Support NeoGAF

[Schattenjäger]

You're such a troll.

Dems are more blue collar in the sense that they advocate (some) policies that would actually benefit lower/middle class working people, as opposed to wealthy people.

The ability for REPs to use social issues and nonspecific fear as a wedge to get those same lower/middle class working people to vote against their own best interests is not exactly a new trend.

How am I the troll if he's the one that brought up the truck?

 

[itsinmyveins]

And as a quick aside, Brown for VP, Pres, or anything other than Senate in 2012 is an unequivocal bad idea. Let the guy get some experience.

He doesn't need experience -- he's got a truck, man.

 

[NullPointer]

PoliGAF Thread of Finding Hope's Corpse under the TARP

And :lol :lol :lol at the conservatives who can't fathom what actual compromise looks like. Blind, deluded and manipulated fools, the whole lot of you.

Or you can prove me wrong by actually reading and responding to the many posts that spell out the manifold compromises made to HCR.

 

[gcubed]

And as a quick aside, Brown for VP, Pres, or anything other than Senate in 2012 is an unequivocal bad idea. Let the guy get some experience.

dude, the guy has naked pictures of himself readily available and is pro-choice (i thought i heard), he'll never sniff the presidency for the GOP... thats not family values

 

[Schattenjäger]

No, you never responded to my post. But since your definition of "compromise" is apparently "giving the GOP minority everything they want and getting nothing in return," there's really no point in continuing to argue this point with you.

Not everything - find a happy medium even if it takes longer than expected - and even if it is small changes at first

Why is this so difficult to grasp?

 

[PhoenixDark]

And as a quick aside, Brown for VP, Pres, or anything other than Senate in 2012 is an unequivocal bad idea. Let the guy get some experience.

I'm kinda baffled by this; Drudge had a headline about Brown running for president/vp whatever. Regardless of whether Obama loses in 2012, republicans won't take MA. I see no point in putting Brown on the ticket so soon. If Brown magically keeps his seat in 2012, sure, running for president in 2016 would make sense.

 

[HamPster PamPster]

If democrats drop health care as Barney Frank and others are suggesting, I'm not voting in November.

could this really happen? Sheesh


Did you know that getting an ear infection counts as a pre-exisiting condition? I mean, if they fight covering a freaking ear infection what won't they refuse to pay for. Some sort of reform should be a no-brainer

 

[RustyNails]

btw suggestion of new thread title: PoliGAF Thread of President Obama tryin' to check off his list

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Holy shit I forgot about Fox and Friends saying Brown winning would boost your 401k. :lol

 

[Tamanon]

PoliGAF thread of Bitches be Tripping

 

[eBay Huckster]

I don't really agree with this assertion. 30 percent of America (give or take) identify themselves as a Republican. So, 1/3 of America is a fringe?

Actually...

Republican ID tops out at 34% in a Rasmussen poll (which has shown slight bias toward that end for a while now) and doesn't come close to that number otherwise, leaners nonwithstanding.

Also, the simple fact that literally the entire rise in the Independent trendline has been at the expense of Democratic identification lends some credence to the idea that the Republicans are a fringe, at least moreso than the Dems.

 

[PantherLotus]

Panther, looks like I may unfortunately win the avatar bet afterall.

No, our bet was whether or not reform would include a public option. If reform doesn't pass then we both lose. Either way, the bet was for a month, wasn't it?

 

[fatty]

PoliGAF Thread of The Massachusetts Massacre of The Uninsured

PoliGAF Thread of Part 2: The Empire Strikes Back

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Tossing His List in the Bin

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Tending His Garden and Waiting for 2012

PoliGAF Thread of The ADHD Progressive's Gift of Gridlock

PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List of Democrats holding seats in the Government

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The rise of independent voters has been going on since the 50s. As far are partisan voting, both strong DEMs and REPs will vote along party lines. Weak DEMs and REPs defecting to the other party has had its ups and downs.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The other health-care reform option

My preference is that House Democrats pass the Senate bill and then run their fixes through the reconciliation process. But I think there is an argument that the current health-care bill has been terribly compromised by the months of controversy, the shady deal with Ben Nelson, the ambivalence of key legislators, the endless meetings with industry players, the wasted time, and the collective freak-out of congressional Democrats in the aftermath of Scott Brown's election.

There is another option.

Democrats could scrap the legislation and start over in the reconciliation process. But not to re-create the whole bill. If you go that route, you admit the whole thing seemed too opaque and complex and compromised. You also admit the limitations of the reconciliation process. So you make it real simple: Medicare buy-in between 50 and 65. Medicaid expands up to 200 percent of poverty with the federal government funding the whole of the expansion. Revenue comes from a surtax on the wealthy.

And that's it. No cost controls. No delivery-system reforms. Nothing that makes the bill long or complex or unfamiliar. Medicare buy-in had more than 51 votes as recently as a month ago. The Medicaid change is simply a larger version of what's already passed both chambers. This bill would be shorter than a Danielle Steel novel. It could take effect before the 2012 election.

If health-care reform that preserves the private market is too complex and requires too many dirty deals with the existing industries, then cut both out. But get it done. Democrats have a couple of different options for passing health-care reform this year. But not passing health-care reform should not be seen as one of them.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_other_health-care_reform_o.html

Eh so no cost controls, no addressing pre-existing condition bans, no increase in amount of time kids can stay on their parents' health care, nothing on prescription drugs? Dunno about that...

I guess they could have a separate bill on prescription bills though

 

[eBay Huckster]

The rise of independent voters has been going on since the 50s. As far are partisan voting, both strong DEMs and REPs will vote along party lines. Weak DEMs and REPs defecting to the other party has had its ups and downs.

Points taken.

I should add I'm not actually arguing that the Republican Party is a fringe based on party ID in polling (because November would have me devouring a feast of crow), just that at present, based on that polling an argument could be made to that effect.

 

[The Librarian]

Weren't you just telling people repeatedly about how they were overreacting to the polls and that Coakley could still win it, even when all the counts kept going to Brown?

Talk about denial.

No I wasn't. If you're talking about Diablos, I was referring to his general chicken little stance he usually takes, and that Brown was just a possible latest on a long list of worries.

Anyways, I think HCR will get passed. In some form or another.

 

[JoeBoy101]

dude, the guy has naked pictures of himself readily available and is pro-choice (i thought i heard), he'll never sniff the presidency for the GOP... thats not family values

Neither are hardly disqualifiers anymore these days. Being a fiscal conservative is far more attractive and important these days, than being a social conservative. Which, the good Lord willing, means I may not have to put up with Huckabee during every primary.

But again, if Brown is super smart and decides to play long ball, he'll quietly keep his head down and work for MA in the Senate. That may be tough because having tasted some success, some conservatives want more. For example, having Brown giving the SOFTU response. Pleasing in its irony, it would be a mistake.

 

[SlipperySlope]

btw suggestion of new thread title: PoliGAF Thread of President Obama tryin' to check off his list

Or,
PoliGAF Thread of President Obama burying his list

He's nearing lame-duck status. Never thought it would happen so soon.

 

[gcubed]

Neither are hardly disqualifiers anymore these days. Being a fiscal conservative is far more attractive and important these days, than being a social conservative. Which, the good Lord willing, means I may not have to put up with Huckabee during every primary.

But again, if Brown is super smart and decides to play long ball, he'll quietly keep his head down and work for MA in the Senate. That may be tough because having tasted some success, some conservatives want more. For example, having Brown giving the SOFTU response. Pleasing in its irony, it would be a mistake.

i dont know, i'll believe it when i see it. Its doable on a local stage, but on a national stage i think there are enough social conservatives to squash his chances in primary

 

[turnbuckle]

If democrats drop health care as Barney Frank and others are suggesting, I'm not voting in November. If they at least try and it goes down in flames (maybe they change the bill a bit and see how long republicans filibuster), I'd vote. But right now it sounds like they're going to run to the hills to focus on "the economy" as if health care has nothing to do with it. And if that happens they don't deserve a single vote.

This is how I feel, but I'm not gonna give up. The only options are backing out altogether, vote along party lines hoping you'll put in a few democrats that are actually progressive, or switch teams .

I think TA put it best in a post a few pages back - that progressives are to the democrat party what libertarians are to the republican. Liberals vote democratic because, although the choices may not be liberal enough, we hope (albiet often falsely) that to get a more liberal agenda just as libertarians often vote republican because they hope they'll get something more fiscally conservative.

The problem here is that liberal is determined to be the fringe of the democratic party while conservative ostensibly defines the republican one. Anywho - if the lesson drawn from democrats is that they should shelve health care... they're going to get slaughtered worse than I could've imagined in the next election. Not only will they still not get support from conservatives, but they'll lose even more support from the people that voted them in in the first place. I do think that people appreciate it when politicians try to meet in the middle (nevermind me thinking that that is often just a recipe for inefficiency and ineffectiveness) but despite the concessions made in this Congress, the narrative that's getting across to most voters is one where the Democrats, not the Republicans, are being stubborn and dismissive.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No, our bet was whether or not reform would include a public option. If reform doesn't pass then we both lose. Either way, the bet was for a month, wasn't it?

Yes for a month.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Oh for fuck's sake. I guess the same can be applied to Reagan's first year in office considering he was framed to be a one-term president. :lol :lol

All I want is for health, financial, and energy reform done before Obama's first term is up. If he can get all those through, I'd be happy and wouldn't mind if he lost in 2012.

 

[platypotamus]

Well, like I said a week back or so, this kind of just moved the democrats into the position of dealing with no super majority now, rather than after 2010. Let's hope they do the right thing at some point (sooner rather than later, preferably) and kill that filibuster.

 

[Manmademan]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_other_health-care_reform_o.html

Eh so no cost controls, no addressing pre-existing condition bans, no increase in amount of time kids can stay on their parents' health care, nothing on prescription drugs? Dunno about that...

I guess they could have a separate bill on prescription bills though

I was listening to an NPR podcast this morning, someone seemed to feel a viable option would be to write a new bill in the house that could pass via reconciliation in the senate AND pass the senate bill unchanged at the same time: that way it would make alterations/amendments to the senate bill without actually altering the senate bill per se.

is this viable? I can't seem to find a flaw with it.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Oh for fuck's sake. I guess the same can be applied to Reagan's first year in office considering he was framed to be a one-term president. :lol :lol

All I want is for health, financial, and energy reform done before Obama's first term is up. If he can get all those through, I'd be happy and wouldn't mind if he lost in 2012.

Regan absolutely killed in 1980. He won almost every state.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Regan absolutely killed in 1980. He won almost every state.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ge1980.svg/800px-ElectoralCollege1980.svg.png

Are you fucking stupid? I said Reagan's FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE YOU HIPSTER DOOFUS.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Actually...

Republican ID tops out at 34% in a Rasmussen poll (which has shown slight bias toward that end for a while now) and doesn't come close to that number otherwise, leaners nonwithstanding.

Also, the simple fact that literally the entire rise in the Independent trendline has been at the expense of Democratic identification lends some credence to the idea that the Republicans are a fringe, at least moreso than the Dems.

I was speaking in a historical sense. Party ID numbers have always been about 30/30/30 for quite some time now. The Democrats of course enjoying the higher end of that 30 percentile. This past year has obviously been a low ebb for the Republicans, but as many here have noted, there are plenty of Independents that lean Republican that will come back once the right candidate is there.

I haven't quite bought into the narrative that Republicans are a dead end party that will eventually wither away over the upcoming decades.

 

[JoeBoy101]

i dont know, i'll believe it when i see it. Its doable on a local stage, but on a national stage i think there are enough social conservatives to squash his chances in primary

2008, I'd agree with you. 2010, fiscal policy will be king in the primaries. Huckabee better be boning up if he even wants to have a chance (which I hope he doesn't), and Romney futures are shooting up nicely. Still, though, 2 years out. Still plenty of time for more to happen and more figures to emerge on the national stage.

And hate to give the heartbreak, but Palin won't be running. She's got zero incentive to and more to lose.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I don't really agree with this assertion. 30 percent of America (give or take) identify themselves as a Republican. So, 1/3 of America is a fringe?

Another 30 percent of America (give or take) identifies themselves as Democrat. Yet, you admittedly say they are a fractured group or a hodge podge of seperate ideologies. Yet they are NOT a fringe?


There are many different factions in the Republican party also. But, for 40 years (!!) they were the minority group in this country. It's forced them to often set aside difference for the betterment of the party as a whole.

Fringe was a poor word choice on my part. Rather, if you aren't conservative socially, and if you aren't clamoring for a return to the days of Lochner, then you don't have a place in the party.

As for the Democrats, they cobbled this majority through winning independents via the big tent philosophy. It's a party composed of people like Russ Feingold, and folks like Ben Nelson, and up until a few years ago, Joe Lieberman. There isn't as strong of a "Progressives" only push among Dems as there is amongst the Reps for people with pure ideals.

As for party affiliation according to the most recent statistics I could find on gallup:

About 48% of Americans identified themselves as Democratic or leaning that way, and 42% Republican. However, let's be honest, that data is from 3 months ago, and enough has changed in that time span, that those numbers are probably way off now.

Still, both parties enjoy relatively broad support among Americans and as such can't really be labeled as fringe, which is a position where I suspect we will find agreement.

 

[Byakuya769]

Obama tells Senate not to 'jam' through healthcare plan

Mr Obama said he wanted to make clear that any plans by Democrats for a Senate vote on the reform plan before Mr Scott took up his seat were "off the table".
"The people of Massachusetts spoke he has got to be part of that process," he added.

Asked for his assessment of the Republican victory a year after taking office, President Obama told ABC: "The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office."
"People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because what has happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

Oh and here's a gem from Senator-elect Brown

"We already have 98% of our people insured here already in Massachusetts, so we do not need the plan that's being pushed upon us,"

... what can I say.

 

[PhoenixDark]

President Obama told ABC News today that the Senate will not attempt to pass health care reform before Sen.-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) is sworn in.

"Here's one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn't try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated," Obama said. "People in Massachusetts spoke. He's got to be part of that process."

He also urged people to look at the "substance" of the health care bill.

"It is very important to look at the substance of this package and for the American people to understand that a lot of the fear mongering around this bill isn't true," he said.

"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on. We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment ... Those are the core, some of the core elements of, to this bill," Obama said.

Asked about Obama's comments, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the White House still doesn't have a concrete plan on how to move forward with health care.

"There are a lot of different paths forward. We'll get an opportunity in the coming hours or days to know exactly what that path is," he said.

Democratic leaders said this morning they would not try to pass a merged health care bill before Brown is sworn in.

There are other options: The House could pass the Senate bill verbatim, and then lawmakers could make changes through a budget reconciliation process. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-MA), has suggested breaking the health care bill into smaller pieces of legislation and vote on them one by one.

Obama also said that his election and Brown's were the products of the same public sentiment.

"The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," he said. "People are angry, they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...ealth-care-before-brown-is-seated.php?ref=fpa

Marshall

At Least We're Clear on That

I went to lunch about an hour and a half ago and came back to learn the president has decided to throw in the towel. I guess we have our answer.

No leadership.

 

[besada]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html

The poll also upends the conventional understanding of health care's role in the election. A plurality of people who switched -- 48 -- and didn't vote -- 43 -- said that they opposed the Senate health care bill. But the poll dug deeper and asked people why they opposed it. Among Brown voters, 23 percent thought it went "too far" -- but 36 percent thought it didn't go far enough; 41 percent said they weren't sure why they opposed it.

 

[Tamanon]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...ealth-care-before-brown-is-seated.php?ref=fpa

Marshall


No leadership.

Technically, isn't that leadership, just not in the direction you want?

 

[RustyNails]

Oh Obama. You're always the optimist.

 

[The Librarian]

No leadership.

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...-walk-away-from-health-care-fight.php?ref=fpb

You were saying?

 

[mckmas8808]

If democrats drop health care as Barney Frank and others are suggesting, I'm not voting in November. If they at least try and it goes down in flames (maybe they change the bill a bit and see how long republicans filibuster), I'd vote. But right now it sounds like they're going to run to the hills to focus on "the economy" as if health care has nothing to do with it. And if that happens they don't deserve a single vote.

And you shouldn't vote either. Fuck the DEMs if they let healthcare die just because they ONLY have 59 Senators in their caucus.

They deserve to lose the HOUSE and the Senate.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

In 1984, independents voted 2-1 for Reagan over Mondale. LBJ held a similiar advantage over Goldwater in 1964. Didn't Bush also have more independent voters over Gore in 2000? In 2004, Kerry clearly had the lead with independent voters, and Obama carried Kerry's independent votes.

 

[JoeBoy101]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...ealth-care-before-brown-is-seated.php?ref=fpa

Marshall


No leadership.

PD, the politics on this makes sense, putting aside the fact that its the right thing to do. The cost to the Democrats and Obama politically for pushing the bill through now or trying to stall Brown taking the seat is not worth it. Especially considering that they can't guarantee that they can push it through right now. If they try to stall Brown or push it through before he takes the seat, and fail, it will look even worse than if they hadn't tried.

Better to take the bitter pill and deal with the situation.

 

[ultim8p00]

I just want whatever is left of health reform to pass, then maybe we can try to fix it again later on. There is no time to start over.

 

[Y2Kev]

Yeah, they always send Axelrod out to damage control.

 

[itsinmyveins]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html

If true, that's gotta be sort of infuriating for a lot of people backing the reform. I'd at least assume that most people would have latched on to some type of nonsensical talking point they've heard.

 

[besada]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/cindy-mccain-noh8-photo-m_n_430004.html

Whoda thunk Cindy McCain would be more willing to stand up fro the GLBT communty than the Prez?

The world is weird and wonderful, folks.

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmem...-walk-away-from-health-care-fight.php?ref=fpb

You were saying?

I'd rather have my president come out strong and say that himself, as well as give some idea on the direction he thinks we should head in. Instead of sending Axelrod and Gibbs out for damage control. Instead we've had hours of democrats eating themselves.

 

[Particle Physicist]

"We already have 98% of our people insured here already in Massachusetts, so we do not need the plan that's being pushed upon us,"

... what can I say.

Wow. We already have an awesome healthcare plan, fuck the other states!

 

[mckmas8808]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/the_other_health-care_reform_o.html

Eh so no cost controls, no addressing pre-existing condition bans, no increase in amount of time kids can stay on their parents' health care, nothing on prescription drugs? Dunno about that...

I guess they could have a separate bill on prescription bills though

That's what any bill will look like that would go through reconciliation. Glad someone pointed out what that will really look like.

 

[Aaron Strife]

this whole thing just breaks my heart

 

[Y2Kev]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/20/obama-backers-more-commit_n_429673.html

Also interesting:

In a somewhat paradoxical finding, a plurality of voters who switched to the Republican -- 37 percent -- said that Democrats were not being "hard enough" in challenging Republican policies.

 

[besada]

Also interesting:

Yep. I believe people don't like weak leadership, even if they agree with them. We like strong leaders, even when they're bad leaders. History is rife with that particular scenario.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Also interesting:

People are retarded. Confirmed.