TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 19, 2010 21:52:38 GMT -5
I don't like the concession from the point of view that it also destroys the argument behind the automatic recount if this gets within .5% and follows a report from Brown's camp that the election would be close. If anything, maybe a Brown win destroys a Republican shibboleth as to the state...err Commonwealth... of Massachusetts, which also elected Mitt Romney, a similarly undistinguished public figure. The garbage about "Massachusetts liberals" grows tiresome. By garbage, do you mean "backed up by statistics"? Massachusetts is third only to Rhode Island and DC in Democrat to Republican margin according to Gallup (this is what came up in a quick google search--it'sfrom last January, and I'd love to see new numbers, but I doubt they'd be much different): www.gallup.com/poll/114016/state-states-political-party-affiliation.aspxI really hate to say this, but if Massachusetts doesn't support the liberal agenda, does any state? (You can flip this on its head w/ certain conservative states and Republicans too, but I don't know that any are considered conservative in the way that Massachusetts is considered liberal)
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 19, 2010 21:53:55 GMT -5
....and then lookup how many Democrats there are to Independents. MA is not anywhere near as liberal as DC.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,777
|
Post by DFW HOYA on Jan 19, 2010 21:58:50 GMT -5
The TV pundits seem to be gaining momentum around the premise that with 435 House representatives up for reelection and watching the results, chances of rubber-stamping Rahm's Senate bill are eroding quickly.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 19, 2010 22:00:23 GMT -5
My disagreement is not empirical there since it is not used to convey some kind of empirical reality (you don't see folks attacking Delahunt with the label from outside MA). I have every reason to believe that those statistics are right or close enough. Vermont may rank ahead of MA these days, if anything.
My problem is with the reflexive incantation of the term as if it, in itself, is inherently bad, when, indeed, it is hard to identify the last national Democrat from MA who has so injured the country to warrant some kind of epithet being hurled from outside the state. Mike Dukakis and John Kerry both lost. Ted Kennedy lost in a primary. You won't hear the term used to describe Mitt Romney, even though he was liberal compared to the Republican Party at large when electoral dynamics suited it.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 19, 2010 22:01:30 GMT -5
Are you sure they still have the votes in the House? That's what burns me up. Those Blue Dogs aren't going to be getting any special tea party points for voting for it the first time but then not actually following through and making it law. That's on their record, and their opponent is going to hammer them with that. It's a double whammy if it doesn't pass because they get 0 credit for helping anyone. Apropos of nothing, Coakley looks almost exactly like Angela Merkel. It's uncanny. Anyway. Don't you guys get it? Massachusetts, which should have swept in a Democrat with a pulse, kicked them out. CNN, not itself a conservatve bastion, was playing interviews over and over with people who said "I want change". They beat an entrenched party machine and a sitting president who came up there to personally lecture the opposition guy about his truck. If the Democrats push the nuclear option, they're doomed. Every single Republican ad for anyone who's in an even remotely contested district mentions how they ignore the will of the people. This is always a big Democratic stumbling block - they too often go on about how people who shop at Wal-Mart and watch NASCAR are ignorant sheep, but in the nice parts of the country, that stuff doesn't happen because people are smarter and more worldly. In the bastion of Democratic politics, where people are smart and refined enough to have socialized medicine, Hope and Change got shown a big red stop sign. Best of luck explaining that one away. The Democrats ignore this at their peril.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 19, 2010 22:05:00 GMT -5
The TV pundits seem to be gaining momentum around the premise that with 435 House representatives up for reelection and watching the results, chances of rubber-stamping Rahm's Senate bill are eroding quickly. Someone needs to explain to me how not passing this helps those Democrats in jeopardy. Seriously.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 19, 2010 22:09:17 GMT -5
If the Democrats push the nuclear option, they're doomed. ... The Democrats ignore this at their peril. The nuclear option? Who is talking about the nuclear option? The Senate Bill already passed - all they have to do is vote on the straight text of it in the House. Are we talking about reconciliation - as Fox News has now started its push to rebrand reconciliation as "the nuclear option", or the real "nuclear option" which Cheney pushed hard on the judges votes? Republicans are going to use the votes on health care against those Democrats. You haven't explained how it helps them in not passing the bill.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 19, 2010 22:09:29 GMT -5
The TV pundits seem to be gaining momentum around the premise that with 435 House representatives up for reelection and watching the results, chances of rubber-stamping Rahm's Senate bill are eroding quickly. Someone needs to explain to me how not passing this helps those Democrats in jeopardy. Seriously. Agreed wholeheartedly, TC. I would take it one step further and say that certain Dems would be in jeopardy irrespective to their vote on HCR. There will be some regression to a mean if only because of the coattails effect from 2008 (i.e. Dems won in some places for the first time in centuries).
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 19, 2010 22:18:21 GMT -5
Someone needs to explain to me how not passing this helps those Democrats in jeopardy. Seriously. Agreed wholeheartedly, TC. I would take it one step farther and say that certain Dems would be in jeopardy irrespective to their vote on HCR. There will be some regression to a mean if only because of the coattails effect from 2008 (i.e. Dems won in some places for the first time in centuries). Best of luck being a Democrat and running with an acrimoniously-passed health care bill around your neck, which is what the bill passed by the Senate was. Best of luck having Rahm slap Democrats into line who object based on abortion or other provisions and whose constitutents - you know, the ones who give them money and vote for them - will feel betrayed that their views aren't heard. You're asking many Democrats to sell out their local constituents and tell them that a flawed health care bill - a remarkably divisive issue - is better than none. Their funding will dry up and the DNC will be unable to help them all as the Republicans knock each out. And the Republicans can campaign on destroying that health care bill. If Democrats want any chance at all in November, give up on health care entirely or pass some small bill that fixes a few things that Republicans agree are wrong with the system too - don't try for an overhaul. But they need to act fast - every single day they screw around with this is another day that they add credence to the theory that they can't get anything done.
|
|
nodak89
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Roy Roy Royyyyy!!!
Posts: 1,881
|
Post by nodak89 on Jan 19, 2010 22:24:14 GMT -5
Agreed wholeheartedly, TC. I would take it one step farther and say that certain Dems would be in jeopardy irrespective to their vote on HCR. There will be some regression to a mean if only because of the coattails effect from 2008 (i.e. Dems won in some places for the first time in centuries). Best of luck being a Democrat and running with an acrimoniously-passed health care bill around your neck, which is what the bill passed by the Senate was. Best of luck having Rahm slap Democrats into line who object based on abortion or other provisions and whose constitutents - you know, the ones who give them money and vote for them - will feel betrayed that their views aren't heard. You're asking many Democrats to sell out their local constituents and tell them that a flawed health care bill - a remarkably divisive issue - is better than none. Their funding will dry up and the DNC will be unable to help them all as the Republicans knock each out. And the Republicans can campaign on destroying that health care bill. If Democrats want any chance at all in November, give up on health care entirely or pass some small bill that fixes a few things that Republicans agree are wrong with the system too - don't try for an overhaul. But they need to act fast - every single day they screw around with this is another day that they add credence to the theory that they can't get anything done. That sounds to me like hoping your opponent kicks a 35 yd field goal instead of going for it on 4th and 1.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jan 19, 2010 22:29:12 GMT -5
The way blue dog democrats in swing districts get anything out of this is to scrap what is on the table. Dump all the back door deals required to get this thing passed. Do a simple common sense and middle of the road bill that fixes some of the pre existing condition issues and adds something that really looks at costs. And don't cut $500 B from Medicare. But then they have to immediately pivot hard on the economy and go to a middle of the road option that has some gubberment spending but also some tax cuts etc. designed to stimulate the private sector and jobs. And then publically dump the cap and tax bill.
Add a little humility and some of the blue dogs in swing districts survive. Reid himself might survive. The chances of Obama, Pelosi and Reid signing on to that plan are nill.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 19, 2010 22:51:07 GMT -5
The way blue dog democrats in swing districts get anything out of this is to scrap what is on the table. Add a little humility and some of the blue dogs in swing districts survive. Reid himself might survive. The chances of Obama, Pelosi and Reid signing on to that plan are nill. The only way to assure that you get nothing out of this is to scrap what's on the table. They aren't going to get anything passed the Senate except through tricks that Republicans will howl at and that they don't want to do. Scott Brown based his campaign upon killing all those issues - who is this magic Republican Senate vote that they are going to get for any health care bill in 2010?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 19, 2010 22:55:51 GMT -5
By the way unlike Martha Coakley, I wait till the vote is in before conceding - Boz, send me over my signature when you're ready.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jan 19, 2010 23:13:35 GMT -5
Technically the dems could simply vote the current Senate version through the House and send it to the prez without going back to the Senate. Arguably above board though certainly not consistent with the polls. That is going straight to the blue dog and anti abortion dems and saying here is the plank - and here is the anvil to carry when you hit the water. I think the liberal dems in the house are scared enough to swallow what they can get now. The blue dogs not so much.
Anyway that is the scenario where they don't need to find a senate vote to replace Brown.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 19, 2010 23:31:41 GMT -5
Technically the dems could simply vote the current Senate version through the House and send it to the prez without going back to the Senate. Arguably above board though certainly not consistent with the polls. That is going straight to the blue dog and anti abortion dems and saying here is the plank - and here is the anvil to carry when you hit the water. And that's what we're saying! That violates no rules, that doesn't take away anything from the legitimacy of Scott Brown's election and involves absolutely no tricks. What you are missing is that the blue dog dems in the house have already walked the plank - they've voted for both cap and trade and for health care reform with a public option - if they think they are getting away with that with the tea party crowd, good luck. The anvil is already around their neck and they are already on the plank.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 19, 2010 23:46:24 GMT -5
Technically the dems could simply vote the current Senate version through the House and send it to the prez without going back to the Senate. Arguably above board though certainly not consistent with the polls. That is going straight to the blue dog and anti abortion dems and saying here is the plank - and here is the anvil to carry when you hit the water. And that's what we're saying! That violates no rules, that doesn't take away anything from the legitimacy of Scott Brown's election and involves absolutely no tricks. What you are missing is that the blue dog dems in the house have already walked the plank - they've voted for both cap and trade and for health care reform with a public option - if they think they are getting away with that with the tea party crowd, good luck. The anvil is already around their neck and they are already on the plank. The House passed their bill by 5 votes. I don't think Gao votes for the Senate bill b/c the abortion language isn't strong enough. He said before it was a deal breaker and I don't see why that would change for him. So, there really isn't any margin of error for the Dems. They can only lose 4 votes, unless they can convince Dems that voted against the earlier bill that it's a good idea to vote for a bill now (somehow, I doubt that they can--I don't think there's a single Blue Dog that's running for re-election that'll vote for the Senate bill after a Democrat loss in Massachusetts--are there any Ds in the House that voted against the bill that are retiring?). Additionally, 60+ Ds voted for the Stupak amendment (Remember, the abortion language in the Senate bill was already rejected by Stupak and his coalition)--not sure how many of them didn't vote for the bill, but its very possible that there are enough that won't vote for a bill that has anything less than the Stupak language to both kill the bill and provide enough cover for each other w/in the party. Abortion's a principle issue for quite a few people--I wouldn't be surprised if it was a deal breaker, ESPECIALLY after what just happened in Massachusetts.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jan 19, 2010 23:49:44 GMT -5
....and then lookup how many Democrats there are to Independents. MA is not anywhere near as liberal as DC. It's still a liberal state in the same way that Alaska is a conservative state. Alaska has more independents than Repubs and Dems combined (or very close). It's still a conservative state.
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 19, 2010 23:54:50 GMT -5
With the supermajority gone, perhaps now is an opportune time to strip Joe Lieberman of his Committee assignments and chairmanship.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Jan 20, 2010 0:00:08 GMT -5
So, there really isn't any margin of error for the Dems. They can only lose 4 votes, unless they can convince Dems that voted against the earlier bill that it's a good idea to vote for a bill now (somehow, I doubt that they can--I don't think there's a single Blue Dog that's running for re-election that'll vote for the Senate bill after a Democrat loss in Massachusetts--are there any Ds in the House that voted against the bill that are retiring?). The margin of error is higher than 4 - there's at least 3 retirements that voted no originally and then you have the liberals like Kucinich and a few others that voted against it that would have voted yes had their vote been needed.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jan 20, 2010 0:08:36 GMT -5
With the supermajority gone, perhaps now is an opportune time to strip Joe Lieberman of his Committee assignments and chairmanship. Wow, you guys get cuddly when you lose. Talk about an open tent. Fine, we'll take him. 43. Each one draws us a little closer.
|
|