Karl Rove & other Republicans see a "whupping " in store for the Dems. I just don't see it

[astro]

In listening to Republicans on the radio and in print (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/26/chris-shelley-rove-sees-whipping-in-the-offing/) they all seem to think a huge beat down for the Democrats is coming on the next Congressional election cycle. Honestly, I just don't see it. There are certainly a lot of people who don't like Obama, but I'm not seeing there's lots more now than there were when he took office.

Said summit is supposed to be all about the things world leaders will be doing down at Fortress T-dot, but Mr. Rove seemed vastly more comfortable talking U.S. politics. At one point he provided reporters with a bewilderingly minute breakdown of the current electoral math of everywhere from the House of Representatives to the race for sheriff in Tumbleweed County, Wy., before confidently declaring the Democrats would soon suffer “a whupping.”

[Rand Rover]

Some food for thought: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141032/2010-Conservatives-Outnumber-Moderates-Liberals.aspx

The ideological orientation of Americans seen thus far in 2010 would represent a record-high level of conservatism (since at least 1992) if it is maintained for the full year. This follows an increase in the percentage of conservatives in 2009 that was fueled by heightened conservatism among independents, a pattern that continues today.

[John Mace]

In listening to Republicans on the radio and in print (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/26/chris-shelley-rove-sees-whipping-in-the-offing/) they all seem to think a huge beat down for the Democrats is coming on the next Congressional election cycle.
Define "huge beat down". I don't know any analyst, left or right, who doesn't think the Dems will lose seats in the House and the Senate.

Honestly, I just don't see it. There are certainly a lot of people who don't like Obama, but I'm not seeing there's lots more now than there were when he took office.

Obama's approval rating in Jan '09 was about 65 and his disapproval was about 20. Today, both of the numbers are about 47. But this doesn't even have to be about Obama. The Dems gained a lot of seats in the anti-Bush backlash, many in traditionally conservative districts. Now, many of those seats have to be defended without Bush to point to.

[Sage Rat]

I don't think there will be an extraordinary move right, like to turn Congress into a majority Republican outfit. But I think that they may well come to 50% or perhaps a teeny bit more.

The Republicans have several advantages:

1) The Tea Party movement attracted fiscally minded independents to the right.
2) There will be greater turnout by Republicans during this election than during the 2008 election because of all of the campaigning by the Tea Party.
3) There will be greater turnout by Republicans during this election than during the 2008 election because many Republicans sat it out rather than vote for McCain.
4) A weak economy favors the challenger.
5) There will be lower turnout by Democrats during this election than during the 2008 election because the many Democrats who would usually be too busy/lazy/unmotivated to vote but who actually came out to vote for Obama will now be staying at home/work like they usually do.

There isn't an overwhelming desire to rein in Obama and strap him down with a Republican Legislature, I don't think, but the above items all added together will still significantly change the makeup of Congress.

[BrainGlutton]

2) There will be greater turnout by Republicans during this election than during the 2008 election because of all of the campaigning by the Tea Party.

There will also be a greater turnout against the Republicans (as distinct from for the Democrats) during this election than during the 2008 election because of all the campaigning by the Tea Party.

[gonzomax]

Generally the party in the white house loses some seats during off year elections. The out party always claims it is a beginning of a new trend . This is not new.

[BrainGlutton]

Also -- what do the Pubs have to offer this year, other than not being Dems? They don't have any 2010 Contract With America, and, judging by this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566045) in the 2010 elections forum, they don't have any ideas out of which a voter-friendly CWA could be built. And, judging by this GD thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566244) they have no plausible ideas for reducing the jobless rate. "No!" is not, by itself, a winning electoral message.

[Rand Rover]

Pure opposition is a perfectly fine political strategy when the ideas being opposed are so facially awful.

[John Mace]

Also -- what do the Pubs have to offer this year, other than not being Dems? They don't have any 2010 Contract With America, and, judging by this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566045) in the 2010 elections forum, they don't have any ideas out of which a voter-friendly CWA could be built. And, judging by this GD thread, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=566244) they have no plausible ideas for reducing the jobless rate. "No!" is not, by itself, a winning electoral message.

Is it your contention that the Dems will not lose seats in the House or Senate? Because if it isn't, I don't know what the point of that post is. If it is, then would you like to place a wager on that?

[BrainGlutton]

Is it your contention that the Dems will not lose seats in the House or Senate? Because if it isn't, I don't know what the point of that post is. If it is, then would you like to place a wager on that?

Of course the Dems are going to lose seats. The in-party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. My contention is that we're not going to see a Republican Revolution like in 1994, which seems to be what Rove, etc., are predicting.

[John Mace]

Of course the Dems are going to lose seats. The in-party almost always loses seats in a midterm election. [My contention is that we're not going to see a Republican Revolution like in 1994, which seems to be what Rove, etc., are predicting.
I don't know about "etc.", but simply going to Rove's web site (http://www.rove.com/election) show that's not true.

He's current predictions for the Senate are:

Dems: 49
Pubs: 43
Toss-up: 8

[BrainGlutton]

I don't know about "etc.", but simply going to Rove's web site (http://www.rove.com/election) show that's not true.

He's current predictions for the Senate are:

Dems: 49
Pubs: 43
Toss-up: 8

Well, that ain't no whuppin'.

[Simplicio]

If I can guess the make-up of the next Senate to within eight seats, will people pretend I'm a political genius to?

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I'm beginning to believe that our political system is a big sham, and that both parties are continually guilty of the same malfeasance over and over again, and it just runs in cycles depending on which party has control when and what events/disasters/wars/legislation/etc happens and when.

Stupid blame game over and over. Its like the media feeds on it, and by extension, so do we the general population.

[Fear Itself]

I am glad to see the Republicans abandoning their "lowered expectations" game. Now, unless it is a total rout, it is a win for the Democrats.

The Tea Party has the base fired up, but it isn't doing much for moderates and independents. Some of their candidates are just plain loopy, and centrist voters will avoid them like the plague. And I think they are seriously underestimating the backlash among Latino voters, who are mobilizing to get out the vote in much higher numbers since the right tipped their hand and followed the Arizona lead in repressive immigration talk and legislation. Plus, the GOP is tagged as BP apologists, thanks to Barton and the Republican Study Committee.

Democrats lose a few seats, but maintain majorities in both houses.

[Markxxx]

The thing is historically people tend to vote their pocketbook.

Without unemployment so high and underemployment a bigger problem, people will most likely not be as friendly to whatever party is in power.

This goes for BOTH the Democrats and Republicans.

If a state office is Republican that Republican is in trouble.

Also you have to remember people didn't vote FOR Mr Obama as much as they voted against him. He barely beat Hillary in the primaries. Clearly people were not impressed with him.

The same way people in Mr Reagan's first election were voting AGAINST Carter, not so much as voting for Reagan.

The economy has to get better, but till it does every current politican, regardless of party is in danger.

[Sage Rat]

I'm beginning to believe that our political system is a big sham, and that both parties are continually guilty of the same malfeasance over and over again, and it just runs in cycles depending on which party has control when and what events/disasters/wars/legislation/etc happens and when.

Stupid blame game over and over. Its like the media feeds on it, and by extension, so do we the general population.

I'd personally vote that this is because we hire our politicians based on policy. We ourselves know nothing about what really is or isn't the right move to make on almost anything, but we all think that we do. So we vote in guys that are willing to say that we're right. Of course, once they're in the job with an army of experts and actually having to deal with people on all sides of the fence, they're often forced to do what is the most intelligent thing to do -- all while trying to couch it as doing "what you elected them to do".

Our job as the electorate isn't to decide or even consider policy, it's to look at people and decide whether or not we think they're reasonably bright and trustworthy, and if so to vote for them. If that's all we expect of ourselves, when they do something that seems odd to us, that's okay because we've already accepted that we don't have all the info to properly legislate ourselves.

[Mosier]

Pure opposition is a perfectly fine political strategy when the ideas being opposed are so facially awful.

Plenty of people think the tea party ideas are "facially" awful, too. Everyone thinks the other side is awful in the face.

[FoieGrasIsEvil]

I'd personally vote that this is because we hire our politicians based on policy. We ourselves know nothing about what really is or isn't the right move to make on almost anything, but we all think that we do. So we vote in guys that are willing to say that we're right. Of course, once they're in the job with an army of experts and actually having to deal with people on all sides of the fence, they're often forced to do what is the most intelligent thing to do -- all while trying to couch it as doing "what you elected them to do".

Our job as the electorate isn't to decide or even consider policy, it's to look at people and decide whether or not we think they're reasonably bright and trustworthy, and if so to vote for them. If that's all we expect of ourselves, when they do something that seems odd to us, that's okay because we've already accepted that we don't have all the info to properly legislate ourselves.

How depressing.

[Sage Rat]

How depressing.

It's not depressing, it's how the system was supposed to work way back when the Constitution was written. Of course, it only lasted until about two seconds after George Washington was elected.

[tomndebb]

I realize that this is Great Debate material, but there was a clamor for an elections forum, so we set one up. Use it.

Off you go.

[septimus]

I'd personally vote that this is because we hire our politicians based on policy. We ourselves know nothing about what really is or isn't the right move to make on almost anything, but we all think that we do. So we vote in guys that are willing to say that we're right.

Yes. One hears complaints that representatives don't vote how voters want them to, but more often the problem is they do vote that way.

The "old-fashioned" ways of legislature-appointed Senators, etc. had much value. Even popular voting worked OK before the Hyper-information Age with voters tuned into CNN and forming their own judgement on every policy issue.

[Justin_Bailey]

Also you have to remember people didn't vote FOR Mr Obama as much as they voted against him. He barely beat Hillary in the primaries. Clearly people were not impressed with him.

If that's true, why didn't McCain win the Presidential election?

[Merijeek]

If I can guess the make-up of the next Senate to within eight seats, will people pretend I'm a political genius to?

Only if you use "The Math" rather than just regular math that the rest of the planet is using.

I seem to recall that good old Karl was predicting a GOP blowout in 2006, too.

-Joe

[DigitalC]

Define "huge beat down".

That's the key here. Anything that happens in November will be easily spinned as a "beatdown" because the Republicans are going to make gains no matter what. A realistic position would be to count keeping both houses as a "win" for the Democrats and losing both as a huge beatdown but nobody is ready to go out on a limb and predict either of those outcomes.

[Phatlewt]

Cheerleaders lead cheers. What do you expect?

"The GOP will remain a minority. Why would anyone vote for us?"

Not likely, right?

[BrainGlutton]

Pure opposition is a perfectly fine political strategy when the ideas being opposed are so facially awful.

But, the Dems since taking power have (to put it mildly) pursued no ideas to the left of those on which they won in 2006 and 2008. How can it be that a majority of the voters regard such ideas as "facially awful"?

[Claverhouse]

Markxxx
Also you have to remember people didn't vote FOR Mr Obama as much as they voted against him. He barely beat Hillary in the primaries. Clearly people were not impressed with him.If that's true, why didn't McCain win the Presidential election?


Presumably because many weren't voting FOR him and whathisname as much as they were voting AGAINST Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin.



Out of a large nation you have remarkably few choices.

[SmartAlecCat]

Presumably because many weren't voting FOR him and whathisname as much as they were voting AGAINST Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin.


As proxies for Mr. Bush -- That's who they were really voting against..

[gonzomax]

Why would anybody over Rove up as an expert or an unbiased source? Bush called him Turd Blossom. He deserves that kind of respect.

[MsRobyn]

Judging from the eleventy-zillion e-mails I get every day from everyone from Barbara Boxer to Madeline Albright and everyone in between, the Democratic Party structure is using the teabaggers as a means of getting the Democratic base fired up, and that strategy may be working amongst the rank-and-file. The Obama machine from 2008 is still in place and reaching out to first-time voters from 2008. The Dems will probably lose Congressional seats, but the damage will be mitigated. We just have to get off our asses and campaign on behalf of our candidates.

And, frankly, the BP disaster will make or break the elections. If the Democrats don't fuck things up (too badly), it'll be in their favor. So far, the Republicans haven't done much to keep from fucking things up. In fact, Barton's faux pas WILL come back to haunt him because it's an unequivocal sound bite that would be perfect for his opponent's commercials, and that he can't wave away by claiming to be taken out of context.

Karl Rove isn't the political genius he's been made out to be. He got Bush elected, but that's about it. He's been wrong more than he's been right, at least in recent years. Why anyone continues to listen to him is beyond me.

[tumbleddown]

We just have to get off our asses and campaign on behalf of our candidates.
Exactly, this entire election is going to be all about the GOTV. The Democrats are going to be using the Obama method, the Republicans seem to be relying upon the Tea Party to do that work for them. We'll see who fares better.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Exactly, this entire election is going to be all about the GOTV. The Democrats are going to be using the Obama method, the Republicans seem to be relying upon the Tea Party to do that work for them. We'll see who fares better.

Elections are always about GOTV. A good field program will get you 4 to 6 points when it's all said and done, and that's usually within the margin of victory.

It's really not hard at all: identify your constituents, find out who regularly votes and who doesn't, identify the people leaning in either direction and find out in what direction they're voting in this particular election, talk to them a few times, and then push your people out to vote as soon as voting is possible.

[Ace309]

Why would anybody over Rove up as an expert or an unbiased source? Bush called him Turd Blossom. He deserves that kind of respect.

But if we're starting from the premise that Bush had notoriously bad judgment, that means that Rove is probably very smart.

[Merijeek]

Elections are always about GOTV. A good field program will get you 4 to 6 points when it's all said and done, and that's usually within the margin of victory.

It's really not hard at all: identify your constituents, find out who regularly votes and who doesn't, identify the people leaning in either direction and find out in what direction they're voting in this particular election, talk to them a few times, and then push your people out to vote as soon as voting is possible.

I thought it was about people circulating the idea that Republican voting is on Tuesday and Democrat voting was on Wednesday.

-Joe

[Really Not All That Bright]

Again, the impact of the Tea Party movement is being overrated. Will it have a noticeable impact? Certainly. Will it result in noticeable gains for the Republicans? Much less likely.

For each seat the Tea Parties win for the Republicans, they'll lose one; either by backing an independent, or probably more commonly, by ensuring that the Republican nominee is unelectable. See Marco Rubio.
Pure opposition is a perfectly fine political strategy when the ideas being opposed are so facially awful.
Plenty of people think the tea party ideas are "facially" awful, too. Everyone thinks the other side is awful in the face.
Pure opposition without regard or understanding for whether the policy you are opposing is facially awful is not a good political strategy.

[Onomatopoeia]

In the end, it won't matter much. Democrats will be apathetic this round, the benefit of which will redound to the Republicans who will easily better the Democrats GOTV efforts, resulting in GOP gains.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

I thought it was about people circulating the idea that Republican voting is on Tuesday and Democrat voting was on Wednesday.

-Joe

That's the old canard.

[Merijeek]

That's the old canard.

But around here people actually try to convince people of it. Pretty disgusting, really.

Must be difference between using the calendar and using the calendar.

-Joe

[BrainGlutton]

But if we're starting from the premise that Bush had notoriously bad judgment, that means that Rove is probably very smart.

That does not mean his public statements bear any relationship to what he thinks.

[BrainGlutton]

Pure opposition without regard or understanding for whether the policy you are opposing is facially awful is not a good political strategy.

Sometimes, I fear, it might be a perfectly sound electoral strategy.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

But around here people actually try to convince people of it. Pretty disgusting, really.

Must be difference between using the calendar and using the calendar.

-Joe

Where is "here"?

[Merijeek]

Where is "here"?

Mississippi. Heard it the last 5 elections. It's strange how I never hear that it's Republican voting on Wednesday.

-Joe

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Mississippi. Heard it the last 5 elections. It's strange how I never hear that it's Republican voting on Wednesday.

-Joe

If it's not "voting on Wednesday", then it's "felons can't vote (in some states)", or it's "nobody foreclosed on can vote".


Election Day should be a national holiday.

[Measure for Measure]

Well, that ain't no whuppin'. Divide the tossups by two and the Dems will have 53 Senate seats next January, within Rove's framework. That counts as a wuppin by US media standards.

The Democrats are facing harsh headwinds: in addition to the usual midterm losses they are a) simply defending a large majority in the Senate which is in itself difficult and b) are the incumbent party during a deep recession. Leading indicators are negative at the moment: unemployment might very well tip above the 10% mark before Nov. 3.

I predict the the Dems will not lose the Senate in 2010. But they could very well lose the House. They could have prevented this a year ago by delivering a larger jobs package, but they chose not to. Ironically, it will be the Blue Dog democrats who pay the highest price for their foolhardiness and insufficient mastery of intermediate macroeconomics. Also -- what do the Pubs have to offer this year, other than not being Dems? Irrelevant, a distraction. Swing voters are notoriously disengaged from party position papers and the Republican base is already energized. That the Republican platform is a hollow shell makes little difference.

[bullrun]

In listening to Republicans on the radio and in print (http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/26/chris-shelley-rove-sees-whipping-in-the-offing/) they all seem to think a huge beat down for the Democrats is coming on the next Congressional election cycle. Honestly, I just don't see it. There are certainly a lot of people who don't like Obama, but I'm not seeing there's lots more now than there were when he took office.

Well....I 'see it". I don't know if the republicans will win enough seats to override obama's veto power,......but the demos will lose many positions. As far as veto-power; the republican victory may not need to be that sweeping. By the time the elections are through...the democrats left will suddenly be anti-obama. They are all political whores and will do what they can to survive.
Obama has a lot of stimulus funding he hasn't spent as of yet. Instead of spending it on the needs of the American people...he will try to use it as his own personal vote-getting slush fund. When he does...he will be shown to be the crooked Chicago thug that he really is. It will not help him or the dems.
Obama is failing. How is that 'hope and change' going for ya'??? LOL!

[Really Not All That Bright]

Quite well, thanks, Mr. Palin.

[Skammer]

Obama has a lot of stimulus funding he hasn't spent as of yet. That's funny; I was just hearing how those funds are running low and there is no chance of additional stimulus passing, thanks to the GOP. Instead of spending it on the needs of the American people...he will try to use it as his own personal vote-getting slush fund. When he does...he will be shown to be the crooked Chicago thug that he really is. Okay, good luck with that prediction.

Here in the south, though, I have no doubt the Republicans are going to pick up seats. I'm worried that my Democratic congressman will be voted out for a Republican, and resigned to the fact that our new Governer will be one also.

[Chronos]

Well....I 'see it". I don't know if the republicans will win enough seats to override obama's veto power,If you don't know that, then you're woefully uninformed about the current political situation. There is literally no chance of the Republicans winning enough elections to be able to override vetoes. Not just a small chance, that would only come to pass through an unrealistically extreme sweeping change of voter sentiment, no chance. Even if the Republicans won every single Senate seat that's currently up for election (which of course won't happen), they'd still fall short.

[bullrun]

If you don't know that, then you're woefully uninformed about the current political situation. There is literally no chance of the Republicans winning enough elections to be able to override vetoes. Not just a small chance, that would only come to pass through an unrealistically extreme sweeping change of voter sentiment, no chance. Even if the Republicans won every single Senate seat that's currently up for election (which of course won't happen), they'd still fall short.

It was more of an admission than a hope. Of course...miracles can happen. Perhaps the sky will fall. The Republicans WILL win most of the races coming up.

[bullrun]

Quite well, thanks, Mr. Palin.

No problem Mr. Rahm.

[bullrun]

That's funny; I was just hearing how those funds are running low and there is no chance of additional stimulus passing, thanks to the GOP. Okay, good luck with that prediction.

Here in the south, though, I have no doubt the Republicans are going to pick up seats. I'm worried that my Democratic congressman will be voted out for a Republican, and resigned to the fact that our new Governer will be one also.

I have read obama has only spent about half of the stimulus he gathered....

[Frank]

The Republicans WILL win most of the races coming up.
OK, what the hell, I'll bite.

How many seats do you predict the Republicans will hold in the House after the election? How many in the Senate?

[Chronos]

It was more of an admission than a hope. Of course...miracles can happen. Perhaps the sky will fall.That sounds to me like you're wishing death on a whole bunch of senators. If you're going to go that route, it'd be simpler to hope for the Republicans to just take the House and for those pieces of falling sky to hit Obama and Biden, putting a Republican in the presidency.

[BrainGlutton]

I have read obama has only spent about half of the stimulus he gathered....

Cite?


(BTW, that's something you're going to be asked for a lot if you keep hanging out here.)

[Sam Stone]

The Republicans WILL win most of the races coming up.
OK, what the hell, I'll bite.

How many seats do you predict the Republicans will hold in the House after the election? How many in the Senate?

I'll play. I think the Democrats lose 42 seats in the House, and 8 in the Senate. Subject to the caveat that it's still very early to make real predictions.

And if they lose more than 6 seats in the Senate, you can kiss the left-wing agenda bye bye, because the centrist Democrats will be much harder to corral, and there aren't enough centrist Republicans that you could conceivably convince to join you in a supermajority for anything other than centrist/center-right policy.

[Fear Itself]

I'll play. There's always a first time.

[DigitalC]

The Republicans WILL win most of the races coming up.
OK, what the hell, I'll bite.

How many seats do you predict the Republicans will hold in the House after the election? How many in the Senate?

I'll play. I think the Democrats lose 42 seats in the House, and 8 in the Senate. Subject to the caveat that it's still very early to make real predictions.

And if they lose more than 6 seats in the Senate, you can kiss the left-wing agenda bye bye, because the centrist Democrats will be much harder to corral, and there aren't enough centrist Republicans that you could conceivably convince to join you in a supermajority for anything other than centrist/center-right policy.

It's the centrists who seem to be in the most trouble though. You might end up with a smaller much more liberal Dem majority.

[BrainGlutton]

And if they lose more than 6 seats in the Senate, you can kiss the left-wing agenda bye bye . . .

:confused: We're still waiting for the chance to kiss it hello.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

And if they lose more than 6 seats in the Senate, you can kiss the left-wing agenda bye bye . . .

:confused: We're still waiting for the chance to kiss it hello.


That's for damned sure.

Well, I've been waiting for my adult life, that's for sure. I'm 29.

[gonzomax]

Obama is a centrist. He is far from being a lefty. Some people are so far right they think Fox is news .I am 67 and have not seen a left wing agenda ever get implemented. It won't happen.

[Sam Stone]

If you guys think that Obama is a centrist and you wish he had gone much farther to the left, then I think it's time you, like us libertarians, accept that the public isn't going to accept anything as radical as you want. Isn't it clear by now that the American people are not leftists? You can't force them to be like you.

Had Obama and the Democrats pushed through the things you want, they wouldn't just be losing a few seats - they'd get blown out. The Republicans might even have gotten a majority big enough to override a Presidential veto, and then they'd be running the show and Obama would be a lame duck for the rest of his Presidency. And the Republicans would have simply overturned everything the Democrats did - and they would have had the support of the population in doing so.

Politics is the art of the possible. The things you want are impossible. You're not getting them.

In Canada, we sometimes get a provincial election where the NDP win a strong majority in a province and attempt to implement far left policies. This usually causes them to get blown out in the next election, or they screw up the province so badly that the economy tanks and they get thrown out of office for mismanagement. The NDP in Manitoba have held onto power for quite a long time - by governing from the center. That's what you have to do to remain in power in any western democracy these days. There's very little appetite for hard left government any more. And certainly very little in North America.

[elfkin477]

Also you have to remember people didn't vote FOR Mr Obama as much as they voted against him. He barely beat Hillary in the primaries. Clearly people were not impressed with him.

If that's true, why didn't McCain win the Presidential election? Because Obama successfully campaigned against Bush ;)

[Zakalwe]

If that's true, why didn't McCain win the Presidential election? Because Obama successfully campaigned against Bush ;)
Or because John McCain inexplicably BECAME Bush when he didn't have to.

I would also argue with Markxxx's original premise. Obama turned out record numbers of first time voters (the majority of them Democrats). That's not the result of people voting against him, it's the result of people voting for him.

[elfkin477]

If that's true, why didn't McCain win the Presidential election? Because Obama successfully campaigned against Bush ;)
Or because John McCain inexplicably BECAME Bush when he didn't have to.

I would also argue with Markxxx's original premise. Obama turned out record numbers of first time voters (the majority of them Democrats). That's not the result of people voting against him, it's the result of people voting for him. Becoming Bush might have been an improvement, because few people who chose McCain voted for him rather than against Obama; I certainly didn't vote for him because of his facinating personality. As a candidate McCain was about as exciting as watching paint dry.

[Really Not All That Bright]

You thought Bush was an interesting candidate? Apart from the potential for a Wheel of Invasion game show, of course.

[Digital Stimulus]

The Republicans might even have gotten a majority big enough to override a Presidential veto, and then they'd be running the show and Obama would be a lame duck for the rest of his Presidency.
A factual note -- I'm pretty sure a Republican veto-proof majority is mathematically impossible (for 2010).

[Sam Stone]

Also you have to remember people didn't vote FOR Mr Obama as much as they voted against him. He barely beat Hillary in the primaries. Clearly people were not impressed with him.

If that's true, why didn't McCain win the Presidential election? Because Obama successfully campaigned against Bush ;)

He also campaigned as a centrist. Remember his promise of a net spending cut? Remember how his campaign attacked Hillary Clinton from the right when she dared to suggest there should be an individual mandate in health care? Remember how taxes were going to be be cut for anyone making less than $250,000 per year? How education was going to be reformed with more vouchers and teacher accountability?

Obama was elected because he promised vaporous 'hope and change', while everything concrete he said he'd so was either centrist or center-right. He was articulate and charismatic, which was a huge contrast to George Bush. And people were tired of the race wars, and he promised an end to all that and a new era of racial understanding.

In fact, once he was elected he turned out to be a left-wing politician, which many of us knew all along. But he quickly ran up against the limits of what's possible in Washington, blew all his political capital, and now he's trapped. And you guys are complaining because he's not bringing the socialist revolution. You're his worst enemy.

[Digital Stimulus]

Holy crap, Sam. Was that post dead-pan serious?

[Chronos]

Quoth Sam Stone:If you guys think that Obama is a centrist and you wish he had gone much farther to the left, then I think it's time you, like us libertarians, accept that the public isn't going to accept anything as radical as you want. Isn't it clear by now that the American people are not leftists? You can't force them to be like you.

Had Obama and the Democrats pushed through the things you want, they wouldn't just be losing a few seats - they'd get blown out. The Republicans might even have gotten a majority big enough to override a Presidential veto, and then they'd be running the show and Obama would be a lame duck for the rest of his Presidency. And the Republicans would have simply overturned everything the Democrats did - and they would have had the support of the population in doing so.

Politics is the art of the possible. The things you want are impossible. You're not getting them. We understand that, which is why the Democratic Party ran Obama, not Kucinich. It's a lesson, though, that I think some Republicans still need to learn.

In fact, once he was elected he turned out to be a left-wing politician, which many of us knew all along.In what way did he move to the left after his election, on any issue whatsoever?

[BrainGlutton]

In fact, once he was elected he turned out to be a left-wing politician . . .

. . . You really do post from Bizarro-Earth, don't you?!

[Least Original User Name Ever]

In fact, once he was elected he turned out to be a left-wing politician . . .

. . . You really do post from Bizarro-Earth, don't you?!


I find it interesting that he sincerely feels this way. He can't be the only one, though. That makes the "Obama is a Socialist/Marxist/Facist/Nazi" saying more understandable, at least, because in the minds of some, they think he's far left-wing and pushing an incredibly Liberal agenda.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I think that some people that think Obama is horrible/pushing a hardcore Leftist agenda are projecting. Bush was further to the right than Obama is on the left. Bush appointed people way to the right in many leadership positions, Obama has not. Some people would assume that since there's a D next to his name, that the zealots would be in command. Any any all of the Progressive or Liberal types are unhappy because people like them are not getting valuable learning time. Hell, the one that could be, Van Jones, got chased away by Glenn Beck rallying against him.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Also, to add to the above post, I'd say a lot of Dems, particularly more left ones, knew that Obama wasn't going to be a Liberal champion. I know that when I worked for him, I constantly told volunteers that getting him in is the first step; that all we had with him was a sympathetic ear. After that, every single issue was going to be a lot of work that required us to do the same thing. After you win on that one, the next issue becomes harder, because the other side (rightfully) doesn't like getting beat, so it gets harder and harder as it goes on until you break through and demonstrate consistent political power.

[gonzomax]

Also you have to remember people didn't vote FOR Mr Obama as much as they voted against him. He barely beat Hillary in the primaries. Clearly people were not impressed with him.

If that's true, why didn't McCain win the Presidential election? Because Obama successfully campaigned against Bush ;)

He also campaigned as a centrist. Remember his promise of a net spending cut? Remember how his campaign attacked Hillary Clinton from the right when she dared to suggest there should be an individual mandate in health care? Remember how taxes were going to be be cut for anyone making less than $250,000 per year? How education was going to be reformed with more vouchers and teacher accountability?

Obama was elected because he promised vaporous 'hope and change', while everything concrete he said he'd so was either centrist or center-right. He was articulate and charismatic, which was a huge contrast to George Bush. And people were tired of the race wars, and he promised an end to all that and a new era of racial understanding.

In fact, once he was elected he turned out to be a left-wing politician, which many of us knew all along. But he quickly ran up against the limits of what's possible in Washington, blew all his political capital, and now he's trapped. And you guys are complaining because he's not bringing the socialist revolution. You're his worst enemy.

He cut taxes.

[Measure for Measure]

Yeah, the stimulus package included $246 billion of tax cuts for individuals and $6 billion for business (http://www.propublica.org/special/stimulus-plan-taxcut-list). (There are other categories of tax cuts and credits not included in that tally - eg $20 billion in renewable energy tax credits.) But it wasn't sufficiently targeted on loopholes for the very rich and corporate waste, so the Republicans voted it down. Republicans aren't really for tax cuts, so much as tax cuts for their fat-cat friends and other groups that thrill the wingers. Heck, Reagan raised taxes on the middle class.

[New Deal Democrat]

In the election of 1934 the Democrats gained 9 seats in the Senate, bringing their majority over the Republicans to 69 to 25. The Democrats gained 9 seats in the House of Representatives bringing their majority over the Republicans to 319 to 103.
http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/adec_0001_0004_0/adec_0001_0004_0_01182.html

This was because Americans could see that things were getting better. In 1932 the unemployment rate was 23.6%. In 1934 the unemployment rate had declined to 21.7%.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html

Since Barack Obama was inaugurated as president, the unemployment rate has continued to grow. One can argue that this or that economic number has gotten better, but most Americans do not feel better.

I will vote Democrat as I always do. My gut feeling is that no matter how bad things get, they would be worse under the Republicans.

Nevertheless, I think President Obama made a serious mistake by changing the health system before adopting policies that reduced unemployment. Whether or not he and the Democrats can recover from this mistake remains to be seen.

During the election of 1982 the unemployment rate was 10.80%.
http://www.p360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=44&count=all

Nevertheless, Republicans and Ronald Reagan held on and changed the country for the worst. Obama and the Democrats can still change the country for the better, but right now I am pessimistic.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Welcome to the board, by the way.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yeah, that was pretty good as first posts go. Facts, and everything!

[Measure for Measure]

Nevertheless, I think President Obama made a serious mistake by changing the health system before adopting policies that reduced unemployment. Whether or not he and the Democrats can recover from this mistake remains to be seen.

During the election of 1982 the unemployment rate was 10.80%.
http://www.p360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=44&count=all

Nevertheless, Republicans and Ronald Reagan held on and changed the country for the worst. Obama and the Democrats can still change the country for the better, but right now I am pessimistic. Hi New Deal Democrat and welcome to the Straight Dope!

I appreciate your fact-based post: you should do well here. I see from your link that unemployment was rising in 1982. Interestingly, the party balance in the Senate was unchanged that year. But the Reagan administration made a point to publicly disavow "Carterisms" while Obama tried to reach out. It seems to me that Reagan had the proper strategy.

I disagree about HCR. If the Obama admin wanted to reduce unemployment, they would have had to double the size of the stimulus package -- from $800 billion to $1.6 trillion. (I'm basing that on the idea that the initial stimulus package based on Dec 2008 simulations was $1.4 trillion and by March 2009 the economic numbers had already worsened). Rahm et al decided that such a large package was too big for the system to swallow.

Over the long run, Health Care Reform is the only path to long run fiscal responsibility. To pass up this opportunity for passage would have been irresponsible. I applaud this session's Congress: they passed 3 huge pieces of legislation, including financial reform. I predict that the Dems will lose seats this Fall --odds are they will lose the House-- but their policies were good for America. Conservative arguments to the contrary are at bottom superficial, based on lies like death panels and purely political arguments such as "Going too far left" and other empty nonsense.

[Superhal]

Presumably because many weren't voting FOR him and whathisname as much as they were voting AGAINST Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin.


As proxies for Mr. Bush -- That's who they were really voting against..

I hope this wave rides for another 20 years.

[New Deal Democrat]

I disagree about HCR. If the Obama admin wanted to reduce unemployment, they would have had to double the size of the stimulus package -- from $800 billion to $1.6 trillion. (I'm basing that on the idea that the initial stimulus package based on Dec 2008 simulations was $1.4 trillion and by March 2009 the economic numbers had already worsened). Rahm et al decided that such a large package was too big for the system to swallow.



Right after his inauguration Barack Obama's approval rating was 68%.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

That was when he should have done what Bill Clinton did, which was to raise the top tax rate, and what Franklin Roosevelt did, which was to hire people directly with programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps.

Clinton raised the top tax rate to 39.6% from 31%. When Roosevelt was inaugurated, the top tax rate was already 63%. It rose throughout the New Deal. As it rose, unemployment declined, and the per capita gross domestic product rose. This disproves the Republican cliche that "you can't tax your way to prosperity."
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104719.html
http://www.singularity.com/charts/page99.html

-------

"the public response to the [Civilian Conservation Corps] program was overwhelmingly popular. A Gallup poll of 18 April 1936, asked "Are you in favor of the CCC camps?"; 82% of respondents said yes, including 92% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans.[26]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps

-------

Roosevelt did not move on the enduring reforms of the New Deal, like Social Security, until the unemployment rate declined. That gave him credibility on the economy that Obama has not earned yet.

[Measure for Measure]

Fascinating post NDD: I understand though that there was at least some complaining about New Deal "Make Work" programs. I didn't know that CCC had its era of strong support. I wonder what its modern analogue might look like.

One of the twists that Obama faces is that top tax rates will rise if Congress does... nothing. The Bush tax cuts were geared to expire so as to not make the long run projections look too bad. Furthermore, there's a case to be made that tax increases should be postponed until 2011 anyway-- given the softness of the economy in Jan 2009.

I have to say though that I'm glad Obama moved early. The modern conservative noise machine is far more developed today than it was in the 1930s. I'm of the "Window of Opportunity is Narrow" school of thought. But your point that the enduring reforms came in ~1936 is nonetheless pretty interesting.

[TimeWinder]

Furthermore, there's a case to be made that tax increases should be postponed until 2011 anyway-- given the softness of the economy in Jan 2009.

Not a very good one: unemployed people don't pay very much in (federal) taxes, anyway, so it doesn't hurt them, and taxes pay for increased government jobs. In fact, the government is pretty much the one party you can expect to always spend anything it gets, which stimulates the economy. High-income earners (not necessarily the wealthy) are the ones paying the taxes, and they're the ones most likely to "hoard" money rather than spend it (although they'll call it "investing"). You can, in fact, tax your way to prosperity, although many folks don't like the wealth redistribution that that implies.

[Chronos]

Not a very good one: unemployed people don't pay very much in (federal) taxes, anyway, so it doesn't hurt them, and taxes pay for increased government jobs. In fact, the government is pretty much the one party you can expect to always spend anything it gets, which stimulates the economy.It is funny how conservatives are so much in favor of big business, except when it comes to the biggest business in the world.

[foolsguinea]

Furthermore, there's a case to be made that tax increases should be postponed until 2011 anyway-- given the softness of the economy in Jan 2009.

Not a very good one: unemployed people don't pay very much in (federal) taxes, anyway, so it doesn't hurt them, and taxes pay for increased government jobs. In fact, the government is pretty much the one party you can expect to always spend anything it gets, which stimulates the economy. High-income earners (not necessarily the wealthy) are the ones paying the taxes, and they're the ones most likely to "hoard" money rather than spend it (although they'll call it "investing"). You can, in fact, tax your way to prosperity, although many folks don't like the wealth redistribution that that implies.Well put.

[Sam Stone]

It is funny how conservatives are so much in favor of big business, except when it comes to the biggest business in the world.

It's funny how liberals think that government is just another form of business.

[Fear Itself]

And yet so many conservatives run for office on their extensive business management career (Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Bill Binnie here in NH), claiming that will give them the experience to balance the budget and create jobs. As if only we ran the government the way they ran their corporation, we could finally put the federal government on a paying basis.

Is that funny too, Sam? Or does that just make perfect sense to you?

[Chronos]

It's funny how liberals think that government is just another form of business. Of course it's not just another form of business, but then, neither is Microsoft, or AT&T, or Exxon, or Archer Daniels Midland. Any business that big becomes qualitatively different from smaller businesses.

[ElvisL1ves]

It's funny how liberals think that government is just another form of business.
WTF? :dubious:

[Lightnin']

It's funny how liberals think that government is just another form of business.
WTF? :dubious:

Yeah, I gotta admit I'm not seeing an effective argument there, either. It's like he just reflexively reversed the original statement, and thought he was somehow getting a zinger in.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

And my fellow Tennesseans have all lost their minds, to judge by bumper stickers and video billboards, all asking for the birth certificate.:smack:

[Bricker]

Yeah, I gotta admit I'm not seeing an effective argument there, either. It's like he just reflexively reversed the original statement, and thought he was somehow getting a zinger in.

Perhaps I can explain.

As I read it, Sam was rebutting the notion that big government is analogous to big business; that conservatives are somehow inconsistent by liking "big business" but disliking "the biggest business."

And he's right: government is not like business in several key respects. Government has no need to make a profit. Liberals view this as a good thing, undoubtedly; conservatives generally view it as evidence that a government solution will be inefficient precisely because they don't need to worry about profit.

[Zakalwe]

And he's right: government is not like business in several key respects. Government has no need to make a profit. Liberals view this as a good thing, undoubtedly; conservatives generally view it as evidence that a government solution will be inefficient precisely because they don't need to worry about profit.And yet, as Fear Itself noted, many conservative candidates run on exactly the platform that they would run government like a business. This is supposed to be a good thing for conservatives. Funny that.

[IdahoMauleMan]

Yeah, I gotta admit I'm not seeing an effective argument there, either. It's like he just reflexively reversed the original statement, and thought he was somehow getting a zinger in.

Perhaps I can explain.

As I read it, Sam was rebutting the notion that big government is analogous to big business; that conservatives are somehow inconsistent by liking "big business" but disliking "the biggest business."

And he's right: government is not like business in several key respects. Government has no need to make a profit. Liberals view this as a good thing, undoubtedly; conservatives generally view it as evidence that a government solution will be inefficient precisely because they don't need to worry about profit.

It's not only profit, it's that a transaction can only be consummated between an individual and a business if both parties agree. Or to paraphrase Adam Smith, a voluntary transaction only occurs if both parties benefit.

You, as a consumer, have 100% control over whether or not a transaction will occur between you and a private entity such as a business. If you don't want to purchase a hamburger from Burger King, you don't have to. If you don't want to get your haircut from The Straight Dope Salon, you don't have to. It's all within your control.

You have 0% control over whether or not you can avoid doing business with the government. If you want to open a salon and cut somebody's else hair for profit, and the government requires you to pass a cosmetologist test and pay a license fee, you can't say "No thanks, I'll just do it without the license and fee."

[/begin aside]

It's remarkable to me how many seemingly intelligent posters on the SDMB can't understand this basic distinction.

But again, so many on the left paint themselves as helpless, hapless victims of evil corporations - unable to fend for themselves and make their own decisions in the cold, cruel world without a government nanny - that perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise.

[/end aside]

[Chronos]

I also have 0% control over whether I can avoid doing business with Archer Daniels Midland.

[foolsguinea]

It's not only profit, it's that a transaction can only be consummated between an individual and a business if both parties agree. Or to paraphrase Adam Smith, a voluntary transaction only occurs if both parties benefit.

You, as a consumer, have 100% control over whether or not a transaction will occur between you and a private entity such as a business. If you don't want to purchase a hamburger from Burger King, you don't have to. If you don't want to get your haircut from The Straight Dope Salon, you don't have to. It's all within your control.

You have 0% control over whether or not you can avoid doing business with the government. If you want to open a salon and cut somebody's else hair for profit, and the government requires you to pass a cosmetologist test and pay a license fee, you can't say "No thanks, I'll just do it without the license and fee."Does the hamburger have a choice? Does the Free Republic Hair Salon have a choice to gain your business after you go to the The Straight Dope Salon? Of course not. Most economic decisions have externalities, even if they are only lost opportunities, even if they are borne by non-human entities or generations yet unborn. Your happy little world where every action takes place purely between two consenting individuals is a fantasy. Two economic actors are rarely ever in the moral equivalent of pure vacuum. Now you may say that those other actors don't count, that two humans living today with the power to make the deal are the ones with authority to do so. Fine. Then also accept that there are authorities over you with every right to treat you like the hamburger, or the lock of hair cut off.

You are not the world's top sovereign.

[IdahoMauleMan]

I also have 0% control over whether I can avoid doing business with Archer Daniels Midland.

I challenge that notion. Please explain.

[IdahoMauleMan]

It's not only profit, it's that a transaction can only be consummated between an individual and a business if both parties agree. Or to paraphrase Adam Smith, a voluntary transaction only occurs if both parties benefit.

You, as a consumer, have 100% control over whether or not a transaction will occur between you and a private entity such as a business. If you don't want to purchase a hamburger from Burger King, you don't have to. If you don't want to get your haircut from The Straight Dope Salon, you don't have to. It's all within your control.

You have 0% control over whether or not you can avoid doing business with the government. If you want to open a salon and cut somebody's else hair for profit, and the government requires you to pass a cosmetologist test and pay a license fee, you can't say "No thanks, I'll just do it without the license and fee."Does the hamburger have a choice? Does the Free Republic Hair Salon have a choice to gain your business after you go to the The Straight Dope Salon? Of course not. Most economic decisions have externalities, even if they are only lost opportunities, even if they are borne by non-human entities or generations yet unborn. Your happy little world where every action takes place purely between two consenting individuals is a fantasy. Two economic actors are rarely ever in the moral equivalent of pure vacuum. Now you may say that those other actors don't count, that two humans living today with the power to make the deal are the ones with authority to do so. Fine. Then also accept that there are authorities over you with every right to treat you like the hamburger, or the lock of hair cut off.

You are not the world's top sovereign.

Does a hamburger have a choice? What?

I'm not the world's top sovereign? Huh?

I don't have a clue what you're saying. But I'd like to. Can you try again?

[foolsguinea]

Rarely are only two entities affected by a transaction. Yet anarcho-capitalist/libertarian theory is based on the idea that every transaction should be decided by the two entities party to it. But transactions which only affect two entities rarely exist.

So the two entities (let's say a human being & a corporation, or two human beings) by deciding to undergo this exchange are making themselves authorities over everyone else affected--even their future selves who may regret the decision.

And that's OK. An absolute right to consent is unnatural--a fantasy. In the state of nature, there is no money & precious little barter. Nature is red in tooth & claw. The strong take; the wise strong also manage the resources they take. Your demands that you be left alone are rooted in a child's delusion of how the world works--a perverse false idea of natural law. You have no real right to live unaffected by the decisions of others.

In the real world, the most you can ask is that somehow you are given some choices, that some of the sovereignty of decision is granted to you. But there will never be a world where everyone gets to choose everything that affects them.

[foolsguinea]

When you demand freedom of contract for yourself as an adult human citizen, you are saying that you as an adult human citizen should have a measure of sovereignty suzerainty, that you are a natural aristocrat to be given autonomy--& therefore authority to impose your will on other entities that lack your power.

Libertarians think they want everyone to be free. But the only entities that are really freed are those that have the power to consent at the time--and only as they exist at the time. Not infants nor the unborn; not even our older, sadder but wiser future selves. Certainly not beasts or inanimate objects. You merely replace a smaller aristocracy with a larger, more unruly one.

[elfkin477]

And yet so many conservatives run for office on their extensive business management career (Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, Bill Binnie here in NH), claiming that will give them the experience to balance the budget and create jobs. As if only we ran the government the way they ran their corporation, we could finally put the federal government on a paying basis.

Is that funny too, Sam? Or does that just make perfect sense to you?Binnie should know better than to run on that in NH after Gov. Benson's short time in politics.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I also have 0% control over whether I can avoid doing business with Archer Daniels Midland.
I challenge that notion. Please explain.
The only way to avoid eating food processed by ADM is to grow your own food yourself.

[Bricker]

And he's right: government is not like business in several key respects. Government has no need to make a profit. Liberals view this as a good thing, undoubtedly; conservatives generally view it as evidence that a government solution will be inefficient precisely because they don't need to worry about profit.And yet, as Fear Itself noted, many conservative candidates run on exactly the platform that they would run government like a business. This is supposed to be a good thing for conservatives. Funny that.

Sure. Because the claim is that they would impose a faux "profit" requirement on government and thus attain the same salutory effects that a real profit requirement supplies in the real business world.

What's funny?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Does a placebo produce the same effects as genuine therapy?

[Fear Itself]

What's funny?That you will argue both sides of an issue with equal passion and sincerity.

[Beware of Doug]

The GOP has the advantage that their platform consists largely of obstructionist nothin'-doin'. This makes it comparatively easy to mount aggressive hearts-and-minds campaign offensives while still delivering on their campaign pledges to do nothing and not let the Dems do anything either.

[Lantern]

The numbers (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/the-democrats-new-normal/?hp)are looking very bad for the Dems. A 1994 style meltdown where they lose both the House and Senate is entirely possible. It's not inevitable but they seriously need to get their act together in the next couple of months with a co-ordinated message coming from both the White House and the Congresssional Dems.

[BrainGlutton]

Does a placebo produce the same effects as genuine therapy?

That depends on the ailment.

[BrainGlutton]

What's funny?That you will argue both sides of an issue with equal passion and sincerity.

Speaking as a lawyer, I wish that were funny!

[Cisco]

The numbers (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/the-democrats-new-normal/?hp)are looking very bad for the Dems. A 1994 style meltdown where they lose both the House and Senate is entirely possible. It's not inevitable but they seriously need to get their act together in the next couple of months with a co-ordinated message coming from both the White House and the Congresssional Dems.

I wonder if that will ultimately be good for Obama's administration and re-election, though. There'll have to be some blame-sharing going on if the Republicans control the legislative branch.

And, as a raging liberal I hate to say this, but, maybe we could get something done. If it takes making the (R)-tards feel like it was their idea to get some real financial reform done, for instance, then fucking go for it. I don't think they'll legislate from nearly as far to the right as they're campaigning.

[Fear Itself]

And, as a raging liberal I hate to say this, but, maybe we could get something done. If it takes making the (R)-tards feel like it was their idea to get some real financial reform done, for instance, then fucking go for it.They won't have time, what with all the subpoenas and hearings about KenyaGate. Then there's the impeachment; nope, sorry, no meaningful legislation, there's just not enough hours in the day.

[Zakalwe]

The numbers (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/31/the-democrats-new-normal/?hp)are looking very bad for the Dems. A 1994 style meltdown where they lose both the House and Senate is entirely possible. It's not inevitable but they seriously need to get their act together in the next couple of months with a co-ordinated message coming from both the White House and the Congresssional Dems.The problem with those kinds of polls is that "generic" Republican doesn't exist (nor does generic Democrat).

[Cisco]

And, as a raging liberal I hate to say this, but, maybe we could get something done. If it takes making the (R)-tards feel like it was their idea to get some real financial reform done, for instance, then fucking go for it.They won't have time, what with all the subpoenas and hearings about KenyaGate. Then there's the impeachment; nope, sorry, no meaningful legislation, there's just not enough hours in the day.

In that case, what do you think the punishment would be for punching a senator in the face? Say, purely for the sake of the hypothetical, the assailant had no priors.

[gonzomax]

Gallop is always the worst of polls. The same day his came out another one had Dems and repubs tied at 41 with a large undecided. It gets play because it makes for loud TV.

[E-Sabbath]

I'm kind of wondering about the Republican enthusiasm peaking a bit early. Do you think it'll last till November? Obama should start whoopin up the base in a month or so, maybe tossing some feelers out about now, if I had to guess.

[Cyberhwk]

Obama should start whoopin up the base in a month or so, maybe tossing some feelers out about now, if I had to guess.
If he doesn't it'll be not a moment too soon. I have been kind of wondering. For as much of a warchest as the Dems were supposed to have I sure as hell haven't heard much and for the first time in a while WA is in play.

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Obama's approval rating in Jan '09 was about 65 and his disapproval was about 20. Today, both of the numbers are about 47. But this doesn't even have to be about Obama. The Dems gained a lot of seats in the anti-Bush backlash, many in traditionally conservative districts. Now, many of those seats have to be defended without Bush to point to.True, but many of those Democrats are, themselves, of the fairly conservative variety so for them to hold their seats isn't such a stretch.

[John Mace]

Obama's approval rating in Jan '09 was about 65 and his disapproval was about 20. Today, both of the numbers are about 47. But this doesn't even have to be about Obama. The Dems gained a lot of seats in the anti-Bush backlash, many in traditionally conservative districts. Now, many of those seats have to be defended without Bush to point to.True, but many of those Democrats are, themselves, of the fairly conservative variety so for them to hold their seats isn't such a stretch.
Strange that I haven't looked at this thread since this new forum was created, and I find myself being quoted in the current last post!

Yes, that's true. But couple that with the anti-incumbent mood plus the fact that many of those Dems will have to run from their record, and it still looks very good for the Pubs.

I look forward to the Pubs gaining at least one house in Congress. They'll have to govern instead of just oppose. Obama isn't going to start any new wars (I hope), and he can always veto anything outrageous that the Pubs get through Congress.

[DigitalC]

Obama's approval rating in Jan '09 was about 65 and his disapproval was about 20. Today, both of the numbers are about 47. But this doesn't even have to be about Obama. The Dems gained a lot of seats in the anti-Bush backlash, many in traditionally conservative districts. Now, many of those seats have to be defended without Bush to point to.True, but many of those Democrats are, themselves, of the fairly conservative variety so for them to hold their seats isn't such a stretch.

Quite the opposite i believe, conservative dems are not going to attract any republican voters, they are just going to lose democrat votes and enthusiasm.

[Chronos]

Yes, that's true. But couple that with the anti-incumbent mood...Cite?

[John Mace]

Obama: "They talk about me like a dog."

???

[John Mace]

Yes, that's true. But couple that with the anti-incumbent mood...Cite?

I'll jump on that as soon as finish finding a cite that the sky is blue.

[Leaper]

I look forward to the Pubs gaining at least one house in Congress. They'll have to govern instead of just oppose.

If by "govern," you mean "24/7 hearings, investigations, and impeachment proceedings involving HCR, the President's place of birth, and his ties with Tony Rezko," then yes, I suppose they will. :)

ETA: And since the President is of the opposing party, why CAN'T they heartily satisfy at least their own constituents by just spending all their time opposing whatever the President wants to do?

[Chronos]

I'll jump on that as soon as finish finding a cite that the sky is blue. Oh, there's all kinds of people talking about it. But most news stories about the anti-incumbent mood are saying how such-and-such incumbent managed to win despite the overwhelming anti-incumbent mood.

[John Mace]

I look forward to the Pubs gaining at least one house in Congress. They'll have to govern instead of just oppose.

If by "govern," you mean "24/7 hearings, investigations, and impeachment proceedings involving HCR, the President's place of birth, and his ties with Tony Rezko," then yes, I suppose they will. :)
There is that risk...

ETA: And since the President is of the opposing party, why CAN'T they heartily satisfy at least their own constituents by just spending all their time opposing whatever the President wants to do?

Congress is where laws are passed. I never got this business about the President "wanting" to do shit. He's the executive branch. He's suppose to execute the laws that Congress passes.

[foolsguinea]

So who sets the agenda, if not the head of government who also has veto power?

[John Mace]

So who sets the agenda, if not the head of government who also has veto power?
The president is not the "head of government". He's the head of the executive branch. I expect Congressional leaders to set their agenda.

[BrainGlutton]

So who sets the agenda, if not the head of government who also has veto power?
The president is not the "head of government". He's the head of the executive branch. I expect Congressional leaders to set their agenda.

"Head of government" and "head of the executive branch" are the same thing. The president is also head of state, which is a different thing.

[John Mace]

"Head of government" and "head of the executive branch" are the same thing.
No, it's not. That makes as much sense as saying the VP is in charge of the US Senate.

The president is also head of state, which is a different thing.

Yes, his is, and yes, it is.

[Fear Itself]

Cite?

I'll jump on that as soon as finish finding a cite that the sky is blue.Don't bother. 98.5% of incumbents (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Politico%3A+Primary+night+yields+good+news+for+Obama%2C+Dems&articleId=cb90719d-5f57-49a6-b5e4-5fde67ce1cb7) have been renominated in the primaries, indicating voters only want to throw out incumbents that are not in their own party. Big surprise.

[John Mace]

I'll jump on that as soon as finish finding a cite that the sky is blue.Don't bother. 98.5% of incumbents (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Politico%3A+Primary+night+yields+good+news+for+Obama%2C+Dems&articleId=cb90719d-5f57-49a6-b5e4-5fde67ce1cb7) have been renominated in the primaries, indicating voters only want to throw out incumbents that are not in their own party. Big surprise.

Primaries are the realm of party faithfuls. The general electorate is another matter. Remember, those incumbents have to win against the challenger in November. Most incumbents are Democrats. Do the math.

From the Washington Post as far back as April.

Poll finds Americans in an anti-incumbent mood as midterm elections near (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/27/AR2010042705324.html)

Members of Congress face the most anti-incumbent electorate since 1994, with less than a third of all voters saying they are inclined to support their representatives in November...

[Cisco]

"Head of government" and "head of the executive branch" are the same thing.
No, it's not. That makes as much sense as saying the VP is in charge of the US Senate.

The president is also head of state, which is a different thing.

Yes, his is, and yes, it is.

No, John, BrainGlutton is right. Obama is the head of state and the head of government. One person occupies both roles in the United States. He's also the commander in chief of the military and the gentleman who pardons the turkey on Thanksgiving. We have a fairly powerful president, as these things go.

[John Mace]

No, it's not. That makes as much sense as saying the VP is in charge of the US Senate.



Yes, his is, and yes, it is.

No, John, BrainGlutton is right. Obama is the head of state and the head of government. One person occupies both roles in the United States. He's also the commander in chief of the military and the gentleman who pardons the turkey on Thanksgiving. We have a fairly powerful president, as these things go.

Can you give me a cite, preferably from the Constitution, that the president is the "head of the government"? A SCOTUS decision would do, as well.


Head of state is ceremonial. Perhaps in a parliamentary system the Prime Minister is the head of government, but we have 3 co-equal branches of government, and none of the branches is the head.

And you guys laughed at Sarah Palin when she said the VP ran the Senate...

[BrainGlutton]

No, John, BrainGlutton is right. Obama is the head of state and the head of government. One person occupies both roles in the United States. He's also the commander in chief of the military and the gentleman who pardons the turkey on Thanksgiving. We have a fairly powerful president, as these things go.

Can you give me a cite, preferably from the Constitution, that the president is the "head of the government"? A SCOTUS decision would do, as well.


Head of state is ceremonial. Perhaps in a parliamentary system the Prime Minister is the head of government, but we have 3 co-equal branches of government, and none of the branches is the head.

And you guys laughed at Sarah Palin when she said the VP ran the Senate...

I remember in the Encyclopedia Americana, every country article has a standard entry for "Head of State" and another for "Head of Government," and if you look up the UK the Head of State is the queen and the Head of Government is the PM, but in the U.S. article, the president is given under both headings. You will find the same for any country that uses a presidential system. Whether in a presidential or a parliamentary system, the chief executive is the head of government. That's accepted international usage.

As for the American system, the 3 branches are independent but not co-equal; the executive branch always overshadows the others, because it has so much more to do, and because it is the EB that represents the government as such, both to Americans and to foreigners.

[John Mace]

[As for the American system, the 3 branches are independent but not co-equal; the executive branch always overshadows the others, because it has so much more to do, and because it is the EB that represents the government as such, both to Americans and to foreigners.

Well, I agree that they aren't actually co-equal, although theoretically they are supposed to be. But it's an apple and oranges and bananas comparison, because they have different powers. The SCOTUS gets to tell us what laws actually mean. Presidents can make sweeping executive orders, but Congress can remove the president.

At any rate, let's get out of this linguistic argument and back to the issue that was at hand: ie, that the President is supposed to tell the Congress what to do. He can certainly try to do that, but that's not the way the system is set up. The President doesn't "set the agenda" for Congress, although he certainly has some important input. The House and Senate leadership sets the agenda. And if the opposition party is running things in Congress, they can tell the president to go take a hike. If he wants to call himself the head of government, bully for him. He doesn't have the authority of a Prime Minister.

[Bricker]

Nate Silver's 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/07/republicans-have-one-in-four-chance-to-claim-senate-majority-model-shows/) says:

Republicans now have approximately a one-in-four chance of winning enough Senate seats in the Nov. 2 elections to claim an outright majority of the chamber, FiveThirtyEight’s latest forecasting model shows.

[John Mace]

Getting back the idea that the president should set the agenda for Congress, I assume anyone putting forth idea would be upset if the Democratically controlled Congress in '07 and '08 did not take direction from Bush on what their agenda should be. Right?

[Beware of Doug]

I'm kind of wondering about the Republican enthusiasm peaking a bit early. Do you think it'll last till November? Obama should start whoopin up the base in a month or so, maybe tossing some feelers out about now, if I had to guess.The Democratic base at this point is good mostly for votes and maybe some outrage. The Republican base has those capabilities, plus some the Dems don't have and don't want: a fierce group discipline (although the groups themselves are multiplying, each is strongly follower-oriented) and the kind of personal, grudge-fuck hate that can only come from a worldview centered on Me, My Money, and My Morality.

[Fear Itself]

I'm kind of wondering about the Republican enthusiasm peaking a bit early. Do you think it'll last till November? Obama should start whoopin up the base in a month or so, maybe tossing some feelers out about now, if I had to guess.The Democratic base at this point is good mostly for votes and maybe some outrage. The Republican base has those capabilities, plus some the Dems don't have and don't want: a fierce group discipline (although the groups themselves are multiplying, each is strongly follower-oriented) and the kind of personal, grudge-fuck hate that can only come from a worldview centered on Me, My Money, and My Morality.Plus they lack critical thinking skills and will do what they are told, even when it is against their own self interest.

[E-Sabbath]

Obama _is_, however, starting to whoop up the base, and the other dems are following his lead.

Getting back the idea that the president should set the agenda for Congress, I assume anyone putting forth idea would be upset if the Democratically controlled Congress in '07 and '08 did not take direction from Bush on what their agenda should be. Right?

I rather thought they did, looking back.

[Leaper]

Obama _is_, however, starting to whoop up the base, and the other dems are following his lead.


:confused: Is that a good thing or a bad thing? :)

(Sorry, just never seen that phrase in that context before.)

[E-Sabbath]

He is starting to talk boldly and throw red meat to the public. He's trying to create enthusiasm among the base.

[Hold Fast]

Also -- what do the Pubs have to offer this year, other than not being Dems?

Heck, I'll take it anyway.

[gonzomax]

Also -- what do the Pubs have to offer this year, other than not being Dems?

Heck, I'll take it anyway.

After what Bush did?

[Xema]

After what Bush did?
I think we need to avoid making Bush's execrable performance some sort of gold standard which, so long as the Dems exceed it they are congratulated. You can do meaningfully better and still be running the country into terrible trouble.

[Leaper]

After what Bush did?
I think we need to avoid making Bush's execrable performance some sort of gold standard which, so long as the Dems exceed it they are congratulated. You can do meaningfully better and still be running the country into terrible trouble.

I think he may mean that, if Republicans are reelected such that they take control of the government again, there's no reason to think they won't reestablish most/all of Bush's policies and practices all over again. Thus the question becomes, do you really want that? Who really wants that?

I'm not as convinced as he is that such would be the case, but it's a reasonable avenue of debate.

[Xema]

if Republicans are reelected such that they take control of the government again, there's no reason to think they won't reestablish most/all of Bush's policies and practices all over again.
Could be. We have to seriously wonder why the Dems have been behaving in such a way as to make that seem possible.

[elfkin477]

I'll jump on that as soon as finish finding a cite that the sky is blue.Don't bother. 98.5% of incumbents (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Politico%3A+Primary+night+yields+good+news+for+Obama%2C+Dems&articleId=cb90719d-5f57-49a6-b5e4-5fde67ce1cb7) have been renominated in the primaries, indicating voters only want to throw out incumbents that are not in their own party. Big surprise. That number has been thrown about for months now, but there are still 8 states and three territories that haven't had primaries yet (Captain Amazing listed them here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12822640&postcount=2)) so it's not an entirely meaningful statistic. Yet.

[Chronos]

And if the incumbents lose in each and every race in all eight of those states, it'd still be an overwhelming majority who win nationwide.

[Mozart1220]

Rove knows that many people vote not for the one they WANT to win but for the one they THINK will win. If the Republicans put it out that the Dems will definitely lose, people will vote for Republicans so they don't "waste" their vote.

Also, it's easy in this "instant" society to convince people that Obama is a failure because he hasn't solved all the world's problems overnight, as if that were even possible.

[Frank]

We have to seriously wonder why the Dems have been behaving in such a way as to make that seem possible.
What gets me is that all the blue dogs and placeholders in Republican districts have been deathly afraid of voting for anything the mainstream Dems want to push through, and they're going to lose anyway. That's a fine epitaph for a political career: "I spent two years in the House of Representatives, and can proudly say that I was a spineless coward for every minute of it!"

[Omar Little]

The main reason the Democrats will lose a LOT of seats this election is that in 2008, there was a record number of young voters that registered and voted. The majority of those voted Democrat. Those same voters are not expected to show up at the polls in 2010, primarily due to voter apathy. You add this phenomena to the growing discontent by moderate voters that voted Democrat in 2008, and there will be a huge swing in seats back to the Republicans.

Besides we tend to have better policies that get put in place, IMHO, when the executive branch and the legislative branches are not controlled by the same party.

[John DiFool]

Besides we tend to have better policies that get put in place, IMHO, when the executive branch and the legislative branches are not controlled by the same party.

Horsehockey. In this political environment it would lead to lead to total gridlock.

[Omar Little]

Besides we tend to have better policies that get put in place, IMHO, when the executive branch and the legislative branches are not controlled by the same party.

Horsehockey. In this political environment it would lead to lead to total gridlock.

Not really. Historically when we have had divided legislative and executive branches, more moderate legislation gets passed, as opposed to extreme legislation from either party. The production of the legislative bodies has not decreased during those times...so gridlock does not occur...more compromise.

[BrainGlutton]

Horsehockey. In this political environment it would lead to lead to total gridlock.

Not really. Historically when we have had divided legislative and executive branches, more moderate legislation gets passed, as opposed to extreme legislation from either party. The production of the legislative bodies has not decreased during those times...so gridlock does not occur...more compromise.

See the federal government shutdown of 1995. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995)

[Omar Little]

See the federal government shutdown of 1995. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995)

If goverment were smaller, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. :p

I still would rather see separate powers than have one single party control both branches of government.

[Chronos]

So, how would a Republican-controlled congress pass any laws at all (much less good ones), when right now, we can't even get them to vote on any laws at all?

[Omar Little]

Go study how legislation gets passed into law and you'll figure it out.

[Leaper]

See the federal government shutdown of 1995. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995)

Actually, this brings up an interesting point: I've read many who say that if the Republicans try to shut down the government again, it'll be a repeat of '95. But had Newt not said what he did, could they have successfully blamed Clinton for it?

[Measure for Measure]

The main reason the Democrats will lose a LOT of seats this election is that in 2008, there was a record number of young voters that registered and voted. Well that's one hypothesis. But during most midterms, the party holding the Presidency loses seats: the phrase is "Midterm losses". That occurs whether or not record numbers of young voters register and vote.

The other factor is the economy: George Bush delivered us the worst recession since WWII and recovery in the job market isn't really underway. So I'd expect a trouncing in November. If the Democrats manage to hold either the House or Senate it will only be because the Tea Partiers have managed to nominate a motley collection of loons.

Routine midterm losses, the economy and incumbency during Presidential years are the main determinants of elections. Cite (http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2008/index2.htm). All else is empty chatter.

[BrainGlutton]

See the federal government shutdown of 1995. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_shutdown_of_1995)

If goverment were smaller, that wouldn't be that big of a deal. :p

I still would rather see separate powers than have one single party control both branches of government.

A better solution would be a multiparty system. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516797&highlight=multiparty) Then almost certainly there would be no majority party in either house of Congress, ever, and nothing would get passed unless two or more parties agreed to support it. Think about it.

[MovieMogul]

So, how would a Republican-controlled congress pass any laws at all (much less good ones), when right now, we can't even get them to vote on any laws at all?Well, right now, they can obstruct legislation at their leisure and provide boiler-plate "solutions" without offering an ounce of specifics, and get away with it because they're in the minority.

But if they win both houses, then they really will have to put up or shut up. There will be greater scrutiny to everything they propose, they'll be more likely to keep the crazies at bay, and they can't act like a bunch of crybabies anymore. The short term bad for the Dems in this scenario will be a long-term good, for both the party & Obama (and by extension, IMHO, us).

[Cisco]

But if they win both houses, then they really will have to put up or shut up. There will be greater scrutiny to everything they propose, they'll be more likely to keep the crazies at bay, and they can't act like a bunch of crybabies anymore. The short term bad for the Dems in this scenario will be a long-term good, for both the party & Obama (and by extension, IMHO, us).
I agree, and I think a Republican takeover of congress this fall will pretty much guarantee Obama's re-election in 2012.

[Chronos]

Go study how legislation gets passed into law and you'll figure it out. I have studied it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ), and one of the essential steps is that the legislators vote. For the past two years, the Republicans in the Senate have been systematically refusing to do that.

[Omar Little]

Go study how legislation gets passed into law and you'll figure it out. I have studied it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ), and one of the essential steps is that the legislators vote. For the past two years, the Republicans in the Senate have been systematically refusing to do that.

Sophistry is abound on the dope these days.

[foolsguinea]

I still would rather see separate powers than have one single party control both branches of government.Wow, how do our British cousins manage? :rolleyes:

[Cyberhwk]

But if they win both houses, then they really will have to put up or shut up. There will be greater scrutiny to everything they propose, they'll be more likely to keep the crazies at bay, and they can't act like a bunch of crybabies anymore.
Why not? When companies fail it's blamed on the CEO regardless of whether he's at fault or not. The public doesn't really care who caused the problems, they just want to see heads roll. The more public the figure, the better. And you don't get more public than being President of the United States.

[Evil One]

Since this thread was started the situation has only worsened for the Democrats.
House races that they never expected to have to defend (John Dingell, Barney Frank, etc.) are now close enough that the incumbents actually have to spend money and campaign instead of taking election for granted. Realclearpolitics keeps rolling back the estimated safe, likely and leaning Democrat house seats. As of now, RCP estimates 186 safe Democrat seats and 210 Republican seats. 39 seats are toss ups. Of those 39, all but two of them are Democrat incumbents. If the Republicans take 1 seat out of five of those that are classified as "toss ups", they will win the majority. It's likely that they will win far more than that. Right now, RCP estimates the Senate at 48 safe Senate seats for the Democrats and 46 for Republicans. The six "toss up" states were or are occupied by Democrat incumbents. Republicans lead in four of them. One more and the Senate is controlled by the GOP. Only a kool-aid besotted partisan with a tenuous grasp of reality would deny that the Democrats are due for a historic defeat...i.e. a "whupping".

The question that will be debated for years to come is...why? The short answer is that America got a look at big-government progressive politics and has recoiled. The latest Gallup poll on political self-identification showed 52 percent calling themselves "conservative" and only 18 percent calling themselves "liberal". Those numbers are toxic for the progressive agenda. Again...why did this happen? I think the "great recession" had a lot to do with it.
Its impact was so large and long-lasting that the reaction to it has become cultural. People are holding onto their money and have changed their spending habits. Couple that with the historic struggle between the "haves" (taxpayers) and the "have nots" (net consumers of federal dollars compared to what they pay in taxes) and you have tension and frustration. President Obama has made it abundantly clear that even though he campaigned as a moderate, he is governing as a liberal. Say what you will about "liberal" being a relative term, he's not really a liberal compared to (fill in the blank), etc...the American voting public sees him as a liberal. They don't approve. Since Obama likes to use a driving analogy on the campaign trail, let me try one on for size. The American people have seen what happens when you give liberals the keys to the car and they are taking the keys away. The President and Congress are driving too fast in a direction the owners of the car do not want to go.

American progressive politics will be dealt a serious blow this November. How long will it last? I don't know. It depends on how well the Democrats can gather and hold a diverse group of young people, minorities, liberals, union members and others together. The main problem they will have is that when most people get older, they become more conservative. Home ownership, taxes and other obligations tend to open up the eyes of people who previously found it easy to be enamored of nebulous ideas of what's "fair" when they didn't have to pay for them or think them through. When it's all said and done, I think the democrats will have a solid 35-40 percent of the public as a voting bloc. And as long as they forsake the middle (and moderates) for pie-in-the-sky policies of the left, that will not be enough.

[Cisco]

The question that will be debated for years to come is...why? The short answer is that America got a look at big-government progressive politics and has recoiled.
I don't think so. I think there are a lot of factors, but I honestly don't think that's a huge one. If I had to name one, it'd be that the economy hasn't recovered as quickly as people would like it to. But I think we'd be worse off under a less "progressive" White House, and so do a lot of other people.

The latest Gallup poll on political self-identification showed 52 percent calling themselves "conservative" and only 18 percent calling themselves "liberal".That's because conservatives have somehow (mind-boggling to me) succeeded in making"liberal" a dirty word in this country. If you ask people about the issues instead of asking them to label themselves with one-word political terms, you'll see a much different picture.

Those numbers are toxic for the progressive agenda. Again...why did this happen? I think the "great recession" had a lot to do with it.
Its impact was so large and long-lasting that the reaction to it has become cultural. People are holding onto their money and have changed their spending habits. Couple that with the historic struggle between the "haves" (taxpayers) and the "have nots" (net consumers of federal dollars compared to what they pay in taxes) and you have tension and frustration. President Obama has made it abundantly clear that even though he campaigned as a moderate, he is governing as a liberal. Say what you will about "liberal" being a relative term, he's not really a liberal compared to (fill in the blank), etc...the American voting public sees him as a liberal. They don't approve. Since Obama likes to use a driving analogy on the campaign trail, let me try one on for size. The American people have seen what happens when you give liberals the keys to the car and they are taking the keys away. The President and Congress are driving too fast in a direction the owners of the car do not want to go.

American progressive politics will be dealt a serious blow this November. How long will it last? I don't know. It depends on how well the Democrats can gather and hold a diverse group of young people, minorities, liberals, union members and others together. The main problem they will have is that when most people get older, they become more conservative. Home ownership, taxes and other obligations tend to open up the eyes of people who previously found it easy to be enamored of nebulous ideas of what's "fair" when they didn't have to pay for them or think them through. When it's all said and done, I think the democrats will have a solid 35-40 percent of the public as a voting bloc. And as long as they forsake the middle (and moderates) for pie-in-the-sky policies of the left, that will not be enough.
I really think that you'll prove to be the one out of touch here. The opposition is really fired up right now and the majority isn't, big whoop; that's pretty common in mid-terms. When the next presidential election comes along and the people have seen how poorly the Republican congress has performed, Obama will be easily swept back into office and the progressive march will continue.

[Fear Itself]

When it's all said and done, I think the democrats will have a solid 35-40 percent of the public as a voting bloc. And as long as they forsake the middle (and moderates) for pie-in-the-sky policies of the left, that will not be enough.So how does this work? Liberals forsake the middle and reap the whirlwind, but conservatives make a hard right into WTF Land, and moderates and independents flock to them?

I think you and most of the right are going to be sorely disappointed when the results of the election fail to live up to the stratospheric expectations that are being flogged on Fox. I have to give you credit though, going out on a limb on on the frothy right wing euphoria that peaked about two weeks ago, in case you didn't notice. Most polls have the gap closing noticeably, and the smart money says you aren't taking the Senate.

When the smoke clears and the Tea Baggers realize they cannot achieve the massive overhaul of government they were promised, and it won't be pretty when they have their wrath. The Republicans are going to be in total disarray in the runup to 2012.

[DigitalC]

The question that will be debated for years to come is...why? The short answer is that America got a look at big-government progressive politics and has recoiled.

BS, the short answer is bad economy + normal off party mid term election gains + black president = huge enthusiasm gap. And to claim that Obama has gone more liberal than what he campaigned as is utterly ridiculous, a lot of Obama supporters are staying home this november because they voted for a liberal and got a center right president.

[Measure for Measure]

When it's all said and done, I think the democrats will have a solid 35-40 percent of the public as a voting bloc. And as long as they forsake the middle (and moderates) for pie-in-the-sky policies of the left, that will not be enough. Ok, that's one prediction.

Given the state of the economy and ordinary midterm losses, Ray Fair's model predicts that the Democrats should win 49.3% of all votes cast in Nov 2010 (http://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/vote2008/index2.htm)(as of Jul30 data). His model does not predict seats. If the Dems win 47% of the vote, that means 2% of the electorate swung for the Tea Partiers. If the Dems win 51% of the vote it will mean that visceral disgust with Fox News et al overcame background effects.

I predict that the Democratic vote share will be closer to 49% than it is to 35-40%.
---

Of course this "Forsake the middle" stuff is nonsense. For example, health care reform didn't simply extend Medicare to everyone as lefties wanted: instead Congress opted for a version of Romneycare. Obama and Congress cut middle class taxes: Republicans voted against that, as the plan lacked sufficient giveaways to their corpulent donor base. Heck the Republicans even blocked attempts to curb sexual assault on Americans serving in war zones, without offering coherent objection or amendment. Sorry Evil One but the extremist wackos are all on the Republican side of the aisle.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

I still think the Tea Party will split the Repubs, at least in places.

[Measure for Measure]

I still think the Tea Party will split the Repubs, at least in places. This implies that the Dems may do better than expected in the Senate. But only a few House Republicans rise to the level of war Nazi reenactor Rich Iott (http://www.mnprogressiveproject.com/diary/7404/why-a-reenactor-is-bugged-by-the-nazi-guy) of Ohio. Sure there are a lot of tea party crazies, but most of them don't get any sort of airplay unless they are running for the Senate.

At any rate, most of the craziness is reflected in polling, which feeds into Nate Silver's models at the 538 blog (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/). Personally, I think if the Dems maintain control of 53 seats in the Senate or 212 seats in the House, that this would represent a resounding repudiation of Republican insanity. BS, the short answer is bad economy + normal off party mid term election gains + black president = huge enthusiasm gap. I would substitute in "Conservative judicial activism in the form of Citizens United", for "Black president". Thanks to five extremists on the supreme court, monied interests can now buy a sizable chunk of this election.

[BrainGlutton]

The latest projection from Electoral-Vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) is:

Senate: Dem 50, GOP 47, ties 3

House: Dem 202, GOP 203, ties 30

[BrainGlutton]

I have studied it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ), and one of the essential steps is that the legislators vote. For the past two years, the Republicans in the Senate have been systematically refusing to do that.

Sophistry is abound on the dope these days.

That word, I do not think it means what you think it does.

[gonzomax]

Nate Silver of 538 was on TV last night saying that since polls depend on land lines for polls, their counts are older. Most younger people use cell phones exclusively. He suggests the polls are about 5 percent off toward older, rebublicans types.

[elfkin477]

The latest projection from Electoral-Vote.com (http://www.electoral-vote.com/) is:

Senate: Dem 50, GOP 47, ties 3

House: Dem 202, GOP 203, ties 30 I used to like that site, but they still predicted Kerry would will by a landslide on November 2nd, 2004 (cite (http://web.archive.org/web/20041102092512/http://www.electoral-vote.com/), via the wayback machine. You can see here (http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.electoral-vote.com/) it's only later the same day that their prediction changed) so I've doubted their credibility since then.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

The Democrats are going to get waxed this fall. I predict they will lose control of the House by about 20 seats or so and will only control the Senate by a very few seats.
The principle reason for this is that the insurance companies are going to be offering Medicare Advantage plans in fewer places this year. Couple this with the fact of no COLA for Social Security recipients and the elderly (especially those idiots who don't want socialized medicine, but dont' touch my medicare and give me an increase in Social Security) are going to vent their wrath on the Democrats.
Young people may have voted for Obama in 2008, but historically they don't tend to turn out in large numbers in non-Presidential elections.

[Fear Itself]

The Republicans expect Democrats to roll over if they retake Congress (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101028/ap_on_re_us/us_republicans_agenda):
"If the public puts us in the majority, they're saying that they want this to go forward," said Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., one of the pledge's architects.
Obama, he added, "would be in a hard position not to support this."

...

McCarthy said the president should "realize the election's over, realize the message the voters have sent and maybe go study what Bill Clinton did," moving to the right to meet Republicans.
Sort of like the way Republicans did when they lost the last two elections? I don't think so. I hope President Obama stands up to them, and makes them shut down the government... the same way Bill Clinton did.

[BrainGlutton]

Not really. Historically when we have had divided legislative and executive branches, more moderate legislation gets passed, as opposed to extreme legislation from either party. The production of the legislative bodies has not decreased during those times...so gridlock does not occur...more compromise.

What makes you think that's a good thing? The most politically productive period in living memory was the New Deal. How much of Congress did the GOP control then?

[Starving Artist]

(especially those idiots who don't want socialized medicine, but dont' touch my medicare and give me an increase in Social Security).Why wouldn't they have that attitude? They've been forced all their working lives - up to forty five years in some cases - to pay into a retirement and old age health care system they never wanted to participate in to begin with, and that they are philisophically opposed to. Now that they are reaching or have reached retirement age, you can damn well bet they're going to want the benefits they've been forced to pay for all that time. This in no way means they actually wanted these programs to begin with, nor does it mean that they have no right to oppose further govenment expansion of entitlement programs now.

[Fear Itself]

Why wouldn't they have that attitude? They've been forced all their working lives - up to forty five years in some cases - to pay into a retirement and old age health care system they never wanted to participate in to begin with, and that they are philisophically opposed to. Now that they are reaching or have reached retirement age, you can damn well bet they're going to want the benefits they've been forced to pay for all that time. This in no way means they actually wanted these programs to begin with, nor does it mean that they have no right to oppose further govenment expansion of entitlement programs now.But them receiving benefits is contigent on forcing young people to pay into the system against their will.

Seems pretty hypocritical to me.

[zamboniracer]

Why wouldn't they have that attitude? They've been forced all their working lives - up to forty five years in some cases - to pay into a retirement and old age health care system they never wanted to participate in to begin with, and that they are philisophically opposed to. Now that they are reaching or have reached retirement age, you can damn well bet they're going to want the benefits they've been forced to pay for all that time. This in no way means they actually wanted these programs to begin with, nor does it mean that they have no right to oppose further govenment expansion of entitlement programs now.

You're assuming a lot of facts into evidence there. I'd say, with just as much evidence as you, that even those who didn't like the program at first eventually came around to thinking it was an excellent idea.

[Starving Artist]

But them receiving benefits is contigent on forcing young people to pay into the system against their will.And whose fault is that?

You're assuming a lot of facts into evidence there. I'd say, with just as much evidence as you, that even those who didn't like the program at first eventually came around to thinking it was an excellent idea.I'm sure some have, but what does that have to do with what we're talking about, which is people opposing govenment entitlement programs while simultaneously drawing benefits? What would be idiotic would be for them, having reached an age where they have no income and no heath care, to give up the Social Security and Medicare benefits they've been forced to pay for all their working lives just so people like some of those around here can't call them hypocrites. The whole notion is nonsensical.

[Fear Itself]

And whose fault is that?The hypocrisy is the fault of the person who decries socialism, but takes benefits that are only possible from mandatory participation.

[Starving Artist]

What the hell? That doesn't even make sense.

You are saying that a person is hypocritical if he decries socialism but takes benefits that he's been forced to pay for during 45 years of his working life through mandatory participation? It's the very mandatory participation aspect that relieves him of hypocrisy.

Sensible people would not fault a man for taking benefits his govenment has forced him to pay for all his working life even though he philosophically opposes such programs. No one in their right mind is going to find themselves in their late sixties with no income and no health care saying "You know what, you're right, I am a hypocrite! So you just keep all that money the government forcibly took from me all my life with the promise that I'd get a stipend for myself when I get old, and I'll just go curl up under a tree somewhere and die. After all, it's far better to find myself penniless and homeless and with no health care than for people of the type who created this program in the first place to call me a hypocrite."

[Fear Itself]

What the hell? That doesn't even make sense.

You are saying that a person is hypocritical if he decries socialism but takes benefits that he's been forced to pay for during 45 years of his working life through mandatory participation? It's the very mandatory participation aspect that relieves him of hypocrisy. It is not his mandatory participation that is paying for his benefits. It is the mandatory participation of young people. His mandatory participation paid for his parents benefits. To be relieved of hypocrisy, he would have eschew benefits and advocate ending mandatory participation.

Yes, he would have to take a financial loss to maintain consistency between word and deed. Freedom isn't free.

[Starving Artist]

It is not his mandatory participation that is paying for his benefits. Yes, it is, in the sense that in order to get people to go along with Social Security in the first place, they were promised by the government that in return for their participation they would receive benefits upon having attained retirement age.

So he (to use an Oprah phrase) "paid it forward" in terms of his benefits. He was paying then in order to receive the benefits he has coming now. And the people who are paying now are doing so in order to get the benefits they'll receive in the future - assuming the whole Ponzi-esque scheme holds together that long.

Yes, he would have to take a financial loss to maintain consistency between word and deed.Not to sensible, rational people, he wouldn't.

Freedom isn't free. Freedom? How have we morphed into freedom now. I thought we were talking about hypocrisy? Besides, freedom has nothing to do with it, especially when it comes to a program where the government forces you and your employer to give up a significant percentage of your income for a program you didn't want in the first place.

[Measure for Measure]

Why wouldn't they have that attitude? They've been forced all their working lives - up to forty five years in some cases - to pay into a retirement and old age health care system they never wanted to participate in to begin with, and that they are philisophically opposed to. Well, actually it's been mostly a transfer system and not a savings system. If it was mandatory savings (which social security is, but only in part), of course would be entitled to reap the benefits. But that's not the situation. The Tea Partiers are a bunch of welfare leeches who want to cut benefits for everyone but themselves.

There's another perspective. Social security and medicare can be seen as a contract between generations: the younger support the old. Elderly Tea Partiers want to cling to their own benefits while destroying the future safety net of those paying their bills -- the young and the middle aged. How convenient. Either way elderly tea partiers who refuse to constructively drill down into the details of the US's long run fiscal situation are exactly what they appear to be: cosplaying pansies.

[Fear Itself]

Not to sensible, rational people, he wouldn't.Sensible, rational Scottish people, no doubt.

[Bricker]

It is not his mandatory participation that is paying for his benefits. It is the mandatory participation of young people. His mandatory participation paid for his parents benefits. To be relieved of hypocrisy, he would have eschew benefits and advocate ending mandatory participation.

Yes, he would have to take a financial loss to maintain consistency between word and deed. Freedom isn't free.

No. This claim misunderstands either the word "hypocrisy" or the particular claim being made.

If you've ever played the Parker Brothers' game Monopoly, you probably know that there is a widespread custom of placing all the fines, penalties normally paid to the Bank (and sometimes even the purchase prices for property, houses, and/or hotels) into a pile in the middle of the board. That loot is then "won" by whoever happens to land on Free Parking. Although this practice appears nowhere in the rules, it is very common, or at least was when I was a teen.

I would always argue strongly against the inclusion of that "house rule." It makes the game inflationary, reduces the skill aspect and increases the lottery/luck aspect, and upsets the overall game balance. Sometime I would win this argument, pointing out that the official rules specifically say that no reward should be given for landing on Free Parking. More often, I would lose.

Having lost the debate, occasionally I would run into an idiot who then criticized me for taking the loot when I landed on Free Parking. I would be called hypocritical for doing so after strongly arguing against it.

But of course that charge was wrong. I was arguing for what the rules SHOULD BE. Once that decision was made, then of course I wasn't going to place myself at a disadvantage with respect to the other players. I wasn't arguing that there was a moral wrongness in taking "Free Parking" money; I was arguing that it was a bad rule to adopt for the game. But if we were going to play that way, there was no reason I wouldn't be justified in taking just as much of an advantage as everyone else.

I trust the comparison to this situation is obvious.

[Measure for Measure]

I actually agree with Bricker on this one. But Tea Partiers who go on and on about the evils of Big Guv spending while remaining oblivious to their own attachment to the government's teet can correctly be accused of obliviousness. It would be like Bricker saying that those who take money from the center of the Monopoly board are lazy and shiftless, while helping himself to the funds when he lands on free parking. Calm, intelligent and responsible discussion of our nation's laws and policies is encouraged for all of our citizenry. But some who are full of themselves deserve a thwap with a cluestick.

[Chronos]

The difference, Bricker, is that even as you were raking in the Free Parking money, you would still be arguing that it'd be better to do away with that houserule in the next game. The Tea Partiers, by contrast, are doing the equivalent of berating the Free Parking houserule when anyone else lands on it, and then exclaiming "Hey, this rule is great!" the first time they land on it themselves.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Give me a fucking break, Starving Artist. A great many people on Social Security have received far more than they have paid into the system. A lot of them deny it like creationists deny evolution, but they are benefitting from taxes on the younger workers like me.
Furthermore, 75 percent of Medicare Part B benefits come from general tax revenues, not what people have paid in from their Part B premiums.

[gonzomax]

Medicare cost to the person on it is about 1200 bucks a year. They do not get it for free. Then it covers 80 percent, which leaves 20 percent for the Medicare user to come up with.

[Bricker]

I actually agree with Bricker on this one. But Tea Partiers who go on and on about the evils of Big Guv spending while remaining oblivious to their own attachment to the government's teet can correctly be accused of obliviousness. It would be like Bricker saying that those who take money from the center of the Monopoly board are lazy and shiftless, while helping himself to the funds when he lands on free parking. Calm, intelligent and responsible discussion of our nation's laws and policies is encouraged for all of our citizenry. But some who are full of themselves deserve a thwap with a cluestick.

Agreed completely. But this statement is not what Fear Itself said in post 188.

[gonzomax]

Interesting stat on TV yesterday, they asked those who were going to vote Republican tomorrow ,if they thought it would make things better. Less than 33 percent thought it would. They are casting about in desperation, hoping to be saved . It seems the people have a sense of doom.

[Euphonious Polemic]

The Democrats are going to get waxed this fall. I predict they will lose control of the House by about 20 seats or so and will only control the Senate by a very few seats.

In a non-presidential election year, with the economy doing poorly...

Does this meet the definition for the incumbent party "getting waxed" ?

IMO, it does not.

[Digital Stimulus]

In a non-presidential election year, with the economy doing poorly...

Does this meet the definition for the incumbent party "getting waxed" ?

IMO, it does not.
See also: How to prepare for the right's gloating (http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/10/29/gop_gloating).

[Batfish]

In a non-presidential election year, with the economy doing poorly...

Does this meet the definition for the incumbent party "getting waxed" ?

IMO, it does not.


I'm sorry, I can't see how losing control of half of an entire branch of the federal government is anything but a serious loss.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I'm sorry, I can't see how losing control of half of an entire branch of the federal government is anything but a serious loss.

Because it happens with some regularity, especially in mid-term elections. When the economy is doing poorly, incumbents do poorly. The bums get tossed out and the new bums get put in. And every time this happens, the bums that get put in crow about how "this shows that we are right and correct in everything we do"

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

I have to agree with Batfish, Euphonious Polemic. This, IMO, isn't going to be a matter of losing a dozen or so seats; this is going to be like 1966: the Democrats are going to lose big.

[MOIDALIZE]

538 (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/forecasts/senate) is forecasting a slim Dem majority in the Senate, a Republican majority in the House, and lots of new Republican governors.

[Evil Captor]

The Dems are going to have to lose 78 seats in the House for the Repubs to have the same kind of majority in the House that the Dems enjoy right now. No serious pollsters expect that, they epect that the Repubs will probably get a majority, but not a huge one, one easily reversed in 2012 if the Repubs perform as badly once elected as everyone, including their voters, expect them to.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I have to agree with Batfish, Euphonious Polemic. This, IMO, isn't going to be a matter of losing a dozen or so seats; this is going to be like 1966: the Democrats are going to lose big.

I agree the Democrats will lose seats. I disagree that lose(ing) control of the House by about 20 seats or so and will only control the Senate by a very few seats.

can be reasonably construed as "losing big" or "getting waxed". That sort of swing would be quite expected given the current state of the economy, and should not logically be attributed to any sort of massive swing to Republican policies (what are the Republican's policies again?)

[Euphonious Polemic]

... this is going to be like 1966: the Democrats are going to lose big.

The same 1966 where the Republican opposition took three Democratic Senate seats, but the Democrats still had control with a 64-36 majority?

The same 1966 where the Republicans gained a net of 47 seats , but still maintained a clear majority in the House.??

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Yes, Euphonious, by your own admission, the Republicans gained 47 seats in an off-year election. Whether they had control of the House or not is irrelevant; they still picked up quite a few seats from their opponents.
I also said that I expect the Democrats will keep control of the Senate, although they will lose seats.
I think the loss is going to be much worse than the normal off-year election in a shitty economy. Since my original post I have learned that several insurance companies, including Humana, UAM, and Aetna, will no longer be offering Medicare Advantage plans in many areas. The old people, especially those that like ther MA plans are going to be pissed and they vote.
It's going to be a massacre.

[Evil Captor]

Yes, Euphonious, by your own admission, the Republicans gained 47 seats in an off-year election. Whether they had control of the House or not is irrelevant; they still picked up quite a few seats from their opponents.
I also said that I expect the Democrats will keep control of the Senate, although they will lose seats.
I think the loss is going to be much worse than the normal off-year election in a shitty economy. Since my original post I have learned that several insurance companies, including Humana, UAM, and Aetna, will no longer be offering Medicare Advantage plans in many areas. The old people, especially those that like ther MA plans are going to be pissed and they vote.
It's going to be a massacre.

They're going to be pissed at the Dems because the insurance companies are screwing them, even though it has been the Repubs who opposed health care reform every step of the way?

Figures.

[MOIDALIZE]

They're going to be pissed at the Dems because the insurance companies are screwing them, even though it has been the Repubs who opposed health care reform every step of the way?

Figures.

These are the same folks who think Obama raised their taxes.

[Euphonious Polemic]

It's going to be a massacre.

I think you would have been better off comparing to 1994.

a 54-seat swing in membership in the House from Democrats to Republicans; Republican Control of the House
An 8-seat swing in membership in the Senate from Democrats to Republicans; Republican Control of the Senate.

If these elections are equivalent or close to that, I will agree that it was pretty bad, but not necessarily "a massacre". That is just hyperbolic.

Otherwise, I will think you are merely putting a spin on the results.

Perhaps you did not like the comparison with 1994 because of what happened subsequently in 1996?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Maybe TDC will do another contrast & compare piece with what Repubs say on 3 November 2010 with what they said in 1994. I bet it would be hilarious to hear McCain again saying the same thing word for word.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Otherwise, I will think you are merely putting a spin on the results.

Perhaps you did not like the comparison with 1994 because of what happened subsequently in 1996?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not trying to put a spin on anything, Euphonious Polemic. I am simply saying the Democrats will suffer losses far worse than the normal off-year election, even with an economy that is in the toilet. You are right, though; 1994 is a better year for comparison.

I am not sure I understand your question about 1996. If you mean that I am happy that the Republicans will gain power, no because I think the current GOP is dominated by a bunch of war-mongering theocrats. If you mean that I am happy that Obama will be re-elected, no. I think Obama is a mediocrity. I think both parties are leading the country down the primrose path. Conditions are not going to improve until we get a leader who is willing to admit the American Empire is broken and we are going to need massive reductions in military spending coupled with reforms of other programs and increased taxes to bail the country out.
I am afraid I have very little confidence in either party right now.

[Euphonious Polemic]

I am afraid I have very little confidence in either party right now.

I think you're right.

Interesting bit on 60 minutes last night with David Stockman, Reagan's budget director:

Here (http://themoderatevoice.com/90825/no-tax-proponents-are-delusional-reagans-budget-director/)
Essentially his message was that the cry of "tax cuts" has become a religion for Republicans, and the Democrats are not much better. He does not see any hope for fixing the deficit situation if this continues. It will be very bad for the country.


Stockman said:
“If these people were all put in a room on penalty of death to come up with how much they could cut, they couldn’t come up with $50 billion, when the problem is $1.3 trillion,” Stockman complains. “So to stand before the public and rub raw this anti-tax sentiment, the Republican Party, as much as it pains me to say this, they should be ashamed of themselves.”

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

They're going to be pissed at the Dems because the insurance companies are screwing them, even though it has been the Repubs who opposed health care reform every step of the way?

Figures.The reason these companies are stopping to offer Medicare Advantage plans is because Obama & the Democrats significantly cut the funding for these plans, as part of the Health Care Reform bill. Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the HCR bill is aware of this issue. [Medicare Advantage plans were created as part of the Republican-passed Medicare Part D bill, and were bitterly opposed by Democrats from Day 1.]

The fact that people ignore facts like this is part of the problem with politicians like Obama. If you claim "no one will have to change their current health care plan under this bill" because the law doesn't directly force people to change, you are being dishonest if the law has the practical effect of forcing people to change. And while your dishonesty will get you somewhere, as many people are not educated enough to see through your claims, you don't have much complaint if some people do.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I think both parties are leading the country down the primrose path. Conditions are not going to improve until we get a leader who is willing to admit the American Empire is broken and we are going to need massive reductions in military spending coupled with reforms of other programs and increased taxes to bail the country out.
I am afraid I have very little confidence in either party right now.Your problem is not with the parties. Your problem is with the people.

If a leader came along who talked straight with the American people, he would not be a leader for long, because he would not win a single election. The people will vote for someone who tells them they can get a free lunch over someone who tells them they can't, 100% of the time.

"Yes We Can!!!"

[Jas09]

[Medicare Advantage plans were created as part of the Republican-passed Medicare Part D bill, and were bitterly opposed by Democrats from Day 1.]False. Medicare+Choice was created in 1997. It was re-named Advantage by the Part D bill. Medicare Advantage is Part C.
The fact that people ignore facts like this is part of the problem with politicians like Obama.Considering how wrong you were in the first part of this post, I must admit I kinda chuckled about this part. :D

[Fear Itself]

The people will vote for someone who tells them they can get a free lunch...Or tax cuts, for that matter.

[Jas09]

The people will vote for someone who tells them they can get a free lunch over someone who tells them they can't, 100% of the time.This I agree with. The elections today will prove it once again.

Balance the budget! Cut taxes! But don't cut Defense, Medicare, or Social Security!

I should perhaps also mention that the Medicare Part D plan you were just touting was not at all funded by the establishing legislation. Do you consider this "telling the voters they can get a free lunch" or not?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

False. Medicare+Choice was created in 1997. It was re-named Advantage by the Part D bill. Medicare Advantage is Part C.You're wrong.

It wasn't just re-named. It was structurally changed, and was given enhanced subsidies.

This was supported by the Republicans because it fit in with their agenda of supporting private plans over public plans, and was opposed by the Democrats for the same reasons. Democrats were opposed to the enhanced subsidies that these plans had since they were created in the Medicare Part D bill, and vowed to gut them the first opportunity they had.

None of this is a secret.

Cite (http://www.medicarechoices.org/history-of-medicare-advantage):2003: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act
With the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, the compensation and business practices for insurers that offered "Part C" plans changed, and the program became known as "Medicare Advantage" (MA).

2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Coverage Act
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that more than $200 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage included in the PPACA will lead to a 35% drop in MA enrollment by 2019.

[Jas09]

You're wrong.

It wasn't just re-named. It was structurally changed, and was given enhanced subsidies.So it was "created" in 2003, eh? Your own cite says:

Balanced Budget Act of 1997
Medicare beneficiaries were given the option to receive their Medicare benefits through private health insurance plans, instead of through the Original Medicare plan (Parts A and B). These programs were known as "Medicare+Choice" or "Part C" plans. And, hey, those enhanced subsides in 2003 were a free lunch! Guess that's why the voters supported them...

Actually, let's go back to the first claim. I can't even find a cite that the companies mentioned are "stopping" offering Medicare Advantage plans. Aetna was suspended earlier this year from taking new enrollments. The only thing I can find about Humana says they sent out a mailer "warning" people that benefits might be cut if the legislation passed (the warning mailing were stopped because they were against Medicare's rules, as I read it).

So, cite?

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

I should perhaps also mention that the Medicare Part D plan you were just touting was not at all funded by the establishing legislation. Do you consider this "telling the voters they can get a free lunch" or not?To a very limited degree.

If anyone campaigned for office based on a claim that the Medicare Part D could be done with little or no cost then it would be anologous. As it is, I think it was just Bush trying to be a "compassionate conservative" leading up to the 2004 election.

Nothing any politician does is removed from political considerations. But I don't recall Medicare Part D being part of campaign promises upfront (though I could be forgetting something).

So it's not as egregious. Because after legislation is actually passed, people have a better opportunity to see the actual details. When you promise things upfront, it's much harder to pin down.

[When Obama was in campaign mode, he was going to save huge amounts of money by increasing efficiency in the HC system, through electronic record-keeping. Experts didn't think much of this at the time, but their views were not prominently featured in the media. You don't hear much about this notion now, though.]

[Jas09]

To a very limited degree.

If anyone campaigned for office based on a claim that the Medicare Part D could be done with little or no cost then it would be anologous. As it is, I think it was just Bush trying to be a "compassionate conservative" leading up to the 2004 election.

Nothing any politician does is removed from political considerations. But I don't recall Medicare Part D being part of campaign promises upfront (though I could be forgetting something).Fair enough, but you are mis-remembering.

Bush very clearly ran on a prescription drug plan for seniors in 2000. Here is a PBS dicsussion about it (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/july-dec00/rx_campaign.html). Here's a story about one of his ads touting it (http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/26/news/mn-10809). Notice that part of Gore's rebuttle in the PBS story to the Bush plan was that there was no money to pay for it, especially considering the tax cuts Bush was also promoting at the time.

And, once again, the person claiming the voters could get the free lunch won.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

So it was "created" in 2003, eh?This is semantic nitpicking, in the context of this discussion.

And, hey, those enhanced subsides in 2003 were a free lunch! Guess that's why the voters supported them...That's true.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. There are winners and losers of any system, and the HCR works better for some people than for others. It's not surprising if the losers are unhappy with HCR.

I was responding to someone who erroneously thought that the decline in MA coverage was unrelated to HCR.

Actually, let's go back to the first claim. I can't even find a cite that the companies mentioned are "stopping" offering Medicare Advantage plans. Aetna was suspended earlier this year from taking new enrollments. The only thing I can find about Humana says they sent out a mailer "warning" people that benefits might be cut if the legislation passed (the warning mailing were stopped because they were against Medicare's rules, as I read it).

So, cite?I don't know about those specific companies in those specific areas. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you reduce subsidies to a plan, the rates will go up and/or the benefits will go down, which will render the plan less viable.

This is universally accepted by professionals in the field, and it's not hard to see why.

If you need a "cite" specifically, then look at my prior cite, and the CBO estimate about MA enrollment in the aftermath of HCR.

[Jas09]

[When Obama was in campaign mode, he was going to save huge amounts of money by increasing efficiency in the HC system, through electronic record-keeping. Experts didn't think much of this at the time, but their views were not prominently featured in the media. You don't hear much about this notion now, though.]Meant to respond to this as well.

This was absolutely smoke-blowing by the Obama campaign (and a larger part Clinton I think - electronic records has always been one of her big things). I distinctly remember a few NPR stories during that campaign where experts pointed out that the savings would be miniscule compared to overall health-care costs, so it wasn't exactly uncovered.

The fact remains that as of now, the "Obamacare" bill is slated to save the federal government money. Whether that actually happens or not will be determined in the future. But at least it was nominally paid for - a far cry from the 2003 bill.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

And, once again, the person claiming the voters could get the free lunch won.That article doesn't discuss how Bush said it impact the deficit.

But you're probably right.

As I said, no politician is immune to this. You can't get elected if you tell the people the truth.

Tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies ...

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

The fact remains that as of now, the "Obamacare" bill is slated to save the federal government money. Whether that actually happens or not will be determined in the future. But at least it was nominally paid for - a far cry from the 2003 bill.Very few people seriously think it will happen, especially the cuts to Medicare reimbursement, so the "nominally paid for" is not worth much.

In addition, even the nominal aspect is only an accounting gimmick, created by viewing a ten year window in which the benefits are only available for part of them. It's not even nominally paid for on a long-term basis.

[Also, one other gimmicky aspect of the HCR financing is the way it relied heavily on hidden taxes that Obama could then blame of the entities that he was taxing. E.g. the makers of medical equipment etc., or even the excise tax. These will inevitably be passed along to people, most of whom are earning less than $250K. But they are designed in this way so as to allow for deniability and buck-passing by those who enacted the law.]

But we are venturing afield here, in turning this into a discussion of Bush vs Obama HC bills. My sole point is that if there is indeed anger at Obama from people in MA plans who will lose their coverage in the aftermath of the HCR bill, that anger is not misdirected.

[Jas09]

But we are venturing afield here, in turning this into a discussion of Bush vs Obama HC bills. My sole point is that if there is indeed anger at Obama from people in MA plans who will lose their coverage in the aftermath of the HCR bill, that anger is not misdirected.Agreed and (at least to some extent) agreed.