Democrats Suffer Epic Mass. Loss
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
It's possible that folks will just vote for whoever is not in power. Someone promises a lot, voters vote him/her in, obviously it can't be done overnight, voters get "disillusioned" and vote for someone else. Repeat process.
That is the problem with politics; if you disagree then you just vote for the opponent, regardless of their political agenda or plans. So they voted for a Rep senator in Mass. because they aren't happy with Obama's plans. So a state-election turned country politics overnight. God... politics is so damn hopeless. I reckon that Pericles rolls over in his grave if he saw into what obscene joke democracy has turned...
mmarsh
Active member
Couple of things
1. Brown didnt win Massachusetts so much as Coakley lost it. She ran a very bad campaign. Why the hell she started a mud sling match with Curt Schilling simply boggles the mind. How stupid is it to insult a Boston hero like that, and for what purpose? She did alot of other stupid things too, like running no ads after the primary, and have only 20 townhall meeting (Brown had over 70). In other words she was alot like Hillary. She was lazy and took the election for granted, she took her eye off the ball and she lost. Coakley went from being up 15pts to losing about 5pts in about 3 month span. In other words Brown ran a very smart campaign, Coakley ran a incredibly stupid one, and the results reflected it.
2. However, Brown had better realize that the gravy train stops tomorrow. Brown is merely completing Ted Kennedy's Term, which means he will have to run for reelection in 2012. He won because he was a anti-establishment unknown. But Massachucetts is still a very Liberal State, not a swing state, and he wont be anti-establishment or unknown in 2012. The last Republican elected was a Black Liberal who defeated a white conservative Democrat in 1972. So Brown has a problem, if he comes out as too rightwing for the leftwing public he'll be out faster than Rick Santorum was in Pennslyvania, who was ousted for the exact same reason in 2006. You can be sure that the Dems will be gunning hard to take the seat back, I expect a big name candidate.
3. The Heath Care debate doesnt effect Massachusetts much because like Vermont, they already have a UHC system that is run by the state. Therefore the healthcare issue didnt bother them as much as other places.
4. I fully support heathcare reform, but this bill, espicially the Senate Bill, is rotten to the core. All it does it hand Billions of dollars to the HCI in exchange for a handful of minor reforms. If the Democrats had any tactical sense at all (espicially if they want to stave off a disaster in November) they should kill this bill off immediately and focus on a subject that does effect everyone which is JOBS. With a 10% unemployment rate the GOP could not afford to be seen as obstructionist on a creation jobs bill, certainly not before an election.
I was listening to Arianna Huffington say that its time to give up on the Obama healthcare reform. Its a bad bill, its expensive, it does nothing and the pubic (liberals, independents and conservatives) are all against it. If the Dems insist on pushing through this disasterous bit of legislation there will be a reckoning on Election Day.
1. Brown didnt win Massachusetts so much as Coakley lost it. She ran a very bad campaign. Why the hell she started a mud sling match with Curt Schilling simply boggles the mind. How stupid is it to insult a Boston hero like that, and for what purpose? She did alot of other stupid things too, like running no ads after the primary, and have only 20 townhall meeting (Brown had over 70). In other words she was alot like Hillary. She was lazy and took the election for granted, she took her eye off the ball and she lost. Coakley went from being up 15pts to losing about 5pts in about 3 month span. In other words Brown ran a very smart campaign, Coakley ran a incredibly stupid one, and the results reflected it.
2. However, Brown had better realize that the gravy train stops tomorrow. Brown is merely completing Ted Kennedy's Term, which means he will have to run for reelection in 2012. He won because he was a anti-establishment unknown. But Massachucetts is still a very Liberal State, not a swing state, and he wont be anti-establishment or unknown in 2012. The last Republican elected was a Black Liberal who defeated a white conservative Democrat in 1972. So Brown has a problem, if he comes out as too rightwing for the leftwing public he'll be out faster than Rick Santorum was in Pennslyvania, who was ousted for the exact same reason in 2006. You can be sure that the Dems will be gunning hard to take the seat back, I expect a big name candidate.
3. The Heath Care debate doesnt effect Massachusetts much because like Vermont, they already have a UHC system that is run by the state. Therefore the healthcare issue didnt bother them as much as other places.
4. I fully support heathcare reform, but this bill, espicially the Senate Bill, is rotten to the core. All it does it hand Billions of dollars to the HCI in exchange for a handful of minor reforms. If the Democrats had any tactical sense at all (espicially if they want to stave off a disaster in November) they should kill this bill off immediately and focus on a subject that does effect everyone which is JOBS. With a 10% unemployment rate the GOP could not afford to be seen as obstructionist on a creation jobs bill, certainly not before an election.
I was listening to Arianna Huffington say that its time to give up on the Obama healthcare reform. Its a bad bill, its expensive, it does nothing and the pubic (liberals, independents and conservatives) are all against it. If the Dems insist on pushing through this disasterous bit of legislation there will be a reckoning on Election Day.
Chukpike
Banned
"That is the problem with politics; if you disagree then you just vote for the opponent,"
Actually, that is more like the basics of politics. It would seem to be pretty stupid to vote for a candidate you disagreed with.
eace:Apparently all those in the news media and even on this forum announcing the end of the Republican Party were fantastically politically naive.
Anyone come to mine? mmarsh or Rob?:lol:
koalaburger
Active member
As an observer, it is hilarious to see the right wing calling Obamas healthcare options socialist when it doesnt even have a public option which every other Industrialised country has. It is also funny to watch the progressives complain that a president who was massively funded by the Medical Insurance Companies, Wall Street and pharmaceutical companies isn't looking after the peoples interests. The so-called liberal media is also one of my favourites. They are all owned by about 5 companies including thr Military Industrial Complex. I am not supplying links because this is basic stuff, go and educate yourself and get your TV off FOX.
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
I think his point is that at times people vote for the lesser of two evils than vote their preference.
We get it here a lot (and I do it constantly) I am a National party (conservative) voter but in my district they always run complete A-Holes so I vote for the best local candidate which is usually the Labour Party (Liberal) one, fortunately we get 2 votes so I can vote for both.
The Other Guy
Spam King
This change SHOULD have no effect on the Dem's plans. Every minute the Republicans filibuster they're denying the American people the healthcare they need because the GOP wants to protect the insurance companies.
In reality, they're going to freak out and weaken their already useless plan. And all that's going to do is let the republicans say "I Told You So" when it doesn't work.
In reality, they're going to freak out and weaken their already useless plan. And all that's going to do is let the republicans say "I Told You So" when it doesn't work.
The Other Guy
Spam King
I want a reform bill passed, not a paper tiger. The current bill is weak but it has potential to be useful. If they weaken it even more (which talks will do) it's totally pointless and a waste of money. They need a public option.
mmarsh
Active member
There is only one hope for HCR and thats the reconciliation as that only needs 51 votes. However Obama has been so concerned about "offending" the republicans since he took office I doubt he will have the stones to actually use it. So I wont hold my breath.
Obama needs to drop HCR, the GOP poisoned that well. What he needs to do is focus on jobs on main street while distancing himself from wall street. He does that he might be able to avoid the impeding doom thats coming in November, if not...
Last edited:
DTop
Active member
It's interesting but I think HC reform as it was originally touted has turned into an insurance reform issue. All the controversy about including or excluding a public option, which would allow people to buy private insurance or to sign on to a government subsidized Medicare like insurance program, has turned the discussion away from reforming the quality of health care to an almost exclusive debate about insurance. It's been a long while since anyone has talked about the quality of health care.
Chukpike
Banned
That would be correct. The issue is Health Insurance and not the quality of health care.
The original issue was to get all americans into the health care system, not the quality of health care.
captiva303
Active member
health cover???
in america is there such a thing?
over there doesn't go that soon as you need it, you are no longer eligible for coverage?
well that is the impression i have got, the insurers have to many ways to deny you your pay out...
in america is there such a thing?
over there doesn't go that soon as you need it, you are no longer eligible for coverage?
well that is the impression i have got, the insurers have to many ways to deny you your pay out...
That's what happens when you listen to the Media! It was about govt involvment in health care. That didn't fly so they set out to demonize the insurance companies. Doesn't look like that'll fly either. Public option=govt option & I don't see provision in the Constitution to take money (taxes) away from people & use it to "subsidize" people or create competition with "for profit" companies, muchless to require purchase of a product or go to jail.
mmarsh
Active member
Actually George, the Constitution does say that this:
US Constutition Article I Section 8:
"Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States";
It means Congress has the power to collect taxes and provide common welfare of the United States. Dont you think taking care of the health of its citizenry sort of falls in this catagory? Certainly seems so to me. Or do you really think the definition is so narrow as to say: The government is supposed to protect you from an invasion of British Redcoats, but if its an invasion of smallpox (or H1N1 flu) the citizenry is on its own! Thats very unlikely as in 1789 smallpox killed far more people than British Redcoats did. Therefore it would seem to fall under "General Welfare" now does it?
BTW we already have Government healthcare programs. Medicare, Medicare, the VA, the government healthcare plan given to all members of congress these are all government healthcare plans. So what you are arguing against has already exsisted since the 1960s.
US Constutition Article I Section 8:
"Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States";
It means Congress has the power to collect taxes and provide common welfare of the United States. Dont you think taking care of the health of its citizenry sort of falls in this catagory? Certainly seems so to me. Or do you really think the definition is so narrow as to say: The government is supposed to protect you from an invasion of British Redcoats, but if its an invasion of smallpox (or H1N1 flu) the citizenry is on its own! Thats very unlikely as in 1789 smallpox killed far more people than British Redcoats did. Therefore it would seem to fall under "General Welfare" now does it?
BTW we already have Government healthcare programs. Medicare, Medicare, the VA, the government healthcare plan given to all members of congress these are all government healthcare plans. So what you are arguing against has already exsisted since the 1960s.
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
Yes, exactly. I think we all agree that the quality of the care you receive is world class, if you can afford it.
MSG Glenn
Active member
The health care I need & have earned as a military retiree, Tricare, will be cut by 21% as will Medicare when I'm eligible. How do I profit from this at a time when I need health care the most - a newly diagnosed diabetic? Once you get to read the whole health care law, if you have that much time (is it over 3000 pages yet?) you'll understand what this will do to our overall well being. Don't let them kid you that treatments aren't rationed. I have relatives in Canada who have to come to the States for treatment when the clinics up there performed the amount of a certain procedures that met their quota & can't do any more until the next fiscal year. The Senate plan is modeled after the Canadian & UK plans which are both growing broke after many raises in taxes to support them.
Our system needs fixing - no argument there but the majority of US citizens think it goes WAY to far.
This landslide election in Mass has already made the Dems change their plans. Hopefully they'll come out behind closed doors & stop making bribes for senate votes when they're hammering out the law affecting MY future.