Health Care Law Support for Repeal of Health Care Plan Up To 58%

What does this poll mean?

Well, for one, it means that displeasure with this bill is rising. Indpistuable really. Its gone from 54% to 58%. Why? Hard to say. It could be people, once it passed, actually finally listening to some of the complaints about it. It could be people who were deluded about it thinking they were going to be getting free health care once it came into play and when they didn't then they got mad. It could be a number of other things.

What affect will it have?

Hard to say really. The affects for this coming year's elections can probably be guested better than 2012. If this trend continues, even if it slows, then I'd say its likely to be a bad sign for Democrats. That said, likely not AS big of a sign as some Republicans may be hoping and gambling on as I believe that a portion of that percentage are people who want it over turned to get something like a single payer plan into place and thus are still more likely to vote Democrat in the 2010 elections. If this number starts to reverse but stays above 40% I think it'll be a net wash. If it falls under 40% then its trouble for Republicans. Ultimately though I think its going to be one of many metrics this election will hinge on, the Economy being an even bigger one.

I think 2012 is going to be a lot more hazy. I think how big of an issue this is come 2012 is going to matter hugely on what happens in 2010. If the Republicans get enough people to take over one of the two houses of Congress and can go into 2012 with a good outline for their reform/replace portion of their "Repeal - Reform - Replace" plan then it could be helpful. If they fizzle out in 2010 or can't put forth a good plan going into 2012 then I think it'll be a non-starter for sure.

Why does this poll matter? Do any of you really think all these people read the bill? Do you trust pundits and politicians enough to tell you the truth about what's in the bill?

Taylor said:

I believe that when she says "cite polls" she means she doesn't bring them to the thread. See for example all of her responses in this thread:

You'll see the common element is that she "responds to other peoples polls" - THAT'S the defense - not some implied "you don't change laws based on polls" reasoning. (Hell, show me anyone that believes we should change laws simply based on polls!)

Of course "citing" a poll simply means you use it to bolster your argument (whether or not someone else mentioned it first). Texmaster has clearly showed instances where she cited polls.

(Are we really talking about her like she's not here? :nails :duel)

Click to expand...

Exactly. But that keeps getting ignored.

Zyphlin said:

Not really, look at the first response to Tex:



Note the shock and intrigue. Notice how the counter she used to his statements ONLY works if she's countering it based on her assertion that you don't change laws based on polls.

If Redress had meant "I don't cite polls, ever" then what she said above would not have been a defense. It wouldn't matter that one was acting surprised and the other was replying to someone posting poll numbres...it still would've been Redress citing polls.

HOWEVER

If Redress was arguing in the context that their statement was in regards to using Polls to make Laws then it suddenly makes sense, as Tex tried to present those threads as "proof" that's what Redress does without giving context and Redress provided the context to show that no, they don't prove that Redress was lying or a hypocrite, because when you look at what the polls were used for it was clear it wasn't to make or change a law.

So from the very first post it was clear that the context Tex was using was literal while Redress was contesting it from the notion that they were talking about using it for laws.

Click to expand...

Post #33 explains this in detail. Even if you want to cling onto the fantasy that this isn't about citing polls vs responding to polls as Redress offered.

The second example is a DIRECT argument to the acceptance of gays and changing the law for gay marriage.

Source: CNN poll: Generations disagree on same-sex marriage - CNN.com

Younger people are in favor of gay marriage. The older people most opposed are going to be out of the picture soon, while those who support are growing. I think it is an inevitability, the only question being how long it will take. The attitudes in this country towards gays has changed so dramatically just during my lifetime.


Error 404: Page Not Found - Debate Politics Forums (Obama reaffirms will end "Don't ask Don't tell")

Your quote: This poll is a little over a year old, but I doubt the numbers have changed much: Acceptance of Gay People in Military Grows Dramatically - washingtonpost.com

The argument she is using is that the newer generation is more accepting of homosexuals making it a direct argument to legalizing gay marriage.


I hope the dancing is over on this. Its been proven she does use polls and she does use them for arguments to change the law.

No, the argument that the younger generation is more accepting of homosexuals is making the direct argument that it means in the coming years the likelihood of gay marriage being legalized will increase as there will be less people opposing it and generally that is a recipe for things to change.

Rasmussen polls likely voters. Nobody is more likely to vote right now than people who hate health care reform.