Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Why don't you think it should be destroyed? the house doesn't need it. The senate already gives extra power to "minorities" (in terms of state populations) by design.

The fillibuster does nothing but undermine the democratic process. If you're afraid of a majority party justramming legislation through without the fillibuster in place, well, that's something that needs to be worried about in any representative democracy, so I don't see any particular reason why suh a fear should impact your view on the fillibuster.

I just feel like getting rid of it could end up being a bad thing in 4-8 years when the opposite party control the joint. Granted they didn't need 60 votes for Bush's agenda, but who knows.

 

[LosDaddie]

Man, trying to cull them already?

You & I were part of the same JR Class and I thought it was hilarious how some of us waited so long to get accepted only to get banned within a week.

Did you get beat up for you Lunch money or something?

Not today!

 

[mckmas8808]

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) today said health care reform will pass no matter the outcome of today's special election in Massachusetts.

He told Minnesota Public Radio that reform will pass "one way or the other." (Franken also posted a link to the story on his Senate site.)

If the Republican candidate for Senate wins today, Democrats will lose their 60-seat super-majority. Some say that loss will kill health care reform for good.

But Democrats have other options -- having the House pass the Senate bill verbatim, or forcing a merged bill through via reconciliation -- and some, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have vowed it'll get done somehow.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...-health-care-one-way-or-the-other.php?ref=fpa

Good to hear the DEMs not giving up on the healthcare bill.

 

[VAIL]

All done, place was very quiet...but my vote is in...now we wait

 

[gcubed]

.




Get what I'm saying? It's just bad policy right now. I can't support this course of action. Some might say inaction is cutting your nose to spite your face, but not when your costs are going up sharply from zero. Unfortunately for Dems, the self-employed make up both bases, and hitting us is fuck-stupid. OTOH, a tax can be played off as hitting at the rich. Even a public option could be played as creating a new tax, which can be played off as the rich. The rich are associated with the Reps, so it should get Dem support.

it appears that through the last few months of your posting, and indeed reading this thread, you continue to fail to see why the healthcare system is broken. At this point, its not really worth arguing with because if you believe that you shouldnt have to pay into it when you dont need it, then its basically useless to even discuss it with you

 

[JoeBoy101]

I'm a conservative, and even I think this is being way too premature. Actually lose the race first. The recriminations can start forthwith after. And to be clear, Coakley is the one who started this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Democratic_Party_responds_to_Coakley_memo_Political_malpractice.html?showall

This memo is a pack full of lies and fantasies — The DNC and the DSCC did everything they were asked and have been involved in the race for several weeks, not just the last one.

The campaign failed to recognize this threat, failed to keep Coakley on the campaign trail, failed to create a negative narrative about Brown, failed to stay on the air in December while he was running a brilliant campaign. It's wishful thinking from a pollster, candidate and campaign team that were caught napping and are going to allow one of the worst debacles in American political history to happen on their watch that they are at the 11th hour are going to blame others.

Before the DNC and DSCC got involved there was barely a single piece of paper on what the narrative is on Brown. The candidate in this race and the campaign have been involved in the worst case of political malpractice in memory and they aren't going to be able to spin themselves out of this with a memo full of lies.

 

[platypotamus]

Pollster - Health Care Plan: Favor / Oppose

53.5% Oppose / 42.3% Favor



I think what democrats are getting put in a corner on though is that the public, though wanting to see health care reform, wanted to see the economy turned around first. I know strategically was the best time to push for it, but its hurting with the public because they want the economy and jobs to be priority one and a huge chunk of time this year has been used on this bill. I know the stimulus was passed, but it seems to me the public wanted something either more, or much more efficient, whether its logical for them to feel that way or not..

Right, but that data is an incomplete picture, as you well know. Many who are in the "oppose" side are there because the bill isn't as powerful as they'd like (we discussed previously in this thread an article analyzing a particular poll in which THE MAJORITY of the oppose side was disappointed in the bill not going far enough, apologies but I don't have the link handy at the moment). Additionally, numerous times, it has been shown that people who oppose the health care reform, actually support most of the subsections of it when asked about them individually, they just dislike the package, not really knowing what is in it.

Then of course, like I said, people opposed to it now will be considerably less so after it is implemented and is benefiting them in some way.

Finally, don't separate HCR from working on the economy. Reforming one of the largest sectors of the economy IS an effort to help the economy turn around.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Former Kennedy aide does the math for a Coakley win

It starts with the numbers for the primaries a month ago: 650,000 Democrats voted, and 160,000 Republicans. Commonwealth Secretary Bill Galvin on Monday estimated that 1.6 to 2.2 million would turn out on Tuesday. For reference, in the November 2008 presidential election, turnout was 3 million.

"My gut -- and early calls -- tell me we're well on the low side of the Galvin estimate because of weather," Parker says, "but we'll make at least 1.2 million easily.

"There are 490,000 registered Republicans in the state. If three-quarters of them turn out -- a big 'if' -- that means Brown needs at least 300,000 independents. Meanwhile, if just the same number of Dem ALONE as showed up in December show up today, Martha wins.

"We'll see. In retail politics, after billions spent on media and contact, it's all turnout, turnout, turnout."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/former-kennedy-aide-does-the-m.html?wprss=44

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/former-kennedy-aide-does-the-m.html?wprss=44

Problem is, last time we checked, Coakley wasn't getting 99% of the Dem vote like Brown is getting from Republicans.

 

[mckmas8808]

* City turnout: Coakley must maximize the power of the city turnout machines in Boston (led by Mayor Tom Menino), Worcester (in the hands of Rep. Jim McGovern) and Springfield. Three close-in communities to Boston report their results early -- Cambridge, Somerville and Arlington -- and, according to one Democrat, if Brown is close or leading in those areas, the race is effectively over.

* The South Coast: While almost all of the state is reached by Boston television, the communities in hard-scrabble town like Fall River -- home of former Boston schoolboy hoops legend Chris Herren -- gets Providence television and is culturally a far different place than the Hub. These are the sort of Democrats -- blue-collar -- that Coakley must win but, as the race entered its final stages, wasn't winning.

* Independent women: The Brown surge has been fueled -- primarily -- by independents who have moved strongly in his favor over the past ten days. Democrats acknowledge independent men are a lost cause for Coakley but they are hoping that her historic candidacy -- she would be the first woman elected to the Senate or governor in the state -- is a significant draw among independent women. The working theory among Democratic modelers is if Coakley can win 35 percent of the independent vote, she can win; if she goes below that number, Brown will win.

* The Beltway Vote: The most critical area for Brown is in between Rt. 128 -- the inner Beltway that rings Boston and 495 -- the outer Beltway to the west of the city. That area, which includes the critical swing suburban community county of Middlesex, is filed with independent and Republican voters that Brown needs energized to offset the likely swamping he will take in Boston proper.

* Boston Catholics: While the city of Boston is strongly Democratic, it is also -- in parts -- strongly Catholic (and pro-life). In communities like South Boston, Dorchester and the North End, Republicans believe Brown has made significant inroads. Worth noting: In the two most recent Republican victories in Massachusetts (Gov. Mitt Romney in 2002 and Gov. Paul Cellucci in 1998), the Catholic vote went Republican.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/what-to-watch-for-in-the-massa.html#more

Just some things to watch for while the numbers come in guys.

 

[Particle Physicist]

I'm a conservative, and even I think this is being way too premature. Actually lose the race first. The recriminations can start forthwith after. And to be clear, Coakley is the one who started this:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Democratic_Party_responds_to_Coakley_memo_Political_malpractice.html?showall

What the hell are they doing?

:/

 

[Diablos]

Coakley camp just released a CYOA memo blaming the national dems.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0110/Coakley_adviser_memo_DC_Dems_faled_Coakley.html?showall

I'm guessing this means they aren't too optimistic.

Woooow. What a sore loser. If you lose, you lost this for yourself, Croakley. Not doing anything until the last minute is something you fucked up.

I just want this to be done with, argh. And, in a way, it might be better that she loses -- it could perhaps finally motivate the Democrats in the Senate to change the rules and kill the filibuster. You shouldn't have to have 60 committed votes in order to pass legislation. When 41 > 59, there's a problem.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Right, but that data is an incomplete picture, as you well know. Many who are in the "oppose" side are there because the bill isn't as powerful as they'd like (we discussed previously in this thread an article analyzing a particular poll in which THE MAJORITY of the oppose side was disappointed in the bill not going far enough, apologies but I don't have the link handy at the moment). Additionally, numerous times, it has been shown that people who oppose the health care reform, actually support most of the subsections of it when asked about them individually, they just dislike the package, not really knowing what is in it.

Then of course, like I said, people opposed to it now will be considerably less so after it is implemented and is benefiting them in some way.

Finally, don't separate HCR from working on the economy. Reforming one of the largest sectors of the economy IS an effort to help the economy turn around.

That's if you think it will reform the economy...

BUT, let's assume you're right. That the bill will reform the economy to a major cost savings. When are those reforms supposed to take place? Soon enough to affect the current situation, because I was under the impression it was going to be a few years before the provisions in the bill kick in.

And more to the point, the public still sees a separation between the work being done on the bill and what can be done for the current economy.

 

[schuelma]

Jesus, national dem source in response to the Coakley campaign memo said the campaign had committed "political malpractice" :lol


Edit- whoops, beat!

 

[cartoon_soldier]

At this point, if Coakley wins the seat it will be an upset :lol

 

[PhoenixDark]

Problem is, last time we checked, Coakley wasn't getting 99% of the Dem vote like Brown is getting from Republicans.

That's true, but he's assuming more than 650k democrats come out to vote today, which is likely.

The math looks better for Croakley than I imagined. I still expect a Brown win though

 

[GaimeGuy]

I just feel like getting rid of it could end up being a bad thing in 4-8 years when the opposite party control the joint. Granted they didn't need 60 votes for Bush's agenda, but who knows.

I'm sorry, but I don't think we should be responding to a hypothetical situation where the legislative branch is subject to irresponsible ramming through of legislation by a simple majority by making the system inefficient in providing solutions to problems the country is facing.

If republicans want to pass a completely unfunded $5 trillion dollar tax cut by voting completely down party lines with a 51 person senate caucus, we need to be attacking the individual senators for being irresponsible in using the power we give them.


If the system is going to be abused by party line votes, I'd rather not see this abuse institutionalized to allow obstructionism in the absense of margins of greater than or equal to 20% in the senate.

I want a democratic senate, not one where you need as many yeas as nays + 50% to do shit.

 

[mckmas8808]

At this point, if Coakley wins the seat it will be an upset :lol

Yeah pretty much.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Jesus, national dem source in response to the Coakley campaign memo said the campaign had committed "political malpractice" :lol

And she did.

She must have been fucking sleeping when Obama got elected because she sure as hell didn't learn anything from that.

But I also don't think the DNC/DSCC can escape all blame.

 

[Anticitizen One]

Republicans had a similar, seemingly invincible, stranglehold in 2002-2003. Things change.

Yea but republicans were able to push practically whatever they wanted through. Patriot Act? no problem. War in iraq? you got it!. That loser bush had free reign but every single thing Obama proposes gets killed not necessarily because of republicans and their propoganda but also because of corruption and fighting within the party. The democrates are wussies and are too weak to defend themselves and/or fight for anything. Obama didn't even try to fight for the public option. The second Baucus threw together that crap bill he was basically like "whatevers lets just go with it" and even with all the compromises and watering down it may never see the light of day and if he can't even do this how the hell is he going to bring about all the other change he promised he would fight for. He was knocked out in less than 6 months of being president and reid/pelosi have got to be two of the most hated politicians in America.

On top of that, Obama, unlike both Reagan and Clinton, has an extremly poor economic team that continues to piss people off.

It's a very frustrating situation.

 

[platypotamus]

That's if you think it will reform the economy...

BUT, let's assume you're right. That the bill will reform the economy to a major cost savings. When are those reforms supposed to take place? Soon enough to affect the current situation, because I was under the impression it was going to be a few years before the provisions in the bill kick in.

And more to the point, the public still sees a separation between the work being done on the bill and what can be done for the current economy.

I'll be entirely honest: There's a rough schedule of when the various reforms kick in, and I can't keep it straight. Also, every time I see it, it says "but when the house and senate versions are merged, look for the house to try to push some of these reforms to happen sooner", so it's still a bit of an unknown. I do know that even in the weaker senate version, some stuff is scheduled for "immediately on passage".

You are right that the public sees a separation there. There isn't one, really, as HCR is just the current item in the list of economic related legislation (jobs bill, then greenification), but I think the connection is a difficult one to turn into a sound bite, so I'm not sure if the public's view on this is really malleable.

 

[GhaleonEB]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/what-to-watch-for-in-the-massa.html#more

Just some things to watch for while the numbers come in guys.

It starts with the numbers for the primaries a month ago: 650,000 Democrats voted, and 160,000 Republicans. Commonwealth Secretary Bill Galvin on Monday estimated that 1.6 to 2.2 million would turn out on Tuesday. For reference, in the November 2008 presidential election, turnout was 3 million.

"My gut -- and early calls -- tell me we're well on the low side of the Galvin estimate because of weather," Parker says, "but we'll make at least 1.2 million easily.

FWIW, square that against early votes in Boston:

By noon, more than 55,000 voters cast their ballots in Boston - up from an estimate of 24,000 during the December primary. That puts Boston on pace to produce more than 150,000 votes. In raw votes, if this keeps up, that'll be slightly more than the 2002 or 2006 state elections, but well below presidential years. (The surge in enrollments in '08 means that a slight increase in the number of voters would still be a significantly lower percentage.)

It's also above the election eve forecasts. The Secretary of State predicated roughly double the December turnout - so far, Boston is actually up 130%. And with lines discouraging voters at some precincts and a snowy morning, coupled with much more intensive GOTV efforts, there are some indications that turnout may actually tilt toward the afternoon.

So while this guy said turnout might be on the low end due to the weather, it's already - half way through the day - hit the low end if his prediction in Boston.

 

[Diablos]

It would be hilarious if Scott Brown wins and drives that fucking truck of his to DC. Teabaggers would be creaming their pants, coast to coast. :lol

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I would be hilarious if Scott Brown wins and drives that fucking truck of his to DC. Teabaggers would be creaming their pants, coast to coast. :lol

And crashes the HC negotiations :lol

 

[Diablos]

Rick Sanchez is saying on TV that Brown's people are demanding that he be sworn in tomorrow. lol

 

[gkryhewy]

On top of that, Obama, unlike both Reagan and Clinton, has an extremly poor economic team that continues to piss people off.

It's a very frustrating situation.

He has essentially the same economic team as Clinton... and yeah, it's not great. They do bubbles really well.

 

[mckmas8808]

Yea but republicans were able to push practically whatever they wanted through. Patriot Act? no problem. War in iraq? you got it!. That loser bush had free reign but every single thing Obama proposes gets killed not necessarily because of republicans and their propoganda but also because of corruption and fighting within the party. The democrates are wussies and are too weak to defend themselves and/or fight for anything. Obama didn't even try to fight for the public option. The second Baucus threw together that crap bill he was basically like "whatevers lets just go with it" and even with all the compromises and watering down it may never see the light of day and if he can't even do this how the hell is he going to bring about all the other change he promised he would fight for. He was knocked out in less than 6 months of being president and reid/pelosi have got to be two of the most hated politicians in America.

On top of that, Obama, unlike both Reagan and Clinton, has an extremly poor economic team that continues to piss people off.

It's a very frustrating situation.

This is a lie that everyone loves to repeat. The REPs could NOT pass everything they wanted. Stop pushing this lie in this thread.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Rick Sanchez is saying on TV that Brown's people are demanding that he be sworn in tomorrow. lol

Of course they are. MA law doesn't allow for it though, but it will be an ugly two weeks until he's sworn in.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Color me stupid but I am still saying Coakley wins 52-48.

 

[Diablos]

Also, looks like the House is getting pissy.

On one hand you have Pelosi saying they are, regardless of what happens, going to make revisions and send it back to the Senate. This is dumb. She knows if she sends it back to the Seante with Brown there, it's DOA...

And then you have Hoyer saying "it's better than nothing."

 

[platypotamus]

Of course they are. MA law doesn't allow for it though, but it will be an ugly two weeks until he's sworn in.

You aren't backpedaling from your Coakley winning prediction are you? I still don't see reason for that, if anything the math you just posted seems encouraging...

 

[GhaleonEB]

Color me stupid but I am still saying Coakley wins 52-48.

I'm still thinking a Coakley win as well. Anecdotal evidence is often misleading, but the hard numbers so far point to exactly the scenario she needed.

You aren't backpedaling from your Coakley winning prediction are you? I still don't see reason for that, if anything the math you just posted seems encouraging...

No, that was a prediction under the scenario that Brown wins. See above.

 

[mckmas8808]

Rick Sanchez is saying on TV that Brown's people are demanding that he be sworn in tomorrow. lol

So they already saying they won? WOW!! The balls on them.

O_O

 

[Zero Hero]

Vote for Scott Brown and increase your 401k!

 

[Particle Physicist]

So they already saying they won? WOW!! The balls on them.

O_O

Maybe it is an attempt to get the Dems to stay home, especially with the shitty weather.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This is a lie that everyone loves to repeat. The REPs could NOT pass everything they wanted. Stop pushing this lie in this thread.

You're right: they had to use reconciliation on the tax cuts. Outside of that they pretty much had free reign

 

[GhaleonEB]

Also, looks like the House is getting pissy.

On one hand you have Pelosi saying they are, regardless of what happens, going to make revisions and send it back to the Senate. This is dumb. She knows if she sends it back to the Seante with Brown there, it's DOA...

And then you have Hoyer saying "it's better than nothing."

It's clear they are pursuing both options in tandem, and Pelosi is stating her preference, and Hoyer is saying, worst case scenario still isn't too bad.

It's election day. Results are going to start coming in just over three hours from now. I'll entertain the what ifs when we have a better idea what's going to happen.

 

[mckmas8808]

Also, looks like the House is getting pissy.

On one hand you have Pelosi saying they are, regardless of what happens, going to make revisions and send it back to the Senate. This is dumb. She knows if she sends it back to the Seante with Brown there, it's DOA...

And then you have Hoyer saying "it's better than nothing."

Wouldn't she be sending it to the Senate before Brown (if he wins) is even sworn in?

 

[gcubed]

Rick Sanchez is saying on TV that Brown's people are demanding that he be sworn in tomorrow. lol

i'd slap my dick on the table and say, suck it bitches, this is for Minnesota.

which is precisely why i'm not a politician

 

[GhaleonEB]

You're right: they had to use reconciliation on the tax cuts. Outside of that they pretty much had free reign

And passed what, exactly? PATRIOT, NCLB and the Medicare Part D were the major bills outside of the tax cuts. What other major initiatives got through?

 

[schuelma]

I'm still thinking a Coakley win as well. Anecdotal evidence is often misleading, but the hard numbers so far point to exactly the scenario she needed.
.

But you also have a report in politico that dem GOTV people around Boston were shocked at the amount of Brown voters...so who knows.

The biggest factor for me right now predicting a Brown win is the Coakley and national dems going at it in public- I mean the Coakley campaign leaked a memo to Politico..that tells me they aren't feeling very good.

 

[platypotamus]

It's clear they are pursuing both options in tandem, and Pelosi is stating her preference, and Hoyer is saying, worst case scenario still isn't too bad.

It's election day. Results are going to start coming in just over three hours from now. I'll entertain the what ifs when we have a better idea what's going to happen.

Results will start coming in right as the class I'm teaching starts. Need to figure out a way to secretly check this thread while lecturing...

 

[mckmas8808]

You're right: they had to use reconciliation on the tax cuts. Outside of that they pretty much had free reign

Nope not true again. Alot of stuff that the REPs wanted to pass but didn't pass never actually went up for a vote. A lot of it just died early in Congress, so for some reason lots of DEMs just have forgot about those initatives for some reason.

 

[reilo]

But you also have a report in politico that dem GOTV people around Boston were shocked at the amount of Brown voters...so who knows.

There is your problem.

 

[Diablos]

Wouldn't she be sending it to the Senate before Brown (if he wins) is even sworn in?

You know that's risky. Do you really trust them to pass it in the short period of time before his potential swearing in? Really? :lol

 

[mckmas8808]

You know that's risky. Do you really trust them to pass it in the short period of time before his potential swearing in? Really? :lol

But he more than likely won't be sworn in until the first week of Feburary. Do you think the DEMs can't get the bill passed by then?

Do you think it's not possible?

 

[Pimpwerx]

it appears that through the last few months of your posting, and indeed reading this thread, you continue to fail to see why the healthcare system is broken. At this point, its not really worth arguing with because if you believe that you shouldnt have to pay into it when you dont need it, then its basically useless to even discuss it with you

I know why it's broke. I just know there is a better alternative to the bill on the table. Why are u happy with this compromised bill on offer? What's your gain? What's in it directly for any of the "something is better than nothing" crowd? Anyone who wanted a national health plan the last X years "understands" what's wrong. But if a new financial burden must be imposed on me, I want it to be smart.

For real world considerations, where does a bill like this go from passage? How long do I pay new bills while waiting for it to evolve into something better? Like I said, with inaction working out so well for my situation, I'd rather wait for another crack at it without taking the vector the current bill is taking. This is the wrong direction. PEACE.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

United Lost (my team). I expect my day to continue with Coakley losing now.

 

[Sriffat]

you guys think Dems will exercise the 51 vote senate option if Coakley loses?

 

[Diablos]

But he more than likely won't be sworn in until the first week of Feburary. Do you think the DEMs can't get the bill passed by then?

Do you think it's not possible?

Given their track record of stopping short of the finish line, no. I don't. A couple Senators will have problems with it, a new compromising game will ensue, and it'll go on well past February, only for Brown to shoot it down.

If it goes back to the Senate, it's time for reconciliation. Not that I'd trust Reid to do that, either. :\