http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/18/cnn-poll-half-favor-repealing-health-care-law/
In neither of your linked polls, both* over two years old *btw, is “go farther” even an option. That was a mysteriously common failing of polls from that time period.
Y’know, folks, maybe it’s better to leave the adahers of the world, and all of his kindred who constitute the GOP base, alone, rather than try to engage them in discussion, tempting though it may be. They’re in a shrinking minority as it is, and as long as they stay isolated in their alternate-reality bubbles, content to think the world will come around to their way of thinking, the longer it won’t happen and the better off we’ll all be. As long as the anti-progressive movement provides no serious argument beyond “Just Say No”, they can and will be dismissed and increasingly ignored and bypassed by the electorate. If they were instead to actually present cogent debate points, they might actually gain some traction.
So representing a wider variety of Americans rather than a narrow demographic group is somehow a bad thing?
In other words, they are representing their constituents. Which, again, is a bad thing how? Do the Republicans not represent their base in return for funding and votes? Do politicians EVERYWHERE not do this?
Cite?
Uh-huh. Call me when Dennis Kucinich becomes Speaker; then we’ll talk about the liberals being in charge. I’ll even take Al Franken.
Apart from the obvious point that there are legitimate political reasons not to come right out and announce one’s support for a candidate for speaker (particularly if you’re trying to gain a concession of some sort from them - this is what is known as negotiation) what kind of actual numbers are we talking about here? Ten members? Twenty? Fifty? Five?
When you offer the option of changing it, yeah, voters are more optimistic. But that’s not on the table. The law will either go into effect as is, or be repealed as is. Given that choice, voters would rather repeal it.
Representing some at the expense of others. I’m not condeming them for it, just pointing out that these fissures create opportunities for Republicans.
Kucinich is the fringiest of the fringe, so no, you’ll never be satisfied. Franken is a moderate Dem, I don’t know what you’re seeing in him if you like Kucinich. Pelosi is way to the left of her party’s mainstream, although not as far left as Kucinich.
It is a highly unusual and humiliating step to remove a party leader. It’s assumed that the party leader will be reelected and that once the caucus makes its decision on who the party leader will be, everyone is expected to vote for the leader the caucus picked.
There was never any chance that red state Democrats would vote for John Boehner, so they should have just said, “Yeah, I support Nancy Pelosi.” or “I’ll oppose her in the caucus vote, but if she’s elected party head I’ll vote for her for Speaker.”
If you’re saying that the Democrats have often taken various parts of their base for granted, I agree. If you’re saying that the Hispanic voters are going to quit the party that’s ignoring them and join the party that’s actively insulting them, I don’t think so. The Republicans occasionally talk about reaching out to minorities but they’re really quite bad at it, as Rand Paul recently discovered at Howard U.
I didn’t say I like Kucinich (although he seems like a nice enough person, not to mention the hot wife); I only said that he’s on the liberal end of the party. And more to the point, he’s an actual liberal, unlike many in the party who are slightly-left-of-center (or indeed slightly-right-of-center). Likewise Franken’s not a flake but he’s the guy who started Air America Radio with Janeane Garofalo, which is a pretty solid liberal credential. The real liberals rarely get elected, either because they seem too idealistic or because they are too idealistic and thus terrible campaigners.
Generally, yes, the incumbent has an advantage and is only removed if unpopular. This is not a party-specific thing, nor even a US-specific thing. And tells us nothing about the Democrats being forced to march in lockstep upon pain of…well, I don’t know what since they rarely chuck people out.
Why would a member of one party vote for a member of the opposing party for Speaker? And I’ve already explained why they might not immediately publicly pledge their support.
That is really not on the first most recent link from 2013, BTW your links are from 2011 when less people were aware of the good parts, if changes are not on the table you are once again contradicting yourself, the lawsuits against it and refusal to implement the law assumes changes will be requires and the implementation of the law will point at needed changes that will have to be added later.
So, 40% of Americans are conservative. Which is the basis for your faith that America is a “center right” country? Math is hard.
And is that number growing by leaps and bounds? Growing from 40% (very, very popular) to 42% (wildly popular and universally beloved)?
You say the young will be unhappy when they get the bill for their health insurance. Does that mean they will riot in the streets and demand the absolute and total revocation of affordable health? Tear it all down, burn it up? Or will they become more receptive to single payer health plans financed by a more equitable system of taxation?
According to you, they will massively favor a return to system that will put them back under the thumb of the health insurance industry. That would be like black Americans disappointed with the progress of Reconstruction after the War Between the States demanding a return to slavery. Gathering by the thousands in front of the plantations saying “Massa, please, can we have our chains back?”
From my position on the conservative wing of the extreme left, there is a lot to criticize about the Affordable Health plans. Which is not to say that going backwards is a good idea. Keep what works and improve upon it. You think it costs too much to keep? How much would it cost to tear it down and start over?
Remember how the rightards squealed in porcine rage when Obama put down the 80% requirement for health insurance companies to pay out for actual health care? Did you ever hear a reasonable explanation for why they needed a 20% margin for administrative costs and profit? All those people they employ to find new and creative ways to deny coverage, they are part of the “administrative costs”, yes? There to help increase the profit. Seems to me there’s a lot of possible savings there. But maybe my math isn’t as good as yours, it certainly isn’t as creative.
That would be pretty popular. Wait, let me translate that to adaher. That would be insanely popular, wild in the streets with bonfires on every corner popular.
If “America is a center-right” country, explain why everybody know that high turn-out is good for Democrats.
High turnout helps hide the massive voter fraud, which they have managed to keep hidden all these years. Liberals and Dems are really, really good at secret conspiratorial skulduggery. Who gnu? They sure as hell didn’t.
From your own fucking cite:
How you turn this into OVERWHELMING support for a ban past the first trimester* is something that baffles me.
*You do know there’s quite a bit of time between the first trimester and the last few months of pregnancy, right? Right? I have two kids so I feel qualified to say this with some confidence. What are your qualifications to talk about pregnancy?
Never been pregnant myself, I’m more of a carrier.
Partial birth abortion is performed during the 2nd trimester as well and I’m pretty sure it’s performed more often during the 2nd trimester than the 3rd.
As for the turnout, that may be the conventional wisdom, but Republicans have recently benefitted from high turnout as well. Turnout in 2004 was 60%. Obama, on the other hand, relied on a low turnout strategy and won with only 58% turnout. If white voters had turned out at 2004 levels, Romney would have had a good chance to win.
Haploid Harry?
My understanding of the term “partial birth abortion” does not line up with yours, as my understanding was that the term referenced the presumed viability of unborn infant. Hence, it is pretty much by definition limited to the third trimester. Before we proceed any further, you need to clarify your exceptional and extraordinary definition. If “partial birth” abortions are performed more often in the 2nd trimester, then what defines it as “partial birth” as a fetus of less than six months gestation has little if any chance of survival as an infant. And if that is irrelevant, then why aren’t all abortions “partial birth”?
And again, you dazzle us with math. A high turnout for Republicans is 60%, a “low turnout strategy” for Obama gets 58%, and all your hopes ride on that slender reed? Keeping mind that a lot of your white demographic is disappearing in a general sort of way, in that they are being buried.
“Partial birth abortion” is a propaganda phrase not a medical term and as such pretty much means whatever the people using it want it to mean.
Don’t see where the high white turnout will come from, in reality it continues to drop.
This thread is fascinating! 
And I’m pretty sure that the real reason Republicans want to outlaw abortion is that they drink the blood of Black & Hispanic babies in order to stave off their inevitable trip to hell and they need to ensure their supply. Absent a cite, my belief is as strong as your belief.
You continue to make shit up and present it as fact. Two can play at that game.
Except that many of those voters were actually people who only POLLED as white - they were really some other color. Take them away and I’m pretty sure Romney only won 3% of the popular vote.