Republicans mount shock comeback, erase Democrats’ edge in eyes of Americans

Conservative said:

Tell that to the 4.5 million who had their policies cancelled that Obama now wants to have reinstated.

Click to expand...

Looks like they will have thier policies reinstated. Win win. No?

Conservative said:

Since I don't live in Va, quite frankly I don't give a damn about what happened there. The people of Va. are getting exactly what they deserve and you are going to get exactly what you deserve with Obama for another 3 years. Thankfully I live in TX

Amazing how you are projecting 2014 elections now

Click to expand...

Texas will turn blue soon too. It's as inevitable as those polar caps melting.

calamity said:

Looks like they will have thier policies reinstated. Win win. No?

Click to expand...

Most states have a 60-day notice period before allowing a new policy back on the market. So it will probably take anywhere from 60-120 days before the policies are available for purchase again.

However, the exchanges are all but required to suck in those 4.5 million consumers this year, to keep the pool healthy, and without them, expect sticker shock on the exchange in Sep/Oct of 2014.

haymarket said:

Yup. And the move to the elements of the welfare state began after the Great Depression hit in 1929 with Republicans firmly in control rpeaching unrestrained capitalism producing its inevitable winners and losers.

With the USA as a strong Christian nation- it was part of the very Gilded Age ethic which created the modern Republican Party that you are going to have losers. The only remaining question is what do we do with the losers --- especially when there are so many of them? When you have a third of the nation - il fed, ill housed, ill clothed and without proper medical care it is a recipe that we know only too well what dish it produces. The French found that out. Russian found that out. And we did not want it to happen here so we adopted elements of the welfare state as pacification for the lower classes to prevent revolution and destruction of the system and the wealthy.

Click to expand...

Never let a crisis go to waste, eh?

Unitedwestand13 said:

peoples lives should not be dictated by how much they are worth in monetary value.

what is worse in your opinion? Burning 100,000 dollars in a furnace, or 100,000 people? both are illegal, but which should be considered the greater tragedy.

Click to expand...

What the hell does that have to do with 4.5 million Americans losing their health insurance because Obama says the plans don't meet Obamacare requirements? Since when is it up to the Govt. to tell a private citizen what personal responsibility expense they should have? You don't see a problem with that? My bet is you wouldn't be too keen on the Federal govt. under a Republican President telling you what you need to spend your money on.

calamity said:

Looks like they will have thier policies reinstated. Win win. No?

Click to expand...

And Obamacare collapses under its own weight as there aren't enough people purchasing policies to make it feasible.

calamity said:

Texas will turn blue soon too. It's as inevitable as those polar caps melting.

Click to expand...

Your opinion noted. Amazing what an expert you are on the state of TX. Been reading leftwing sites again?

reinoe said:

Republicans have always been much better than Dems in the game of politics.

Click to expand...

But not at TRYING to insure the poor--the GOP is now the pre-exemptors

Conservative said:

What the hell does that have to do with 4.5 million Americans losing their health insurance because Obama says the plans don't meet Obamacare requirements? Since when is it up to the Govt. to tell a private citizen what personal responsibility expense they should have? You don't see a problem with that? My bet is you wouldn't be too keen on the Federal govt. under a Republican President telling you what you need to spend your money on.

Click to expand...

is there a moral responsibility for the insurance company to give a damn about the people who they supply policies to?

polgara said:

If you have time, please keep us current on what is really happening...those of us who have to rely on the biased MSM don't always get the true story...but what else is new?

Click to expand...

Cuccinelli was an unpopular candidate. Part of it was understandable, part of it was exacerbated by the McAulife campaign's messaging. While Virginia is definitely a socially red state outside of the NOVA area, it's never seemed to be one that likes a ton of huge focus on social issues. The "anti-women" messaging with Cuccinelli worked; in large part because he made his career focusing on social issues despite not making it a huge part of his campaign. There was a lot of fodder for the TM campaign to utilize. My mother's actually a great example of this....she's FAR more towards the right than me, especially on social issues (where as my father is more of a libertarian hawk). Even she wasn't a fan of KC and basically indicated a desire to hold her nose and vote for him. I saw her more excited to vote for McCain in '08 than KC in '12.

She's hardly the only person like this I know in the state. I have a friend whose been part of the VA GOP establishment since a very young age in support roles, and from all I can gather KC was a VERY polarizing figure even in those circles based on how he acted, how he campaigned, etc.

I did not see, nor get the feeling, of significant "tea party" angst towards KC. Rather, outside of the media and a few ads towards the end of the campaign, I didn't even hear the Tea Party talked about with him a ton. KC became viewed more in the vein of "social conservatives" than "Tea partiers".

McAulife's campaign massively outspent KC; I believe it was somewhere close to 10 to 1. The media campaign hit early, and often, and buried KC. The narrative QUICKLY became one of social issues, and that was more the doing of the Democrats in terms of the campaign than Republicans. The TM campaign focused on a "Social radical" and "anti-women" narrative of KC that he wasn't able to shake both because it was rooted at least partially in fact (though arguably spun and exaggerated) and because the financial disparity was too much.

McAulife, also, was hardly a well liked figure. An out of state guy, close with the Clintons, with no significant experience in politics other than fundraising. This was a case where BOTH candidates weren't exactly well liked. As such, it largely came down to exterior factors. Those factors would be:

1. Scandal - The former Governor was embroiled in a gift scandal that also touched upon Cuccinelli. This had been going on for some time before the election and kind of started things off on poor ground for the Republicans.

2. The Government Shutdown - This was undoubtably a huge factor. 50% of the state blamed Republicans for the shutdown, and undoubtably a large portion of that 50% were situated in the Northern Virginia area. This has exponentially became the highest populated area of the state, and traditionally leans somewhat more left than right in general. More than any other area, outside of Maryland, Virginia's northern reaches were hit the hardest by the shut down. This was a MAJOR impact to their lives just a month earlier. Not only did this cement a very anti-republican mentality, it also created an angry and thus motivated voting base. I work in a law enforcement agency with a number of co-workers that are clear (even though never explicitly stated for understandable reasons) Republicans who were apt to either stand home out of anger towards the Republicans OR even vote Democrat because of how upset they were with the shutdown. I doubt this was an isolated thing

3. The Obamacare "keep your insurance" fiasco. KC managed to spend the last bit of his money during the last week to two week focusing on the Obamacare message and his staunch defense of it. Prior to this point he was down massively in the polls, but this is probably a large reason he was able to close some of the difference by the time the election came.

4. The Libertarian candidate. There's a lot of questions floating around about this candidate. KC won more independents than TM, and the largest amount of support for Sarvis was independents. At the same time, while moderates were the highest ideology supporting Sarvis, there were more liberals than conservatives supporting him. So it's hard to say for sure where those votes would've gone, but both sides could make an argument that it could've swayed the election either completely or making an already small margin all the more razor thin. Not to mention, after years of watching third party candidates essentially "spoil" elections (perot, nader, etc) there's the potential for a dampening effect in turnout for the side that assumes it's going to "spoil" their guy...especially when their guy was already way behind in the polls.

5. Finally, as I said...Money. You can't ignore the amazing money disparity and act like that didn't have a huge factor in the race.

I'd say that all five of those factors were of a larger consequence in this election than Cuccinelli's notion of being related to the "tea party" and are equal with his issues on Social matters largely because the Democrats were so successful (understandably and intelligently so) at forcing that issue massively into the campaign.

calamity said:

Except the Democrats are no longer socialists...

Click to expand...

ROTFLOL... now that's funny.

How much has Obama and his party spent?
How many programs have these former Socialists cut or started to eliminate? ROTFLOL...
What is this forcing people out of their healthcare contracts and telling them what they need?
How much wealth has been spread around?

Quite the "comeback"... and look at what each party accomplished. The Democrats pushed through legislation that is a first step towards single payer and eventually will be working fine guaranteeing almost everyone insurance and hopefully overall better healthcare. The Republicans shutdown the government costing 25 billion was it? And stomped their feet, made a big fuss, slit their own throat.

Who is supposed to be proud of what now?

Unitedwestand13 said:

is there a moral responsibility for the insurance company to give a damn about the people who they supply policies to?

Click to expand...

Insurance companies actually let people buy the coverage they wanted and needed. The government wants to FORCE you to purchase coverage that has absolutely nothing to do with you, and FORCE you to subsidize healthcare for others.

Meanwhile, that same governing body chooses not to partake in its own system.

Now, what were you saying about moral responsibilities?

Never mind. You've been so owned today in these threads, I'm going to give you a pass. I commend you for being the lone liberal who had the nads to show up.

As I drive with Sirius radio, I must note that GOP Congressman Fred Upton is owned by Blue Cross Blue Shield--who would have known--another GOP whore owned exclusively by corporate welfare .

calamity said:

Why would you run an unpopular candidate against McAulife? That's just it. GOP--too stupid to win easy elections.

Click to expand...

Cuccinelli managed to get the nomination by a series of procedural moves in all honesty, thanks to some significant internal turmoil with the Virginia GOP...which is one of the things that helped contribute to making Cuccinelli's negative impression on many republicans in the state. Bolling the former Lt. Governor, seemed a LOCK for the nomination even if it went to primary. However, with new members on the party's committee making decisions regarding primaries, a vote occurred that changed it to a convention instead of primary which greatly benefited KC...Bolling was the more popular state wide Republican, but KC had more fervent supporters and specifically more that were actively involved in the VA GOP establishment that would likely actually travel for such things. Rather than fighting an uphill battle, Bolling ended up pulling out just a few days prior to the convention...giving little real shot for someone else to step forward.

This was an issue of one politician procedurally outmaneuvering another, stubbornly attempting to utilize the party structure at the expense of the party. It's unfortunate, and it didn't help matters, but this was more an issue of an unpopular person getting the nomination than some kind of "rejection" of Republicans or Republican view points as you and others have tried to push forward.

Unitedwestand13 said:

is there a moral responsibility for the insurance company to give a damn about the people who they supply policies to?

Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you buy the Obama rhetoric that the health insurance companies weren't giving the people what they wanted? Where is that a govt. responsibility and where does it stop? Moral responsibility? Who says the policies these people had weren't what they wanted or needed?

Conservative said:

Sounds to me like you buy the Obama rhetoric that the health insurance companies weren't giving the people what they wanted? Where is that a govt. responsibility and where does it stop? Moral responsibility? Who says the policies these people had weren't what they wanted or needed?

Click to expand...

It stops at the Mountain Top, brother Conservative..And I have never received a cent from the gov't. unless you count being an Air Force Brat and using base hospitals as welfare, which we were slammed on during the 60's and 70's for .

NIMBY said:

It stops at the Mountain Top, brother Conservative..And I have never received a cent from the gov't. unless you count being an Air Force Brat and using base hospitals as welfare, which we were slammed on during the 60's and 70's for .

Click to expand...

How about answering the question?

Conservative said:

What the hell does that have to do with 4.5 million Americans losing their health insurance because Obama says the plans don't meet Obamacare requirements? Since when is it up to the Govt. to tell a private citizen what personal responsibility expense they should have? You don't see a problem with that? My bet is you wouldn't be too keen on the Federal govt. under a Republican President telling you what you need to spend your money on.

Click to expand...

It certainly violates every standard of common decency I can think of to tell someone what insurance they are allowed to buy. I regard people as morally entitled to choose what kind of insurance they wish to buy and I consider it downright criminal for the government to violate this. It's a stupid and vicious law, in my opinion.

Green Man said:

Never let a crisis go to waste, eh?

Click to expand...

Serving the needs of the American people and promoting the general welfare.

haymarket said:

Serving the needs of the American people and promoting the general welfare.

Click to expand...

Yeah, take that American Taxpayers, we at the govt. know what is best for you and you aren't capable of making that decision on your own!

Conservative said:

Your opinion noted. Amazing what an expert you are on the state of TX. Been reading leftwing sites again?

Click to expand...

Nope. Just good at math while having a firm grasp on the concept of shifting demographics. Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Austin and El Paso all voted Blue. And, all of them have populations which are growing much faster than those in the sticks.

haymarket said:

Serving the needs of the American people and promoting the general welfare.

Click to expand...

james madsion--Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.

james madsion--“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

calamity said:

Nope. Just good at math while having a firm grasp on the concept of shifting demographics. Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, Austin and El Paso all voted Blue. And, all of them have populations which are growing much faster than those in the sticks.

Click to expand...

It will shock you to know that there are more Hispanic conservatives in this state than you are willing to acknowledge. Your opinion noted but the actual map of TX doesn't show what you think it does. Houston was 49-49 and has a conservative mayor who happens to be a Lesbian Democrat. 57% of the Texas vote went to Romney.

Texas Election Results 2012 - Map, County Results, Live Updates - POLITICO.com

It is being proven in this state that Hispanics aren't as dumb as liberals want to portray them

Sherman123 said:

Imagine how much more impactful a strong Republican move against the ACA would have been if we hadn't behaved so foolishly before, during, and in the immediate aftermath of the shutdown.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the unified vote against ACA, the 41 votes to repeal it, and the shutdown itself all look like brilliant politics now. eace