And on the topic of the thread, here is the NYT opinion on the 'nuclear option' in the narrow scope it was applied, back in 2005
A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.
If any individual feels they are negatively affected by Obamacare( cancelled policy, increased premiums, increased deductions, increased copays, decreased choice in doctors, etc ), that will be on their mind when they vote.
and for the masses, especially the minority populations, do you really believe the GOP offers them a better alternative than the democrats? only an amazing republican presidential candidate could do that. and i do not see that person on our political horizon