Support NeoGAF

[gcubed]

i still think that Coakley will win by smidge, especially with much higher then expected turnouts. Although if she does win, i think her campaigning ineptitude should still be talked about and crushed on all news organizations. Its embarassing

 

[Anticitizen One]

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

Ok sorry for exagerating but they did get alot of shit that they wanted such as the Iraq War and Patriot Act and tons of other things im forgetting that im sure someone here could list. It was way easier for bush to push stuff than it is for Obama seems like.

 

[eznark]

Yea but republicans were able to push practically whatever they wanted through. Patriot Act? no problem. War in iraq? you got it!.

It's cute you think those are the same as the current issues being filibustered. Those weren't party line issues, they were overwhelmingly popular in the senate. Bush likely could have done both of those things in the Senate with a GOP minority. Not only were they overwhelmingly popular in the senate, they were overwhelmingly popular generally speaking. People are idiots...Senators are not exempt.

As far as "passing anything" there were no significant domestic changes made that Bush campaigned on aside from tax cuts. He promised sweeping individual tax code changes, massive social security overhaul/privatization and various other conservative economic and social initiatives. He was unable to affect any of these changes. Of course some of that can be attributed to his focus shifting to imperialism but most of his domestic desires would have fallen to the same partisan ax that health care appears to be getting killed by.

Democrats didn't have to filibuster bills because there weren't any that they reasonably could. There is enough public dissention over ObamaCare that it isn't politically stupid for the right to do everything they can to stop it. At the very least they are forcing the left to take ownership of the issue. To the right, it's a win win. Opposing the Patriot Act or the Iraq War was a lose-lose at the time.

 

[GhaleonEB]

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.

As a rule, I don't read Politico. They are more interested stirring shit up than reporting.

The leaked memo, though, was a bad sign. But it came from an outside adviser, not inside the campaign. So I dismiss it to a degree. The DNC response, though, yeowch.

I refuse to be pessimistic, and you can't make me. Not for another three hours!

 

[PhoenixDark]

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. :\

It would be just like Lieberman to scuttle any attempts to get this done in a timely, 15-20 day frame. We still haven't heard much about the abortion language or what the conservadems in the senate think about the national exchange.

 

[mckmas8808]

Ok sorry for exagerating but they did get alot of shit that they wanted such as the Iraq War and Patriot Act and tons of other things im forgetting that im sure someone here could list. It was way easier for bush to push stuff than it is for Obama seems like.

It's easier to pass things, when the things you pass are very popular and easy to pass. Bush didn't push for the things that were hard to pass.

That's the difference between Bush and Obama.

 

[Sirpopopop]

We'll see how the Mass. voters vote today, but since the current bill is really bad, and gonna cost me more than what I believe the ideal would, I would rather see it fail. I'm sorry Obama short-sold the progressive ideas to the point that we can no longer scrap it and start from scratch, but passing a bad bill makes no sense now or going forward in this economic climate. This has disaster written all over it, much more than inaction does. That's my honest opinion.

This is a bil that helps those with disabilitis, cuts down on the costs of medicare, and according to the CBO, cuts down the overall cost of health care spending is bad for America.

Whether the last part is correct, is up for debate. However, the first two are most assuredly true. People with disabilities will be protected through the CLASS Act, and the fact that no one can no longer be denied health care for pre-existing conditions, and a lot of the costs of medicare will be shifted to private insurance companies through the insurance exchange.

While the last portion represents a win for the insurance companies, it does mean that many people can get decent affordable insurance at a reasonable cost, which is also a win for the American public.

Also, from my understanding, if states want to provide a public option, this bill won't stop them.

It worked on the House Dems, who produced a LOLful bill to get one Republican (hooray for bipartisanship). The Senate didn't even have to try after that, because everything was setup for this to be a terrible bill from then. I don't know how I can be faulted for disagreeing with a bill that went from bad to worse as it passed in the House and then Senate. I'm not in favor of bad policy, regardless of party associated.

By and large, a lot of this jockeying was done to get the blue dogs in line. If the Republicans were willing to play ball, I'm sure that there are many Republicans in extremely improvershed areas that would have seen the need for universal health care such that rather than just getting 1 vote, they might have gotten 10 or 15, instead of having to court the blue dog voters.

Also, why were there so many compromises made to get Republican approval? I find it hard to believe the House bill needed to be watered down so much just to get passed. Why feel sorry when your party representatives in Congress did this to themselves? They negotiated with a brick wall...and still conceded. This anger is misplaced when all that's resulted is bad policy. Obama can crash and burn for all I care. I just want good bills to be passed. Republicans controlling Congress didn't burn my village down. They actually got the Dems to feign progressiveness for half a year...a year and a half ago. :/

A year and a half ago the Dems had control of Congress. In terms of progressiveness in America - actually doing something about our health care problem represents significant progress beyond a straight privatization with no sort of cost control.

When I'm older, but what's the difference between a mandate, and a tax? Which of the two would be cheaper?

Regardless of whether they are rhetorical questions or not, they are valid questions to be asking, so I'll see if I can answer them based on my understanding of the bill that is most like what we will have if reform is passed (Senate version).

In terms of the impact to your pocket - as of right now, the tax would function as a penalty where you get no service in exchange for your payment. At least with the mandate, you'll at least be getting health insurance.

As for which of the two would be cheaper, if you're getting a subsidy, the mandate.

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.

I thought this was why the public option saw significant public support when worded properly. The Obama admin and a limp-wristed Dem let the Reps dictate the conversation and control the debate. Shitty sell, and a shitty product. Inaction works well for me, and IMO, the Dem party going forward.

The bill operates on the basis of majorities rather than fringes. For many people, this bill will represent a reduction in costs as they get a reduced rate for insurance through the government exchanges. Many people also want health care, and now this makes health care more affordable for them.

It also allows for people without health care who have disabilities to get health care through the government's CLASS Act program, and removes hurdles for those with pre-existing conditions whom were precluded from getting health care before.

Hmm, framed like that, I suppose it might not be so terrible. I just don't like the penalty falling only on a portion of the population. Is the excise tied to a minimum income level as well? I see this as hitting people who have health issues and need heavy plans, but don't necessarily have lots of money to work with. I mean, are there any people with expensive plans that don't have chronic health issues?

For many of those with chronic health issues - affordable health care wasn't possible before, because private insurers wouldn't cover them period. This bill would solve that.

It's my understanding the current state of affairs was to get Reps on board in the House, which failed miserably.

Many of the enticements were removed when the few Reps who listened abandoned ship. As far as I can tell, most of what's left is to appease the blue dogs.

The new cost is to people who don't have health insurance and don't really need it. Would it surprise you that this will most likely be my greatest expense after rent? Of course, I'd just opt for the penalty, which I probably won't pay anyway. :lol It's the principle of it all, though.

The expense may not be that much for you, based on how much you would be eligible for through the subsidies. They are going to be your life raft.

There are also supposed to be expansions to Medicaid, which you may fall under, but I'm not well versed to your situation so I'm not going to leap to any assumptions.

We voted for him for the same reasons, then. It's just that I'm pretty vocal in my dissatisfaction with his efforts thus far. I think he's playing it safe, and thus not even playing at all. You can't accomplish much if you're not willing to risk failure. This bill was DOA because Obama failed to leverage his immense popularity post-election to firmly declare his intentions. He had no confidence in this from the start, and it shows. The greatest irony is that this might bite him in the ass anyway. HIS failure through inaction, ha! PEACE.

I agree that Obama should have gotten behind this bill firmly from the start instead of leaving it to the Senate.

This isn't 1994, and Mitch McConnell is no Bob Dole.

 

[GhaleonEB]

It would be just like Lieberman to scuttle any attempts to get this done in a timely, 15-20 day frame. We still haven't heard much about the abortion language or what the conservadems in the senate think about the national exchange.

Most of the bill has been sent to the CBO for scoring. The exchanges have not yet. What does that tell you about the level of support for the national exchange in the Senate?

 

[Amir0x]

So when she loses, and Dems waver in Congress and Health Care dies officially, will I then have the permission of the class to say fuck Obama and the Democrats in congress?

I just want to know if when nothing passes at all, then it'd be permissible to think he failed where it mattered most.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So when she loses, and Dems waver in Congress and Health Care dies officially, will I then have the permission of the class to say fuck Obama and the Democrats in congress?

I just want to know if when nothing passes at all, then it'd be permissible to think he failed where it mattered most.

If HC doesn't pass it doesn't matter anyway.

Democrats lose every hotly contested seat and then some in 2010.
Obama should just not run for re-election in 2012 and give someone sle the chance.

 

[charlequin]

So when she loses, and Dems waver in Congress and Health Care dies officially, will I then have the permission of the class to say fuck Obama and the Democrats in congress?

No.

 

[empty vessel]

I see Empty Vessel is still spouting the "If only the Democrats had pushed for a more progressive/leftist bill" rhetoric. He keeps on forgetting that, no matter how much the Democrats would've pushed for one, it would not have swayed the Blue Dog Senators and Lieberman.

Nope. If that's what you've taken from my posts, you haven't been reading them correctly. My point is--and has always been--that if citizens had pushed for a more progressive/leftist bill, then the politicians would have moved left. I agree that, assuming everything else constant, Democratic politicians in the Senate pushing for a more progressive bill would not have had any different outcome. My point is that, assuming Democratic politicians constant, a strong and vocal progressive movement making demands would have produced a more progressive bill by moving those Blue Dogs (and Joe Lieberman, and Olympia Snowe, etc.) left.

Politicians don't cast their votes based solely--or even primarily--on their own political and ideological beliefs. The reason Republicans are so unified right now is not because none of them ideologically are on board with the health care bill (it's not much different from what John McCain campaigned on); it's because there is an active right movement making their presence felt. Absent that, Olympia Snowe and others would undoubtedly be on board.

 

[Amir0x]

If HC doesn't pass it doesn't matter anyway.

Democrats lose every hotly contested seat and then some in 2010.
Obama should just not run for re-election in 2012 and give someone sle the chance.

I totally agree. 100%. Just amusing that now, they can't even win this seat in the bluest of blue states, and we're standing on the precipice of losing absolutely everything about Health Care altogether.

And nobody is going to convince me a single Democrat has the balls to do what needs to get done to get this passed if Brown wins, nor that they'd be able to move things along fast enough to get it done before Brown is sworn in.

No.

Gonna say it anyway! As will the rest of America in 2010 and 2012.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Jan 29th is the earliest MA SoS says they can certify Brown after he wins.

Its no longer a question of if he wins :lol

I totally agree. 100%. Just amusing that now, they can't even win this seat in the bluest of blue states, and we're standing on the precipice of losing absolutely everything about Health Care altogether.

And nobody is going to convince me a single Democrat has the balls to do what needs to get done to get this passed if Brown wins, nor that they'd be able to move things along fast enough to get it done before Brown is sworn in.

I think everybody will be on board to get it done except for Lieberman. If Lieberman can kill HC Reform he will do it (At this point I expect him to retire in 2012). But Lieberman is angry at the Dems for whatever reason and he will see him causing the death of HC Reform as his ultimate victory over the Dems.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Most of the bill has been sent to the CBO for scoring. The exchanges have not yet. What does that tell you about the level of support for the national exchange in the Senate?

Doesn't sound good

 

[reilo]

Why is every little election, no matter how big or small, no matter which candidate, being painted as a referendum on Obama?

 

[charlequin]

Gonna say it anyway!

Good for you! I'm sure CNN will have a slot as a correspondent if you need a job.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ne...ys_brown_ran_good_race_for_senate.php?ref=fpa

Btw, Axelrod gave Brown props for running an awesome campaign.

 

[Amir0x]

Good for you! I'm sure CNN will have a slot as a correspondent if you need a job.

I don't, I have a great job. I'll settle for being right.

 

[reilo]

I just don't understand this apathy floating around. I really don't. Giving up your vote is the most inane thing one can do.

 

[Amir0x]

First, you guys said public option never really mattered, though pretty much everybody worth their salt said the opposite leading up to the health care debate.

Now, if Health Care fails altogether, our biggest and best chance at sweeping reform in decades - with a democratic supermajority (although, a weak one) - a chance that won't come again for yet more decades...and someone gets understandably angry and answers with his vote... it's apathy or overreaction?

And somehow, none of this should be blamed on Obama or the Congressional Democrats. Reflexive voting is why we have such feeble minded dickwads in office.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Why is every little election, no matter how big or small, no matter which candidate, being painted as a referendum on Obama?

Because that is what happens with a polarizing President? It happened to Bush as well. Every time the dems picked up a seat in the congress it was a reflection of the country's dissatisfaction with Bush.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

First, you guys said public option never really mattered, though pretty much everybody worth their salt said the opposite leading up to the health care debate.

Now, if Health Care fails altogether, our biggest and best chance at sweeping reform in decades - with a democratic supermajority (although, a weak one) - a chance that won't come again for yet more decades...and someone gets understandably angry and answers with his vote... it's apathy or overreaction?

And somehow, none of this should be blamed on Obama or the Congressional Democrats. Reflexive voting is why we have such feeble minded dickwads in office.

I Blame Congressional Democrats to a larger degree. At the moment, the one thing I want Obama to do is kick out the Clinton economic team.

 

[eznark]

First, you guys said public option never really mattered, though pretty much everybody worth their salt said the opposite leading up to the health care debate.

Now, if Health Care fails altogether, our biggest and best chance at sweeping reform in decades - with a democratic supermajority (although, a weak one) - a chance that won't come again for yet more decades...and someone gets understandably angry and answers with his vote... it's apathy or overreaction?

And somehow, none of this should be blamed on Obama or the Congressional Democrats. Reflexive voting is why we have such feeble minded dickwads in office.

Personally I'd blame Reid and Pelosi as much as Obama. The second this thing is actually dead in the water I predict Harry Reid is thrown to the wolves. He can't win his seat again anyway, may as well use him as the scapegoat to try and deflect some of the blame.

 

[GhaleonEB]

First, you guys said public option never really mattered, though pretty much everybody worth their salt said the opposite leading up to the health care debate.

Who the fuck are "you guys"? This is a broadside against people that I have not seen post on GAF.

 

[reilo]

I'll settle for being right.

So you'd rather be right than things actually turning for the better? What will that get you?

First, you guys said public option never really mattered, though pretty much everybody worth their salt said the opposite leading up to the health care debate.

Now, if Health Care fails altogether, our biggest and best chance at sweeping reform in decades - with a democratic supermajority (although, a weak one) - a chance that won't come again for yet more decades...and someone gets understandably angry and answers with his vote... it's apathy or overreaction?

And somehow, none of this should be blamed on Obama or the Congressional Democrats. Reflexive voting is why we have such feeble minded dickwads in office.

Not voting is why we historically have feeble minded dickwads in office. Not voting en masse is what would hand Brown the senate seat. Not voting is what would have given us four years of John McCain. Fuck not voting.

You gave a lot of your time to the last election, and I understand that. But saying "fuck it, I've done enough" after one election and then just letting everyone else go rampant isn't going to make things better. Going from one extreme to the other won't reverse the situation.

Maybe my mindset is that of a fight and not a flight person because I truly don't understand the mindset that doing nothing is better than doing something and failing.

 

[Amir0x]

Personally I'd blame Reid and Pelosi as much as Obama. The second this thing is actually dead in the water I predict Harry Reid is thrown to the wolves. He can't win his seat again anyway, may as well use him as the scapegoat to try and deflect some of the blame.

I think they all deserve blame. I think Lieberman, the fucking turncoat, deserves special blame. But I think Obama displayed exceptionally poor leadership, I think Pelosi and Reid have showcased a phenomenal lack of balls (might not be Pelosi's fault, hey-o!), and I think overall the lack of a clear, defined unified voice and the inability for the Democrats to steer the debate for the entire summer... it was a disaster.

Everyone deserves blame.

Who the fuck are "you guys"? This is a broadside against people that I have not seen post on GAF.

I didn't save quotes, nor am I going to go fishing for you. Nor am I going to play this pretend game wherein we act like there wasn't literal months and months of heralding the public option (and other like options) and as the biggest and most important way to control costs and drive costs down around (that we could feasibly pass). Myself included, don't get me wrong. BECAUSE IT WAS and I'm not a goddamn hypocrite who goes back and what he says. And suddenly when it was out, it never mattered! No, think of the big picture, getting half-assed bills and all.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Asked by CNN Chief National Correspondent John King what message a Brown victory would send to President Barack Obama, the state senator said he'll show the president "my truck and play some basketball with him."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co.../cnn_politicalticker+(Blog:+Political+Ticker)

:lol

 

[Amir0x]

So you'd rather be right than things actually turning for the better? What will that get you?

Not voting is why we historically have feeble minded dickwads in office. Not voting en masse is what would hand Brown the senate seat. Not voting is what would have given us four years of John McCain. Fuck not voting.

You gave a lot of your time to the last election, and I understand that. But saying "fuck it, I've done enough" after one election and then just letting everyone else go rampant isn't going to make things better. Going from one extreme to the other won't reverse the situation.

Maybe my mindset is that of a fight and not a flight person because I truly don't understand the mindset that doing nothing is better than doing something and failing.

I always vote. One does not need to vote Democrat to participate in an election.

The problem with this is that we are literally not going to get another chance at Health Care reform for DECADES. This is, bar none, the most important, essential CORE issue facing America, and has been for as long as I was born. And we are about to again get to a point where it becomes impossible for decades more.

Do you realize, MY children will be voting before this gets done if this fails?

I am not going to reward failed leaders and failed parties. They have to do soul searching eventually they will come back with someone who knows how to get shit done. If Obama shows that he can't, then Obama and congressional leadership will not get my votes.

 

[eznark]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co.../cnn_politicalticker+(Blog:+Political+Ticker)

:lol

Holy shit I thought he even had a Carhart coat on in that picture! Pickups and barn coats...exactly what you would expect from a MA Senator. I'm sure he and Kerry will have a ton in common.

The problem with this is that we are literally not going to get another chance at Health Care reform for DECADES.

That's not true, it just might not be the reform you were hoping for.

 

[Amir0x]

That's not true, it just might not be the reform you were hoping for.

What type of baby fucking steps do you believe our congress is going to do toward true health care reform for the next few decades should Democrats lose their grip on congress, and should they not fully return to power in both branches for another presidency?

I mean, honestly?

If Brown comes and the Democrats waver and don't do shit to get it passed, reconciliation or whatever options they have left (and they won't), what do you think will plausibly get done in the next ten years on health care? In the next fifteen years? Twenty?

I mean, a lot can change, but it took forever to even get a debate this serious going. Clinton couldn't do it, and it took over a decade for serious debate to take place again

 

[GhaleonEB]

I didn't save quotes, nor am I going to go fishing for you. Nor am I going to play this pretend game wherein we act like there wasn't literal months and months of heralding the public option (and other like options) and as the biggest and most important way to control costs and drive costs down around (that we could feasibly pass). Myself included, don't get me wrong. BECAUSE IT WAS and I'm not a goddamn hypocrite who goes back and what he says. And suddenly when it was out, it never mattered! No, think of the big picture, getting half-assed bills and all.

That is the part I am objecting to. There was broad consensus in this thread among supporters of healthcare reform that cutting the public option was 1) disastrous politics and 2) terrible policy. Even among supporters of passing the current iterations of the bill (such as myself), it's partly predicated on the notion that adding a public option will be easier once the overall bill is passed.

....

Back to the election today:

Hard Boston Turnout Numbers Rival 2006 Election

Okay, I’ve got some hard turnout numbers from the Massachusetts Secretary of State, and they confirm anecdotal evidence that turnout is running much higher than expected in Boston — a boon to Martha Coakley, perhaps, though who knows if it’s enough.

As of 3 PM today, 81,882 people had voted in Boston, according to Brian McNiff, the spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office. That’s more than a fifth of the city’s 358,953 registered voters.

For comparison, by the same time on election day 2006, only slightly more — 87,000 — had voted. And that was during elections for Senate, governor, and multiple lower offices. This single special election has generated nearly the same turnout as all those elections did, at least in Boston — and many think Coakley’s only chance to win is if turnout is disproportionately high there.

The Secretary of State’s office says they don’t keep equally detailed GOTV tallies for precincts outside Boston, which is home to slightly less than one-tenth the state’s registered voters. But the spokesman says there have been “no reports” of empty voting places anywhere, suggesting turnout could be running equally high across the state. That’s what the Brown campaign is reporting.

So there’s no way of knowing whether the juiced-up Boston turnout will be enough to help Coakley prevail. But it’s something.

In the 2006 election, over 2.2 million votes were cast. If the rest of the state tracks close to Boston, that puts the overall vote near that figure. Here's what was predicted yesterday

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.

So it's tracking to the high end of estimates.

If the overall state hits that level, it's a good sign. If Boston is running ahead of the rest of the state, it's a very good sign.

 

[Amir0x]

I guess I've just misinterpreted you, my bad. In any event, I hope that Brown loses so we could skip the theatrics.

But, I don't think I am wrong in taking a stand that if health care fails altogether, like it probably will if Brown wins, that one should not be rewarded with votes.

 

[Aaron Strife]

So when she loses, and Dems waver in Congress and Health Care dies officially, will I then have the permission of the class to say fuck Obama and the Democrats in congress?

I just want to know if when nothing passes at all, then it'd be permissible to think he failed where it mattered most.

I'm glad someone has their head screwed on right.

I was disappointed when the public option was nixed, but my line of thinking was that - it wasn't something we had to begin with, so we weren't any worse off from where we started. The purpose of this bill is to now sign over 30 million customers to insurance companies, but to those 30 million people, I'm not sure how much it impacts them whether they're getting quality care from the government or a business, and there are plenty of regulations in place to protect the consumer. We let the insurance companies win, but the people too. The bill is still worth passing.

I understood that the Democrats have had to fight tooth and nail to get 60 votes, because the other side isn't cooperating, not even Olympia Snowe.

But here's the kicker, that reform is entirely dependent on whether we have Senator Brown or Senator Coakley, which is completely fucked up. How is it exactly that a 59-41 split in the Senate breaks legislation? What the fuck? Are Democrats so fucking useless that they can't accomplish the number one item on their agenda, their make-or-break for many of us who put them in there in the first place, because they ONLY HAVE A 18 SEAT ADVANTAGE!?

If Democrats throw their hands up and are just like "Welp, we tried! Better luck in 20 more years!" after Brown is installed then every voter in the country has a right to be fucking PISSED.

The best I can hope for is that Coakley, who is a fucking sham of a politician and lazy ass of a campaigner, can pull out a miraculous victory so that Democrats can pass their watered down package.

 

[GaimeGuy]

As I've said before, fuck the senate, and fuck the fillibuster.

The fact we are basically having the discusison "If the democrats have only 59/100 votes, the health care bill is dead" speaks VOLUMES about the democratic process in the senate and how FUBARed it is.

Nuke the fillibuster. Not for health care, but for the entire legislative process. Bills are supposed to be passable with a majority vote, not with a 3/5 vote.

 

[reilo]

I always vote. One does not need to vote Democrat to participate in an election.

Noble, but ultimately flawed. All I need to do is point to the 2000 election -- an election decided by literally a few hundred votes nonetheless -- that voting for a third party candidate can be oh-so detrimental. Thanks Nader voters!

 

[platypotamus]

As has been said in this thread many, many times: if you support a progressive agenda, punish the democrats that fail to meet your standards by voting for more liberal democrats in the primary. Do not let more conservative candidates take their seat out of spite. If you already have a democrat that IS fighting for your progressive causes, don't punish them for the failings of their colleagues.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Noble, but ultimately flawed. All I need to do is point to the 2000 election -- an election decided by literally a few hundred votes nonetheless -- that voting for a third party candidate can be oh-so detrimental. Thanks Nader voters!

Not to sound like an anti-establishment douchebag, but perhaps if we dropped this stupid fucking "THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!" mentality (instilled by our good friends in the GOP!) we could actually elect somewhat principled leaders instead of men who are enslaved by the political machine.

Remember when Jesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota? Pretty much everything he promised to do, he fucking did it. Without support of either the DFL or the IR parties in the state legislature. Of the 45 bills he vetoed in 1999, only three were overridden.

This would be less of a problem if we had three or four prominent parties, which would require actual cooperation to get anything passed.

 

[Amir0x]

Noble, but ultimately flawed. All I need to do is point to the 2000 election -- an election decided by literally a few hundred votes nonetheless -- that voting for a third party candidate can be oh-so detrimental. Thanks Nader voters!

Then the party which wants to win should work on getting out more votes so that the difference isn't so small.

Ultimately, reilo, you're arguing for reflexive voting again. That one must vote for someone, or else. This is what causes politicians in guaranteed red or blue states to become complacent in the first place... because they believe their constituency will vote for them no matter what, allowing them to literally "rest on their laurels."

We have all these ineffectual congressmen and women in Washington, and a particularly ineffectual Democratic party at the moment. Therefore, to me, it is in the ultimate best interest of the country to make them sit it out and do some more soul searching rather than merely handing them the whole thing once more to do nothing.

 

[besada]

Not to sound like an anti-establishment douchebag, but perhaps if we dropped this stupid fucking "THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!" mentality (instilled by our good friends in the GOP!) we could actually elect somewhat principled leaders instead of men who are enslaved by the political machine.

This would be less of a problem if we had three or four prominent parties, which would require actual cooperation to get anything passed.

Until you make changes to the structure of the system, third-party votes are a waste. Period.

Major state and federal changes are required for any third party to ever have a chance. Even Perot, who garnered a massive 18% of the popular vote received zero electoral votes. Like Nader, his campaign was ultimately ego-driven, as both men were fully aware they had no chance of winning.

Until we have proportional electoral vote distribution, more reasonable state barriers to getting on the ballot and into the debates, and a more level financial playing field, third-party voting is vanity voting. It's like pissing yourself in a dark suit -- it makes you feel warm all over, but no one notices.

 

[mckmas8808]

If the DEMs can't pass healthcare then, yes they do deserve to lose many seats in 2010. And alot of the blame should go towards the congressional DEMs and Obama.

You don't spend 6 months on a issue (that's your top issue), just to lose it because you needed 5 more days.

 

[reilo]

Then the party which wants to win should work on getting out more votes so that the difference isn't so small.

Ultimately, reilo, you're arguing for reflexive voting again. That one must vote for someone, or else. This is what causes politicians in guaranteed red or blue states to become complacent in the first place... because they believe their constituency will vote for them no matter what, allowing them to literally "rest on their laurels."

We have all these ineffectual congressmen and women in Washington, and a particularly ineffectual Democratic party at the moment. Therefore, to me, it is in the ultimate best interest of the country to make them sit it out and do some more soul searching rather than merely handing them the whole thing once more to do nothing.

And ultimately, you are arguing for protest voting again.

Considering that the "else" in this case is a party with Michael Steele, Dick Cheney, et al at the helm, then fuck yeah, the alternative is better. If you wish to produce the best available candidates with a D next to their name, then the real work is ought to be done during the primaries. It's not just about the final vote.

Besides, the "else" in 2000 was George W Bush and his cabinet, so excuse me for being "pro-reflexive" if the "pro-protest" vote churns out shit like Scott Brown and George W Bush.

If you want to argue politicians that didn't do their job need to "sit out" and not "sit on their laurels", then there are other ways to achieve that: primarily through term limits and a full-time stop to lobbying.

 

[Averon]

That is the part I am objecting to. There was broad consensus in this thread among supporters of healthcare reform that cutting the public option was 1) disastrous politics and 2) terrible policy. Even among supporters of passing the current iterations of the bill (such as myself), it's partly predicated on the notion that adding a public option will be easier once the overall bill is passed.

....

Back to the election today:


In the 2006 election, over 2.2 million votes were cast. If the rest of the state tracks close to Boston, that puts the overall vote near that figure. Here's what was predicted yesterday


So it's tracking to the high end of estimates.

If the overall state hits that level, it's a good sign. If Boston is running ahead of the rest of the state, it's a very good sign.

If these numbers hold, and Brown's strongholds doesn't post crazy numbers, Coakely may still have a chance. But that fact that the DNC and Coakely's campaign are sniping at one another this early tells me that they're seeing internal numbers that looks bleak.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

It's easier to pass things, when the things you pass are very popular and easy to pass. Bush didn't push for the things that were hard to pass.

That's the difference between Bush and Obama.

You have to look at the reason Bush's things were easier to pass, namely that he lied to the public to make them look like favorable options.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

It's good news that there's such high turnout today. I didn't think otherwise because of how close the race was and the importance of the senate seat when it comes to health care reform. People are going to go out and vote.

There are so many variables in play here that me mentioning bad weather would affect DEMs and benefits the REPs is something that I've always learned in the past from my political analysis classes. I still remember all the historical charts about turnouts.

So anyway, I don't know why Door2Dawn was being an ass. Maybe I jumped to conclusions because again, there are so many other variables in play here that could cancel out my comment about DEM turnout, but I guess we'll never know since there are no exit polls.

 

[Door2Dawn]

I wasn't trying to be an ass

 

[Aaron Strife]

Until you make changes to the structure of the system, third-party votes are a waste. Period.

Major state and federal changes are required for any third party to ever have a chance. Even Perot, who garnered a massive 18% of the popular vote received zero electoral votes. Like Nader, his campaign was ultimately ego-driven, as both men were fully aware they had no chance of winning.

Until we have proportional electoral vote distribution, more reasonable state barriers to getting on the ballot and into the debates, and a more level financial playing field, third-party voting is vanity voting. It's like pissing yourself in a dark suit -- it makes you feel warm all over, but no one notices.

Not that I disagree that it's near impossible with the current political landscape, but at least here in Minnesota, third party candidates (mainly, the ones belonging to the Independence Party) winning elections isn't exactly unusual. Dean Barkley won 20% of the vote in 2008 because we were tired of seeing TV swamped with mud-slinging from the Franken and Coleman camps. The last gubernatorial race where the winner came out with a majority was in 1994 with Arne Carlson. Tim Penny's performance in 2002 was considered underwhelming - when he won 16%.

Now obviously this doesn't hold for the rest of the country, but if it did, I think you'd have a lot more politicians who care about more than getting re-elected every 2/4/6 years.

 

[Diablos]

Is there a site showing results by county as the votes come in?

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Is there a site showing results by county as the votes come in?

Talkingpointsmemo.com

 

[cartoon_soldier]

Martha Coakley's campaign just held a press conference regarding alleged voting irregularities in Massachusetts, presumably setting the table for legal battles to come if the outcome is too close to call.

Basically, Brown is the winnar!!