According to Huffington Post
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster#favorability-ratings
Rubio and Carson are doing better. Not enough polling on Kasich, but I have little doubt he’ll be in positive territory when they do get adequate polling on him.
Really? I seem to recall that last year, the Republicans ran tens of thousands of ads reminding voters that they opposed the ACA. I don’t recall the Democrats running a single ad bragging about their support for the ACA.
I’m sure it’s not necessary to remind you that the Republicans crushed the Democrats in last year’s election. You may believe that the people like the ACA, but reality isn’t conforming to your fantasies.
Enormous price increases probably won’t make the law any more popular either.
It would have been a waste of money to run ads like that. Plus, midterms are less popular, allowed fringe groups to dominate. Tell me, how many popular votes did the GOP win in the last 5 presidential elections? Anyways, Obamacare is popular, people find it very useful and most people want to expand it if not for recalcitrant GOP governors and state legislatures. You already know you’ve lost on Obamacare, that’s why you even called it the ACA instead of by its epithet
YogSosoth, please do not try to justify the Democratic Party’s failure to contend in Congressional elections. They have embarrassed themselves since 2010 with this attitude.
This has been an issue for a while since the contemporary gop is hostile to the interests of wide swaths of the electorate. You didn’t even mention how they want to dismantle Medicare or raise the social security age to 70. But I doubt it matters, people don’t vote solely because the issues are for or against them.
This is, in part, a structural problem. Gerrymandering is, to some extent, a factor, but because urban voters are more likely to align with the Democratic Party, even fairly drawn districts will tend to concentrate Democratic voters, thus giving them bigger majorities in fewer districts. According to this article (thenation.com], Republicans won 57% of the House with 52% of the vote in the 2014 midterms. Unless we move to a proportional representation system (ha!) this structural advantage for the GOP in the House isn’t going to change until at least the next census in 2020 (effective in the 2022 midterms).
The winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College, on the other hand, gives a structural advantage to the Democrats for the presidency, though it’s really unlikely that a Democrat would win without at least a plurality of votes, like Bill Clinton did twice. More likely for a Republican to win without a plurality (GWB in 2000).
I think we’re probably stuck with divided government for a while.
I don’t know that the Electoral College is an advantage for Democrats. It’s certainly an advantage for Obama’s specific coalition, but if that coalition is unique to Obama, then 2016 will not bring an obvious advantage for either party.
That’s been the norm more often than not throughout our history. Especially recent history, where total control has led to extremely bad defeats to correct that problem,. The Republicans enjoyed four years, the Democrats got only two. Twice.
Given the 36% participation of the eligible voting public, this is hardly a mandate for the Repubs to hang their hat on. Midterms are always low-key, but this one had the worst turnout in 70 years.
That said, just about all of the Democratic candidates who ran away from Obama and/or Obamacare got creamed. I think there was only one D guy (can’t remember who) who actually had PBO appear at his campaign rally, and he won.
Yeah, because enormous price increases NEVER happened before the ACA became law. :smack:
Yeah, but that’s a case you gotta make. The Democrats aren’t really defending ACA very enthusiastically. They’ve just been kinda waiting things out, hoping the law gets more popular.
And if it doesn’t - so what? Unless the Republicans have a viable alternative (other than “Hope to die fast and not leave your family a huge bill”), the ACA is not going to need defending. It passed muster in the Supreme Court. It’s settled law. Repealing it after Obama would be like trying to repeal Social Security.
Large majorities of voters dislike Obamacare. Prices are soaring through the roof. When the voters have a problem lime that, they’ll ask candidates for solutions. If the Democrats want to respond with dismissals and sarcasm, I guess they can do so. We’ll find out in 14 months whether that strategy worked.
Not in all of the latest polling. In some of it, a plurality approves of the ACA. Further, in all the polls I’ve seen, opinions are better than in 2012, so it’s hard to see why this would help the Republicans more than it did then.
Your user information doesn’t include your location. Is it Neptune? Venus? A3B-52?
I ask because I want to know on what planet 48.4% constitutes a “large majority.” That is, after all, your own cite’s number for the people who disapprove of the law.
Look, we all know the law is controversial. We all know that a significant percentage of people think it doesn’t go far enough. There’s no need to blow smoke over the law.
That depends on the Republicans’ real goal here. There are three possibilities:
The Republicans want to repeal and replace it but can’t yet agree on an alternative. If they win it all in 2016 such efforts might get more serious. Obviously right now, alternatives aren’t passing, so why expend much effort on them?
The Republicans don’t actually want to repeal ACA, they want the issue. It’s unpopular, it weighs on Democrats, so just use it.
The Republicans want to repeal ACA, but not really replace it, so they are waiting to just get into power, repeal it, laugh maniacally, and take their lumps in the midterms. If the goal is just to repeal ACA, that’s actually worth the political cost, since Democrats won’t be able to pass it again. Blue Dogs will never go along with such a project again, knowing it means their certain doom.
But he didn’t say “a large majority.” He said “large majorities.” I think that by majorities he means the opposite of minorities, ie white people. And by large, of course, he means ‘obese.’ So he’s saying that more than one obese white person dislikes Obamacare.
Not a possibility, given that they haven’t even started. It’s kinda cute that you still don’t recognize that “Replace” is, and has always been, a tawdry lie.
That’s the reason, but that premise is not holding up. They do want the issue, but they’re stuck with it. I won’t make any more futile attempts to correct you about its popularity; you’ll have to come to that realization in your own time and your own way.
That makes no sense whatever. They do want to repeal it, but only as part of reflexive opposition to anything Obama is for - just like four year olds.
Yeah, but the thing is, if the Republicans repeal it, the Democrats won’t get another bite at that apple anytime soon. First, they’ll need total control of the government, second, they’ll need a liberal majority since the Blue Dogs won’t be falling on their swords a second time.
On the bright side, it probably gets you closer to single payer.
Ever heard of the filibuster? Or the veto?
The blue dogs are mostly gone. The Congressional Dems are much more solidly progressive now.
If that’s what you really favor, why are you opposing any steps that get us there?
I mean to redo health care if the GOP was able to repeal it in 2017.
In the minority, sure. Democrats need conservatives to have majorities, which means they need conservatives to pass any new health care bill.
I don’t favor single payer. It’s a silver lining to ACA repeal for your side, not mine.
