Without nitpicking your various points (a couple of which I find to be unfair, more “truthy” than truth, but that debate is in another thread), I will add that a braver, and possibly effective tactic Pryor could have used would be to sell the point that the ACA benefits greatly outweigh the negative elements for most of his likely voters, rather than hide from his vote. A better incumbent could have used that to get re-elected. Running from the vote I can never see as working for anyone. It looks weak. In a time when people are cynical about incumbents, looking weak is never good.
Besides which, it’s hardly the only issue voters care about. Voters listened more to a lot of scare-mongering and cynicism. He could have fought all that with a more positive message, including the benefits that were a result of his own record.
Obama kind of turned his back on himself. Just like in 2010 when he pretty much sat back and let conservatives define ACA, he did the same in this election in sitting back and letting conservatives define him. So while I agree the dems could’ve defended him and his policies better, why should they when he doesn’t seem very interested in doing it himself.
You’re right, of course, but in my view that kind of thinking creates poor social policy. Voters should not be voting for self-interest; they should be voting for policies which are right for the country as a whole. This includes dampening the temptation to stick to the wealthier by demanding that they pay for the stuff you need.
But I can hardly deny that this tactic has been effective.
You can also hardly deny that your negative opinion about ACA is not fact but rather a subjective opinion. There is room for rational disagreement about it. Room for someone like Pryor to stand with validity by his ACA vote and legitimately highlight the good it has done. People like you who disagree that the good outweighs the bad are free of course to vote for the other guy. At least Pryor wouldn’t have been left weakly standing there lamenting the fact that Obama thanked him publicly for his vote.
On the contrary, I think that policies that are right for the country as a whole tend to involve asking wealthier people to pay more of the share of maintaining public policy than poorer people, since they can pay more. Wealthier people should dampen the temptation to complain about being asked to pay more; they should not vote their self-interest but instead should vote for the best social policy.
Man, that’s crazy - what state are you in? Here in MO you can get a Gold-level plan for that, and a really good one for only $600 bucks more a year. That’s with no subsidy whatsoever.
If it makes you quiver with glee, substitute “sticking a gun up their nostril and demanding all their cash from the poor little rich boys” for “asking,” I don’t mind.
Do you need me to spell it out? Okay, here we go: t-h-e q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n i-s i-f t-h-e-y’-r-e --goddammit, that’s annoying, if they’re paying enough more. Obviously.
When their own self interest contradicts good public policy? No. When it aligns with good public policy? Like everyone, they should. Referring to “self interest” is generally a red herring.
Frankly I’m not so sure that’s such bad social policy. In the days when labor had more clout in the marketplace, earned income alone was an effective means of distributing income in an optimal way through the community. You know the drill–workers brought their wages home and spent them in their communities, saved a little in the bank, and so on.
Today labor has no clout and unions are basically done. In the global marketplace the market value of work–the activity of those who perform tasks for others–has been going south for many years. There will have to be some redistribution unless the wealthy actually do
want to live in fortified compounds to keep the impoverished mobs at bay.
“Enough” is entirely subjective. There are those who think they’re paying significantly less than enough and there are those who think they’re paying significantly more than enough.
With “enough” undefined, tax rates on the wealthy could go up almost continuously - “Still not enough. Still not enough. Still not enough. Still not enough.”
I disagree with this (with the exception of the “far left” terminology).
Obama’s idea of biprtisanship is Republicans and Democrats coming together to vote for bills that the Republicans oppose and which the Democrats support. From my recollection, to the extent that he offers a compromise, it’s generally in the form of a bill that doesn’t go as far as he wants, not something that actually goes against his principles as he is demanding from the Republicans.
If you have any examples of meaningful bipartisanship on his part I would be interested to hear what they might be.