The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

VA and NJ exit polls showed support for Obama and health care reform. Those races were expressly local, certainly not national. There have been three "national" races by definition- CA House, NY House and MA Senate. Dems went 2-1 in those three. As far as relevance to health care goes, none of them were decided because of health care or Obama (other than arguably CA House, but it was going pro-Dem anyways).

By your definition, there have actually been six "national" elections since 2009, not three, and Dems were victors in almost all of them. So, if you want to pretend that matters, go ahead and say you're 5-1. It's a totally irrelevant statistic without studying what drove each of those elections.

I think there's strong evidence that the 4 races I mentioned were deeply influenced by Obama's policies in general, and health care in particular. And Dems lost all but one.

That's why the momentum is where it is. That's why Pelosi can't get her votes.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Of course, you also had Specter switch parties based on his feedback in PA.

Specter made a stunning miscalculation. I guarantee you he wishes he had that one back, though he'll never say it in public.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Abandoning health care would be a collosal mistake, particularly if it is based on what people incorrectly think was being sent as a message. Which is why they won't abandon it.

Dem's won't abandon the words "health care reform" but they are almost certain to abandon this wretched bill.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

By your definition, there have actually been six "national" elections since 2009, not three, and Dems were victors in almost all of them. So, if you want to pretend that matters, go ahead and say you're 5-1. It's a totally irrelevant statistic without studying what drove each of those elections.

Looks like I forgot about two- your link shows there have been 5, not 6 (unless you are guaranteeing a Dem victory in April). As for "studying what drove each of those elections," exit polling data is widely available for the NJ and VA races, and it shows pretty clearly that they were not driven by national politics. No exit polling was conducted for MA, so if we can't study what drove that election, it sounds like we are in agreement that it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

I think there's strong evidence that the 4 races I mentioned were deeply influenced by Obama's policies in general, and health care in particular. And Dems lost all but one.

That's why the momentum is where it is. That's why Pelosi can't get her votes.

Which evidence? Certainly not exit polling. Is there other evidence?

Specter made a stunning miscalculation. I guarantee you he wishes he had that one back, though he'll never say it in public.



Dem's won't abandon the words "health care reform" but they are almost certain to abandon this wretched bill.

I doubt it. Specter would definitely lose in PA on the Republican ticket. He is now only possibly going to lose on the Dem ticket. As for this bill, we shall see.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Looks like I forgot about two- your link shows there have been 5, not 6 (unless you are guaranteeing a Dem victory in April). As for "studying what drove each of those elections," exit polling data is widely available for the NJ and VA races, and it shows pretty clearly that they were not driven by national politics. No exit polling was conducted for MA, so if we can't study what drove that election, it sounds like we are in agreement that it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Which evidence? Certainly not exit polling. Is there other evidence?

No, I meant just what I said: six. I was including the MA Senate race.

I don't have the data at my fingertips as to why I think NJ and VA revolved around national issues. But I'll do a little digging and get back to you. Are you going to defend your assertion that CA-10 was a national election, or are you conceding that it was not?

On another note: since you don't think NJ, VA, or MA were nationalized, on what do you blame that fact that Pelosi suddenly can't get her votes?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

I doubt it. Specter would definitely lose in PA on the Republican ticket. He is now only possibly going to lose on the Dem ticket. As for this bill, we shall see.

I could dicker with that, but maybe you're right. No matter how you slice it, Specter is in big trouble. That's what happens when you have no principles.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I meant just what I said: six. I was including the MA Senate race.

I don't have the data at my fingertips as to why I think NJ and VA revolved around national issues. But I'll do a little digging and get back to you. Are you going to defend your assertion that CA-10 was a national election, or are you conceding that it was not?

On another note: since you don't think NJ, VA, or MA were nationalized, on what do you blame that fact that Pelosi suddenly can't get her votes?



I could dicker with that, but maybe you're right. No matter how you slice it, Specter is in big trouble. That's what happens when you have no principles.

Curse him, may he die an ignominious political death a la Dan Quagle.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

No, I meant just what I said: six. I was including the MA Senate race.

Ah.

I don't have the data at my fingertips as to why I think NJ and VA revolved around national issues. But I'll do a little digging and get back to you. Are you going to defend your assertion that CA-10 was a national election, or are you conceding that it was not?

Sure- CA was a congressional election (by definition a "national" election as it is for an elected office in the US Congress). Did it revolve heavily on "national" issues? Beats me- I haven't seen any exit polling and doubt any was conducted, but that also happens to be the case in Massachusetts. People who want to claim the MA election was a "message" election are making it up with no facts to support them.

On another note: since you don't think NJ, VA, or MA were nationalized, on what do you blame that fact that Pelosi suddenly can't get her votes?

Who says she can't? To the extent she won't be able to in the future (and I think she will), I would blame cowardice and stupidity.

I could dicker with that, but maybe you're right. No matter how you slice it, Specter is in big trouble. That's what happens when you have no principles.

On that we can agree. Specter makes America worse.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sure- CA was a congressional election (by definition a "national" election as it is for an elected office in the US Congress). Did it revolve heavily on "national" issues? Beats me- I haven't seen any exit polling and doubt any was conducted, but that also happens to be the case in Massachusetts. People who want to claim the MA election was a "message" election are making it up with no facts to support them.

Not exactly. Exit polls aren't the only thing that indicate the electorate's mood. Issue polling during the run-up to the election, and what the candidate actually campaigns on are key indicators as to why people vote the way they do. If you're limiting yourself to exit polls only to gauge the electorate, it's no wonder you've been so off.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Who says she can't? To the extent she won't be able to in the future (and I think she will), I would blame cowardice and stupidity.

Um, lots of people are saying she can't right now, including her. "Cowardice and stupidity" is a vague weasel answer. Let's hear something concrete. How come Pelosi had her votes before, and now suddenly she doesn't?

I say MA was a nationalized referendum on Obama and on health care, and once the Dems saw the results, they decided keeping their jobs in November was more important to them than loyalty to Pelosi. They don't want to go home and face constituents, angry at having been ignored, or to hand a fat election issue to their opponents. If you disagree, fine, but let's hear some real political analysis.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Not exactly. Exit polls aren't the only thing that indicate the electorate's mood. Issue polling during the run-up to the election, and what the candidate actually campaigns on are key indicators as to why people vote the way they do. If you're limiting yourself to exit polls only to gauge the electorate, it's no wonder you've been so off.

In that case, NJ and VA were definitely not "national" races.

Um, lots of people are saying she can't right now, including her. "Cowardice and stupidity" is a vague weasel answer. Let's hear something concrete. How come Pelosi had her votes before, and now suddenly she doesn't?

Um, no. Pelosi has not said that. You should read the rest of her quote. The biggest trouble faced by Pelosi isn't the House, it is the Senate. She has said all along the Senate bill isn't acceptable to the House. The Senate is now in the position of having a hard time amending their bill through regular legislative processes, and Pelosi can't live with what is on the table. So the Senate bill needs to be changed. It hasn't changed yet, so she doesn't have the votes yet. Reconciliation provides the avenue for changing the Senate bill and fixing Pelosi's problem. As for statements from some House members, their problem is cowardice and stupidity. They are overreacting to the punditry's noise that MA was a referendum on Obama and health care, despite the fact there is zero evidence in support of that contention.

I say MA was a nationalized referendum on Obama and on health care, and once the Dems saw the results, they decided keeping their jobs in November was more important to them than loyalty to Pelosi. They don't want to go home and face constituents, angry at having been ignored, or to hand a fat election issue to their opponents. If you disagree, fine, but let's hear some real political analysis.

You can say that, but there is no evidence to support your argument. Provide some evidence, not just a flat statement.

As for evidence supporting my contention that she lose because she was a lousy candidate:

She started up 30 points. If this was a referendum on Obama or healthcare, there is no possible chance public opinion changed to the tune of 35 points in one month, particularly since polls in MA indicated support overall for the health care bill. She wouldn't have ever had a 30 point lead to start with if this was truly a reaction to Obama or health care.

She went on vacation during the primary and took voters for granted. They didn't appreciate it.

She said multiple stupid things regarding the Red Sox and, while that shouldn't be the basis for anyone's vote, it got her a lot of negative publicity.

Obama still polls very favorably in MA.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

In that case, NJ and VA were definitely not "national" races.

I disagree. Been a busy day, but I'll try to get you some data as to why later.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Um, no. Pelosi has not said that. You should read the rest of her quote. The biggest trouble faced by Pelosi isn't the House, it is the Senate. She has said all along the Senate bill isn't acceptable to the House. The Senate is now in the position of having a hard time amending their bill through regular legislative processes, and Pelosi can't live with what is on the table. So the Senate bill needs to be changed. It hasn't changed yet, so she doesn't have the votes yet. Reconciliation provides the avenue for changing the Senate bill and fixing Pelosi's problem.

Yeah, the House has trouble with the Senate, and the Senate has trouble with the House. We call that bicameral legislation. We also have a method for resolving those problems called conference committees. Unforunately Pelosi decided it would be better to cut backroom deals than work out in the open, so I don't feel a lot of sympathy there.

The only person to blame for House Democrat intransigence is the House leadership. Stop trying to blame others for her woes.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for statements from some House members, their problem is cowardice and stupidity. They are overreacting to the punditry's noise that MA was a referendum on Obama and health care, despite the fact there is zero evidence in support of that contention.

So they're reflexively reactionary idiots who make decisions on what gets said on Fox News rather than the facts? And these are the people you want rewriting the health care system?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for evidence supporting my contention that she lose because she was a lousy candidate:

She started up 30 points. If this was a referendum on Obama or healthcare, there is no possible chance public opinion changed to the tune of 35 points in one month, particularly since polls in MA indicated support overall for the health care bill. She wouldn't have ever had a 30 point lead to start with if this was truly a reaction to Obama or health care.

She went on vacation during the primary and took voters for granted. They didn't appreciate it.

She said multiple stupid things regarding the Red Sox and, while that shouldn't be the basis for anyone's vote, it got her a lot of negative publicity.

Obama still polls very favorably in MA.

That's all mostly true, and I'm not going to disagree that Coakley was a terrible candidate, as was Creigh Deeds. But if you think that's all that was in this race, you're misreading it badly.

Not that I mind, necessarily. Obama says "this is a fight I want to have" ... I say "bring it on." The harder he pushes left, the more the Dems will lose critical elections.

[Tex]

A classic montage video, courtesy of the left-leaning TalkingPointsMemo. They preface it with this commentary:

Well folks, it's been one year since President Barack Obama took office. And he spent a lot of that year working on health care reform.

But with the future of reform uncertain at best in the wake of the special election in Massachusetts that left Senate Democrats without their filibuster-proof supermajority, we thought it would be a good time to take a look back and relive all the exciting speeches about getting health care reform done. Masochistic? Maybe. Yes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I disagree. Been a busy day, but I'll try to get you some data as to why later.



Yeah, the House has trouble with the Senate, and the Senate has trouble with the House. We call that bicameral legislation. We also have a method for resolving those problems called conference committees. Unforunately Pelosi decided it would be better to cut backroom deals than work out in the open, so I don't feel a lot of sympathy there.

The only person to blame for House Democrat intransigence is the House leadership. Stop trying to blame others for her woes.

You may want to refresh your memory as to why there was no conference committee (it had nothing to do with Pelosi). Republican Senators were placing holds on conference committee appointments making it impossible for the committee to ever form. Weren't you saying something about "naked partisanship" earlier?

So they're reflexively reactionary idiots who make decisions on what gets said on Fox News rather than the facts? And these are the people you want rewriting the health care system?

Some most certainly are, yes. As to whether I want them rewriting the health care system, is there another option I am unaware of?

That's all mostly true, and I'm not going to disagree that Coakley was a terrible candidate, as was Creigh Deeds. But if you think that's all that was in this race, you're misreading it badly.

Not that I mind, necessarily. Obama says "this is a fight I want to have" ... I say "bring it on." The harder he pushes left, the more the Dems will lose critical elections.

So you say, again without any evidence.

Here's another link proposing what I described for health care, by the way:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...eeks-on-Reform