Thoughts about the 2014 Primaries and polling

[rightwinger]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Its not 2012.

The fraud that is Obamacare has hit every kitchen table in America now.

And Republicans will run on taking away people's healthcare.....a winning strategy

Replacing or some semblance of what they had previously will suffice at this point.

What they had previously was pre existing conditions......where is your plan Republicans?

America wants to know

 

[Katzndogz]

And Republicans will run on taking away people's healthcare.....a winning strategy

Replacing or some semblance of what they had previously will suffice at this point.

Except 9 million people who have health care now didn't have it before ACA.

you can't give back "what they had previously" without taking away what people had previously.

As we are finding out, in order to give 9 million people insurance they didn't have before, 20 million have to give up the insurance they had.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here's the problem with this analysis.

For the GOP to win control of the Senate, they have to win 6 seats without losing any of their own.

The only way their own become vulnerable is if the Tea Party ousts an establishment candidate and puts someone crazy in KY, GA, or SC.

Now, the GOP will probably pick up the three competitive vacancies - MT, SD, and WV.

But they won't pick up NJ, IA or MI.

So they have to topple at least three incumbant democrats. Most likely are LA, AR and AK.

But the Republicans have knocked off all of 4 incumbant Democrats in the last 10 years. So it actually is a tall order.

Yes, I mentioned two the three D-retirement seats that are extremely likely to go R, and with a double digit margin. I did not mention Montana yet, for Montana is more blue-collar Democrat than people realize.

But it is not yet an analysis of this - yet - I even wrote in the OP that another thread will go up specifically over this.

But it is a matter of very simple strategema: the DEMs have to protect much more turf than the GOP. Yes, if the GOP again nominated Todd Akin-like types, then they hurt their chances of taking the Senate, but at the current time, they definitely have the better cards in their hand.

But actually, it means nothing. The GOP would not have a filibuster-proof Senate, and unless the GOP decides to go nuclear on everything, it won't help much.

Either way, whether D or R majority, we are looking at gridlock in 2015-2016.

Thanks for contributing.

 

[Statistikhengst]

As long as we vote sincerely for immigration reform, UE extension that will be paid for, and leave women and LBGT alone, we can run well on "Message = Our guys didn't vote for Obamacare." If we don't, we will not get the seats that we need.

Ok, that reminds me of a joke:

A old man goes to the doctor. He is not feeling well. The doc examines him and takes bloodwork and tells him to come back for the results in two days.

Two days later, the man is feeling very ill, so he sends in his wife of 40 years to get the results. The Doc looks at the man's wife and says:

"Ma'am, your husband is seriously ill. You need to let him rest alot, you need to cook three good meals a day for him and you need to give him a blowjob at least twice a day."

The woman left without saying a word.

When she got home, her husband asks: "And what did the doc say, what did he say?!?!?"

"He said you are gonna die."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, this joke reminds me a lot of the GOP and real immigration reform, women and gheys. Ain't gonna happen in the GOP. Fuggedaboudit.

Perhaps a "Moonbase in my second term" 'strategery' would be better...

 

[Statistikhengst]

Replacing or some semblance of what they had previously will suffice at this point.

Except 9 million people who have health care now didn't have it before ACA.

you can't give back "what they had previously" without taking away what people had previously.

As we are finding out, in order to give 9 million people insurance they didn't have before, 20 million have to give up the insurance they had.

Got some facts to go with that Whine?

 

[OODA_Loop]

And Republicans will run on taking away people's healthcare.....a winning strategy

Replacing or some semblance of what they had previously will suffice at this point.

What they had previously was pre existing conditions......where is your plan Republicans?

America wants to know

Not really. They want out. The Obamacare pool to cover pre-existing conditions doesn't exist.

Too many in the wagon. Too few pulling the wagon.

The fix was far worse than the symptoms.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it isn't, and the number of younger workers in the pool is growing.

 

[Zander]

Republicans in 2014.....

We will take away your health insurance, but trust us, we will give you something better

Wasn't that was the Democrats line of shit in 2008?

 

[Zander]

Here's the problem with this analysis.

For the GOP to win control of the Senate, they have to win 6 seats without losing any of their own.

The only way their own become vulnerable is if the Tea Party ousts an establishment candidate and puts someone crazy in KY, GA, or SC.

Now, the GOP will probably pick up the three competitive vacancies - MT, SD, and WV.

But they won't pick up NJ, IA or MI.

So they have to topple at least three incumbant democrats. Most likely are LA, AR and AK.

But the Republicans have knocked off all of 4 incumbant Democrats in the last 10 years. So it actually is a tall order.

Yes, I mentioned two the three D-retirement seats that are extremely likely to go R, and with a double digit margin. I did not mention Montana yet, for Montana is more blue-collar Democrat than people realize.

But it is not yet an analysis of this - yet - I even wrote in the OP that another thread will go up specifically over this.

But it is a matter of very simple strategema: the DEMs have to protect much more turf than the GOP. Yes, if the GOP again nominated Todd Akin-like types, then they hurt their chances of taking the Senate, but at the current time, they definitely have the better cards in their hand.

But actually, it means nothing. The GOP would not have a filibuster-proof Senate, and unless the GOP decides to go nuclear on everything, it won't help much.

Either way, whether D or R majority, we are looking at gridlock in 2015-2016.

Thanks for contributing.

I prefer Gridlock. I hope we have a divided government for the rest of my life. I don't trust any of these cocksuckers.....

 

[Statistikhengst]

Here's the problem with this analysis.

For the GOP to win control of the Senate, they have to win 6 seats without losing any of their own.

The only way their own become vulnerable is if the Tea Party ousts an establishment candidate and puts someone crazy in KY, GA, or SC.

Now, the GOP will probably pick up the three competitive vacancies - MT, SD, and WV.

But they won't pick up NJ, IA or MI.

So they have to topple at least three incumbant democrats. Most likely are LA, AR and AK.

But the Republicans have knocked off all of 4 incumbant Democrats in the last 10 years. So it actually is a tall order.

Yes, I mentioned two the three D-retirement seats that are extremely likely to go R, and with a double digit margin. I did not mention Montana yet, for Montana is more blue-collar Democrat than people realize.

But it is not yet an analysis of this - yet - I even wrote in the OP that another thread will go up specifically over this.

But it is a matter of very simple strategema: the DEMs have to protect much more turf than the GOP. Yes, if the GOP again nominated Todd Akin-like types, then they hurt their chances of taking the Senate, but at the current time, they definitely have the better cards in their hand.

But actually, it means nothing. The GOP would not have a filibuster-proof Senate, and unless the GOP decides to go nuclear on everything, it won't help much.

Either way, whether D or R majority, we are looking at gridlock in 2015-2016.

Thanks for contributing.

I prefer Gridlock. I hope we have a divided government for the rest of my life. I don't trust any of these cocksuckers.....

Ha!


A part of me finds your response very, very refreshing.

I extend to you a direct invitation to read the first five posts of this thread (all of which are the OP) and then comment.

Yes, some of them are cocksuckers. But there is a structural flaw in the system that encourages them to be that way.

Not so sure about permanent gridlock...

But I am glad you stopped by.

 

[JoeB131]

But you "guys" wouldn't deviate from your core values and accept that ?

Cue to the commercial about how Obamacare is so good for you. That'll do ya.

Guy, this isn't as big an issue as you all like to think it is. Most people are either benefiting or are seeing no change.

And your side doesn't have a better idea.

Guy. Keeeeeep telling yourself that.

Don't stop believing you have done right by folks on this.

Again, guy, the terror on your side is that it's going to be liked, and you'll never be able to touch it.

Just like SOcial Security and Medicare.