-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
UnitedHealthCare is dropping out of the exchanges because they're a shit provider with overpriced terrible plans. This is just the ACA working as intended. We've been over this before.
I live next to NH. It's conservative, but lightly religious. I don't see Cruz as having a prayer.
RustyNails
Member
Bunch of rich crybabies. I interviewed at UHC a few weeks ago and they didn't select me. Kinda glad now.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Iowa means almost nothing today. This isn't the pre-Internet days where nobody is exposed to these guys except through the 6:00 news.
Roland_Gunner
Member
If HRC had won Iowa in '08 she would be President right now and not Obama.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I don't believe this for a second.
RustyNails
Member
I don't think so. That would mean Obama's groundgame and social media breakthrough amounted to nothing in the end, when it was instrumental in his victory.
Black Republican
Member
It's different on the dem side imo
Roland_Gunner
Member
Look at how much Obama surges around IA and NH:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/08-us-dem-pres-primary.html
If HRC wins Iowa she then gets a stronger win in NH and the Obama surges dies off. The next state was the Nevada caucus which Clinton actually got more votes in. By South Carolina Clinton would have three straight wins so black voters don't break for Obama. So Hillary wins IA she stays ahead and wins the Presidency.
They seem scared to admit this. It would involve in admitting that the ACA is not the panacea it was marketed as and has failed to be.
I agree, but more important was the fact that it wasn't even close. HRC got third. It destroyed the inevitability narrative. It made her look very mortal.
NullPointer
Member
Just watched this today and Hillary really won me over. She was on point, lucid, quick on her toes, poised and without a tinge of arrogance. If this is some kind of more relaxed Hillary we only see on weekend debates we should do more weekend debates
Bernie made great use of his time too. Looked like the two of them actually enjoyed the mostly substantive back and forth. O'Malley had some good answers, but he also angrily responded to strawmen of his own creation - sounded like he had canned responses that he had practiced to death but couldn't round out their edges to fit the actual situation, and he came across as extra aggro. I get why he would, but it didn't help.
Its a debate with three candidates - they should have just asked a single question and allowed all three time to answer. This relentlessly cynical control of the questioning of these debates force candidates to have to jump in to try and seize the initiative to get a sense of equal time. Its messy and stupid in what could have otherwise been a solid debate from end to end.
Yeah, Iowa can definitely matter if a legitimate candidate who needs an early state victory wins Iowa.
Another thing: Iowa is about as rural and white as a state can get. Obama's win there drew a HUGE amount of attention because it proved that he was capable of winning white voters. He even won among white women against Hillary Clinton. That in turn boosted his numbers in South Carolina when black voters realized he was actually viable. The narrative was, if Obama can win in Iowa he can win anywhere.
Obama went on to win the state both times in the general election and rewarded Iowa with green energy initiatives that have been vital for their economy. They've done very well with his wind and ethanol programs.
JesseEwiak
Member
Have fun explaining to suburban moderates why their taxes should go up to pay for lazy welfare cheats health care and they lose their good health care plan at work to have to wait in line with those welfare cases for weeks, because that's what 60% of the population will believe after $200 million dollars in ads against the 1st Democratic nominee to support single player full bore.
This isn't about getting a Senator from Vermont to support single payer. It's about getting a moderate Democratic senator from a place like Missouri or Montana to support it.
neurosisxeno
Member
The ACA did a lot of things right, but it definitely was never marketed as a Panacea for the Health Care market. It was a stepping stone, and more than anything a massive compromise by Democrats. They took a Conservative Think Tanks idea and spun it as Health Care Reform with a bunch of patient protections stapled to it.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Agreed but this is moreso about perception in the GOP primary. Cruz could gain quite a bit of momentum from an Iowa win, and while I don't think he can win NH he could easily win SC. If Trump can't win an early stage he's finished IMO.
JesseEwiak
Member
Also, a giant expansion of Medicaid which was probably the biggest expansion of the welfare state since Johnson. Which makes it a little more than just the Heritage Foundation's plan, despite the Supreme Court partially screwing over that part of the bill.
Paul Ryan has been on the job how long?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ker-paul-ryan-out-of-congress-picks-up-steam/
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...ker-paul-ryan-out-of-congress-picks-up-steam/
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
neurosisxeno
Member
That has been what everyone has been saying since day one, but he's still the front runner despite doing essentially the opposite of every establishment candidate. Face it, the GOP base has gone off the rails and want to elect someone willing to pander to their extreme views.
Harry Reid's endorsement retroactively even funnier.
I dunno, man. You and I can call it a stepping stone, but how many Democrats can we litterally name who accept that claim as well? There's Obama, there's Sanders who is really an Independant, I believe Warren holds a similar position. Hillary seems to be firmly pressed that the ACA is the magnum opus, and all that needs to be done is work on that alone, and I cannot express enough words of anger about that. That's my concern with the ACA and the current view of the party: nobody is really making the point clear that this is placeholder jazz. I get incredibly uncomfortable at the silence, because the only topics we're getting on that state is how regressives want to eradicate it. Most Democrats say "it's the law of the land" and literally end the conversation there, as if it being the law makes it a compatible, working norm or idea. Laws are merely heavily imposed ideas, and you can impose whatever you wish; none of that makes what you infer accountable if it plainly isn't so.
Maybe I'm too Buddhistic in my views when it comes to ideas and thoughts in regards to social order, but I would at least imagine if we're going to project anything over people in society, it ought to be like a blanket that flows over things instead of chopping it up. Healthcare in the States is nothing but patchwork, and dare I say it, a racket. Perhaps it speaks more to the level of idiocy and ignore-ance that is very clearly the psychological blockage in the way that this, the wealthiest nation in the history of human history, can ever promote and produce. This of course is in reference to the regressive views that seem to be in the way of everything today. And all of this started because of the very American idea that health is a for-profit product. We started in the negative a long time ago.
People can rightfully say "this ain't the end, it's shitty patchwork, but we'll move forward in time" as many on GAF do, and I don't fight anyone who says that, but those in ascribed power who represent us don't seem to be as honest in this regard. I would like assurance from such people that we can actually get a humanistic system at some point in the 21st century. That's why I harp on this, the climate, and the poverty problem, for all three are the issues this country will be facing this century in regards to social wellbeing that hit the largest spectrums.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah. Look at this realistically. We need at least 50 senators who are willing to risk their seats over this. Even if the Democratic Party were fully united on this issue you then have an opposition party who will say anything to galvanize their base against this. Yes it would be great if Republicans were willing to play fairly and honestly. They will not. We need to be pragmatic about this instead of crucifying any Democrat who moves towards compromise. We're seeing the GOP do that by propping up Trump against the party's wishes.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's not really that odd. They used mixed landline/Internet instead of mixed landline/cell because the Internet demographic is heavily similar to the cell-not-landline demographic while also having the advantage of being cheaper to conduct. I may be a little biased because I've done work for YouGOV, but they're a good company - they're involved with a lot of the more cutting edge stuff and helping drive forward the industry.
Ah, so not even fucking try. Throw your hands up in the air and wait for the system to collapse eh? Is that the brilliant plan? Despite, once again, a majority of voters favoring single payer throughout the years?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/hillary-clinton-likes-oba_b_4881399.html
Meanwhile, when the current system collapses - because it will inevitably - what are the chances that Dems would even be able to successfully argue for single payer in an environment where people will most likely blame them and big gubermint for the malaise? Hell, good luck even protecting the ACA at that point much less trying to incrementally improve it (how, btw do we do that?) Some people seem to think that we'll get universal healthcare then, but since we're telling them today that the ACA is a golden program and is already universal healthcare, guess what - they're going to be resistant against even more government control.
Educate them now. Get out there and tell be really direct in telling them that the ACA is a stopgap with flaws, and that those flaws will be corrected with true universal healthcare.
All I'm saying is to at least try for a damn minute. I want my leaders to lead. Obama should never have let Lieberman and a handful of asshole Democrat senators to obstruct single payer in the first place. That was when the education should have been at its strongest, but he failed when he could have succeeded with a bit more effort. Hillary is in the driver's seat and has incredible pull and charisma herself.
FUCKING USE IT.
PhoenixDark
Banned
So as some of us said, there will be no moderate shift.
Wow, that's probably record time. 2016 is going to be one hell of an election.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
I don't mean to be rude but you guys seem to be kinda missing how disastrous attempting health care reform has been for the Dems and how many cracks they've taken at it. It almost sank social security and parts of the New Deal when FDR tried, Truman's and Clinton's attempts blew up in their faces. The only reason Medicaid and Medicare were able to exist was through the massive landslide that brought Johnson into office and led to their passage in 1965. Similarly with Obama.
FDR - Nope
Truman - Nope
Johnson - Medicare/Medicaid 1965
Clinton - Nope (but CHIP in 1997)
Obama - PPACA
I really don't want the next eight years to be about hillarycare repeal. For "whatever reason" the issue is absolutely toxic and the people that have benefitted most from Obamacare either haven't turned out to vote or have turned out to vote AGAINST IT like in Kentucky. I would not like Hillary to make this her "single issue" and I think she knows that this is now like a fourth rail.
The funny part is a tea party candidate winning the primary would probably lose the seat completely for the Republicans, since PVI is only +3 R.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Yeah, the ACA , especially the expansion of Medicaid is the biggest single improvement we've gotten since 1965. I know people get really frustrated with incremental improvements but it's pretty much the only way forward on this issue. Prior attempts at complete overhauls have backfired every singe time.
Pretty much, we're all going to have to let this lie for a couple of cycles until America gets used to it. Anyone trying to mess with it so soon after Obama risks having everything blow up in their face and resetting all that progress. If that happens a lot of people get screwed over, so for right now she should be looking for another issue that also needs attention.
Tarkus
Member
ElectricThunder
Member
Only way the ACA getting seriously bolstered and a march toward Universal is going to happen has little to do with the public and everything to do with, first, bringing the hammer down on the insurance/drug/etc private industries that have had undue sway on both the public and governmental lobbying at state and federal levels for decades now. Tobacco used to be untouchable and seemingly all-powerful too---so while there's precedence for it, the problem is the above interests have learned from their relative fall and entrenched themselves in about as deep as the fossil fuel industry while saying to hell with the consequences.
What optimism folks had for Obama's "negotiations" on the lot of it those years ago died in the shadows of the closed door industry meetings with their little experts at the key moments. It doesn't matter that the Status Quo is entirely fragile, a bad deal, and not at all something that can last for the public good---it is what has been carefully crafted and marketed with professional coordination to be sold as about the best it can get, that ever was, and the envy of the world. Just like somebody got a fat bonus check for Reagan's old chestnut about the Cadillac Welfare Queen despite the horrifying knock on effect that has had all these years up to the present day when ample jackasses will still cite it and use it to bludgeon.
What optimism folks had for Obama's "negotiations" on the lot of it those years ago died in the shadows of the closed door industry meetings with their little experts at the key moments. It doesn't matter that the Status Quo is entirely fragile, a bad deal, and not at all something that can last for the public good---it is what has been carefully crafted and marketed with professional coordination to be sold as about the best it can get, that ever was, and the envy of the world. Just like somebody got a fat bonus check for Reagan's old chestnut about the Cadillac Welfare Queen despite the horrifying knock on effect that has had all these years up to the present day when ample jackasses will still cite it and use it to bludgeon.
Macho Madness
Member
And he just dropped out of the race. Oh Lindsey indeed.
Officerrob
Banned
Lindsey Graham dropping out, it's about time
Pretty much. I would not expect a huge move forward for at least another 15-20 years. If anything the moves forward will be the various states joining in expanding Medicaid so as not to lose out on the federal money. And reforms regarding negotiating drug prices for Medicaid/Medicare. Those two things would go a long way without moving to a strictly single payer system.
Veritigo_X
Member
Field is thinning. This can only spell doom for Trump.
Hexa
Member
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...arrassment-of-supporting-donald-trump/421365/
So the Iowa caucus is probably toast for Trump. All caucuses actually. Still, this means he should be polling better than it seems like for the primaries.
So the Iowa caucus is probably toast for Trump. All caucuses actually. Still, this means he should be polling better than it seems like for the primaries.
Vox made a nice "2015 in 4 minutes" video.
Looking back, 2015 was pretty damn eventful despite being only the 'eve of 2016'.
Looking back, 2015 was pretty damn eventful despite being only the 'eve of 2016'.
Yellowtail
Member
Only Iowan Democrats have to make a public declaration of their vote. The Iowan Republican caucus is by secret ballot.
Unless people of consequence start dropping this means nothing, Blanche is a neverwas in terms of contending.
EDIT: That Trump effect thing is interesting, but so long as people are casting secret votes it may not matter.
Veritigo_X
Member
That was my best impression of a pundit 3 months ago.
I am getting worried about Trump though. Been thinking about maybe cashing out my PredictIt shares. Which honestly means I should probably keep them there going by my predictions over the last few months, haha.
I'm honestly been considering the same, I'm up like $30 on my original bet but I feel like I should just ride this train a little further before jumping off. Hillary attacking him in the last debate has me especially hesitant to jump off since if she's going to start doing that more often it could well coalesce the GOP around him.
Hexa
Member
The article gave me the impression that the part where people make cases before voting is important. Is that not the case? Though Trump's voters are heavily locked in so it doesn't seem like it would make a difference so I guess that makes sense.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked