Convince me to vote, someone.....

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

Interesting that, when polled about many of the provisions of the health care bill, the public favors those provisions. The use of the pejorative "Obamacare" and the labels of socialism and fascism have created a negative opinion of the package. Many people do not know that the things they like are actually in the package. I doubt that the people would believe that they have given a mandate to eliminate protection for preexisting conditions, coverage for college age and slightly older offspring; alternative choices for people in small groups seeking health care, and making insurers actually use premiums to pay for medical care.

Moreover, the vagaries of the pledge don't create much of a mandate under which to operate.

Question - assuming the senate retains a majority of Democrats - is there a mandate there to move forward with the GOP agenda?

Regards,

D-Ray

The GOP has an agenda? Who knew.

I thought there was only Dr. No and Agent Orange.

[finnbow]

It will be a practical impossibility to repeal Health Care Reform (i.e., to get cloture in the Senate and/or get a veto-proof majority). The only thing they can do is block appropriation bills that contain the funding for implementation of the health care bill. Where does this get them? A government shutdown and the same fate as that cutie, Newtie.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I agree generally with your first 2 paragraphs, but you're way off the mark here. Charlie Cook, the most highly regarded election pollster, said today that if tomorrow's results look like they're looking now (GOP wins the House by a good margin, doesn't take back Senate), the GOP will be making a grave error to perceive this as a mandate.

He noted several things: first, the Republicans in Congress are held in the greatest disfavor of anybody in politics at the moment. The GOP won't be "winning" this election, the Dem's will be losing a vote of confidence by not addressing the economy first in favor of health care and cap and trade (in voters' eyes). He said the GOP will go down in flames very rapidly if they read tomorrow's results as a mandate, rather than just another vote for "change."

I agree with Cook. I think I very clearly wrote that it will be up to the newly elected to put forward an agenda that is aligned with what the voters want (i.e., not a rehash of the "change" mantra that we heard in 2008). I doubt that this resembles point for point the platform of the GOP. However, the newly elected will need to get this figured out and fast. If they don't, we'll be right back at this again in 2012.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

It will be a practical impossibility to repeal Health Care Reform (i.e., to get cloture in the Senate and/or get a veto-proof majority). The only thing they can do is block appropriation bills that contain the funding for implementation of the health care bill. Where does this get them? A government shutdown and the same fate as that cutie, Newtie.

I don't think that even blocking spending will get PPACA changed. It will take a veto - proof majority to repeal it. Many of the key mandates in PPACA will have already taken effect by January 2011. Many more will take effect, and will not be subject to funding changes, by 2014.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I agree with Cook. I think I very clearly wrote that it will be up to the newly elected to put forward an agenda that is aligned with what the voters want (i.e., not a rehash of the "change" mantra that we heard in 2008). I doubt that this resembles point for point the platform of the GOP. However, the newly elected will need to get this figured out and fast. If they don't, we'll be right back at this again in 2012.

The trouble is that the voters are divided and don't know what they want (other than for everything to get better in a pain-free manner). The same concern that put Obama into office (disappointment with the current state of affairs) is going to put the new faces in office tomorrow. Obama misread his sweeping victory as a mandate for a Progressive agenda and he'll pay the price tomorrow. The new GOP bunch will likely do the same. Even Dubya called his 2004 reelection a mandate, the result of which was him trying to push stuff the public didn't want. This ultimately caused the Obama tidal wave.

The newly elected GOP'ers have already forsworn compromise with the Dem's on anything. Just what do they thing they're going to accomplish with the Dem's still having a majority in the Senate and the Presidency? Tomorrow's GOP victory, if it happens, may be just the thing to guarantee that Obama wins a second term. I see a redux of 1994.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

I agree with Cook. I think I very clearly wrote that it will be up to the newly elected to put forward an agenda that is aligned with what the voters want (i.e., not a rehash of the "change" mantra that we heard in 2008). I doubt that this resembles point for point the platform of the GOP. However, the newly elected will need to get this figured out and fast. If they don't, we'll be right back at this again in 2012.

What platform?

Dave

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The trouble is that the voters are divided and don't know what they want (other than for everything to get better in a pain-free manner). The same concern that put Obama into office (disappointment with the current state of affairs) is going to put the new faces in office tomorrow. Obama misread his sweeping victory as a mandate for a Progressive agenda and he'll pay the price tomorrow. The new GOP bunch will likely do the same. Even Dubya called his 2004 reelection a mandate, the result of which was him trying to push stuff the public didn't want. This ultimately caused the Obama tidal wave.

The newly elected GOP'ers have already forsworn compromise with the Dem's on anything. Just what do they thing they're going to accomplish with the Dem's still having a majority in the Senate and the Presidency? Tomorrow's GOP victory, if it happens, may be just the thing to guarantee that Obama wins a second term. I see a redux of 1994.

If politicians spend their time reading polling data and nothing else, sure, I can see where one might draw a conclusion that voters "don't know what they want." However, I think that most folks, on both sides of the aisle, reflexively believe that bigger government is not an answer, but a cause, of many of our economic challenges. Most voters believe that more of their income than they are comfortable with is exacted from their wallets, the the overall return on that "investment" seems to get smaller every year. They think that the crop of politicians that has been sent to Washington is out of touch with their concerns, and those same politicians seem distracted by special interests.

Specific to this current batch of politicos, the average voter cared far less about health care and global warming than they did about their own economic security. They drive though their town and they see the "for lease" signs that dot the landscape in storefronts, office buildings and industry, and they see their economic opportunities at risk. They wonder why so much time had to be spent to get such a crappy health care product, when health care was never at the top of their list of "must do's".

Clinton and Carville had it so right in 1992: "Its the economy, stupid!" Bush Senior forgot it, and paid the price for it. Clinton forgot it by the end of 1992, and ushered in mid-term defeat for the Dems. In 1995, he declared that "The Era of Big Government is Over!", moved to the political center, and fared far better. He would have fared even better, of course, if he'd have kept it zipped.

As bad a candidate as Gore was, Clinton did so well that Gore nearly won in 2000. Bush Jr. was an immensely popular president, but the war was more the agenda than the economy in 2004, and neither the war or the economy was popular in 2004, and the poll results showed.

2008 gave the Repubs a weak candidate who didn't have much of a message on anything, and a national euphoria about a candidate who promised "change" - though no one really bothered to ask him what he meant by "change". But Obama is also now paying the price for forgetting that "its the economy, stupid."

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

I think that most folks, on both sides of the aisle, reflexively believe that bigger government is not an answer, but a cause, of many of our economic challenges.

lol. no people on both sides of the isle do not believe such nonsense

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

2008 gave the Repubs a weak candidate who didn't have much of a message on anything, and a national euphoria about a candidate who promised "change" - though no one really bothered to ask him what he meant by "change". But Obama is also now paying the price for forgetting that "its the economy, stupid."

...who actually said that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" as the friggin' economy was collapsing around him. And as clueless as this dolt was, his running mate was (and remains) even more clueless. BTW, 2008 didn't give us McCain/Palin, the GOP primaries/convention did. He was not foisted upon the party. They picked him and applauded his selection of the Wasilla Hillbilly.

As to the notion that everyone thinks that the government is too big, just what has the GOP done in the past or promised to do in the future that would change this? They've already said that they won't touch the DoD budget (other than to increase it) and won't touch entitlements either.

As for the assertion that "Bush Jr. was an immensely popular president," he left office as the single most unpopular President in American history. The only thing that helped his popularity was 9/11 and the Iraq War (pretty ironic in that they were both immense catastrophes that occurred on his watch).

http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm

FWIW, Obama's current ratings exceed those of Reagan at the same time in his presidency.

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

As bad a candidate as Gore was, Clinton did so well that Gore nearly won in 2000. Bush Jr. was an immensely popular president,

How was Gore a bad candidate?
(I had no clue he was)

Gore did win the election but the Supremes appointed GW. (how can you not recall?)

Baby Boy was an immensely popular president??????

It's like you and I are in opposite universes.

This stuff sounds like it's right out of Carl Rove's mouth.
Carl Rove the master of just lie and repeat and repeat and repeat until it is accepted fact.