Key Democrat Operatives. "We Are Going to Lose the Senate Next Year."

[Kondor3]

"...I'm curious, Kondor...I can understand the first vote for Obama...you like most of the rest of America didn't really know what you were getting because Barry basically ran on a vague promise of "Hope & Change" with nothing fleshed out...but what were you thinking the second time around? Did you see something there that I didn't? No offense but I'm baffled by why so many people doubled down with one of the more ineffective leaders I've ever seen in office."

Fair question.

An even more accurate question might have been: Were you thinking when you voted for Obumble in 2008?

The answer to both questions is: "To tell the truth, I'm not sure."

Mittens struck me as arrogant and phoney and uninspiring and unable to project a believable plan for recovery and forward progress, and his ultra-arrogant '47%' comment was the clincher in my mind - giving lie to the idea of him being A Man of the People.

I ended-up voting for the Largely Lackluster rather than the Mostly Malevolent.

Mind you, I held my nose when I walked into that polling booth, but, there it is.

Not a shining or inspiring or even entirely logical moment in my own history of candidate evaluations, but the truth of the matter is that I was rather disgusted by both, and voted for what (at that frozen moment in time) struck me as the (slightly) less disgusting of the two.

Like I said, I repent of my sin.

 

[Kosh]

The far left knows they are going to loose big in the mid term elections so they plan to do as much damage as they can before they are finally voted out.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

A year is a long time

Try to take insurance away from people a year from now

Ah...first they have to get it, Winger! That's proving to be problematic.

You better pray that it's held up long enough so that people don't see the death spiral begin and start asking who's idea this fiasco was in the first place.

Tough call, I can see it going either way. But I agree with rightwinger, once people start getting the goodies, subsidies paid for by "someone else", it's tough to take them away. The Democrats know that and they're betting on it.

.

What is problematic is that the paid for by someone else part probably will never materialize.

Most of those who qualify for that are being herded into Medicaid.

 

[JoeB131]

[

I'm curious, Kondor...I can understand the first vote for Obama...you like most of the rest of America didn't really know what you were getting because Barry basically ran on a vague promise of "Hope & Change" with nothing fleshed out...but what were you thinking the second time around? Did you see something there that I didn't? No offense but I'm baffled by why so many people doubled down with one of the more ineffective leaders I've ever seen in office.

I voted for McCain in 2008.

But I voted for Obama in 2012 because Romney is exactly the kind of guy whose been fucking over working people for decades.

As Huckabee said, "I look like the guy you work with, he looks like the guy who lays you off."

 

[william the wie]

What is problematic is that the paid for by someone else part probably will never materialize.

Most of those who qualify for that are being herded into Medicaid.

And those that don't will leave the exchanges. As that continues the migration of the relatively poor to compliant states will continue and the migration of investment to non-compliant low tax states where the bosses can use limousine liberal loopholes to ACA are more readily available.

Since my wife works at Mayo Jax in the non-compliant state of FL ACA works for me even though I will not join an exchange.

 

[FA_Q2]

What is problematic is that the paid for by someone else part probably will never materialize.

Most of those who qualify for that are being herded into Medicaid.

And those that don't will leave the exchanges. As that continues the migration of the relatively poor to compliant states will continue and the migration of investment to non-compliant low tax states where the bosses can use limousine liberal loopholes to ACA are more readily available.

Since my wife works at Mayo Jax in the non-compliant state of FL ACA works for me even though I will not join an exchange.

‘Non-complaint’ states? As far as I am aware there is no such thing. All states are compliant as it is required by federal law.

Am I to take this to mean states that have forgone expanding Medicare? If that is the case then I can agree but those are not non-compliant. They are complying but refusing to take the bait of current federal handouts for expanding a program that they are eventually going to have to foot the bill for.

 

[william the wie]

What is problematic is that the paid for by someone else part probably will never materialize.

Most of those who qualify for that are being herded into Medicaid.

And those that don't will leave the exchanges. As that continues the migration of the relatively poor to compliant states will continue and the migration of investment to non-compliant low tax states where the bosses can use limousine liberal loopholes to ACA are more readily available.

Since my wife works at Mayo Jax in the non-compliant state of FL ACA works for me even though I will not join an exchange.

‘Non-complaint’ states? As far as I am aware there is no such thing. All states are compliant as it is required by federal law.

Am I to take this to mean states that have forgone expanding Medicare? If that is the case then I can agree but those are not non-compliant. They are complying but refusing to take the bait of current federal handouts for expanding a program that they are eventually going to have to foot the bill for.

compliant has multiple meanings as in compliant victim.