GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

[MAGAnificent]

And yet if he had been elected the country would be better off.eace

True. Romney would not have caused as much damage and division as obama has. However one has to get elected first. If a nominee cannot even manage to appeal to the party's conservative base, he's not going anywhere.

 

[Jack Hays]

True. Romney would not have caused as much damage and division as obama has. However one has to get elected first. If a nominee cannot even manage to appeal to the party's conservative base, he's not going anywhere.

Perhaps the conservative base needs to think more about winning.eace

 

[Perotista]

Today's public for/against Obamacare. Take a look at the RCP averages and the nine polls that make it up. Then you can make your own conclusion if Obamacare's public opinion is soaring.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

 

[Threegoofs]

Perhaps the conservative base needs to think more about winning.eace

And less about whining. eace

 

[Kobie]

I find the idea that we'd be "better off" with Romney than Obama to be laughable. And I don't think Obama's that good. I just think Romney would have been a complete travesty.

 

[Jack Hays]

I find the idea that we'd be "better off" with Romney than Obama to be laughable. And I don't think Obama's that good. I just think Romney would have been a complete travesty.

Growth would be higher and unemployment would be lower.eace

 

[Kobie]

Growth would be higher and unemployment would be lower.eace

Prove it.

 

[tres borrachos]

I find the idea that we'd be "better off" with Romney than Obama to be laughable. And I don't think Obama's that good. I just think Romney would have been a complete travesty.

That's the beauty of our country. We can vote for who we think would do a better job. I love the USA.

 

[sangha]

Today's public for/against Obamacare. Take a look at the RCP averages and the nine polls that make it up. Then you can make your own conclusion if Obamacare's public opinion is soaring.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - Public Approval of Health Care Law

I half hope that the GOP tries to win the WH by campaigning against ACA. After all, look how well it worked out for them the last time they tried that.

 

[Jack Hays]

Prove it.

This "recovery" is historically gradual and weak. The odds favor a better performance by any number of alternative Presidents. Given that business and executive management are Romney's core strengths, it is likely he would be at the high end of the alternatives.eace

 

[Perotista]

I half hope that the GOP tries to win the WH by campaigning against ACA. After all, look how well it worked out for them the last time they tried that.

The ACA was on the back burner in 2012, it was a hot issue for 2010. But not in the way most Republicans think it was. I personally think the public, the American electorate and especially the independents which went 56-42 for Republican congressional candidates that year. That the ACA was the reason they switched from 55-43 voting Democratic in 2008, but they were peeved at the Democrats taking way too much time getting healthcare passed than working on the economy and jobs as the democrats promised they would. The ACA was the symbol for this.

By the way the indies split roughly 50-50 in 2012 and so far even though the indies are against the ACA by an 60-35 margin, they are pretty evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats at the congressional level. So far that is. Studying independents is a hobby of mine, I figure I know how republicans and democrats will vote, so if I can figure out the independents, then I have a solid foundation for my election predictions.

 

[sangha]

The ACA was on the back burner in 2012, it was a hot issue for 2010.

Romney promised that the first thing he would do, the very first thing, would be to repeal Obamacare

People who are against ACA that strongly are not going to vote for the dem. Making ACA an issue doesn't gain them votes. At best, it's a way to shore up one's base.

Of course, things can change. If the middle move strongly against ACA, then that's a different ball game. However, so far the #'s are fairly stable, as you have pointed out.

 

[Jack Hays]

Romney promised that the first thing he would do, the very first thing, would be to repeal Obamacare

People who are against ACA that strongly are not going to vote for the dem. Making ACA an issue doesn't gain them votes. At best, it's a way to shore up one's base.

Of course, things can change. If the middle move strongly against ACA, then that's a different ball game. However, so far the #'s are fairly stable, as you have pointed out.

Romney's strategic weakness was that he could never be credible as an anti-ACA candidate.eace

 

[sangha]

Romney's strategic weakness was that he could never be credible as an anti-ACA candidate.eace

Or anything else

 

[Removable Mind]

Or anything else

A lot, lot more of "Or anything else."

 

[Perotista]

Romney promised that the first thing he would do, the very first thing, would be to repeal Obamacare

People who are against ACA that strongly are not going to vote for the dem. Making ACA an issue doesn't gain them votes. At best, it's a way to shore up one's base.

Of course, things can change. If the middle move strongly against ACA, then that's a different ball game. However, so far the #'s are fairly stable, as you have pointed out.

I think it is here where we disagree, all the polls I go inside to find out how independents view the ACA, it is always right around 35% for 60% against. As I explained earlier, it is the independents that make up that 15 point gap between for and against as 80 plus percent of Democrats are for the ACA, 90% of Republicans against and with the bigger base for Democrats, that boils down to roughly a 50-50 split. That is until the independents/middle/moderates/third party folks or whatever you want to call them.

So will their dislike for the ACA translate into votes for the Republican's congressional candidates in November? That is the question. Per Gallup on 6 March, the latest one from them it showed a independents showed a 38-38 split with 24% undecided. But a CBS poll on 25 March showed independents preferring the Republicans 34% preferring the Democrat 25% preferring other/third party 7% undecided 34%

But the generic congressional poll average on RCP is 41.3% Republicans 39.7%, the difference is well within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2014 Generic Congressional Vote

 

[sangha]

I think it is here where we disagree, all the polls I go inside to find out how independents view the ACA, it is always right around 35% for 60% against. As I explained earlier, it is the independents that make up that 15 point gap between for and against as 80 plus percent of Democrats are for the ACA, 90% of Republicans against and with the bigger base for Democrats, that boils down to roughly a 50-50 split. That is until the independents/middle/moderates/third party folks or whatever you want to call them.

So will their dislike for the ACA translate into votes for the Republican's congressional candidates in November? That is the question. Per Gallup on 6 March, the latest one from them it showed a independents showed a 38-38 split with 24% undecided. But a CBS poll on 25 March showed independents preferring the Republicans 34% preferring the Democrat 25% preferring other/third party 7% undecided 34%

But the generic congressional poll average on RCP is 41.3% Republicans 39.7%, the difference is well within the margin of error.

RealClearPolitics - Election Other - 2014 Generic Congressional Vote

I think the bolded sentence is the important question. Where indies are leaning right now is not. The issue, for me, is whether campaigning against ACA will increase support for the GOP and gain them votes, or even, just at a minimum, get them to keep the support of those who are leaning GOP.

 

[Perotista]

I think the bolded sentence is the important question. Where indies are leaning right now is not. The issue, for me, is whether campaigning against ACA will increase support for the GOP and gain them votes, or even, just at a minimum, get them to keep the support of those who are leaning GOP.

Right now it is hard to tell and I see no trend I can put my hands around. If history serves or plays out, the independent leaners tend to start making they minds up right after the primaries and that depends on what state they are from as to when they begin to lean or firm up. What I call the true/pure independents which can also be referred to as swing voters who really have no party loyalty/allegiance, now those do not make up their minds until a couple of weeks before the election.

April, usually a trend starts to show, that may be the CBS poll and it may not. Obama's low approval numbers plays to the Republicans, but the generic congressional poll is basically a wash as too is the polls on which party one prefers to control the senate. If I was a betting man and had to wager on what I know today, I would say the Republicans pick up a net gain of 3-4 seats in the senate, West Virginia, Montana, South Dakota look pretty sure and Arkansas is leaning Republican, the rest is a crap shoot. In the house I suspect a pretty much status quo election where either party could gain or lose 5 seat. But all of this is today and not November.

So yes, you hit the nail on the head. What I can tell you is the dislike of the ACA has erased double digits leads for the Democratic incumbents in North Carolina, Louisiana, Alaska, Colorado and now all those races are in the margin of error of all the polls I see. The ACA may or may not be enough for the Republicans to win in those 4 states, but they took a non-competitive race and made them very competitive. So it may depend on how one looks at it.

 

[jaeger19]

Well, jaegar, I don't see how you can hold people who self-identify as Republicans to account for what people did 20 years ago. My 24 year old nephew self-identifies as a Republican. He was 4 years old in 1993. So it's irrelevant to many.

I also don't think you're going to get too many people to agree with you that they have to own the idea of a mandate because a handful of Senators introduced a failed bill with a mandate 21 years ago.

I object to the ACA and the mandate isn't the only thing I object to. 18 or so Republican Senators in 1993 aside, that is the least of anyone's worries.

I think the blame game is not helping anyone. The ACA stands on its merits or not, and nobody who opposes it shouldn't feel obligated to embrace it because of what a very few in their party thought was a good idea many years ago.

Republicans didn't just support the mandate 20 years ago.. 2006 was not 20 years ago. The mandate that was put into the medicare part D legislation was not 20 years ago. The mandate has been a republican idea for quite some time.. it only started 20 years ago.

this isn't about BLAME.. its about facts and truth and taking responsibility and doing whats right for the country. and that does not start with the kind of BS that you are spinning.

Its embarrassing to our party, it hurts our credibility and it shows in the loss of two presidential elections.

 

[jaeger19]

Romney's strategic weakness was that he could never be credible as an anti-ACA candidate.eace

And there is the irony. Romney's greatest strength was that he WAS a credible anti ACA candidate. The most credible candidate in fact.

What an opportunity MISSED.

The aca could have been the game changer for Romney. When Obama came out and said.. well the ACA has a lot of republican ideas, ideas that you had as Governor..

Romney SHOULD have been: "Yep.. they are a lot of good republican ideas in it. And I, as governor did oversee a version of reform like the ACA.. thats why I know whats good about the ACA and whats very very BAD about the ACA".. Because I actually have done it. So the mandate, the increased competition with the health exchanges, the no pre existing conditions, the lack of lifetime limits.. they are good ideas.. republican ideas and ideas I helped implement.. but I know that the subsidization of people, the expansion of Medicaid, the regulations agains high deductible plans, the employer mandates are all bad ideas that need to be changed"..

Right there he would have made Obama look like a school boy getting schooled by the teacher....

Could of been a game changer.. but instead he looked like a weak willed buffoon that was only saying what his masters had told him to say.

 

[tres borrachos]

Republicans didn't just support the mandate 20 years ago.. 2006 was not 20 years ago. The mandate that was put into the medicare part D legislation was not 20 years ago. The mandate has been a republican idea for quite some time.. it only started 20 years ago.

this isn't about BLAME.. its about facts and truth and taking responsibility and doing whats right for the country. and that does not start with the kind of BS that you are spinning.

Its embarrassing to our party, it hurts our credibility and it shows in the loss of two presidential elections.

Refresh my memory. What piece of legislation did the Republicans put forth in DC in 2006 that included an individual mandate? I don't recall ever hearing about it.

The individual mandate is not necessarily good for the country. That has yet to be determined. So again, because 18 GOP Senators in 1993 found it a feasible idea doesn't mean that 40+ new Senators in 2009 have to share that view. You are too heavily invested in the idea of "party group think" in my opinion. Because one or some in a party say or propose something does not make it an across-the-board accepted idea. In fact, one of the few times in my lifetime I actually saw the GOP politicians agreeing on a single concept was their unified opposition to the ACA.

I'm not spinning BS. I'm not like you. I don't hold an entire group of people beholden to what others said years before.

The Democrats voted for and supported George W. Bush's proposal to invade Iraq. One year later, Barack Obama was sitting in that same arena where his predecessor and many others of his party cast those historic votes. By your logic, should I assume that Obama was out of line saying he opposed the Iraq invasion, or should he have just owned and embraced it because people other than himself yet from the same party did?

Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson famously said in 2010 that Guam is going to capsize. Again, applying your logic that all future members of a party are responsible for owning the words of a few, that must mean that all Demcrats in Congress today, Johnson's future replacement, and anyone from Sioux Falls who becomes a Democratic congressman in 2025 also feel that Guam is about to capsize.

 

[calamity]

I half hope that the GOP tries to win the WH by campaigning against ACA. After all, look how well it worked out for them the last time they tried that.

When it comes to obstructing and then running on a failed ACA, the GOP are all in. Check out his bit of weasel politics.

By now you may have heard that John Boehner’s office rushed to reassure conservatives today that the House GOP goal remains the full repeal of Obamacare, after it was reported that Republicans committed the apostasy of agreeing to support a mere “fix” to the law.

The short version of the tale is that the Associated Press reported that House Republicans and Dems had agreed to do away with the cap on deductibles for small group policies inside the exchanges, giving small businesses more flexibility in the plans they can offer, a change sought by groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

After Drudge spun this as evidence that House Republicans had agreed to — gasp! — expand the law, Boehner’s office quickly put out a statement claiming Republicans had actually succeeded in repealing a part of it. Dems had agreed to this change, believing it improves the law, making this a bipartisan fix. But as Steve Benen notes, the fact that this sparked an outcry among Obamacare foes is a reminder that for them, the only acceptable goal is “to make the ACA as punishing and ineffective as possible, in the process creating demand for destroying the law in its entirety.”

Republicans agree to small fix to Obamacare; outrage ensues

 

[sangha]

Refresh my memory. What piece of legislation did the Republicans put forth in DC in 2006 that included an individual mandate? I don't recall ever hearing about it.

So now an idea is not a republican idea if republicans in DC didn't propose any legislation that included an individual mandate in 2006 :roll:

My, how quick those goalposts move!!

 

[Threegoofs]

So now an idea is not a republican idea if republicans in DC didn't propose any legislation that included an individual mandate in 2006 :roll:

My, how quick those goalposts move!!

Well, she's totally convinced me that the Republicans have no ideas. :lol:

 

[jaeger19]

Refresh my memory. What piece of legislation did the Republicans put forth in DC in 2006 that included an individual mandate? I don't recall ever hearing about it.

The individual mandate is not necessarily good for the country. That has yet to be determined. So again, because 18 GOP Senators in 1993 found it a feasible idea doesn't mean that 40+ new Senators in 2009 have to share that view. You are too heavily invested in the idea of "party group think" in my opinion. Because one or some in a party say or propose something does not make it an across-the-board accepted idea. In fact, one of the few times in my lifetime I actually saw the GOP politicians agreeing on a single concept was their unified opposition to the ACA.

I'm not spinning BS. I'm not like you. I don't hold an entire group of people beholden to what others said years before.

The Democrats voted for and supported George W. Bush's proposal to invade Iraq. One year later, Barack Obama was sitting in that same arena where his predecessor and many others of his party cast those historic votes. By your logic, should I assume that Obama was out of line saying he opposed the Iraq invasion, or should he have just owned and embraced it because people other than himself yet from the same party did?

Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson famously said in 2010 that Guam is going to capsize. Again, applying your logic that all future members of a party are responsible for owning the words of a few, that must mean that all Demcrats in Congress today, Johnson's future replacement, and anyone from Sioux Falls who becomes a Democratic congressman in 2025 also feel that Guam is about to capsize.

Well first I didn't say legislation was introduced into 2006. I said that 2006 is not 20 years ago.. and republicans were supporting a healthcare mandate back then.. One of them became the presidential nominee don't you know..

Secondly, the medicare part D law included an individual mandate to sign up for medicare part d or have an equivalent coverage or face a penalty later.

And you are spinning BS.. as has been pointed out to you that the individual mandate was NOT something that ONLY 19 republicans came up with in the 1990's and then discarded. Its something that has been an idea within the party for more than a decade and was supported by many who were in Congress then and were in Congress when the ACA was voted on, not to mention leaders within the party.

As to Barack Obama.. Barak Obama personally came out against authorizing the use of force in IRAQ. The democratic PARTY however cannot back away from the fact that they did authorize the use of force in IRAQ. In fact thats why Barack Obama stands out because he went against the party on this.

As far as Hank Johnson? That's just silly and not even close to an argument. The mandate has been around and spoken about by way more than one person, it has shown up in bills, it has shown up in our presidential nominee for cripes sake... :doh