Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 23, 2014, 02:52:05 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Election Archive
| |-+  2010 Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  How would reconciliation affect the 2010 Mid-Terms?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: How would reconciliation affect the 2010 Mid-Terms?  (Read 1968 times)
Lankford for US Senate 2014
BushOklahoma
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20814
Kenya


View Profile
« on: September 14, 2009, 09:51:53 pm »
Ignore

The Democrats are threatening to use the reconciliation process, which only requires 51 votes, to ram their health care bills through Congress, basically sticking their tongue out at their Republican colleagues.

My question is how would that affect the mid-terms which are only 13 1/2 months away?  Keep in mind that its already shaping up to be a better year for the Republicans with Obama's slipping approval ratings and the history of the President's party losing seats at the mid-terms.  I know the Bush Administration defied history, but that was also just 13 1/2 months after 9/11/2001 so it doesn't really count.  Also consider that the war in Afghanistan is starting to lose support entering its 9th year, as more and more Americans are conceding Afghanistan as another Vietnam.
Logged

My earlier comment notwithstanding, I do think that the site would be better off if Inks left his position. (The fact that the village idiot has dropped in to express his support for him only confirms this.)
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1795
United States


P P P
View Profile
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2009, 09:53:55 pm »
Ignore

No one would care about procedure. The opponents would get much angrier and this might raise their turnout, but they are already pissed off. Its main purpose would be to rally the Democratic base. Frankly, reconciliation or abolishing the filibuster is so obvious I am shocked Obama is not pushing it. This idea that you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate is nothing less than absurd, and if the GOP had a majority I have no doubt they would not tolerate it for a second.
Logged
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: September 14, 2009, 11:02:58 pm »
Ignore

It would probably give Democrats a boost in turnout and enthusiasm. 
Logged
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13074
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2009, 08:23:35 am »
Ignore

Republican voters actually responded to the rallying cry of "judges" and "obstructionism" back in 2002.  People don't need to understand what the procedure is.  All they need to know is that it's procedure that's being used to stop what they want.
Logged

Meeker
meekermariner
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14169


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: -2.61

View Profile
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2009, 09:24:01 am »
Ignore

No one would care. Well some Republicans would care. But they were already going to vote.
Logged
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10397
United States


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 15, 2009, 04:20:54 pm »
Ignore

It would not switch a dozen votes nationwide against Democrats. The most memorable fact being something got passed would only help. If there's time to implement it before the midterm, most people discovering their taxes didn't go up, their choice of doctor wasn't taken away, and the world didn't otherwise end will likewise only help.
Logged
Lankford for US Senate 2014
BushOklahoma
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 20814
Kenya


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2009, 08:53:43 pm »
Ignore

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?
Logged

My earlier comment notwithstanding, I do think that the site would be better off if Inks left his position. (The fact that the village idiot has dropped in to express his support for him only confirms this.)
Deldem
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 854
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.48, S: -7.74

View Profile
« Reply #7 on: September 15, 2009, 10:14:01 pm »
Ignore

It won't matter in November 2010- all that the general public will remember is that a bill was passed.
Logged

JCP-Texas for Atlasia.
Herman Cain's Gold Chain
Lief
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 31889
Dominica


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2009, 01:25:49 pm »
Ignore

It won't matter in November 2010- all that the general public will remember is that a bill was passed.

^^^^

Explain to people that the Democrats passed a bill outlawing pre-existing condition discrimination, capping yearly out of pocket expenses, increasing choice, enacting a public option, and giving working class Americans subsidies, and they won't care that the Democrats used some parliamentary tactic that they don't understand.
Logged



(Part of the 2012 Election Throwback Series)
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4421
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2009, 11:18:18 pm »
Ignore

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?

I think voters will have long enough memories to recall that most Republicans balked at passing ANY sort of health care reform and, with a few exceptions, did not reciprocate good faith efforts at bipartisanship.  Yes, Democrats will probably end up "going alone" but voters will realize it was because of Republican stubbornness, not Democratic partisanship.
Logged

SamInTheSouth
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 323


P
View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 17, 2009, 05:06:51 pm »
Ignore

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.
Logged
Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12721


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 17, 2009, 06:58:04 pm »
Ignore

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.
Logged
bullmoose88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14469


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 17, 2009, 07:04:41 pm »
Ignore

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.


The real problem is, the Democrats have to give a rather long winded explaination (because its a complex situation) as to why they had to use reconciliation...the Republicans need only launch attacks, probably successful ones, based on a very simple message (however misleading)...that the Democrats rammed government health care down the country's throat.

Lief makes good points as to why the Democrats did it, but deep down you guys probably will admit that like 8 or 9 times out of 10, the dumb/simple message trumps the nuanced/complex/long winded truthful message.
Logged

A Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative NE Republican with some Left-Libertarian/3rd Way Leanings. Simply, a Rockefeller Republican.

According to one poster, I represent a...

Dying bread of Americans.
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1795
United States


P P P
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2009, 07:29:45 pm »
Ignore

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.


The real problem is, the Democrats have to give a rather long winded explaination (because its a complex situation) as to why they had to use reconciliation...the Republicans need only launch attacks, probably successful ones, based on a very simple message (however misleading)...that the Democrats rammed government health care down the country's throat.

Lief makes good points as to why the Democrats did it, but deep down you guys probably will admit that like 8 or 9 times out of 10, the dumb/simple message trumps the nuanced/complex/long winded truthful message.

I never denied anywhere on this thread that reconciliation would hurt, and that Democrats would lose the media war over it. But Democrats have to chose their poison. They can chose to fail on healthcare which would motivate conservatives and depress democratic turnout, or they can push it through which would piss off conservatives but motivate democrats. The latter is a much better option, even if it pisses off some independents.

I also think that because most of us on here care about policy we assume other people do as well. Most independents care about effectiveness, and therefore failing to pass healthcare is worse than passing a bill in a partisan manner.

Furthermore, i don't buy this "fictional" constituency for bipartisanship. It exists, but rarely extends beyond David Broder's dinner guests. Most voters do not want bipartisanship. Especially after the last few years.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2009, 08:13:18 pm »
Ignore

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?

I think voters will have long enough memories to recall that most Republicans balked at passing ANY sort of health care reform and, with a few exceptions, did not reciprocate good faith efforts at bipartisanship.  Yes, Democrats will probably end up "going alone" but voters will realize it was because of Republican stubbornness, not Democratic partisanship.

Hmmmm... 60 votes in the Senate, 256 in the house... Yep, it's definitely Republican's fault if nothing passes Roll Eyes
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8103
United States


Political Matrix
E: 6.26, S: -7.39

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 17, 2009, 08:18:09 pm »
Ignore

BTW, I bet all you Democrats who support reconciliation for health care denounced the Republican congress for using it with the patriot act (which I oppose FTR).
Logged

LOL, Failure

Alright, if Republicans gain less than 75 seats, I'll prominently display my failure in my signature.
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4421
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #16 on: September 18, 2009, 01:51:43 am »
Ignore

How about among independents, a key group that Obama is struggling to hold onto.  This is the group that looks for bi-partisanship more than Republicans or Democrats.  If the Democrats spit in the face of Republicans and thumb their nose at bi-partisanship and "go it alone", to borrow a phrase from the Bush years, will that destroy Obama's image of trying to reach across the aisle that he campaigned on.  Will that hurt the Democrats or affect the make-up of the Congress in anyway on November 2, 2010?

I think voters will have long enough memories to recall that most Republicans balked at passing ANY sort of health care reform and, with a few exceptions, did not reciprocate good faith efforts at bipartisanship.  Yes, Democrats will probably end up "going alone" but voters will realize it was because of Republican stubbornness, not Democratic partisanship.

Hmmmm... 60 votes in the Senate, 256 in the house... Yep, it's definitely Republican's fault if nothing passes Roll Eyes

Ummm... you should read more carefully.  It wasn't a question of whether it passes because it will pass.  There is no doubt in my mind that Democrats are going to pass some form of health care reform.  I never said anything about blaming Republicans for killing health care reform.

The question is how will it pass and what affect will that have on the midterms.  Will Republicans kick and scream and force the Democrats to use procedures like reconciliation in the hope of painting the Democrats as big government villains in 2010?  Or will moderate Republican voices step up resulting in at least some degree of bipartisanship perhaps giving Democrats a step up in 2010 and/or risking their own reelection?
Logged

Gravis Marketing
brittain33
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12721


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: September 18, 2009, 08:28:29 am »
Ignore

BTW, I bet all you Democrats who support reconciliation for health care denounced the Republican congress for using it with the patriot act (which I oppose FTR).

No one in this country except for Robert Byrd and Matthew Yglesias is consistent on the 60 vs. 51 vote thing. No one.
Logged
Badger
badger
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 10397
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: September 18, 2009, 05:05:46 pm »
Ignore

Wow.  I can't believe how much denial I am reading here.  You guys sound as clueless as the Republicans did leading up to 2006.

How much certainty do you advise we put on polls 14 months before an election before we're not in "denial"?

I'm reading lots of people expressing concern about the size of Dem losses, but making reasoned arguments as to how things will play out. I understand if you guys are looking for hope; I've been there too. I think it's too much to expect others to feel bad for not sharing certainty that your hopes are the predetermined path for the future.


The real problem is, the Democrats have to give a rather long winded explaination (because its a complex situation) as to why they had to use reconciliation...the Republicans need only launch attacks, probably successful ones, based on a very simple message (however misleading)...that the Democrats rammed government health care down the country's throat.

Lief makes good points as to why the Democrats did it, but deep down you guys probably will admit that like 8 or 9 times out of 10, the dumb/simple message trumps the nuanced/complex/long winded truthful message.

And that media war wouldn't last a month outside the parties bases. Who truly believes anyone would change their vote next November over an issue of frikkin Senate parlimentary procedure no matter how it's pitched? The only people still worked up over this a few weeks after it happens were going to vote straight ticket Republican anyway. The only way the "rammed it down our throats" argument has any legs is if the reforms enacted are broadly considered a failure. And they won't--most people won't be effected at all, which makes it pretty hard to make ordinary voters give a damn about how something got passed in Washington.

Bottom Line: Voters will hold more against a do-nothing president and congress than one that plays a bit of political hardball.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines