removed, put it to an up or down vote. My guess is, you prefer the tricks to majority rule.

On paper, these are all parliamentary tricks ... filibuster, reconciliation, and a thousand other in-the-tall-grass maneuvers.

But what matters is public perception. And you're up in the night if you think the public will perceive this kind of chicanery as anything less than gaming the system to circumvent the desires of a majority of Americans.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

On paper, these are all parliamentary tricks ... filibuster, reconciliation, and a thousand other in-the-tall-grass maneuvers.

But what matters is public perception. And you're up in the night if you think the public will perceive this kind of chicanery as anything less than gaming the system to circumvent the desires of a majority of Americans.

What percentage of the population would you guess is represented by Republicans in the Senate, Tex? Talk about circumventing the desires of a majority of Americans.

Here:

I will save you the trouble.

http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2274

[MikeWaters]

Could you imagine what a hellhole this country would be if the whole thing were like the Coasts? California and New York?

Now California wants the red states to bail it out.

NO THANKS!!! SCREW YOU COMMIEFORNIA!!!!

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Could you imagine what a hellhole this country would be if the whole thing were like the Coasts? California and New York?

Now California wants the red states to bail it out.

NO THANKS!!! SCREW YOU COMMIEFORNIA!!!!

Left crazies believe everybody is with them. Please jump on the ship so we can all die together. Oh joy.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Left crazies believe everybody is with them. Please jump on the ship so we can all die together. Oh joy.

Yep. You nailed it. We are all going to die.

/sarcasm.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yep. You nailed it. We are all going to die.

/sarcasm.

California is going down for the count, except for the Marxist Obama stepping in to save the day.

California is what you have, when rampant leftist socialism takes over, bankruptcy begging others to pay the bill. It always does. Thank you, no, I've had enough.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

California is what you have, when rampant leftist socialism takes over, bankruptcy begging others to pay the bill. It always does. Thank you, no, I've had enough.

Or Michigan.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

What percentage of the population would you guess is represented by Republicans in the Senate, Tex? Talk about circumventing the desires of a majority of Americans.

Here:

I will save you the trouble.

http://www.ryanavent.com/blog/?p=2274

I hear echoes of sour grapes in that argument. Ted Kennedy tried this a few years back when the Dems had only 44ish votes. "We're in the minority, but we represent the majority." I have two thoughts for you on this:

First, the civics lesson. The Senate was created for the minority. That's why it exists: a way for the little guy in RI and DE to beat back those big meanies in VA and NY (see "Great Compromise"). Senators represent states, not individuals, so talking about how many voters you "really" represent is totally meaningless, whether D or R. It's an argument completely ignorant of why the Senate was created in first place.

Second, assuming that because you are in the majority, that most Americans agree with your policies is a fast track to the minority. It's like the Martha Coakley approach to electioneering.

I'm curious, Cali: you seem completely dismissive of the numerous polls showing the unpopularity of this bill, and apparently believe MA was nothing more than an "Attaboy!" to Obama. The House Democrat leadership has openly said that health care passage will be worth it to them, even if it costs them their majority. (Not sure if they're just blowing smoke, but that's what they've said.)

Do you feel the same way? What cost is too great? Losing the Senate too? The White House? Would all that be worth it to you, to get this bill passed?

Not saying any of it will ... but just entertain the hypothetical for a moment.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Or Michigan.



I hear echoes of sour grapes in that argument. Ted Kennedy tried this a few years back when the Dems had only 44ish votes. "We're in the minority, but we represent the majority." I have two thoughts for you on this:

First, the civics lesson. The Senate was created for the minority. That's why it exists: a way for the little guy in RI and DE to beat back those big meanies in VA and NY (see "Great Compromise"). Senators represent states, not individuals, so talking about how many voters you "really" represent is totally meaningless, whether D or R. It's an argument completely ignorant of why the Senate was created in first place.

Second, assuming that because you are in the majority, that most Americans agree with your policies is a fast track to the minority. It's like the Martha Coakley approach to electioneering.

I'm curious, Cali: you seem completely dismissive of the numerous polls showing the unpopularity of this bill, and apparently believe MA was nothing more than an "Attaboy!" to Obama. The House Democrat leadership has openly said that health care passage will be worth it to them, even if it costs them their majority. (Not sure if they're just blowing smoke, but that's what they've said.)

Do you feel the same way? What cost is too great? Losing the Senate too? The White House? Would all that be worth it to you, to get this bill passed?

Not saying any of it will ... but just entertain the hypothetical for a moment.

Sour grapes? That doesn't even make sense- not when Democrats are poised for the first time in decades to accomplish one of their highest priority agenda items.

I am well aware of the purpose of the Senate. It was YOUR argument that a majority of Americans don't support Democrats. A strong majority is what elected the Democrats to office in the first place. You seem to be of the opinion that now that they have been elected, they should live and die by each poll which is released, even if it requires totally changing their opinions on the very subjects which got them elected in the first place. The most accurate poll is the one taken on voting day, and on that day Democrats did extremely well. Better than any party has since the 1970s. Your quote on Kennedy is amusing as it seems to suggest Democrats are in the minority now. They have 59 seats in the US Senate, not 44. You didn't cite poll numbers from Kennedy's day- instead you looked to seats in the Senate in that example to show "minority" status. Flip your argument and you have clear majority status now for Democrats.

As for what I am willing to lose to get health care reform done- all of it. This is why we have elections. So things can get done. I want my party to get done what they ran on, no matter the political cost to them. I am not interested in perpetuating any political career. I am interested in results. Get the results, even if it costs your job. If, as I believe, the results will be a net positive, the voters will come back soon enough and you can then get more results. Politics isn't a game. All the wrangling, all the arguing, all the posturing and positioning, is for one reason- to get results. Instead, to you and others, the wrangling, arguing, posturing and positioning appear to be the actual desired result with accomplishments a distant second. I'm not interested in that model.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

California is going down for the count, except for the Marxist Obama stepping in to save the day.

California is what you have, when rampant leftist socialism takes over, bankruptcy begging others to pay the bill. It always does. Thank you, no, I've had enough.

"California... hyberbole hyperbole... except hyperbole hyperbole."