# I admire the tenacity of republicans **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 20, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614 "2014-07-20T18:13:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 29
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/561 "2014-07-24T15:02:28Z")
Yours is not admirable tenacity but willful ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/562 "2014-07-24T15:03:33Z")
History says a Republican will probably win unless Obama can get his approval ratings up by 2016. There’s no credible way for his Secretary of State to credibly claim to be an agent of change from an unpopular President. Didn’t work for McCain, and McCain had much more distance from Bush than Clinton does from Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/563 "2014-07-24T15:06:50Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Actually, I’m pretty sure the SHOP exchanges are eligible for subsidies, just not the same subsidy mentioned in the part of the statute being interpreted in _Halbig_. See: [Tools and calculators to help you apply](https://www.healthcare.gov/small-business-tax-credit-calculator/) > [@](#): > > This tool is based on current IRS guidance regarding the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit. Are you citing IRS guidance to prove that IRS guidance is correct? > [@](#): > > In any event, are the SHOP exchanges expressly referenced in that statutory section on reporting like the federal exchanges are? Hint: No. 26 U.S.C. § 36B(f)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 18031(b). “Each Exchange.” Each includes SHOP Exchanges. Even though the specifics of the reporting requirements don’t all apply to the SHOP exchanges. (Even if there is a subsidy, it’s to the business, not the individual). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/564 "2014-07-24T15:07:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > History says a Republican will probably win unless Obama can get his approval ratings up by 2016. You’ve said that before, but without pointing to what “history” makes you think so. I doubt it’s the history that the GOP nominee has not legitimately won since 1988, right? Or maybe it’s the history of Presidents unanimously failing to win third terms since the 1940’s; is that it? > [@](#): > > There’s no credible way for his Secretary of State to credibly claim to be an agent of change from an unpopular President. Popularity is relative. How popular is the candidate you have in mind to oppose her? And how popular is his party? > [@](#): > > Didn’t work for McCain, and McCain had much more distance from Bush than Clinton does from Obama. McCain’s unpopularity was the result of many factors, mainly being the nominee of a failed and repudiated party. How you think that situation is now reversed is a sign of your willfulness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/565 "2014-07-24T15:11:36Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Are you going to address my answers to your first questions? Or am I just on the witness stand? Gimme a post number. I’m lost. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/566 "2014-07-24T15:15:33Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 26 U.S.C. § 36B(f)(3); 42 U.S.C. § 18031(b). “Each Exchange.” Non-responsive, though you may be confused by my phrase “express reference.” The point was that the federal exchange is actually called out specifically, whereas the SHOP Exchange is only potentially included indirectly by the generic “Each Exchange.” You also didn’t answer the question of whether SHOP Exchanges get subsidies, which was after all the whole premise of your argument. Do you know the answer? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/567 "2014-07-24T15:21:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > You’ve said that before, but without pointing to what “history” makes you think so. I doubt it’s the history that the GOP nominee has not legitimately won since 1988, right? Or maybe it’s the history of Presidents unanimously failing to win third terms since the 1940’s; is that it? A two term President has been succeeded by a member of his own party once since WWII. And that President’s approval rating upon leaving office was above 60% We could give Gore credit for a win I suppose, but again, 60+%. And both of those candidates significantly underperformed their bosses. Nixon and McCain of course, fell well short. Nixon was actually succeeding a President who was fairly popular and came close to winning, but Kennedy was a rather exciting young candidate. The circumstances Clinton will be facing will be very similar to the headwinds McCain ran into in 2008. > [@](#): > > Popularity is relative. How popular is the candidate you have in mind to oppose her? And how popular is his party? That certainly matters a lot. But the matchups don’t look good for Clinton. The GOP nominee will either be a) young, compared to her oldness and sameness, or b) fairly popular in his own right, like Christie. > [@](#): > > McCain’s unpopularity was the result of many factors, mainly being the nominee of a failed and repudiated party. How you think that situation is now reversed is a sign of your willfulness. Obama’s approval rating is right where Bush’s was at this point in his Presidency. Even if it doesn’t get worse, how does Clinton overcome eight years of a Presidency that only 42% of Americans approve of? She was PART of that administration, she can’t exactly claim outsider status. She can’t claim to be an agent of change. Also, what caused the repudiation of the REpublican Party? Failure to deliver on their promises. What is the primary Democratic promise? That government can work. Guess what? It’s not working. The Obama administration has faced negative story after negative story about the government it supposedly is in charge of. How much damage will a few more such stories wreak on the Democratic brand over the next two and a half years? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/568 "2014-07-24T15:28:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A two term President has been succeeded by a member of his own party once since WWII. And that President’s approval rating upon leaving office was above 60% Etc. In every case, the opposition party was credible and responsible enough to vote for. Is that true today? If you have to rely on some invented historical cycle based on cherry-picked numbers to hope for your party to win, not on it being \*worthy \*of voting for, that’s a mark of desperation. > [@](#): > > But the matchups don’t look good for Clinton. Based on what poll numbers? She’s comfortably ahead of all of them. > [@](#): > > The GOP nominee will either be a) young, compared to her oldness and sameness, or b) fairly popular in his own right, like Christie. 😃 > [@](#): > > Obama’s approval rating is right where Bush’s was at this point in his Presidency. Even if it doesn’t get worse, how does Clinton overcome eight years of a Presidency that only 42% of Americans approve of? By your party’s approval ratings being in _single digits_. How do \*you \*overcome _that_? > [@](#): > > She can’t claim to be an agent of change. To the extent that she can show herself as being at least as capable as Obama of overcoming reflexive obstructionism, which she easily can, yes, she can. How does a reflexively obstructionist party claim to be agents of change, though? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/569 "2014-07-24T15:35:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The circumstances Clinton will be facing will be very similar to the headwinds McCain ran into in 2008. Not even close. In 2008, the headwinds were “Bush and his party are disastrous at governing, both domestically and abroad”. That is not close to the case for Obama and the Democrats (especially not the Democratic party), even if Obama’s approval rating is in the 40s. > [@](#): > > That certainly matters a lot. But the matchups don’t look good for Clinton. The GOP nominee will either be a) young, compared to her oldness and sameness, or b) fairly popular in his own right, like Christie. Christie is no longer “fairly popular in his own right”, and according to the polling, all the matchups look pretty good for Clinton. > [@](#): > > Even if it doesn’t get worse, how does Clinton overcome eight years of a Presidency that only 42% of Americans approve of? By opposing a candidate from a party with a far, far lower approval rating. > [@](#): > > Also, what caused the repudiation of the REpublican Party? Failure to deliver on their promises. No, it was the screwing up of _pretty much everything_. > [@](#): > > What is the primary Democratic promise? That government can work. Guess what? It’s not working. The Obama administration has faced negative story after negative story about the government it supposedly is in charge of. How much damage will a few more such stories wreak on the Democratic brand over the next two and a half years? This is just Hannity-esque blather. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/570 "2014-07-24T15:39:05Z")
So how have the Republicans de-repudiated themselves? What have they done right lately to regain the people’s trust and confidence, **adaher**? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/571 "2014-07-24T15:42:53Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Etc. In every case, the opposition party was credible and responsible enough to vote for. Is that true today? Now you’re just being ridiculous. The GOP is credible enough to be considered the favorites to win the Senate and controls more states than the Democrats. > [@](#): > > If you have to rely on some invented historical cycle based on cherry-picked numbers to hope for your party to win, not on it being \*worthy \*of voting for, that’s a mark of desperation. Given the small sample size, it’s very likely Clinton could buck the trend. But I’d need a more convincing explanation for how she’d do it other than “Republicans are poopyheads”. It’s not saving the Senate Democrats and it sure didn’t save the House Democrats. It almost didn’t save Obama either, who lost his lead in October due to a bad first debate performance. > [@](#): > > Based on what poll numbers? She’s comfortably ahead of all of them. She was comfortably ahead of someone named Barack Obama too. Name recognition matters a lot in these early trial heat polls. And he lead has shrunken, substantially, already. > [@](#): > > By your party’s approval ratings being in _single digits_. How do \*you \*overcome _that_? That’s Congress’ approval rating. In terms of party approval, the Democrats currently lead the Republicans 43-33. [http://pollingreport.com/dem.htm](http://pollingreport.com/dem.htm) [http://pollingreport.com/rep.htm](http://pollingreport.com/rep.htm) Let’s also look at candidate approval ratings, Favorable-unfavorable-never heard of: Rand Paul: 32-23-31 [http://pollingreport.com/p.htm#Rand](http://pollingreport.com/p.htm#Rand) Bobby Jindal: 22-16-49 [http://pollingreport.com/h-j.htm#Jindal](http://pollingreport.com/h-j.htm#Jindal) Chris Christie: 33-32-20 [http://pollingreport.com/C2.htm](http://pollingreport.com/C2.htm) Clinton 55-36-9 [http://pollingreport.com/hrc.htm](http://pollingreport.com/hrc.htm) As you can see, everyone’s approval and disapproval trails Clinton due to lack of name recognition. > [@](#): > > To the extent that she can show herself as being at least as capable as Obama of overcoming reflexive obstructionism, which she easily can, yes, she can. How does a reflexively obstructionist party claim to be agents of change, though? Depends on the candidate. A governor can credibly claim to be an agent of change and overcomer of obstruction if that’s what he did. Obviously a GOP Senator, especially Ted Cruz, would play right into Clinton’s hands. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/572 "2014-07-24T15:43:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Non-responsive, though you may be confused by my phrase “express reference.” The point was that the federal exchange is actually called out specifically, whereas the SHOP Exchange is only potentially included indirectly by the generic “Each Exchange.” Huh? Why is it relevant? “Each exchange” includes each exchange. As opposed to any language which limits a particular provision to a particular exchange. > [@](#): > > You also didn’t answer the question of whether SHOP Exchanges get subsidies, which was after all the whole premise of your argument. Do you know the answer? Subsidies associated with SHOP exchanges go to the business, not the individual recipient. So, uh…yes, and no. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/573 "2014-07-24T15:45:09Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > So how have the Republicans de-repudiated themselves? What have they done right lately to regain the people’s trust and confidence, **adaher**? They haven’t. But until the Democrats demonstrate marked superiority in governing to anyone who isn’t already a Democratic partisan, the parties will continue to trade power. Sure, by all rights, the GOP should enjoy a long period in the wilderness. Thanks to the Democrats, that period in the wilderness lasted oh, two years. 11 months if you count the pretty awesome 2009 victories(McDonnell, Christie, and Scott Brown) as constituting the swinging back of the pendulum. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/574 "2014-07-24T15:46:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s hard to imagine a Republican winning in 2016, especially if Hillary runs. But who knows at this point. What do you think will happen in this year’s midterm elections in the House and Senate? I expect the Senate to welcome Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the House to retain a Republican Speaker. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/575 "2014-07-24T15:51:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not even close. In 2008, the headwinds were “Bush and his party are disastrous at governing, both domestically and abroad”. That is not close to the case for Obama and the Democrats (especially not the Democratic party), even if Obama’s approval rating is in the 40s. What seemed obvious to the entire country by 2008 was obvious mainly to partisans in 2006. Sure is looking like the same thing in 2014. The President’s approval rating isn’t low for no particular reason. It’s low on almost every marker of performance. The public has low confidence that he can manage our foreign poilcy, or our domestic affairs. [http://pollingreport.com/obama\_ad.htm](http://pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm) 40-56 on the economy. 28-56 on the recent border crisis 35-54 on Iraq 36-55 on foreign policy in general Moving down to the Bloomberg poll, which asks a few different questions: 38-58 on health care 28-63 on the deficit 33-55 on negotiating with Republicans 31-51 on the prisoner exchange 31-46 on the Ukraine 33-51 on the VA If anything, his 42% approval rating is high, reflecting lingering affection for him by loyal partisans. As with Bush, we’ll see some more of those abandon him as time goes on and he becomes less important as partisans look ahead to the next President. Unless of course he improves his handling of these issues. Now that’s a bet I’d love to take, if there was a way to measure an improvement in performance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/576 "2014-07-24T15:54:30Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Not even close. In 2008, the headwinds were “Bush and his party are disastrous at governing, both domestically and abroad”. That is not close to the case for Obama and the Democrats (especially not the Democratic party), even if Obama’s approval rating is in the 40s. Would it surprise you to learn that in 2003 and 2004, on the SDMB, many posters confidently asserted that Bush would lose to Kerry? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/577 "2014-07-24T15:57:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Now you’re just being ridiculous. The GOP is credible enough to be considered the favorites to win the Senate That was supposed to happen \*last \*time, wasn’t it? Oh, right, there was no 2012 in your universe. > [@](#): > > and controls more states than the Democrats. And you know why, too. > [@](#): > > But I’d need a more convincing explanation for how she’d do it other than “Republicans are poopyheads”. It is \*your \*claim that your party will win based on simple historical inertia. It is \*not \*your claim that they present a more compelling argument, nor can it be. > [@](#): > > That’s Congress’ approval rating. In terms of party approval, the Democrats currently lead the Republicans 43-33. Etc. But the GOP will win anyway because of something Hannity made up. Gotcha. > [@](#): > > As you can see, everyone’s approval and disapproval trails Clinton due to lack of name recognition. That is a plausible excuse. It is also possible that they trail (despite your earlier claim, just a few posts above, that they _lead_ :rolleyes:) on the merits, hmm? > [@](#): > > Obviously a GOP Senator, especially Ted Cruz, would play right into Clinton’s hands. So you must have meant somebody else by “young, compared to her oldness and sameness”, then. Who? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/578 "2014-07-24T15:57:43Z")
I was here then, and it was confidently asserted, without challenge, that Bush was a disaster of a President and deeply unpopular. And he was. His trajectory has been almost exactly like Obama’s. Start out popular, fade, buck up just enough to win an election, then resume the downward spiral for the remainder of his Presidency. Obama could of course still improve his standing, but that assumes he’ll actually change course. Geez, where have we heard that before? Obama is really Bush’s third and fourth terms, if not exactly in policy, in governing style. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/579 "2014-07-24T15:58:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Would it surprise you to learn that in 2003 and 2004, on the SDMB, many posters confidently asserted that Bush would lose to Kerry? He did, too. Only by rigging the vote-counting in Ohio were were subjected to four more years of your party’s historical disaster of an administration. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 24, 2014, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614/580 "2014-07-24T15:58:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Would it surprise you to learn that in 2003 and 2004, on the SDMB, many posters confidently asserted that Bush would lose to Kerry? I wasn’t one of them. Also, Kerry came much, much closer to victory than McCain or Romney. So the prediction wasn’t as far off. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=28) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-admire-the-tenacity-of-republicans/693614.md?page=30)