Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

Just because I was curious here are all the Obama state Republican senators:

Cory Gardner (CO) - Up in 2020 - Assuming the candidate in 2020 runs a campaign beyond birth control, we should win this back.

Marco Rubio (FL) - Up in 2016 - Florida's a state that tends to be DNC Presidentially, but GOP everywhere else, especially since the state Democratic party is such a wreck. Lean Rubio.[/b]

Mark Kirk (IL) - Up in 2016 - Unfortunately for Kirk, he's screwed

Chuck Grassley (IA) - Up in 2016 - Grassley's an institution. Hopefully, he'll retire

Joni Ernst (IA) - Up in 2020 - Ernst is likely a one term rental, but if the GOP loses in '16, I can totally see a vanity Presidential run in 2020.

Susan Collins (ME) - Up in 2020 - Collins will win until she doesn't want to run anymore.

Dean Heller (NV) - Up in 2018 - Unfortunately, 2018's a midterm and the Nevada GOP is stronger than most, and there seems to be a weird bipartisan agreement among the power players in both states that wants one GOP and one DNC Senator.

Kelly Ayotte (NH) - Up in 2016 - Ayotte'll be a tough out, but somebody like Hassan could win this.

Rob Portman (OH) - Up in 2016 - Portman's been smart, and the Ohio DNC is a mess. Lean Portman.

Pat Toomey (PA) - Up in 2016 - I've seen everything from Toomey is toast from Toomney has done just enough to appear bi partisan and will easily beat Sestak. I think this'll be the closest election of the cycle. And the most expensive.

Ron Johnson (WI) - Up in 2016 - If Feingold wins, and isn't an idiot about outside PAC spending on his side, Johnson is screwed with Presidential turnout.

As well as Dan Coats (IN), Richard Burr (NC) both up in 2016 and Thom Tillis (NC) up in 2020.

One can hope that Democrats will continue to run the tables on Senate elections during presidential years like they did in 2008 and 2012 where only a handful of close Senate races went to the Republicans.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Marco Rubio (FL) - Up in 2016 - Florida's a state that tends to be DNC Presidentially, but GOP everywhere else, especially since the state Democratic party is such a wreck. Lean Rubio.

Rubio is likely vacating his seat to run for president and Democrats got their best possible candidate here, Patrick Murphy.

After the WI/PA/IL trio I'd say Florida or New Hampshire are the most likely to flip.

...which, in turn, means that effectively no one controls the Senate, since a 50/50 split can't pass legislation given the filibuster.

The next time the president, the House and the Senate are all of the same party the filibuster is as good as dead.

 

[ivysaur12]

Just because I was curious here are all the Obama state Republican senators:

Cory Gardner (CO) - Up in 2020 - Assuming the candidate in 2020 runs a campaign beyond birth control, we should win this back.

Marco Rubio (FL) - Up in 2016 - Florida's a state that tends to be DNC Presidentially, but GOP everywhere else, especially since the state Democratic party is such a wreck. Lean Rubio.[/b]

Mark Kirk (IL) - Up in 2016 - Unfortunately for Kirk, he's screwed

Chuck Grassley (IA) - Up in 2016 - Grassley's an institution. Hopefully, he'll retire

Joni Ernst (IA) - Up in 2020 - Ernst is likely a one term rental, but if the GOP loses in '16, I can totally see a vanity Presidential run in 2020.

Susan Collins (ME) - Up in 2020 - Collins will win until she doesn't want to run anymore.

Dean Heller (NV) - Up in 2018 - Unfortunately, 2018's a midterm and the Nevada GOP is stronger than most, and there seems to be a weird bipartisan agreement among the power players in both states that wants one GOP and one DNC Senator.

Kelly Ayotte (NH) - Up in 2016 - Ayotte'll be a tough out, but somebody like Hassan could win this.

Rob Portman (OH) - Up in 2016 - Portman's been smart, and the Ohio DNC is a mess. Lean Portman.

Pat Toomey (PA) - Up in 2016 - I've seen everything from Toomey is toast from Toomney has done just enough to appear bi partisan and will easily beat Sestak. I think this'll be the closest election of the cycle. And the most expensive.

Ron Johnson (WI) - Up in 2016 - If Feingold wins, and isn't an idiot about outside PAC spending on his side, Johnson is screwed with Presidential turnout.

As well as Dan Coats (IN), Richard Burr (NC) both up in 2016 and Thom Tillis (NC) up in 2020.

One can hope that Democrats will continue to run the tables on Senate elections during presidential years like they did in 2008 and 2012 where only a handful of close Senate races went to the Republicans.

I will say: Just because you have a deep bench doesn't mean it's particularly electable. Look at the GOP candidates for President. All it takes is the right candidate to run against Portman and Rubio, not necessarily having the most options.

 

[Aaron Strife]

I will say: Just because you have a deep bench doesn't mean it's particularly electable. Look at the GOP candidates for President. All it takes is the right candidate to run against Portman and Rubio, not necessarily having the most options.

Indeed. Democrats have hardly any bench in Indiana but would probably win the Senate seat if Evan Bayh got in. He's a strong ally of the Clintons, I wonder if they could convince him to jump in.

As I mentioned we got Murphy in FL, and also Strickland in OH. We're fine for candidate strength in those states.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Just because I was curious here are all the Romney state Democrats senators:

Joe Donnelly (IN)- Up in 2018
Claire McCaskill (MO)- Up in 2018
Jon Tester (MT)- Up in 2018
Heidi Heitkamp (ND)- Up in 2018
Joe Manchin (WV)- Up in 2018

Obama state Republicans:

Cory Gardner (CO) - Up in 2020
Marco Rubio (FL) - Up in 2016
Mark Kirk (IL) - Up in 2016
Chuck Grassley (IA) - Up in 2016
Joni Ernst (IA) - Up in 2020
Susan Collins (ME) - Up in 2020
Dean Heller (NV) - Up in 2018
Kelly Ayotte (NH) - Up in 2016
Rob Portman (OH) - Up in 2016
Pat Toomey (PA) - Up in 2016
Ron Johnson (WI) - Up in 2016

Obama swing state Democrats:

Tammy Baldwin (WI)- Up in 2018
Michael Bennett (CO)- Up in 2016
Bob Casey (PA)- Up in 2018
Sherrod Brown (OH)- Up in 2018
Bill Nelson (FL)- Up in 2018
Harry Reid (NV)- Up in 2016


These seats my fellow poligaf are the seats that will decide which party controls the senate every 2 years in 2016 and beyond. Any disagreements??

Edit: I know about AZ and GA, 2-4 cycles away.

 

[benjipwns]

So someone wanna explain to me how this works?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...nd-Time-for-Dems-to-ensure-everyone-has-an-ID

You could be a student but not a citizen?

Student IDs aren't allowed as picture IDs for a lot of things actually, depending on the state obviously, they were practically worthless except Chinese food discounts in Michigan. You couldn't use them (as one of your three forms of photo ID + birth certificate) to get the non-drivers license ID until recently for example.

I was about to say something about that. Holy crap at the difference between their statements and their records. And people praise them for sticking to their principles, lol.

I assume it's because of how they're defining "conservative." Ron Paul infamously voted "no" on pretty much everything, while his public statements are constitutional conservative/libertarian.

After checking, as expected the voting record "score" is based on voteviews DW-Nominate, which is garbage for ideological purposes*, Ron Paul gets that score because he votes so far away from everyone else in his body and party.

Note that Rick Santorum is to the "left" of his public statements, this is because he voted for pretty much everything while in the Senate that wasn't pro-abortion and he was in the Senate during Republican control.

Their public statements score is derived from OnTheIssues, which, quite frankly is just as bad, maybe even worse. Especially since their ratings are on a four-axis system, and this tried to translate them into a two-axis one.

Nixon and Goldwater are amusing as they only have their voteview scores in the chart. When Nixon infamously campaigned far to the right and governed more to the left than Jimmy Carter. For Ben Carson they only have his public statements (yet he's still to the left of most everyone?!?) and for H.W. Bush his voting record is based on two terms in the House (1967-1971) 20 years before he became President.

Article chart is from:

Let’s look at three ideological measures: DW-Nominate common-space scores (which are based on a candidate’s voting record in Congress), fundraising ratings (based on who donates to a candidate), and OnTheIssues.org scores (based on public statements made by the candidate). As my colleague Nate Silver has previously noted, these measures aren’t perfect

And from Silver's article:

None of these methods is perfect — they disagree on how to classify the libertarian-leaning Republican Rand Paul, for example — but they give us some empirical basis to make comparisons.

*It actually measures how many members of each party are in Congress. Then applies an ideology after the fact in which the "center" of Republicans are always conservative and the "center" of Democrats are always liberal.

These seats my fellow poligaf are the seats that will decide which party controls the senate every 2 years in 2016 and beyond. Any disagreements??

So you're saying that the seats that are up in contested states may determine control of the Senate? I don't know if I can go that far. That's a little bit of an out there theory quite frankly.

 

[Plinko]

Has Gingrich said anything about running?

 

[StopMakingSense]

Has Gingrich said anything about running?

Is he selling a book? If not, no.

 

[Jooney]

Gotta get that southern hick vote.

I mean, what is his argument with Springsteen's "The Rising?" Sorry that it wasn't slapping you in the face with an American flag like Toby Keith.

What, you mean besides from being a Democrat and licensing his music for a movie that humanises teh gays?

Spoiler

not to mention releasing that High Hopes album. Wtf was that

 

[B-Dubs]

What, you mean besides from being a Democrat and licensing his music for a movie that humanises teh gays?

Spoiler

not to mention releasing that High Hopes album. Wtf was that

Hey man, don't you talk shit about High Hopes. There was some good shit on there.

 

[benjipwns]

Has Gingrich said anything about running?

I have to think Sheldon Adelson is smarter than to try and fund that again. Gingrich's whole advantage was his debate personality and the entire campaign was based around how he was the only one who could outdebate Obama*, he won't have that this time, whatever thoughts on Ted Cruz but you gotta admit he's a match or better.

That was the campaign so poorly run that it forgot to get on the ballot in a number of primary states.

*Which was funny in retrospect when Romney pulled that first debate out of his hat.

 

[NeoXChaos]

"repeal every word of obamacare"

Are the Republicans ever going to tell us what they are going to replace it with?

 

[Outdoor Miner]

You haven't heard of the TBD Act?

 

[ivysaur12]

"repeal every word of obamacare"

Are the Republicans ever going to tell us what they are going to replace it with?

I'm still waiting!

It's been 5 years but they're definitely going to have something before King, right?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

This article from the times is all about Israelis saying Obama's gone to far includes this gem which undermines the entire point.

In contrast with the White House, leading Israeli voices seem to have
accepted Mr. Netanyahu’s post­election clarification that current
circumstances make it impossible to imagine meeting his longstanding
conditions for supporting a Palestinian state. While Israel’s Arab politicians
rejected Mr. Netanyahu’s apology on Monday for an election­day video in
which he warned about Arab citizens’ descending in “droves” to the polls, several of his most virulent Jewish critics praised it

Basically arabs are still bothered by it but the majority says we should just move on and take a fake apology at face value. lets just move on... its getting to real.

I don't disagree with the fact that this is probably taking advantage of what bibi gave but who cares? Its not like this was just election rhetoric it was lukid and the last 2 governments policy. Its about time our policy caught up to bibi's reality.

I want us to fund things like the Iron Shield and protecting Israels physical safety, but if they're not going to move on a Palestinian state we shouldn't be doing everything to prevent them from feeling heat on that you work and actually move towards what your rhetoric says then we can move back to our old policy. I think we have to draw lines on what is appropriate but nothing the obama administration had done or said is anything but promoting a two state solution.

 

[Plinko]

"repeal every word of obamacare"

Are the Republicans ever going to tell us what they are going to replace it with?

Nope. Not even during the general.

 

[Oblivion]

lolz




lolz lolz

Haha, I was about to post both of subjects just now. Nicely done, BM.

It's like the Young Turks said. How does anyone not wind up hating this douche?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You could be a student but not a citizen?

Student IDs aren't allowed as picture IDs for a lot of things actually, depending on the state obviously, they were practically worthless except Chinese food discounts in Michigan. You couldn't use them (as one of your three forms of photo ID + birth certificate) to get the non-drivers license ID until recently for example.

This is a horrible excuse for the practice.

You still have to be on the voter rolls. There's no reason not to count every photo id issued by a legitimate institution. Well, there is no reason for photo id laws in the first place.

Its clear why they aren't useful for anything in a state like michigan its to put hurdles for youth involvement in government/policy/society except on certain terms like certain income levels (drivers licenses, utility bills) or signs that the person adherse to certain cultural practices (hunting IDs)

 

[benjipwns]

"repeal every word of obamacare"

Are the Republicans ever going to tell us what they are going to replace it with?

http://rsc.flores.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speake...f_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/02/04/obamacare-replacement-plan/

I didn't read any of this bullshit and none of it would ever pass, but I've always found it a wee bit unfair to claim the GOP has no "alternative" especially when you note none of the above are from any of the think tanks.

They're just not "serious" health care/insurance plans that Democrats or policy wonks would accept. It's a bit like asking where the Democrats alternative on repealing the Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968 to protect access to self defense is. If you don't share a goal within somewhat similar bounds, of course you're not going to find any alternatives acceptable or "serious" or what have you.

This is a horrible excuse for the practice.

You still have to be on the voter rolls. There's no reason not to count every photo id issued by a legitimate institution. Well, there is no reason for photo id laws in the first place.

Its clear why they aren't useful for anything in a state like michigan its to put hurdles for youth involvement in government/policy/society except on certain terms.

I just want to note I don't necessarily support it*, but it's what reasoning I could think of.

*I'm more of a free photo ID voter card halfway measure type of fellow*.

**Assuming voting is legitimate when it accomplishes nothing and the state itself is illegitimate.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I just want to note I don't necessarily support it*, but it's what reasoning I could think of.

*I'm more of a free photo ID voter card halfway measure type of fellow*.

**Assuming voting is legitimate when it accomplishes nothing and the state itself is illegitimate.

But the reasoning fails.

 

[Nebula Haze]

Hillary met with Obama yesterday

The White House wouldn’t comment about whether a meeting was going to happen earlier in the day, but White House press secretary Josh Earnest confirmed afterward that it had happened — though he provided few details.

“President Obama and Secretary Clinton enjoy catching up in person when their schedules permit,” Earnest said. “This afternoon they met privately for about an hour at the White House and discussed a range of topics.”

Reflecting the growing message coordination between the White House and the Clinton near-campaign, immediately after the White House announced the meeting, her official account tweeted out a photo of her going in for a hug with Obama, with a message noting the fifth anniversary of the president’s signing of the Affordable Care Act on Monday.

 

[benjipwns]

But the reasoning fails.

Stop holding politicians to unreasonable standards.

IIRC, the Michigan thing was a result of an older law that listed what was accepted and was basically not updated since the 1960s until people found out. Certain Job-based IDs were limited too.

Except "ironically" university faculty IDs.

 

[Oblivion]

Disturbed Man Tries to Get Into White House

Secret Service continues dropping the ball.

 

[benjipwns]

Disturbed Man Tries to Get Into White House

Secret Service continues dropping the ball.

That's no way to talk about Joe Biden.

 

[Oblivion]

You could be a student but not a citizen?

Student IDs aren't allowed as picture IDs for a lot of things actually, depending on the state obviously, they were practically worthless except Chinese food discounts in Michigan. You couldn't use them (as one of your three forms of photo ID + birth certificate) to get the non-drivers license ID until recently for example.

But it says that college IDs ARE allowed, just not ones from the University of Wisconsin system. That's what I didn't get.

 

[benjipwns]

But it says that college IDs ARE allowed, just not ones from the University of Wisconsin system. That's what I didn't get.

oh lol that's funny

 

[Aaron Strife]

Hillary met with Obama yesterday

What the hell? This was posted less than an hour ago and now he's banned

 

[B-Dubs]

What the hell? This was posted less than an hour ago and now he's banned

No idea, he's got like 11 posts over the last four years. Might have something to do with that.

 

[Trouble]

No idea, he's got like 11 posts over the last four years. Might have something to do with that.

Probably an alt for someone perm banned or something like that.

 

[Oblivion]

benji posted this in the other thread:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ted-cruz-says-he-s-galileo-not-a-flat-earther

I...I just can't handle the lols.

 

[B-Dubs]

Probably an alt for someone perm banned or something like that.

What's the point of an alt if you never use it?

benji posted this in the other thread:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ted-cruz-says-he-s-galileo-not-a-flat-earther

I...I just can't handle the lols.

 

[Wilsongt]

Disturbed Man Tries to Get Into White House

Secret Service continues dropping the ball.

Even better:

President Signs Order Making Ted Cruz Ineligible for Obamacare

 

[Chichikov]

Hillary met with Obama yesterday

OMG, Obama is from Africa, confirmed. His exotic need to know the time in his nation was his undoing.

What the hell? This was posted less than an hour ago and now he's banned

Emperor Barack Hussein's jackbooted thugs got to him.

 

[benjipwns]

ZULU time is Greenwich mean time/UTC. I have no idea why. The Navy uses different names for all the time zones.

I wonder what they do when the President is in flight, is it constantly updating as he crosses time zones?

Besides the Zulu Kingdom was in South Africa, not Kenya. Get your patchwork African kingdoms straight buddy.

 

[B-Dubs]

I wonder what they do when the President is in flight, is it constantly updating as he crosses time zones?

Yes, they actually do. If I remember right it's part security thing and part military thing.

 

[Trouble]

ZULU time is Greenwich mean time/UTC. I have no idea why. The Navy uses different names for all the time zones.

I wonder what they do when the President is in flight, is it constantly updating as he crosses time zones?

Besides the Zulu Kingdom was in South Africa, not Kenya. Get your patchwork African kingdoms straight buddy.

The term Zulu actually has nothing to do with Africa in this context. It means Zero hours adjusted from UTC. Zulu being the NATO phonetic for Z.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://rsc.flores.house.gov/solutions/rsc-betterway.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/GOPHealthPlan_061709.pdf
http://www.speaker.gov/sites/speake...f_Republican_Alternative_Health_Care_plan.pdf
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2015/02/04/obamacare-replacement-plan/

I didn't read any of this bullshit and none of it would ever pass, but I've always found it a wee bit unfair to claim the GOP has no "alternative" especially when you note none of the above are from any of the think tanks.

They're just not "serious" health care/insurance plans that Democrats or policy wonks would accept. It's a bit like asking where the Democrats alternative on repealing the Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968 to protect access to self defense is. If you don't share a goal within somewhat similar bounds, of course you're not going to find any alternatives acceptable or "serious" or what have you.

This is bullshit. Almost all of the so-called "plans" are not plans, they're empty rhetoric, mostly the same shit regurgitated for decades like buying across state lines and tort reform. Now, we could discuss the merits of those ideas but there is no actual concrete plan.

it would be like if Pelosi claimed the ACA was a plan and on 2 pages talks about community rating and a mandate. Then it just says "make healthcare more affordable" and we're done. The ACA is an actual plan with concrete details. It doesn't just mention community rating, it specifically defines how it works. It talks about how the mandate works, how much the fines are, how it is implemented.

Saying "tort reform" means nothing. Saying "more options" means nothing.

The GOP might have some healthcare ideas, but they don't have a comprehensive plan to replace the ACA. At all. And every time they have tried to come up with such a plan, it looks so much like the ACA, they scrap it. And I don't mean they don't have a bill that is very specific. They don't have the general understanding of how their comprehensive form will look prior to specific details being filled in.

And yes, a few people in Congress might support a comprehensive plan, but there is in no way anything that the Speaker or Majority Leader will even contemplate being voted on.

The GOP has no ACA alternative. It does not exist. They have rhetoric; the same fucking shit they've been saying for decades and have never actually wrote a bill around.

Put it this way. If the CBO cannot score it, it is not a plan. And the CBO scores GOP bullshit tax and budget plans which aren't fully finished regarding specifics, so that's not the issue. GOP budgets have gaping unfilled holes in them, but they're still plans. Health care? none, zip zilch.

 

[benjipwns]

it would be like if Pelosi claimed the ACA was a plan and on 2 pages talks about community rating and a mandate. Then it just says "make healthcare more affordable" and we're done. The ACA is an actual plan with concrete details. It doesn't just mention community rating, it specifically defines how it works. It talks about how the mandate works, how much the fines are, how it is implemented.

It is now, but was it in 2007? Or 2008? How early in 2009? I don't really know.

they don't have a comprehensive plan

Why does everything always have to be comprehensive? Like immigration reform or climate chaos legislation. I'm not really asking you personally, just in general.

 

[Black Mamba]

benji posted this in the other thread:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...ted-cruz-says-he-s-galileo-not-a-flat-earther

I...I just can't handle the lols.

So we have an actual Presidential candidate who thinks Galileo was fighting the flat-earthers which was "accepted science" of the day.

not enough Welp.


Then again, this is the man who misunderstood the moral of Green Eggs & Ham. Ted Cruz is a moron. And yes, you can get to where he is and be smart within his sphere, but he's still a moron.

 

[Black Mamba]

It is now, but was it in 2007? Or 2008? How early in 2009? I don't really know.

I don't know exactly when. But at some point there were actual plans in 2009. Granted, there were a lot of details that needed to be finished, but at least there was a plan.

Of course, it's nearly 6 years since 2009 and nothing has changed for the GOP's health care rhetoric for like almost 30 years, now...

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. In 2008 Obama ran on health care reform. At the time it was mostly ideas but there were some specifics. That's fine because he was basically running a campaign saying "I want to reform health care, here are a few ideas I have, and in office I will make it a priority." And then he did after being elected. That's perfectly fine.

The GOP is saying "We have an alternative for Obama's plan coming up soon." Meanwhile, they have yet to actually get past the words "ACA Alternative" since that time. They've had apple time to come up with something. At some point you have to accept the fact they have nothing.

In fact, it would almost be interesting to see what would happen in 2016 if say Jeb Bush won and they hold both houses. WTF would they do to the ACA? I really doubt a full repeal would happen. they'd also shit their pants having to come up with a real plan, finally. It would be interesting to see the result. Not enough to actually want it, because I'm sure it will suck, but interesting in a hypothetical world type of way. I fully believe they have no clue what they'd do.

Why does everything always have to be comprehensive? Like immigration reform or climate chaos legislation. I'm not really asking you personally, just in general.

Well, FTR a repeal of the ACA is comprehensive by itself, even if you do nothing else. Not everything has to be but some situations there's no alternative or it just should be done.

Also, for the record, when I say there is no ACA alternative, I mean other than simply repealing it and doing not else. Again, that is comprehensive reform, but the idea at issue is reforming the pre-ACA status quo.

 

[benjipwns]

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. In 2008 Obama ran on health care reform. At the time it was mostly ideas but there were some specifics. That's fine because he was basically running a campaign saying "I want to reform health care, here are a few ideas I have, and in office I will make it a priority." And then he did after being elected. That's perfectly fine.

The GOP is saying "We have an alternative for Obama's plan coming up soon." Meanwhile, they have yet to actually get past the words "ACA Alternative" since that time. They've had apple time to come up with something. At some point you have to accept the fact they have nothing.

Well, my point is mostly just that's how it works, there's no reason to introduce and push hard for anything specific because it'd be vetoed anyway and just be attacked like the budgets. The repeal bills are for show.

The Bush Administration did do some reform around the edges, McCain and Romney both had ideas similar in specifics to Obama/Hillary. McCain even got heat because he wanted to tax insurance benefits. But I think a major problem in the GOP is that they wouldn't pass something just to pass something and get the ball rolling. There's too much internal conflict. The Democrats were willing to make the deals with people like Bart Stupak and kill the Public Option to get the rest passed and finally start things off.

In fact, it would almost be interesting to see what would happen in 2016 if say Jeb Bush won and they hold both houses. WTF would they do to the ACA? I really doubt a full repeal would happen.

They won't do anything just like they've never really done anything except tweak around the edges. It's been 34 years since the Department of Education was supposed to be closed. The Bush Tax Cuts basically just reversed the tiny Clinton increase rather than strike out into new tax reform frontiers like Reagan.

Social Security and Immigration Reform was never going anywhere, not just because of the Democratic Congress.

Now, I will admit we can't be sure because 9/11 changed the agenda massively. An alternative W. Bush Administration may have been more so in a conservative agenda, but he did originally campaign on compassionate conservatism which was more like copying Clinton+GOP Congress than anything radical.

One thing the GOP might do is make it so subsidies only apply in federal exchanges so as to get rid of the triple taxation of capital gains.

 

[JesseEwiak]

It is now, but was it in 2007? Or 2008? How early in 2009? I don't really know.

There have been long and involved policy papers, putting forth varied health care plans since well, Truman's day. Having overly complicated health care plans is what Democrat's do.

Why does everything always have to be comprehensive? Like immigration reform or climate chaos legislation. I'm not really asking you personally, just in general.

Because these are big problems in need of big solutions. Things be complicated, ya' know?

 

[benjipwns]

There have been long and involved policy papers, putting forth varied health care plans since well, Truman's day.

See! Truman mania is catching on! Truman 2016!

Because these are big problems in need of big solutions. Things be complicated, ya' know?

Or do we just make them seem so because of limited vision?

 

[benjipwns]

Fun Truman Fact: In 1948 he offered to be Eisenhower's VP if Douglas MacArthur won the Republican nomination.

(This was before Eisenhower had stated which party he was for and both were chasing him.)

 

[Jack Remington]

If you and I are to the point of airing grievances over how the other has participated in this discussion, here are mine: From the very first moment when you deigned to enlighten us with your opinion on the subject, you've done little more than belittle and demonize (like, literally demonize) me and anyone else who would have the audacity of believing differently from you about the case. Rather than addressing arguments, you've insisted on commenting almost exclusively on the mental and character flaws that you are certain must exist within your opponents. (Well, I guess there was that one time when you almost made a substantive argument.)

This most recent series of posts is no different. You misunderstood (giving you the benefit of the doubt) Cannon's argument, and offered a rebuttal to the argument you thought he made (but didn't). Since I pointed that out, you've now shifted to attacking my qualifications to even participate in this discussion. You continue to offer little beyond vitriol, contempt, and hatred for anyone who disagrees with your opinion, confirming the wisdom of my earlier decision to ignore your posts on this subject. And so I shall resume my former posture.

But, before doing so, I offer the following response to the remainder of your post: if Cannon is right that burdens imposed on residents of a state (as opposed to the state governments themselves) can never rise to the level of unconstitutional coercion, then it doesn't matter how negatively the lack of credits would affect the insurance markets. You keep arguing that the practical effects of a pro-King outcome would be "serious," "a big f****** deal," and an "absolute disaster," but those are not the relevant legal questions, which is what Cannon is (and the Supreme Court would be, if they take up the coercion theory) addressing. This is what you (and certain others) have failed to understand: the Court is not called upon to opine on a policy question, but a legal question.

Absolutely outstanding use of the quote function. It was nice to read some of those old posts. I stand by every word I wrote.

You think King v Burwell is simply a matter of people who "happen to believe differently", like it's something reasonable people can disagree on, like how high the capital gains tax should be, or whether citizens should be able to own fully automatic AK-47s under the 2nd Amendment. It's not. Your boys Cannon and Adler want to throw >5 million people off their health insurance, insurance that's been in place for over a year now, which would result in killing a few thousand of them per year.. There's a deeply moral component to this issue, and the King architects are morally bankrupt here. They're attempting to win a 6 year old policy battle that they lost in 2010, twice in 2012, and in 2013, by attempting to get the courts to force the IRS into an inane interpretation of the law that would paradoxically cause it to achieve the exact opposite of its objectives.

Even more offensive is how they're pretending to believe that their interpretation was what Congress "intended" all along. Off the top of my head I cannot think of a more egregious example of intellectual dishonesty in the political sphere in my lifetime. Everyone knows what the federal exchange was set up to do. Everyone. Knows. What evidence do I have for this? The fact that every think tank, every insurance industry report, every government official, elected or unelected, who explained or commented on the ACA in 2009 or 2010 knew exactly how the federal exchange was supposed to work. No one even considered Cannon's interpretation until more than a year after the law was passed.

Yet these people go on pretending they don't know what the law was written to do because it's convenient for them. Because if they can effectively make that argument, it appears to free them from moral culpability for what they're doing here. But make no mistake: if they win, every needless death that results from the wave of uninsurance and destruction of insurance markets in dozens of states will be on them.

So yes, I call them scumbags. Yes, I demonize them. Because it's what they deserve. They don't just "happen to disagree"; they are morally repugnant, vindictive, utterly dishonest scumbags using the dirtiest of tactics to re-fight a battle they've lost many times over. I have no issue judging or demonizing them.

An aside: you keep saying that this is a legal question, not a policy question. Fine. But it shouldn't matter, because decent people wouldn't have filed this lawsuit. Honorable people wouldn't have filed this lawsuit. Your boy Cannon is neither.

Finally, your qualifications. Much of the debate on KvB has centered around whether or not the plaintiffs' interpretation results in absurdity, which, as everyone knows, should compel the court to reject that interpretation. Black Mamba and others have been telling you over and over why Cannon's interpretation is absurd, but you keep refusing to comprehend it. The fact is that the ACA is based on decades worth of thought and research in healthcare economics. The plaintiffs' interpretation in KvB basically contradicts all of that. It would require that the people who wrote the ACA had no understanding of the literature that clearly inspired the bill. It would require that Jonathan Gruber, the so-called "architect of Obamacare," suggested a policy mechanism that contradicts every white paper he's ever written.

The fact is, anyone who has spent any time at all gaining at least a cursory knowledge of the decades' worth of thought in healthcare economics recognizes instantly how absurd the plaintiffs' reading in KvB is. But these arguments keep bouncing off you. Which makes question whether you have any understanding at all of the subject you would presume to judge with so much at stake. Like, if I mentioned Kenneth Arrow, you'd probably have to jump on wikipedia to find out who he is. You certainly haven't read his paper from the 1960s which forms the foundation for the school of thought that the entire ACA is built out of.

So I'm glad you're refusing to debate me anymore on this subject. I'm tired of it as well, and the 6-3 decision we'll get in June will end this insipid farce forever. But I'm not letting you get away with the hedging, the dodging, the hand-wringing, on the serious moral and intellectual deficiencies of the side you support. Hopefully by the time you finish 3L and take a job where you'll actually be arguing questions with the potential to impact real people's lives, you'll have improved your moral foundations. That's my hope anyway.

 

[Gotchaye]

Well, my point is mostly just that's how it works, there's no reason to introduce and push hard for anything specific because it'd be vetoed anyway and just be attacked like the budgets. The repeal bills are for show.

Right, generally you talk about your goals in pretty broad terms. But what's at issue here is basically whether or not it's possible for Republicans to craft a law that actually does what they say they want to do, without doing the things they say they hate about the ACA. It's not "like asking where the Democrats alternative on repealing the Firearms Acts of 1934 and 1968 to protect access to self defense is" because the Republicans have endorsed goals like protecting people with pre-existing conditions and keeping costs down.

Like, the individual mandate gets criticized as destroying freedom or as a giveaway to insurance companies or whatever, but it's in the ACA because it needs people who get negative expected value from insurance to buy in in order to reduce costs for people who get positive expected value from insurance. The things the Republicans are calling plans don't grapple with this problem. What's hard about health care law is not figuring out that what we want to do is make sure that everybody has access to affordable health care without spending huge amounts of government money. Saying "let's do that" is not a plan. What's hard is figuring out a good way to actually do it.

Now, sure, obviously what's really going on is that Republicans actually have no intention of ever writing a law that does things like ensure affordable health care for people with preexisting conditions, but as long as they're saying that they want to do this it's fair to ask them how they want to do it. What's more, they're not just saying that they want to do this, full stop, and will figure out how to do it later. They're saying that they'll have a law which is better than the ACA. This implies that they've worked this out thoroughly enough to be able to know that they can do a better job. Asking them to present a plan is just asking them to show their work. They're criticizing the tradeoffs in the ACA; it's on them to show that they can make better tradeoffs. That's the plan we want to see.

 

[Black Mamba]

Well, my point is mostly just that's how it works, there's no reason to introduce and push hard for anything specific because it'd be vetoed anyway and just be attacked like the budgets. The repeal bills are for show.

No one says they have to actually vote on a bill. They don't even have an idea what a bill would look like.

The problem is the status quo is now changed. So they have to come up with a bill that does everything the ACA does but not be the ACA. Unfortunately for them, this is probably impossible.

The only other thing they can do is go back to the status quo but somehow find a way to not take people off insurance. But that will be tough because the Ted Cruz's of the world are evil and don't give a shit if people die as a result.

The Bush Administration did do some reform around the edges, McCain and Romney both had ideas similar in specifics to Obama/Hillary. McCain even got heat because he wanted to tax insurance benefits. But I think a major problem in the GOP is that they wouldn't pass something just to pass something and get the ball rolling. There's too much internal conflict. The Democrats were willing to make the deals with people like Bart Stupak and kill the Public Option to get the rest passed and finally start things off.

McCain had ideas because Obama was presenting some. That's all. I don't recall any tangible Romney ideas in 2012 other than repeal.

And what you say is completely incorrect. The Democrats weren't just willing to make deals. They wanted to change the structure of the Health Care Industry. The truth is, the GOP absolutely did not want to change the status quo. Other than maybe removing even more regulations, they wanted to leave it untouched. This is the truth about the GOP position. It's why there is no actual repeal and replace plan, just a repeal.

But now that millions of people have gained insurance, "repeal only" isn't a viable option, so they're fucked.

They won't do anything just like they've never really done anything except tweak around the edges. It's been 34 years since the Department of Education was supposed to be closed. The Bush Tax Cuts basically just reversed the tiny Clinton increase rather than strike out into new tax reform frontiers like Reagan.

This is all true in general, but the problem is their base is hell bent on the notion of repealing Obamacare. What will happen if they have all the power and then don't do it? good luck turning out the base. And whatever base does show up will be behind more tea party candidates who will fight for repeal.

In this hypothetical world the non-crazy GOP and the Cruz/Kings of the GOP are going to fight tooth and nail for repeal vs reform (whatever reform looks like), dividing the party. The GOP brass will know not reform/repeal will mean lost elections but the crazies won't give a shit about reform and will force repeal.

I honestly think this would be a no win situation for the GOP. Granted, they'll take it mostly because of the SCOTUS and federal court nominations, but the truth is the GOP cannot govern in 2016 without costing them future elections in Congress. They're probably better off, right now, controlling Congress and not the executive in 2016 than all 3 (discounting Court nominations).

Social Security and Immigration Reform was never going anywhere, not just because of the Democratic Congress.

Now, I will admit we can't be sure because 9/11 changed the agenda massively. An alternative W. Bush Administration may have been more so in a conservative agenda, but he did originally campaign on compassionate conservatism which was more like copying Clinton+GOP Congress than anything radical.

One thing the GOP might do is make it so subsidies only apply in federal exchanges so as to get rid of the triple taxation of capital gains.

Comparing it to SS and IR is really not accurate. The GOP only want slight reform because of their positions but the base isn't viewing the topic like the ACA. Touching SS kills their base. Even among the GOP base, they understand there has to be some reform. Only the super crazy people think 12 million people being deported is viable. They may not support a path to citizenship, but they understand the status quo is failing. For the base, it's repeal ACA or you're a traitor.

GOP built up this monster, it's what they got. They have to repeal the ACA or lose their elections (whether to Dems or tea party). If they do repeal, they will lose en masse to Dems with millions losing insurance instantly. Massive reform does not exist and minor won't count for the base. They're fucked on this issue with control.

That's why they're better off now, controlling the Congress, fighting the good fight, but King Obama won't let freedom live. They get to appear fighting for the base but they just don't have enough votes to do it!

 

[Jack Remington]

The Republicans should just introduce single payer. That would do everything the ACA does while not being the ACA.

 

[Black Mamba]

Or do we just make them seem so because of limited vision?

Just to add, my understanding of "comprehensive" is either complete affecting almost everything.

Health care reform was comprehensive because the idea to increase access on a large scale and control costs. You can't do this without a comprehensive package. And this is an area most people agreed needed massive change.

We can do minor reforms on immigration, but again, most people agree the status quo is bunk and the entire system needs an overhaul.

Everyone has their own ideas for comprehensive tax reform but the truth is that in this area we only get limited reform.

My point is that sentiment was that entire systems needed overhaul and that, by definition, is comprehensive.

Reforming the ACA, currently however, need not be comprehensive.

The Republicans should just introduce single payer. That would do everything the ACA does while not being the ACA.

You joke, but single payer and gov't health care is literally the only alternative to the ACA that can do what the ACA does.

The reason the GOP can't come up with a plan, other than they don't want one, is no one can come up with one. It's not doable. Every time they've tried, it looks like the ACA.

Health care isn't an issue where there's like 500 different ways to do the same thing.

 

[benjipwns]

McCain had ideas because Obama was presenting some. That's all.

IIRC, McCain had actually proposed this idea before (vs. HSA's which he disliked until 2008) and Republicans savaged him as a RINO for wanting to raise taxes.

And what you say is completely incorrect. The Democrats weren't just willing to make deals. They wanted to change the structure of the Health Care Industry.

That's what I was saying, Democrats were willing to make those deals to get at the larger goal. They were small fry compared to the overall goal, not poison pills.

Any GOP health reform efforts have far more poison pills.

This is all true in general, but the problem is their base is hell bent on the notion of repealing Obamacare. What will happen if they have all the power and then don't do it? good luck turning out the base.

I don't think this really happens. They make some tweaks, say they repealed all the bad parts with Fox trumpeting it and there will be other issues to distract from it gaining any serious traction. The same things happened under Nixon/Reagan/W. Bush and 1984 still happened without any conservative challenge. (1972 did have a conservative challenger to Nixon, and a LEFT-WING challenger who wound up endorsing McGovern. Firing Line was the only show to ever give them a platform lol)

Comparing it to SS and IR is really not accurate. The GOP only want slight reform because of their positions but the base isn't viewing the topic like the ACA. Touching SS kills their base. Even among the GOP base, they understand there has to be some reform. Only the super crazy people think 12 million people being deported is viable. They may not support a path to citizenship, but they understand the status quo is failing. For the base, it's repeal ACA or you're a traitor.

The GOP base is fired up by immigration like nothing else, they want those deportations and a Berlin Wall and hard. It is the major issue, depending on what other topics the Supreme Court takes up in the meantime.

ObamaCare gets you cheers but it's no longer the animating issue, the world didn't end enough. Now it's Hillary and immigration. It's why Rubio switched, it's why Rand Paul is dead in the water, it's the biggest threat to Jeb.

You are going to see the candidates tack hard-Buchanan on immigration. It's the synthesis, Voter ID, jobs, culture being overrun, security, etc. And it's the only real divisive issue in the party among the politicians. Unless something wacky happens with gay marriage. Like individual mandates requiring everyone bake cakes for gays.

And basically my only source is "trust me" because I assume I consume more conservative material than you guys do. And immigration...whew.

The only thing I could see as an outside surprise issue. Police/Ferguson type stuff. Especially if Rand Paul brings it into the debate. That seems to be getting some traction. All on the "police are infallible, Obama is destroying the rule of law" side. Immigration has that "rule of law" stuff in it too. A real good synthesis there.