Still beating that drum, huh?
For the purpose of driving down costs, by each participant making itself more efficient. Well, the private companies have failed badly in that. But we’re still propping them up, aren’t we? Tell us about waste and abuse some more, Uncle.
Are you also in favor of letting the *private *companies fail if *they *cannot compete? They can’t, you know.
Except for the winning part, no. And the demographics part.
And you might get a pet unicorn, too.
Good luck with that.
All of the models said an incumbent president could not be re-elected with unemployment over 7%, so you are wrong there
You mean all the models you spent 18 months insisting were skewed?
haha I knew that was coming
Please. Do you guys seriously think Republicans will lose even if Democrats govern badly because… demographics?
I really hope Democrats are that complacent.
In any case, New Jersey rips to shreds the argument that demographics are destiny. I know Christie isn’t a Tea Partier, but he’s a lot more conservative than a guy who would normally win a landslide victory in New Jersey. And he did it by governing well, with a big assist from a long history of Democratic corruption in the state.
The same thing can happen at the national level. Next time we get a Republican President, he will be reelected if he does well, and it won’t matter what the demographic makeup of the country is.
If you and I are being chased by a bear, I don’t have to run faster than the bear. I only have to run faster than you. Though it may be fairly argued that Democrats can govern badly, no one believes they govern worse than Republicans.
So, the answer to “Will they ever figure it out?” is still No.
I will be very interested to hear your explanation then if the Republicans take the Senate next year.
The *last *election was the one in which they were supposed to take the Senate, remember? What happened?
I ain’t askeered.
If he keeps betting on Red, he will be right eventually.
You only say that because your thinking is constrained by the ivory-tower orthodoxy that the past is something that actually happened.
The Democrats successfully shifted the conversation away from ACA and towards the fact that Romney was a rich dude.
I’m sure they’ll attempt to change the subject again. Oh wait, they already are. Income inequality!
Gosh, you always have all the answers. However did you become so learned?
How dare democrats try to steer the conversation towards actual problems instead of playing along with republican scaremongering of the healthcareocalipse.
Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI!
Well, that’s exactly where the conversation should be, isn’t it?
Romney did a pretty good job of reminding us on his own.