Romney to make VP selection announcement tomorrow morning in Virginia.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-11 @ 06:18:38
I have moved my map closer to a GOP victory on the basis of picking Ryan whioh will be seen as a bold and risky choice at the same time. In hammering home on the economics of the situation ROmney seeks to look for solutions rather than polemics, but are Americans ready for austerity, I have to say no even though I believe it is the number one issue for the future of this republic.
If it is Ryan it moves me towards voting ROmney...I would be 25% Independent Libertarian choice 33% ROmney and only 42% Obama.....weakest I have been in a long time...
By:bluemcdowell (D-WV) 2012-08-11 @ 07:41:50
I'm very interested too in hearing whom Romney's VP pick will be. If it's Ryan like most are thinking I think that probably wouldn't be a good pick.
I think you're way too negative on Romney's chances ConservRep, even though like you always say it's still way too early to pick a winner. I think Romney will do much better than this. Too much of an anti-Obama sentiment right now, and with the drought in the Midwest and gas prices soaring once again you have a 50/50 race that could go either way.
I think in this scenario NC might be a tossup as well.
The natural disasters have been awful as well even though I'm not sure if they'll affect the election as of now.
I still think IA stays Democratic in this kind of victory scenario you have here.
I noticed a lot of posters are now giving Obama FL. If Obama wins OH and/or FL the election is most likely over and he'll be re-elected. I still am not sold on that yet though.
It's down to OH, FL, VA, IA, and CO right now it looks like. I wish we could ditch the electoral college but then again we probably wouldn't have this website if that were the case.
There is still a long way to go though, and as I always say anything and everything can happen in politics.
Look out for the "historic gaffes" too as always.
Wait and see as always!
Last Edit: 2012-08-11 @ 07:51:53
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-11 @ 10:05:04
Well the current may I have right now blue is mostly based on state polling, which is worse than Romney's national polling. Depending on who's polling you look at of course and their internals.
I think Romney will probably do better than this too. I do see him winning Florida in the end. However, this is a possibility if things go south, so to speak, for Mitt. Here the president is reelected by a decent margin. Iowa is a surprise state in this case as there seems to be one or two every election or so.
Anyway we'll find out soon enough.
By:bluemcdowell (D-WV) 2012-08-11 @ 10:19:42
I actually this map might be accurate if Ryan is the VP pick except for IA. I think he's way too fiscally conservative for the white middle class "swing voters" Romney desperately needs to win the election.
That is true Romney is doing much better in national polls than he is state-by-state polls. Why I have no idea right now. It might be because the 2008 McCain states are probably more solid right now than the 2008 Obama states and thus skews the results somewhat.
In a much closer matchup Obama might even lose the popular vote but still win the electoral college, because he'll lose a higher percentage of votes in red states (blue on this site) than he will the blue states (red on this site) and the purple states (gray on this site).
In 2008 the Obama states were much more firm than the 2008 McCain states. I don't think that will be the case this time. This time I think the 2012 Romney states will be much more solid than the 2012 Obama states this time, but it still may not be enough for Romney to win the electoral college, even though it is possible for him to win the popular vote believe it or not.
We live in a 50/50 country right now and a house divided against itself cannot and will not stand. Sad but true. I think there are actually less "swing voters" than ever before even in American history believe it or not. And that is not a good thing at all. We're definitely the "Divided States of America" right now. Sad but true once again.
Both the pro-Obama and anti-Obama voters are pretty much attracted to their candidate right now and not that many voters who are neutral towards him. You either love Obama or you hate him right now. It's really as simple as that. Sad but true once again.
I do think IA says Democratic in this particular situation as well. In a much closer race IA might swing Republican but if Obama wins by this large a margin I think IA will stay Dem as well.
Wait and see as always!
Last Edit: 2012-08-11 @ 10:38:30
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-11 @ 10:34:40
Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is selected as Governor Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate for 2012.
1. The selection of Ryan makes economy and fiscal issues the center stage of this campaign. Its a race of choices and ideas.
2. Ryan is young, intelligent, and an excellent speaker. He's very confident.
3. Ryan is well liked by the base of the Republican Party. Conservatives who were uneasy about Mitt can now feel more secure that his leadership will reflect their concerns. The choice also does little to alienate moderates or independents.
4. Ryan's selection shows Romney's commitment to the Midwestern strategy to gain middle and working class white voters in the Heartland.
5. Romney is going to make a major play for Wisconsin (speculation on my part).
1. Ryan is a congressman that has been in the legislature since 1999. He's not an outsider.
2. He is a bold thinker and Democrats will launch waves of new attacks based on his past budgets and proposals (most of which we've already heard before).
3. Coming from Congress there is not a lot of executive experience but that may not matter.
4. Ryan's selection does not mean Wisconsin will land in Romney's camp or even make it any more of a tossup while picking someone else may have helped in another state more in play.
5. While Ryan is a good man, he's another white man - no dynamic choice of a woman or minority Republican. Again may not matter.
This is a northern Republican ticket with no Southern, Plains, or Western ties. Hence its a ticket that comes from outside the GOP political heartland with Romney "from" Massachusetts and Ryan from Wisconsin.
Hummm what to make of Governor Romney's choice? Well first and foremost I'm a fiscal conservative and huge support of local/states' rights. I'm a federalist. Making the economy the central theme of this election as oppose to social issues or dealing with a war makes me very happy. Ryan is certainly one of the smartest Republicans in the room and he's got some youth to him. His selection ought to please the base while not offending anyone else (who wasn't already offended that is).
I know Democrats will attack his budget proposals and other ideas. I am also disappointed that Romney didn't go for a Republican that could have offered a little more diversity to the ticket or was from a more winnable swing state. I was really hoping for Rubio, Jindal, or McDonnell. I'd like to think this might help us in Wisconsin, I don't know, but there are other places that we need to put resources in like Ohio for example. But these concerns don't really bother me that much to be honest.
So at the end of the day, overall, I have a net positive reaction to the selection of Congressman Paul Ryan as Romney's running mate. I think the pros out weigh the cons.
By:bluemcdowell (D-WV) 2012-08-11 @ 10:39:19
Thanks ConservRep time to make my next map as soon as possible according to Ryan being picked.
I still don't think this will help Romney take WI by the way, even though the margin could be somewhat closer this time.
Last Edit: 2012-08-11 @ 10:42:31
By:bluemcdowell (D-WV) 2012-08-11 @ 10:47:06
I think Rubio and McDonnell probably would have helped Romney in FL and VA respectfully.
I don't think the same is true for Ryan in WI. I doubt it either in MI and MN. Maybe IA though since it's razor-thin close and Ryan is a Midwesterner.
OH could become slightly more possible for Romney because of this pick of a Midwesterner but I highly doubt it. Even though WI and OH are both Midwestern states they actually don't have as much as in common as you might think. OH is generally much more socially conservative than WI is.
I wonder how good a "sense a humor" and what kind of personality Ryan has. That usually is very important in politics nowadays and almost always very underrated.
Wait and see as always.
Last Edit: 2012-08-11 @ 11:07:11
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-11 @ 13:27:36
Interesting fact has emerged. With Ryan's pick this is the first totally non-Protestant ticket in American history. Certainly for the GOP as Romney is a Mormon and Ryan is Catholic.
By:Liberalrocks (D-CA) 2012-08-11 @ 14:15:39
I had a feeling months back during the GOP Wisconsin primary that it might be Ryan but many didnt feel so.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-11 @ 15:56:31
Again I state there are a number of us fiscal moderates who feel that the country is off on the wrong track big time. If I would make my choice just on this issue I would vote for ROmney/Ryan. However, I am also interested in energy, environment, social issues and on all three of these I favor the Obama stance. I believe our emergence once again as an energy exporter is in large part due to the pushing by Obama/Salazar of the natural gas alternative. I have listened to Salazar talk about the false choice environmentalists give us with natural gas versus environment. Well thought out.
But my big ticket item is budget deficit (reduce it/eliminate it without taxes) and debt (raise taxes)....
I do think Ryan will be articulate and the VP debate will be fun to watch. In my mind RYan gives a boost to ROmney as a problem solver not an election wonk. It pushes the base even more ethusiastic AND on the downside will give the seniors a scare with medicare....on this issue FLorida might swing to Obama.
Iowa is a counter cyclical state normally hence it voted for Gore then Bush, likewise it voted for Obama and may now vote for ROmney/Ryan....
Ryan can run for both offices in his Wisconsin district and the nation as VP...
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-12 @ 13:27:50
I made this map just prior to Ryan's selection. I think I'm going to wait and see what kind of an impact his choosing will have on the coming polling data and the national narrative for the campaign. If things go well for team Romney I have a few ideas. If not, this map may be more accurate than I'd care to think.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-12 @ 14:44:15
Agreed with your comments, I see better chance to carry Virginia because of Ryan's presence and what it says about problem solving...Romney will hammer home on that and make some headway.
If Truman were running he would attack the 'no' GOP who have blocked votes on many work related bills, almost all senate appointments and thus have undermined in some views the effective working of America. But no we have an intellectual....it will be a tough choice for America and myself in November.
And I am not satisfied with either sides answers, both have part of the solution to me.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-13 @ 09:46:46
Well I adjusted my map to my opinions about the chances of the Romney Ryan ticket...I think it will play well here in drought stricken upper midwest....Iowa will switch like it did from Gore to Bush four years later, Wisconsin will narrowly go to Romney thanks to Ryan (although it may not) and COlroado and Virginia will also go narrowly to Romney but FLorida and Ohio stay with Obama thus giving him the election.
By:nkpolitics1279 (D-MA) 2012-08-13 @ 12:37:24
FL-29 and OH-18 gives Obama-D 248ev (Obama-D is favored to win NM-5,MN-10,and OR-7 =201ev)
Obama-D is expected to win PA-20=268ev.
Romney-R to win- He needs to win MO-10,NC-15,VA-13,CO-9,IA-6,NH-4,NV-6,and WI-10=254ev plus MI-16.
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-14 @ 18:54:58
Its still all doable. Right now we just don't have enough numbers. Ryan has been the VP since Saturday and we've barely seen the long term implications of his pick although a couple polls already show he has a high favorability rating at this time.
The numbers coming out of Ohio today are much closer than I thought they'd be. We've seen nothing out of Florida or Wisconsin to tell us of the other important effects of a Ryan VP pick. But we'll know soon enough.
This election is far from over.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-15 @ 09:46:28
Very true and you see how I moved my map to show increased midwest votes for ROmney...what is more important is that Wisconsin stumbled on the right person to take Kohl's seat...Thompson will attrack independents and I predict win the seat and it brings the senate control that much closer...
I feel the general uptick will be positive in the long run...
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-15 @ 22:56:14
I think you have a very good point there dnul.
By:bluemcdowell (D-WV) 2012-08-16 @ 08:04:27
I think Ryan might be better for Romney than what most of my fellow Democrats think he will be.
As long as OH and FL go for Obama though he will be re-elected, even if he loses every other swing state, and probably needs just a split of those two states too. It still looks good for him in both states right now, but I agree that this election is far from over.
Wait and see as always.
Last Edit: 2012-08-16 @ 08:05:38
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-16 @ 16:45:31
I too think Ryan is a good pick for Romney as it portrays a solution seeking President/VP, though I may not agree with the solutions. I do think the medicare solution is plausible way to control costs.
At least it is a starting point for the GOP/DEM contest.
I feel Ryan puts Wisconsin on the board as a possible flip for Romney, along with Iowa and probably Virginia added to Indiana, NC and one elector from Nebraska...so what does that leave us Ohio and Florida ....I feel Ohio is still more likely than FLorida to go to DEM and Florida might too...as my map shows.
Anyway we are in the dog days of August to be dominated by GOP for sure! Then September pre debates for the Dems....
Last Edit: 2012-08-17 @ 13:15:17
By:albaleman (D-MN) 2012-08-16 @ 16:57:32
Gosh, I'm not sure about Thompson. It still looks like a close and tough race against Baldwin. He's actually not polling as well as some might have imagined. Maybe he's just been out of it too long. Though Ryan might help him in his district in SE Wisconsin where he has proved to be popular in a pretty moderate district.
And Ryan will prove to be a big mistake, of that I'm positive. Seniors just don't put up with the privatization crap. Even a lot of very conservative seniors simply won't vote for Mitt because of the Ryan plan stigma. And the last thing Mitt needs, with the electoral map looking precarious, with huge weaknesses among women and latinos, is a revolt of seniors, or even a weakening in support from them. As I said in my analysis, I still don't understand why they didn't pick Pat Toomey instead. He has a lot of the same strengths but would also be more palatable to independents and doesn't have Ryan's baggage. Of course, I still think the overall best pick would have been Susanna Martinez but I'm sure she was too close to Palin in a number of respects for the Republican leaders to feel comfortable picking her.
Last Edit: 2012-08-18 @ 20:14:05
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-16 @ 17:02:05
Well your hypothesis about the senior vote may well prove true, but as a senior and loyal Democrat, Ryan moves me toward ROmney. Why, because he is trying to solve problems, it is this fiscal cliff that some seniors thinking about the future generations are moved by even more than self interest...it will play out for sure but I do not believe a negative will trump the yearning for positive solutions by Americans this time...of course maybe I am just a little blinded by hope....of course I am still planning on voting for Obama but I am queasy about it...
My MN twin did you see my little comment on my precinct against Bachman on my page...a little phyric victory perhaps but felt good!
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-16 @ 21:30:19
Both Toomey and Martinez would have been excellent choices. I'm just as pleased with Ryan. And I'm not all that worried about scaring away seniors. A lot of them realize that something has to be done to keep our social programs solvent. Ryan's plan is not the GOP ticket plan but it starts a dialog that Romney can use in terms of reforming government to make it solvent. It is as dnul says - all about problem solving and seniors are as worried about the state of fiscal things in this country as anyone else. A couple of polls have shown that Ryan is, at least for now, being viewed more positively than negatively. Let's also not forget that seniors are not too crazy about the healthcare law either.
Still its very early yet and the long term effects of the pick have not yet been full felt. Its certainly given Romney a small boost in fundraising and polling over the last couple of days. In tight race that could mean everything. But with the GOP convention coming up you can imagine this will be a more positive time for camp Romney barring some bad event.
The real race we'll see in September and October, after the conventions, and during the debates.
By:albaleman (D-MN) 2012-08-17 @ 21:41:23
Well, no not really. There is entitlement reform and then there is entitlement privatization. They are two completely different things. Most accept the need for basic entitlement reform, but most also say that the big entitlements are currently in the right form even if they do need to be tweaked. Of course, there are also a lot of people who talk about the need for "deficit reduction" and "entitlement reform" but when asked about anything halfway specific say no to everything. Obama has actually staked out pretty solid ground on Medicare reform, putting out a lot of proposals, some of which were part of the Affordable Care Act. There are many smaller proposals he's put out, but the biggest and most important is obviously his attempt to move Medicare to a payment system that emphasizes quality, not quantity, of care. He certainly hasn't been do nothing, despite what some might say. The size and complexity of the problem makes it very difficult, something that will have to be solved over a long time. Ryan's plan doesn't really solve the underlying problems, it just turns them over to the private sector, which would be disastrous, resulting in much lower quality coverage for seniors and ridiculously high premiums not only for seniors but for everyone else too.
Of course, the real problem with Medicare is that it is kind of top heavy. It only covers seniors, which is fine but for two simple facts:
a. Seniors are by far the most expensive age group to cover, and are where the vast majority of the cost growth is coming from and
b. Because most of them don't work, they aren't able to pay much into the system. So to pay for their coverage in the future means much higher taxes on people not using the system - or to just basically do away with the system as Ryan proposes. What would make a ton more sense would be to just put everybody on Medicare, (one of the world's most efficient health insurance systems, it spends a mere 2% of its money on administrative costs, compared to the 18% private insurance companies average) and you could design the system to be much more progressive and fair for everybody. As for Ryan's current "popularity", well polls show that most people know little or nothing about him yet. Is Ryan the "bold leader" with "guts" that some say? No, I don't really think so. There is little glory in taking away from the poor and the elderly and giving everything to the rich and the powerful and the special interests. But more relevantly, his style of cutting, which is to basically wave his arm in a direction and say he wants amount x cut in that area is a political coward's way of cutting. If he had to propose actual, specific cuts, well first of all he couldn't do it, but if he could everybody would be mad at him. Unfortunately that style caught on and has resulted in a "deficit reduction" dialogue that is disconnected from the real world.
Last Edit: 2012-08-17 @ 22:05:06
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-18 @ 13:05:52
I think most people will see Ryan for the sharp young intellect that he is. I don't think most people would mind if the free market aided some of our social programs to grant them solvency, which is more the way I read the Ryan plan than not. Again, Romney will have to put our his own entitlement plan and seniors will have to make a judgment on that and against the Obama plan that we are already aware of. As people get to know him we shall see if Ryan's popularity remains in good standing with a majority of the American people or if it falls off.
Certainly there will be a debate between big and small government and which will fix the social programs, reduce our debt, etc. The voters will give us a clearer picture in the fall when the real meat of the campaign is found.
Surprisingly enough I kind of agree with you Al on Medicare in a certain sense. I never understood why with our existing systems we needed to add extra layers from the healthcare reform law on. Why not simply expand and reform medicaid and medicare, programs already well in place, to do the same job? Would have at least made more sense to me.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-19 @ 13:35:40
The Health Care law was written with several purposes, one was satisfying one industry while taking on another drug companies over insurance.....maybe that is why it was wirteen independently of medicare...
Anyway we are just beginning this campaign in ernest...we shall see is my motto...on to 9/15 when the real campaign will be in full swing and the bumps might be over...from convention bouces I am talking...
By:albaleman (D-MN) 2012-08-19 @ 14:06:39
Well the real reason it was written independently is because they didn't want to piss off the insurance companies too much. That's unfortunate but true. Single payer health care was also politically impossible. The very conservative bill that ended up passing was nearly killed on a number of occasions as it was.
By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-08-19 @ 14:13:15
If ObamaCare were really "a very conservative bill" then Harry would've been bribing the most liberal Senate Democrats to vote for it instead of the most conservative ones.
History shows that ObamaCare, as passed, was the most far-Left bill for which the Democrats could muster the necessary votes. They could've passed a more CONSERVATIVE bill (easily), but not a more LIBERAL one.
Last Edit: 2012-08-19 @ 14:15:10
By:albaleman (D-MN) 2012-08-19 @ 14:29:18
That's absolute BS. The reason it was so difficult to pass was because all of the Republicans stood uniformly opposed (basically out of a desire to obstruct) and a number of conservative democrats wanted to prove how "independent" they were. So it appeared to be a liberal bill. The reason liberal Democrats backed it is because they believed it was an "improvement", not because they thought it was a great bill, and they made that very clear. But the truth is, it is a very conservative bill, one with far more roots in the Republican party than in the Democratic party. It was an idea born in the Republican party out of response to the single-payer plans of the left. George HW Bush considered proposing it when he was President, but his brain trust decided it was too CONSERVATIVE to survive in a Democratic congress. The Heritage Foundation proposed something very similar to it in response to Clinton's reform efforts in the 90s. And of course, the current Republican candidate put basically the same thing in place when he was governor of Massachusetts. One couldn't really have proposed a workable solution that was more conservative. Virtually every other country has some form of universal health care, and most have the government provide it to some degree. There's a reason for that. Countries with some form of health care entitlement tend to get health care that is as good or better quality than we do, at a fraction of the cost. We spend an extraordinarily high 17% of GDP on health care and in return get decidedly mediocre care, when you compare it to other countries. The ACA is certainly a step in the right direction, but it's not what we really ne.
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-19 @ 16:40:51
Yeah early GOP experiments with a form of national healthcare never set well with me. I understand it was their response to the left's single-payer system but I don't think it was much better. Because medicare and medicaid are already in place and well established systems I was kind of dumb struck that they were not where the debate was held over helping those uninsured. I don't know, it just seems to make more sense to me to work with what we have got than add more.
By:Ickey415 (--IA) 2012-08-19 @ 18:17:06
I disagree about IA. Let me say from my eyewitness evidence that thousands are crowding to see Obama in his events here and Ryan is being dogged by hecklers but no supporters have ever come to his defence. I see unflagging support for Obama among minorities and young voters which is equal to what it was 4 yrs ago and a strong volunteer effort to reach new voters (and traditionals) for the President, but there is no campaign in this state for Mitt. He has zero offices open. No new ads, just the same rehash. No volunteers or staff. He is surrenduring the state with just 2.5 months left. Mitt has no intentions of even competing for Iowa at this point. Let's see what Ron Paul has to say on the 26th and maybe that will change your mind. I'll let you know that Ron Paul has far more supports (and more loyal ones, too) than any other GOP candidate in this election cycle. His campaign is suspended, but I really believe that there is a revolt starting to Mitt's right of young voters who plan to defect to the Libertarian Party's cause. It may not totally derail Mitt's campaign in many states, but it definitely will here after his poor showing and botched job of attempting to steal undeserved victory in our caucuses.
By:dnul222 (D-MN) 2012-08-20 @ 06:23:39
I appreciate the on site comments and am about to readjust my pessimistic outlook for Obama....thanks Ickey
any word on the contested congressional seats with the two incumbents running?
By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-08-20 @ 08:48:20
I see albaleman does what liberals (think they) do best: Mindread. According to him, the opponents of DemocratCare were just being ornery obstructionists while supporters were trying to improve healthcare for America:
"That's absolute BS. The reason [DemocratCare] was so difficult to pass was because all of the Republicans stood uniformly opposed (basically out of a desire to obstruct) and a number of conservative [sic] democrats wanted to prove how 'independent' they were. So it appeared to be a liberal bill. The reason liberal Democrats backed it is because they believed it was an 'improvement'..."
Let me suggest an alternative hypothesis for why DemocratCare was so difficult to pass. I'll even do some "mind-reading" of my own! Maybe the reason all(?) of the Republicans and many Democrats voted against DemocratCare is that they had heard from their constituents and (here's the mindreading part!) they concluded that it was so unpopular with voters that their political futures were at risk if they voted for it.
Which makes more sense: albaleman's theory that legislators made their voting decisions based mostly on nefarious or altruistic intentions or my theory that legislators made their voting decisions based mostly on how popular those votes would be with their constituents?
Last Edit: 2012-08-20 @ 08:58:11
By:albaleman (D-MN) 2012-08-20 @ 14:16:57
"According to him, the opponents of DemocratCare were just being ornery obstructionists"
Well sure they were. This was born as a Republican proposal, touted by Republicans and only very recently adopted by Democrats. Again, this quote from my comment is very important: "It was an idea born in the Republican party out of response to the single-payer plans of the left. George HW Bush considered proposing it when he was President, but his brain trust decided it was too CONSERVATIVE to survive in a Democratic congress. The Heritage Foundation proposed something very similar to it in response to Clinton's reform efforts in the 90s. And of course, the current Republican candidate put basically the same thing in place when he was governor of Massachusetts. One couldn't really have proposed a workable solution that was more conservative."
Now was the plan unpopular? Sure it was, but mainly because of Republican smears? How do I know that? Certainly not "mind-reading". But polls strongly suggest that although voters overwhelmingly approved of most of the provisions in the bill, there was the occasional provision that they didn't like, which is predictable in a bill of that size (I'm thinking in particular of the individual mandate). But they were pretty ignorant in terms of knowing what the bill actually contained, and the Republicans did a good job of converting that into fear of the unknown and branding the bill itself to be very unpopular. And I think that a lot of the legislators who voted for it thought that people didn't like the bill because they didn't understand it and that once people saw what was in the bill, and saw that the world didn't end when it passed, would gradually warm up to it (which is basically what was happening until the court challenges) and, when it was eventually implemented, fall in love with it. And I think a lot of Republicans simply voted against it because they didn't want Obama to be able to claim any sort of accomplishments and were behaving as obstructionists. I mean, when you have an opposition that filibusters 80% of the time, I don't know how you can not see it as obstructionist. I think a lot of the smarter Republican strategists also realized that voters would eventually warm up to it and were banking on either being able to block the bill entirely, or tearing it down before it goes into effect, or having the Roberts court tear the heart out of it. Again, I find it very interesting that you label it "DemocratCare" when you consider that, for 95% of its history, it has been a idea touted by conservative Republicans. Just another case of right-wing revisionism. I also find it very interesting that although the Republicans keep yelling about "Repeal & Replace," they seem dumbfounded when asked as to what they would actually replace the ACA with.
Last Edit: 2012-08-20 @ 14:19:20
By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-08-20 @ 17:32:01
Why did almost all the Democrats in Congress vote against the Prescription Drug Plan of Medicare? I mean, by your logic, since expanding Medicare to cover drugs had been a long-time goal of Democrats, how could nearly all of them then vote against it? Were they being merely "ornery obstructionists"?
Last Edit: 2012-08-20 @ 17:34:10
By:albaleman (D-MN) 2012-08-20 @ 17:56:18
Well no. It was basically designed as a handout to the pharmaceutical companies. And that giant donut hole in the middle of it didn't help gain support either. Wheras the ACA, as I said, is basically identical to plans conservatives have been touting for many years, right down to the individual mandate, and much of it was even written by various Republicans (who ended up voting no anyway). Now if there had been a public option that would have been different, but it's clear that they were being obstructionists, not just on that vote but on most others during that entire congress as well.
By:WhyteRain (I-TX) 2012-08-20 @ 18:38:00
What Democrats hated -- and still hate -- about Medicare Part D is that it puts power in the hands of medical CONSUMERS instead of D.C. bureaucrats. The reverse is the source of the GOP's opposition to DemocratCare -- it's bureaucrat-managed instead of consumer-managed. Remember those anti-DemocratCare signs that read "Keep Your Hands Off My Medicare!"? Those were talking about Part D, the part that the PEOPLE are allowed to control.
As for the "giant donut hole", do you realize that closing it is just what Big Pharma wants? http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/23/why-closing-medicares-donut-hole-is-a-terrible-idea/ So the Democrats are doing the bidding of Big Pharma.
You know, once you pull back the curtain, you'll find that most things are the reverse of what you think they are. For example, Big Pharma was the largest advertiser on which show: Fox's Glenn Beck, CNN's Lou Dobbs, or MSNBC's Keith Olbermann? What would be your guess?
And so, no, the ACA was NOT "basically identical to plans conservatives have been touting for years" -- it's like comparing food stamps with soup kitchens. Similarly, Medicare Part D, though wildly popular with the program's participants, is not what the Democrats had in mind, and THAT'S why they opposed it.
By:CR (--MO) 2012-08-22 @ 21:51:57
Thanks for a lively discussion Al and WhyteRain.
Map version 19 is now officially closed. Please move all conversations, debates, discussion, and comments to my new map version 20.