Still having trouble with the concept that wanting to improve it and go further is not the same as wanting to go back, I see. Pity.
What evidence do you have that the fixes people want would involve making MORE people lose their current insurance?
You’re losing the battle against coherence.
What I mean is that in what way could the health care law go further while still letting everyone keep their current insurance?
See previous reply.
When you guys finally come up with whatever the hell you’re proposing to replace it with, do please let us know, will you? We won’t wait up nights, though.
Sure. Now perhaps your side will come up with the changes to the law they claim to support.
BTW, the GOP has vaulted into the lead in the generic ballot, which they already historically outperform by 3 points:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html
If this holds up, for the next two months, it’s landslide, baby!
But seriously, if the GOP wins the popular vote by similar margins as in 2010, will that not cause any introspection whatsoever on the part of Democrats here on the board? Won’t they at least be curious as to why this keeps on happening to them?
Now see, here’s my problem with the PResident, demonstrated in such a way that is so ridiculous and so obvious that even you guys can’t ignore it:
THe President seriously says that when he made his JV comment he wasn’t talking about ISIS.
He can’t admit he’s wrong about anything. He can’t even take responsibility for a dumb off the cuff remark.
Fundamentals have solid out of sample predictive power but basically add no value on Oct 31st of the election year. Similarly polls are useless 2 years before the election and rather dubious one year out. AFAIK, “Everyone” agrees with that. The question is how much should fundamentals be weighted in May-October of the election year. Silver weighs fundamentals a lot; Wang is at the other end of the spectrum. Nate weighs them more in May than in October. For me it comes to weighing weak and conflicting evidence. Wang has better pedigree and track record than Silver… but Silver has the other 2 or 3 forecasters clumped up with him. But… there’s a pronounced tendency for human forecasters to clump together as being wrong and alone is far worse than being wrong in a herd.
Another factor is that a mixed model is more interesting and story-friendly. And a dirty secret of professional forecasting is that the story matters more than the accuracy.
Current odds: NYT: Upshot: 59% in the Republican’s favor
538: 62.2%
Sam Wang: 30%
I’ll plonk for 59%: the median forecast, as it were.
New Yorker article by Sam Wang: “…a swing of opinion of two percentage points toward Republicans in all races would be enough to account for the difference between my predictions and Silver’s.”
Sam turned down a bet with Nate, which bums me out. There are various ways to score forecasts, and it would be interesting if there was some money on the line. Maybe $10 per day, divided according to the two maven’s reported probabilities. To be fair, I’m guessing Nate pulls down a lot more than Sam.
Okay, that’s stupid and silly (and extremely minor and mundane). Now we can move on to important things.
In a few weeks, the President might say something extremely minor again that’s stupid and/or silly, and you’ll bring it up, and whine about how we “ignore it”. And then someone will say that it’s stupid and silly and minor. And you’ll do it again in another x weeks/months.
Get over this crap. “Politician and staff does minor doublespeak/pretends he didn’t say something that he did/does political spin” is not news, and never will be. The big stuff – the ACA, getting out of Iraq (and hopefully not back in!), economic recovery, killing Bin Laden, gay rights – this is the stuff that matters, that this President will be remembered for. This sucks for guys like you with an intense personal beef against him, but too goddamn bad.
What makes it news is that he feels the need to spin everything, the big and the small. If the President said something dumb that had policy implications in the future and simply acknowledged that it was an unfortunate statement off the cuff that didn’t fully represent administration views on the subject, that would be fine.
The last time I remember him regretting a statement was his “special olympics” comment, and that’s only because even the Great Obama must appease the PC gods.
This president spins no more than other presidents. In fact, according to Politifact, he’s one of the most honest (if not THE most honest) office holders in Washington DC right now.
The Obama in your head is not the Obama of the real world.
He has a larger sample size than anyone else, and it consists of some pretty consequential whoppers. And did they hit him for trying to spin away his JV comment as the Post did?
I’m not doing your homework for you.
That has been so thoroughly discussed, both here and in the real world, for so long that you have no excuse for posting that.
To repeat, Mr. Japanese soldier: It’s over. You already lost. You have nothing you can salvage from that loss, either.
Except the Senate.
And do *what *with it, if that happens? Certainly not “replace Obamacare”, that’s a lie by your party and always was and always will be, no matter how often you loyally repeat it. So what exactly *do *you wish the Republicans to do with the Senate if they control it?
Is power for its own sake all there is to you, or is there any motive to use it for something good and lasting?
Yeah. We’re going to fix ACA at the very least.
Which means what exactly?
For starters, everyone will get to keep their current health insurance. Who could object to that? Exactly no one did prior to 2013.