PA-Sen: Barletta is running (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 06:13:40 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  PA-Sen: Barletta is running (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: PA-Sen: Barletta is running  (Read 11608 times)
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« on: December 03, 2016, 02:56:15 AM »

solid gop pickup! there is no way that any Democrat can win a Pennsylvania Senate contest because Trump won it in 2016, and all states in 2016 voted the same party for president and senate!!!!!!

.......
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2016, 06:40:06 PM »

After this last election, I would be shocked if Bob Casey doesn't take this race seriously. All he needs to do is flash his labor credentials. This would be one of the easiest campaigns to ever manage. Hopefully the Philly Dems are angry enough to turnout.

From reading this site and looking at Republican comments on facebook, you would think that Casey, Stabenow and Baldwin have no chance to win re-election.

In midterms, angry voters will turn out.. in 2018 it is more likely Democrats will be angry.

But that is so easy to say in Dec 2016.
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2016, 02:31:36 PM »

Well, I  am very much open to tweaking legislation to address conservative concerns and get it passed, I do agree that going entirely in the middle often results in poor legislation that creates the worst of both worlds. Democrats should have pushed through single payer in 2009/2010. If they had, it would not have been a huge liability like ObamaCare is today.

Even if the single payer program had tweaks, it would not have been the disaster ObamaCare is. It was a Republican lite bill to be honest.

I am more than fine with having moderates if it means we can win very Republican districts though. Smiley
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2016, 02:48:27 PM »

Well, I  am very much open to tweaking legislation to address conservative concerns and get it passed, I do agree that going entirely in the middle often results in poor legislation that creates the worst of both worlds.

And IMHO - vice versa: if done correctly it can be "the best of both worlds". And single-payer would be defeated in 2009: even ObamaCare was passed by 3-4 vote margin with 30+ Democrats(approximately) voting even against it.... You never had votes for single-payer. And unlikely to have anytime soon...

Obamacare sux.. and single payer would have been more popular, so yes we would have had the votes!!!
Logged
jamestroll
jamespol
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,520


« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2016, 11:57:52 AM »

As a moderate, I agree that it is best to take a side but not be so inflexible that you would never ever compromise or considering someone of your opposing party irrespective of circumstances.

Moderation for the sake of it, obviously does not work and going exactly in the middle created horrid results often, like ObamaCare. Like I said, we should have pushed through a single payer system in 2009 and 2010, even if we had to make some tweaks. We would have still lost the house in 2010 but it likely wouldn't have been an issue in this election. I absolutely think that ObamaCare premiums hurt clinton this time.

With all that being said, I am not going to choose between supporting no minimum wage or supporting all positions paying the same wage just to appease this site. lmao Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.