• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems not worried about post-vote backlash at home

jackalope said:
I think you're right, and I think in this way: It will be wildly popular, improved upon and expanded upon, and Republican uniform obstruction and opposition will be remembered.
Click to expand...
This is also what Harry Reid said, it overestimates the actual good this bill can do, which is minimal and underestimates the economic and social damage it has the ability to do, which well overshadows the one or two things that might be of some minimal benefit. That being said, this bill is unpopular, and will cause a rage in the general populace not seen in at least a century.
 
LaMidRighter said:
This is also what Harry Reid said, it overestimates the actual good this bill can do, which is minimal and underestimates the economic and social damage it has the ability to do, which well overshadows the one or two things that might be of some minimal benefit. That being said, this bill is unpopular, and will cause a rage in the general populace not seen in at least a century.
Click to expand...


That is the essence of the Republican argument. I don't buy it.
 
jackalope said:
I think you're right, and I think in this way: It will be wildly popular, improved upon and expanded upon, and Republican uniform obstruction and opposition will be remembered.
Click to expand...

sure, a 30 point swing in popularity by november

with the benefits all back loaded

get real
 
Dav said:
Doesn't change the fact that it in no way "energized" them. In fact, it pretty much did the opposite.

You are also forgetting about independents, who were overwhelmingly against the bill.
Click to expand...

I think you would be surprised at how adamant the left is for health care reform, even when amongst ourselves we cannot decide what reforms we want. Reform is important to us. I think you strongly underestimate how much this does energize us, even if we don't 100 % agree with the bill.

Independents are, as best I can tell, mostly not going to vote on this issue. I see independents voting the economy much moreso than liberals or conservatives, which is why I see the economy being the issue come election time, and it's much too early to say what the economy will be like come November. It's important to remember that just because you support or oppose a bill does not mean you are going to vote based on that bill. Some people vote based on gun rights, or a desire for gun restrictions, whereas others(like myself), while having a position on the issue, would never actually base my vote on that issue.
 
jackalope said:
That is the essence of the Republican argument. I don't buy it.
Click to expand...
I'll expand. No pre-existing conditions, that is a great goal, but, the problem is that everyone in the pool(coverage) will now have to pay for the cost increases that are incurred by covering very expensive chronic problems. Everyone must buy insurance or register for the government plan, on it's face it stinks of unconstitutionality, when you really get into details it is kind of like a large group policy because there are no pre-existing conditions.....here's the rub, if you are an unhealthy individual, as with group, this is a great deal for you, but, if you could do better with an individual policy, your price isn't as good, and all the while, you are still paying more taxes out of your gross earnings to fund the "public option", even if you have private coverage. Rationing and waiting lists, let's face it, that will happen, it hasn't failed to be a factor in any UHC system of the size and scope that this nation would have. etc. Anything else I will be happy to expand on.
 
the independent swell in virginia and new jersey just 2 months ago was pointedly anti obama

mcdonnell ran an almost national campaign---focusing on cap and trade, health care, taxes and debt, card check

the only state issue that reached prominence was commuter concerns in the north

in jersey, obama was at corzine's side constantly and the billionaire former goldman sachs ceo associated himself with the president about as much as a candidate can

independents swung something like 30 points towards red between jan 20 and nov 3, it was the big story out of those crucial states

the tea party, according to nbc two weeks ago, polls ahead of both dems and reds, 41 to 35 to 28

the independents are speaking very loudly

one must be whistling awful loud not to hear

seniors are even more incensed

as far as the energy on the left, another lesson out of virginia and jersey was the sapping of the youth and african american vote

THIS BILL is hated at large, those STRONGLY opposed exceed 50%

it's symbolic of the party's approach and aspirations

it's really, really gonna hurt

ben nelson is down THIRTY ONE points in nebraska

dorgan trails by TWENTY TWO in dakota

dodd is dead

reid, INCUMBENT SPEAKER, trails to little red wannabe's by half a dozen

lincoln, specter, bennett of colorado, biden's seat in delaware---DEM INCUMBENTS---SENATORS---in that much trouble

you think health care isn't what's going on?

forgive me---LOL!
 
Redress said:
I think you would be surprised at how adamant the left is for health care reform, even when amongst ourselves we cannot decide what reforms we want. Reform is important to us. I think you strongly underestimate how much this does energize us, even if we don't 100 % agree with the bill.
Click to expand...

Except that there is no "us". Liberals are NOT a uniform group, and they disagree with each other on this bill. While some liberals are okay with the final bill, many liberals were energized in the opposite direction; MoveOn.org campaigned to get liberal Senators to vote AGAINST the reform. Seeing as liberals are only 20% of the population, the fact that so many of them are so disenchanted with the bill, while conservatives are uniformly opposed to the bill, and strongly so, is not a good sign for Democrats.

Independents are, as best I can tell, mostly not going to vote on this issue. I see independents voting the economy much moreso than liberals or conservatives, which is why I see the economy being the issue come election time, and it's much too early to say what the economy will be like come November. It's important to remember that just because you support or oppose a bill does not mean you are going to vote based on that bill. Some people vote based on gun rights, or a desire for gun restrictions, whereas others(like myself), while having a position on the issue, would never actually base my vote on that issue.
Click to expand...

According to Gallup, about two-thirds of the population say that the health care vote will affect how they vote in 2010. Other polls I've seen has put that number even higher. Argue with these numbers all you want, but they reflect common sense. It is crazy to think that such a huge, unpopular bill wouldn't affect people's votes. It won't be the only factor, sure, but it'll have an effect regardless.
 
LaMidRighter said:
Last I checked, it aint doing so well, ever since the Dems took office in '06.
Click to expand...

LEt me give you a clue.....GWB and the Repubs had driven our economy into the ground waaaaay before that. Oh...and most signs indicate that the economy is on the rebound. I hope that is true.
 
Dav said:
No offense but you're showing a profound ignorance of local politics here. The fact is that most of those blue-dog Democrats who "act like Republicans" (which isn't true to begin with, but never mind that) are elected in Republican-leaning districts. If they weren't so moderate, they would fail to be elected and a Republican would win instead. The Democrats need those blue-dogs.

You might be interested in this; Nate Silver calculates the "most valuable" and "least valuable" Democrats to the Democratic Party as a whole:
FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: 2009's Most Valuable Democrat Is...
Click to expand...

No....I am aware of that. I understand the need for Bluedogs....however, when Bluedogs only act like Republicans....whats the difference?
 
disneydude said:
LEt me give you a clue.....GWB and the Repubs had driven our economy into the ground waaaaay before that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, no that's not even close to correct. Let me give you the answer, the problems started way before the last 20 years and even before the 1970's, but the bad policies of about 39 years or so have really exacerbated things, it is a bi-partisan problem with no current solutions, overreach in federal programs and regulations are the beginning, the economics of the last 40 years have created false economies, i.e. bubbles that tend to burst on a pretty regular basis. Unlike you I analyze these things constantly for....you know......my profession and it's future, but please don't let that stop you from your partisan "Bush bad" rant. Hate to break it to you, but politicians and their ideas suck on a bi-partisan basis, and both sides have contributed to this.
Oh...and most signs indicate that the economy is on the rebound. I hope that is true.
Click to expand...
It isn't, every gain day is negated by two loss days, while the Dow is back to about 10k it isn't solidly there, the gains aren't what they were and there still isn't a whole lot of hiring, I also hope the indices are correct, but there are signs of a double-dip recession in the wings as well.
Click to expand...
 
Dav said:
Except that there is no "us". Liberals are NOT a uniform group, and they disagree with each other on this bill. While some liberals are okay with the final bill, many liberals were energized in the opposite direction; MoveOn.org campaigned to get liberal Senators to vote AGAINST the reform. Seeing as liberals are only 20% of the population, the fact that so many of them are so disenchanted with the bill, while conservatives are uniformly opposed to the bill, and strongly so, is not a good sign for Democrats.
Click to expand...

We are not a uniform, homogenized group, no. However, we pretty much all agree on the need for health care reform, and outside of a few fringe elements, realize that some reform is better than none.



According to Gallup, about two-thirds of the population say that the health care vote will affect how they vote in 2010. Other polls I've seen has put that number even higher. Argue with these numbers all you want, but they reflect common sense. It is crazy to think that such a huge, unpopular bill wouldn't affect people's votes. It won't be the only factor, sure, but it'll have an effect regardless.
Click to expand...

It's what is in the news right now. By summer, it won't be in the news, the economy still will be, and it is what most people will vote on.
 
by summer everyone will forget

LOL!

such a powerful position

so revealing a concession
 
The Prof said:
by summer everyone will forget

LOL!

such a powerful position

so revealing a concession
Click to expand...

Hi, what a powerful misrepresentation of what I said. Good job, keep up the good work.
 
Redress said:
We are not a uniform, homogenized group, no. However, we pretty much all agree on the need for health care reform, and outside of a few fringe elements, realize that some reform is better than none.
Click to expand...

That's a bit ridiculous, since "reform" is just a word for change and unless people think that the current system is the very worst theoretically possible system, they wouldn't just back any reform for the sole reason of backing a reform; and if they do, then frankly they don't have many brains. The liberals who oppose the bill might be in the minority of liberals, but they're hardly in the fringe. And even those who did appreciate it as a modest improvement are hardly "energized" by it to the same extent that its opponents are.

It's what is in the news right now. By summer, it won't be in the news, the economy still will be, and it is what most people will vote on.
Click to expand...

That's not what happened in 1994. People's memories aren't as short-term as you're giving them credit for.

Redress said:
Hi, what a powerful misrepresentation of what I said. Good job, keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

That basically is what you said.
 
maureen dowd is certainly energized, holy cow

obama can't find his pulse, she explains:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1

some of the saltier sallies from ms dowd's piece:

the bribes and pork in his hallmark legislation

the secrecy

the expanded executive privilege

doubling down in afghanistan while pretending to get out

(this is all ms dowd talking, mind you)

a nigerian with powder in his pants, a syringe with acid, who's own father fingered him, pays with cash, carries no luggage, the brits pulled his visa, who learned arabic in yemen and is on a watch list---if you can't catch him, who can you catch, complains the catwoman

she keeps calling obama, spock

in his usual uninspiring, listless way

(read the op ed if you want, i'm just trying to save you time)

he should at least SEEM concerned, considers dowd

flying by the seat of his pants

had to admit what napolitano denied

i'll quote her conclusion direct:

In his detached way, Spock was letting us know that our besieged starship was not speeding into a safer new future, and that we still have to be scared.

Heck of a job, Barry.
Click to expand...

wow, that seems rather harsh

especially considering the source

a week ago william daley came out against obama, just as hard

time for choosing, daley declared, obama's way or survival

dean broder echoed daley days later, specifically calling for the president to heed daley's advice

i saw it before when der speigel, after the asia trip, headlined, "obama's nice guy act gets him nowhere on the world stage"

the next day, cfr, the council on foreign relations, put out a piece on the same topic, obama's meetings with hu, titled, "amateur hour at the white house"

keith olbermann bellowed he would cancel his health care and go to jail before buying govt mandated private insurance

and now dowd

there's no denying, the president has lost a great deal of influence

sure, the left is all amped up for obama

meet virginia
 
Last edited:
The Prof said:
maureen dowd is certainly energized, holy cow

obama can't find his pulse, she explains:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/30/opinion/30dowd.html?_r=1

some of the saltier sallies from ms dowd's piece:

the bribes and pork in his hallmark legislation

the secrecy

the expanded executive privilege

doubling down in afghanistan while pretending to get out

(this is all ms dowd talking, mind you)

a nigerian with powder in his pants, a syringe with acid, who's own father fingered him, pays with cash, carries no luggage, the brits pulled his visa, who learned arabic in yemen and is on a watch list---if you can't catch him, who can you catch, complains the catwoman

she keeps calling obama, spock

in his usual uninspiring, listless way

(read the op ed if you want, i'm just trying to save you time)

he should at least SEEM concerned, considers dowd

flying by the seat of his pants

had to admit what napolitano denied

i'll quote her conclusion direct:



wow, that seems rather harsh

especially considering the source

a week ago william daley came out against obama, just as hard

time for choosing, daley declared, obama's way or survival

dean broder echoed daley days later, specifically calling for the president to heed daley's advice

i saw it before when der speigel, after the asia trip, headlined, "obama's nice guy act gets him nowhere on the world stage"

the next day, cfr, the council on foreign relations, put out a piece on the same topic, obama's meetings with hu, titled, "amateur hour at the white house"

keith olbermann bellowed he would cancel his health care and go to jail before buying govt mandated private insurance

and now dowd

there's no denying, the president has lost a great deal of influence

sure, the left is all amped up for obama

meet virginia
Click to expand...

LOL,LOL,LOL. :2wave:
 
ben nelson trails dave heineman by THIRTY ONE points

that's a lotta hell to pay
 
ConservaBill said:
I disagree.. There WOULD be great harm in doing so...

We conservatives are fully involved and we are taking back the Republican party, so that we can rid our party of progressives and castrate the socialist agenda.... sans anesthesia!

Socialism (progressivism) is STILL the enemy of freedom and liberty and WE are taking the fight to them in 2010!

Pick a side folks .. it's going to be an interesting year in the old US of A! :2wave:
Click to expand...

So long as it is true conservativism and now what the Republicans have given us for the past decade, I am with you. However, as of right now, BOTH parties have been screwing the country blind.
 
The Prof said:
by summer everyone will forget

LOL!

such a powerful position

so revealing a concession
Click to expand...

Its more like....

KEEP!

Up


the

GOOD

Work....

I

Don't

KNOW ]

how


to

write


without

one

line

sentences....

:doh
 
Dav said:
That's a bit ridiculous, since "reform" is just a word for change and unless people think that the current system is the very worst theoretically possible system, they wouldn't just back any reform for the sole reason of backing a reform; and if they do, then frankly they don't have many brains. The liberals who oppose the bill might be in the minority of liberals, but they're hardly in the fringe. And even those who did appreciate it as a modest improvement are hardly "energized" by it to the same extent that its opponents are.
Click to expand...

There are real, concrete bits of reform tucked in this package that most of us think will improve things. More people covered and no exception for pre-existing conditions are both big gains. You spin and misrepresent.

That's not what happened in 1994. People's memories aren't as short-term as you're giving them credit for.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to understand what happened in 94. A combination of republicans having a powerful message, and a president and congress who had raised taxes where the large part of the 94 elections.

That basically is what you said.
Click to expand...

No, actually it's not. Sorry the complex message went over your head.
 
Redress said:
There are real, concrete bits of reform tucked in this package that most of us think will improve things. More people covered and no exception for pre-existing conditions are both big gains. You spin and misrepresent.
Click to expand...

How do you pay for 30,000,000 new people, and where ya gonna get the doctors to treat them?


Redress said:
You do not seem to understand what happened in 94. A combination of republicans having a powerful message, and a president and congress who had raised taxes where the large part of the 94 elections.
Click to expand...
Keep tellin yourself that. Up until about 3 years ago, everyone KNEW '94 was about the GOP riding public sentiment and anger at an over reaching Dem administration.

Now that Obamacare is coming, suddenly '94 really didn't mean that at all...

RIGHT.
 
**** The difference between now and 1994 is that we are even more polarized as a Nation. Also in 1993/94 a Democrat Majority could (under some circumstances) say no to a sitting Democrat President (Clinton) or at least stall things quietly . Now an absolute emotional advantage exists for Obama. He has a higher ratio in Congress of White Liberals and he's had 30 years of practice of being able to handle them.
 
Redress said:
There are real, concrete bits of reform tucked in this package that most of us think will improve things. More people covered and no exception for pre-existing conditions are both big gains. You spin and misrepresent.
Click to expand...

I don't think you seem to understand the difference between your personal opinion and the opinion of liberals in general. Just because you think it's a good bill doesn't mean that the vast majority of liberals agree with you. A majority might agree with you, but it's not vast. Not to mention, as I've already said, how few liberals there are compared to conservatives in the first place. More importantly, even the people who support the bill aren't nearly as energized by it as those who oppose it, a point I already made several times which you seem to consistently ignore.

You do not seem to understand what happened in 94. A combination of republicans having a powerful message, and a president and congress who had raised taxes where the large part of the 94 elections.
Click to expand...

And the health care bill. Sorry but to say that that had nothing to do with it would be to revise history as almost everyone has accepted it. Republicans might have won a lot of seats even without the health care bill; they wouldn't have won such a huge amount of seats without it.

No, actually it's not. Sorry the complex message went over your head.
Click to expand...

People won't think about the health care bill when they vote, even though they say they will now? There is no possible way for that not to imply a horrible short-term memory among Americans.
 
Dav said:
I don't think you seem to understand the difference between your personal opinion and the opinion of liberals in general. Just because you think it's a good bill doesn't mean that the vast majority of liberals agree with you. A majority might agree with you, but it's not vast. Not to mention, as I've already said, how few liberals there are compared to conservatives in the first place. More importantly, even the people who support the bill aren't nearly as energized by it as those who oppose it, a point I already made several times which you seem to consistently ignore.
Click to expand...

My personal opinion is the bill could be a lot better by doing less. I am not talking to my personal opinion, but to what I see as the opinions of the left more generally. You also make the mistake of thinking since we are not out in the street protesting, this means we are less energized. This is not true. Dissent always looks more energetic by it's nature.


And the health care bill. Sorry but to say that that had nothing to do with it would be to revise history as almost everyone has accepted it. Republicans might have won a lot of seats even without the health care bill; they wouldn't have won such a huge amount of seats without it.
Click to expand...

What health care bill? Was there ever a bill actually in congress, or was it just discussions? Trust me, when the 94 elections happened, the two big topics where the contract with America and taxes. Health care was a minor topic.

People won't think about the health care bill when they vote, even though they say they will now? There is no possible way for that not to imply a horrible short-term memory among Americans.
Click to expand...

Again, I did not say that. The important topic will be the economy for most people. Health care will be a much lessor topic.
 
Redress said:
My personal opinion is the bill could be a lot better by doing less. I am not talking to my personal opinion, but to what I see as the opinions of the left more generally. You also make the mistake of thinking since we are not out in the street protesting, this means we are less energized. This is not true. Dissent always looks more energetic by it's nature.
Click to expand...

Voter Attitudes Towards Health Care Plan Harden - 58% Opposed - Rasmussen Reports

The new figures include 19% who Strongly Favor the plan and 46% who Strongly Oppose it.
Click to expand...

Of course, that poll only reflects the common knowledge which everyone except you seems to have accepted.

What health care bill? Was there ever a bill actually in congress, or was it just discussions? Trust me, when the 94 elections happened, the two big topics where the contract with America and taxes. Health care was a minor topic.
Click to expand...

It was a big deal, and pretty much everyone but you accepts that it had at least some impact on the 1994 elections.

Again, I did not say that. The important topic will be the economy for most people. Health care will be a much lessor topic.
Click to expand...

Of course you did not say it. You implied it, even though you probably didn't intend to. You still have not explained how what you said could possibly not imply it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom