Oldeb
September 21, 2013, 6:07am
101
Man, if only Romney had thought to include repealing the Affordable Care Act as part of his platform. Then we could have seen what a national vote would be like.
adaher
September 21, 2013, 6:29am
102
If the 2012 election had been primarily about ACA, that argument might have some merit. Instead, it was mainly about Mitt Romney, the person.
2014 will see the health care law much more in the forefront than it was in 2012.
adaher:
If the 2012 election had been primarily about ACA, that argument might have some merit. Instead, it was mainly about Mitt Romney, the person.
Did they ever figure out if Romney was a person?
I think he’s a corporation.
njtt
September 21, 2013, 2:36pm
105
So that is a “yes”, is it?
Didn’t Romney’s son tell us that his father didn’t even want to win?
Maybe supporting Communist Soviet-style Health-Care was a deliberate ploy to ensure defeat.
The only thing that might make this statement true is the inclusion of the word “primarily”. Repeal of the ACA was a big part of the Republican campaign, like it or not, and they lost.
C’mon BG , stop pointing out facts our friend adaher doesn’t want to know about.
Boehner and the House Republicans will continue with the repeated failed plans, just like the Coyote returns to the ACME corporation.
You know who owns Acme Co.? The Koch Brothers.
adaher:
If the 2012 election had been primarily about ACA, that argument might have some merit. Instead, it was mainly about Mitt Romney, the person.
2014 will see the health care law much more in the forefront than it was in 2012.
You’re being absolutely delusional if you honestly believe that the ACA wasn’t thoroughly litigated in last year’s election. Give me a break.
Elections have consequences, bro. Unless, of course, you’re a Republican apparently.
adaher:
The biggest one was revenue bills have to originate in the House. The health care bill originated in the Senate. But once Scott Brown was elected, the House had no choice but to pass the Senate health care bill. They used some legalistic bullshit to make it fit the letter of the law somehow, but it clearly was parliamentary gimmickry.
While it’s certainly a bit of a dodge to take a revenue bill that started in the House, then gut it and turn it into something completely different in the Senate, then send it back to the House, it’s a dodge that’s been practically routine for at least a half century, and probably for a good deal longer.
So assuming something like that was done with the ACA (can’t remember and too lazy to look it up), it’s a bit late in the history of the Republic to suggest that on these grounds, its passage was done via dubious parliamentary means.
adaher
September 22, 2013, 2:23am
112
If you’re sure of that fact, urge your Democratic Senators to campaign on their support of the ACA. Because they sure don’t want to do it.
adaher
September 22, 2013, 2:25am
113
2ManyTacos:
You’re being absolutely delusional if you honestly believe that the ACA wasn’t thoroughly litigated in last year’s election. Give me a break.
Elections have consequences, bro. Unless, of course, you’re a Republican apparently.
I’d say that’s more true of Democrats, who try to disrupt legislatures from passing bills in states where Republicans won.
But in any case, the issue was also litigated in 2010. It will be litigated again in 2014. Best two out of three?
And now he can read minds and divine how Democrats will conduct their campaigns in 2014!
I’m pretty sure once the ACA kicks in and people begin seeing how it will benefit them things will change.
Given your stellar track record predicting election results I’m perfectly happy accepting the info linked by Brain Glutton .
adaher
September 22, 2013, 3:18am
115
I’m not reading minds, I’m going by 2010 and 2012. Only in the bluest areas did Democrats want to talk about the ACA, and Democrats who had not already voted for it almost uniformly refused to say whether they supported it or not except in those bluest of districts.
that’s only if the winners outnumber the losers.
Ah, the hubris of selection bias.
Again, call your Democratic Senator and urge them to run ads touting their support of ACA. Let’s make it a central campaign issue.
Finally an area you have experience!
I agree with them, the bias should go the ones that are more accurate after all.
No need to, the Republicans will make it, and as always they are setting themselves to shot themselves in the foot again.
The ferocity of the GOP’s opposition to the ACA will be long remembered by tens of millions Americans whose families directly benefit from our modernized health care system. For Hispanics, the most underinsured portion of the U.S. population, the material gains in health and well-being from the ACA will be greater than for any other demographic group. Estimates suggest 10 million Hispanics will be eligible for health insurance in the coming years. To put that in perspective, these 10 million are about 20 percent of the total US Hispanic population, and millions more than the 7-9 million Hispanics who could gain legal status under the proposed immigration bill.
This suggests that as the act kicks in over the next few years, and millions of Hispanic families sign up for insurance, the damage to the GOP’s brand for opposing this commonsense and powerful health care reform could equal or surpass the damage done by the GOP’s opposition to immigration reform. The math is simple here. More Hispanics will directly benefit from the ACA than immigration reform. Most polls taken in recent years show that Hispanic voters care more about health care issues than immigration reform. Not a big surprise as the ACA will have a much bigger effect on the families of Hispanic citizens than immigration reform will. The potential for long term damage to the already damaged GOP brand with Hispanics here is huge, and lasting.
There is a precedent for House Republicans dramatically impacting the political alignment of the Hispanic electorate. In 2005 the House GOP passed the Sensenbrenner Bill, which called for the direct deportation of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. This harsh bill directly led to the rallies and demonstrations we saw in the spring of 2006, some of the largest civil rights demonstrations witnessed in U.S. history. Polling NDN conducted at the time found a huge shift in sentiment against the GOP because of their harsh anti-immigrant actions. In the fall elections, the Hispanic electorate broke dramatically against the GOP, going 70-30 for the Democrats even without the Democrats mounting any campaign at all at any level geared towards the Hispanic electorate.
George Bush’s able campaigns began a re-alignment of the Hispanic electorate towards the GOP. The Republican share of the Hispanic vote jumped from 21 percent in 1996 to 35 percent in 2000 to 40 percent in 2004. These gains were essential in flipping states like FL, CO, AZ and NM carried by Bill Clinton in 1996, and arguably the single most important component of the only GOP Presidential wins since 1988. These gains were undone by the virulent anti-immigrant politics of 2005 and 2006, when the Hispanic electorate shifted to about a 70-30 structural advantage for the Democrats, a margin we first saw in 2006, and one replicated in each of the last three elections.
As I showed earlier, it is possible that the GOP’s extraordinary opposition to the ACA could have an impact on the Hispanic electorate equal to or greater than this critical 2005-2006 moment when the GOP became defined as an anti-immigrant party. For the Republicans interested in the future of their party this should be very worrying.
And I have to agree with the Democratic rep here, as a Hispanic I have to say that the Republicans are doing the propaganda work for the Democrats nowadays.
adaher
September 22, 2013, 3:46am
118
The best issues to debate on are the ones in which both sides are sure the public is behind them. That way there’s no ducking and hiding the debate.
Now all you need to do is convince Democratic officeholders that the public is behind them. The hiding and waffling is really getting tiresome.
adaher:
The best issues to debate on are the ones in which both sides are sure the public is behind them. That way there’s no ducking and hiding the debate.
Now all you need to do is convince Democratic officeholders that the public is behind them. The hiding and waffling is really getting tiresome.
Like if the Votes in the Senate and the House do not show where almost all the Democrats are regarding the ACA.
The point stands, the Republicans with their irrational opposition are doing the work for the Democrats.
Once again if the Republicans continue to press the issue, the ACA will not be affected much, but other areas of government will be more so in a shutdown.
adaher
September 22, 2013, 4:10am
120
Democrats have long realized that they can often vote a certain way in DC and campaign a different way in Arkansas.
Let’s just pick one candidate specifically: Michelle Nunn. She should come out in full support of the ACA, should she not? Will she? Hell no.
