How will the Death of Ted Kennedy effect the healthcare debate?

[NoahJ]

I saw this question come up multiple times in other threads and it never really seemed to flow with the conversation, it sort of floated around the fringe of the topic. I think there can be good debate on this point. I present the following link for your perusal to get things started.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090830/pl_nm/us_usa_healthcare_kennedy_1

Both side are now trying to use his memory to push forward the debate, and likely their own agendas. I actually like part of what they are saying. He would have pushed for compromise on either side to move things forward. The question is, where do you draw the line for a man who died when trying to use his memory for political gain?

For me, passing the bill for Ted is the wrong approach. They need to frame it as:
Out of respect for his memory lets come to the table and negotiate. Lets see if we can come up with something that we all can agree on. And if takes longer, so be it.

If the health care debate is so important, it is worth taking the time to get it right.

Your thoughts?

[Hands Sandon]

Ted's death guarantees healthcare reform with the public option through a guaranteed 51 democratic vote with reconciliation. Without him there's one less crucial vote in the senate and trying to pass healthcare reform with the repubs would be fine, but it would be missing the 'care' part, thereby it won't happen, definitely not now.

Here's how The New York Times put it-

"So how much of the proposed health care reforms could plausibly fit into a reconciliation bill? The answer seems to be: quite a lot, though nobody knows for sure.

Knowledgeable analysts from both parties believe that these important elements of reform will probably pass muster because of their budgetary impact: expansion of Medicaid for the poor; subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance; new taxes to pay for the trillion-dollar program; Medicare cuts to help finance the program; mandates on individuals to buy insurance and on employers to offer coverage; and tax credits to help small businesses provide insurance.

Even the public plan so reviled by Republicans could probably qualify, especially if it is given greater power than currently planned to dictate the prices it will pay to hospitals, doctors, drug companies and other providers, thus saving the government lots of money in subsidies.

Greater uncertainty surrounds two other critical elements: new rules requiring insurance companies to accept all applicants and charge them the same premiums without regard to medical condition, and the creation of new exchanges in which people forced to buy their own insurance could find cheaper policies than are currently available.

Nobody knows how the Senate parliamentarian, an obscure official who advises the presiding officer, would rule on any of these complicated issues. But if he were to take a narrow view and eliminate important features, it could leave the reform package riddled with holes — perhaps providing subsidies to buy insurance on exchanges that do not exist, for example. Thus there are plans afoot to use a second bill to pass whatever reforms will not fit under the rubric of reconciliation, but those would be subject to filibuster and would have to depend on their general popularity (insurance reforms are enormously popular) to win 60 votes for passage.

Another hurdle is that the reconciliation legislation covers only the next five years, while the Democratic plans are devised to be deficit-neutral over 10 years. The practical effect is that the Democrats will almost surely need to find added revenues or budget cuts within the first five years."
~ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30sun1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

[franksargent]

Your thoughts?

My thoughts?

Well "my thoughts" have no bearing whatsoever on the current health care reform debate.

My deeds?

Well you'll never see me showing up to a town hall meeting packing heat.

[midwinter]

I think Hands is pretty much right. It seems to me that the Dems will now really look hard at reconciliation to get the bill passed. Will the GOP go batshit over it? Sure. Will it matter that they used reconciliation for lots of things? nope.

I don't think Kennedy's voice was in the debate all that much since the inauguration, so I don't think that it will be missed as much as it might otherwise.

Again, the issue isn't Kennedy's absence, sad though it may be. The issue if 59 instead of 60.

[NoahJ]

I think Hands is pretty much right. It seems to me that the Dems will now really look hard at reconciliation to get the bill passed. Will the GOP go batshit over it? Sure. Will it matter that they used reconciliation for lots of things? nope.

I don't think Kennedy's voice was in the debate all that much since the inauguration, so I don't think that it will be missed as much as it might otherwise.

Again, the issue isn't Kennedy's absence, sad though it may be. The issue if 59 instead of 60.

I want to agree with a point made here, Kennedy was not present in the health care debate (at least not actively), I believe due to his own health issues mostly (Need to look into that to be sure I am right). However that will not stop people from trying to use his newly departed state as a tool to get what they want out of the discussion. Not really the classiest way, but since when did congress care about that?

And also, the sheer numbers will be the sticking point on the discussion. That point alone, as it pertains to Kennedy, has the greatest effect on the whole debate as it is.

[midwinter]

I want to agree with a point made here, Kennedy was not present in the health care debate (at least not actively), I believe due to his own health issues mostly (Need to look into that to be sure I am right).

Kennedy collapsed at Obama's inaugural luncheon and was diagnosed with cancer in May. While it's entirely possible that he's been politicking in the hallways and on the phone in order to get the ball rolling on health care, which has been one of his primary political goals throughout his career, it seems to me that he has not been as vocal a part of the debate as he would have been 10 years ago.

However that will not stop people from trying to use his newly departed state as a tool to get what they want out of the discussion. Not really the classiest way, but since when did congress care about that?

I haven't been following the making of the sausage all that much (too many versions of the bill in too many committees...I'll wait until it's reconciled to dig into it), but it's also possible that this started out as some older bill that Kennedy had a great deal of involvement in (lots of times, presidents will tell congress "I want a bill on X" knowing full well that congress just happens to have a bill waiting.

And also, the sheer numbers will be the sticking point on the discussion. That point alone, as it pertains to Kennedy, has the greatest effect on the whole debate as it is.

Sheer numbers of what?

[NoahJ]

Kennedy collapsed at Obama's inaugural luncheon and was diagnosed with cancer in May. While it's entirely possible that he's been politicking in the hallways and on the phone in order to get the ball rolling on health care, which has been one of his primary political goals throughout his career, it seems to me that he has not been as vocal a part of the debate as he would have been 10 years ago.

Right. I do remember that.

I haven't been following the making of the sausage all that much (too many versions of the bill in too many committees...I'll wait until it's reconciled to dig into it), but it's also possible that this started out as some older bill that Kennedy had a great deal of involvement in (lots of times, presidents will tell congress "I want a bill on X" knowing full well that congress just happens to have a bill waiting.

I would be interested to know if that is true.

Sheer numbers of what?
59 vs 60.

[Northgate]

You're never going to get 60 votes out of the Democrats. They're too dysfunctional. And the elected body in congress are either idiots or they run in complete terror of their GOP opponents.

[franksargent]

You're never going to get 60 votes out of the Democrats. They're too dysfunctional. And the elected body in congress are either idiots or they run in complete terror of their GOP opponents.

Agree. :\

[midwinter]

You're never going to get 60 votes out of the Democrats. They're too dysfunctional. And the elected body in congress are either idiots or they run in complete terror of their GOP opponents.

Yup..

[Northgate]

I never thought in a million years I would leave the Democratic party over health-care reform. But I have. I'm still a progressive liberal. I will fight for liberal policy at every turn. And I will support Democrats and Independents who have the balls to progress that agenda.

Oh, and Rahm Emmanuel can fuck himself. He's the biggest problem in the White House right now. It's funny, too, because you'd think Republicans would LOVE Rahm. He's going their bidding for them!!!! LOL!!

Well I hope Rahm, Begala, Carville and Stephanopoulus (and their little daily morning phone party) are proud of themselves. They've "centrized" themselves into oblivion and they don't even know it.

[addabox]

I think I suggested this once upon a time, but here's what I want to happen:

The Democratic Party changes its name to "The Republican Party." In that they'd just be formalizing what's actually happened over the last thirty odd years.

The Republican Party changes its name to "YAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG THE BEES THE BEES ARE NEGRO TERROR HARRRRROOOOOOOOOOOO UNDER GOD" Party, formalizing what they've been up to since around when Clinton took office.

And then we could have a new party, call it whatever you want, that could represent "liberal" interests, like working people and small business owners and basically anyone who isn't either wealthy or irretrievably damaged by a steady diet of fear, resentment and nonsense.

That leaves room for "Progressive" and "Conservative" forces to try and influence their respective parties as best they can, using whatever leverage they can.

[Northgate]

I think I suggested this once upon a time, but here's what I want to happen:

The Democratic Party changes its name to "The Republican Party." In that they'd just be formalizing what's actually happened over the last thirty odd years.

The Republican Party changes its name to "YAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGG THE BEES THE BEES ARE NEGRO TERROR HARRRRROOOOOOOOOOOO UNDER GOD" Party, formalizing what they've been up to since around when Clinton took office.

And then we could have a new party, call it whatever you want, that could represent "liberal" interests, like working people and small business owners and basically anyone who isn't either wealthy or irretrievably damaged by a steady diet of fear, resentment and nonsense.

That leaves room for "Progressive" and "Conservative" forces to try and influence their respective parties as best they can, using whatever leverage they can.

LOL! You may be on to something Adda.

I do find it funny that I was once a member of the Republican party. And the party moved so hard to the right that I switched to being a Democrat (mainly because I discovered that my opinions about social issues were very strong and one-sided). But I can't help but noticed that the new Democrats are kinda like the old Republicans.

Conserving natural resources and land used to be "conservative"
Conserving our rights to freedom used to be "conservative"
Paying as we go used to be "conservative"
Staying out of other country's problems used to be "conservative"
The right to habeus corpus used to be "conservative".

Today, if you want to preserve an area you're a dirty fucking hippie.
If you value your rights to freedom you're a dirty fucking commie.
If you don't want to deficit spend then you're a tax and spend liberal.
Fighting against preemptive strikes means you blame America first.
Habeus corpus is for pussies.

[addabox]

LOL! You may be on to something Adda.

I do find it funny that I was once a member of the Republican party. And the party moved so hard to the right that I switched to being a Democrat (mainly because I discovered that my opinions about social issues were very strong and one-sided). But I can't help but noticed that the new Democrats are kinda like the old Republicans.

Conserving natural resources and land used to be "conservative"
Conserving our rights to freedom used to be "conservative"
Paying as we go used to be "conservative"
Staying out of other country's problems used to be "conservative"
The right to habeus corpus used to be "conservative".

Today, if you want to preserve an area you're a dirty fucking hippie.
If you value your rights to freedom you're a dirty fucking commie.
If you don't want to deficit spend then you're a tax and spend liberal.
Fighting against preemptive strikes means you blame America first.
Habeus corpus is for pussies.

Here's the thing: if we could somehow minimize the bellowing of crazy people, we might be able to note that "liberals" and "conservatives" may agree on a number of points-- the importance of limiting government monitoring of its citizens, for instance, or not giving away the farm to vast corporations whose allegiance to America is nominal, at best.

But what do we get? We get the ACLU being pilloried as if it were some kind of commie plot.

I mean, for the love of fuck, American right, commie plots? You're so addicted to whatever international scheme to take away our guns might stir another voter to pull the lever that you don't make any fucking sense. We can't have a democracy when one of the major parties DOESN'T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE.

This is not partisan. Making fucking sense is not contingent on ideology. I want an American right that makes fucking sense, because it's better for the American left. If all the American left has as a foil is a bunch of screaming nut jobs, the American left gets stupid-- which it in fact has. It gets stupid and lazy and vague and pointless.

I really truly believe the Republicans are destroying the country by introducing so much noise into the system that it's literally impossible to get anything done, or even figure out what needs to be done.

AND FOR FUCK'S SAKE I THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT, ABOUT SOME THINGS. This isn't about "conservatives", it's about insane bullshit substituting for principled opposition. It's about nihilism. It's about "if we can't have our way, we'd prefer to see anarchy."

Anyway, how was everybody's summer? :p

[midwinter]

Commie.

[Northgate]

Anyway, how was everybody's summer? :p

Like most Americans, I worked through the whole summer and took zero vacation days.

But then again, I do work for Hollywood which we all know isn't really America.

So I guess it evens out.

[midwinter]

Anyway, how was everybody's summer? :p

I went to London and worked in the most depressing archive ever. But no one tried to kill me this time, so that was good.

[addabox]

I went to London and worked in the most depressing archive ever. But no one tried to kill me this time, so that was good.

That you know of. I'm assuming that, at this point, England just shadows you as a convenient lure and takes out terrorists before they can strike.

[NoahJ]

Here's the thing: if we could somehow minimize the bellowing of crazy people, we might be able to note that "liberals" and "conservatives" may agree on a number of points-- the importance of limiting government monitoring of its citizens, for instance, or not giving away the farm to vast corporations whose allegiance to America is nominal, at best.

...

... I THINK CONSERVATIVES ARE RIGHT, ABOUT SOME THINGS. This isn't about "conservatives", it's about insane bullshit substituting for principled opposition. It's about nihilism. It's about "if we can't have our way, we'd prefer to see anarchy."

I think that they do agree on a great many points. Something I cannot stand is how they wrestle with one another to try to see who gets political points for a popular program and they spend more time ensuring their version gets through than they do putting through the version that is really the best for the country. Happens too often.

Anyway, how was everybody's summer? :p

Not too bad actually. But it was far too short this year. Must be a commie plot to ruin my vacation... :p

[midwinter]

That you know of. I'm assuming that, at this point, England just shadows you as a convenient lure and takes out terrorists before they can strike.

Hrm. Next time, I'll have to turn around suddenly at random intervals.... which is sort of what I have to do to make sure that Hassan i Sabbah isn't stalking me on his bicycle.

[addabox]

Did you get to see Hassan this time?

[jazzguru]

The Obama Administration could very well be the best thing that has happened to the conservative movement in quite some time.

[jimmac]

The Obama Administration could very well be the best thing that has happened to the conservative movement in quite some time.

You must mean in helping them to straighten up and fly right ( pun intended ).;):lol:

[Northgate]

The Obama Administration could very well be the best thing that has happened to the conservative movement in quite some time.

You mean the LaRoushies?

[addabox]

You mean like going nakedly insane and talking about secession and how the normative processes of the American government are much like the Third Reich and showing up for presidential events with automatic weapons and longing for a bloody revolution and making a lot of coded references to killing the president or killing liberals and mostly dealing from a position of delusional fantasy about things like death panels and Obama's citizenship and how allowing tax breaks to expire is objectively fascist and how the Veteran's Administration encourages soldiers to commit suicide and how the government is preparing reeducation camps and concentration camps and paying threatening visits to patriot's houses under cover of darkness and just basically behaving like paranoid schizophrenics?

That kind of "best thing"?

[midwinter]

Did you get to see Hassan this time?

Nope. I think he's avoiding me on account of his hatred of Americans.

[jazzguru]

addabox proves my point.

The attempts by Obama and his supporters to focus on extremists or prominent individuals who call themselves conservatives and try to portray them as mainstream conservatives will ultimately backfire. In fact, they are already failing. Just look at Obama's approval ratings. 45% now, I believe.

So go ahead and focus on the fringe. Go ahead with the incessant ad-homs and mockery. Go ahead and keep on doing exactly what you are doing. Meanwhile, the mainstream conservative movement is gaining momentum not in spite of it, but because of it.

People of all political ideologies and walks of life are starting to wake up and see that the Change™ promised by Obama is very different from the Change™ we are getting - if you can truly say that there has been Change™ at all.

[addabox]

addabox proves my point.

The attempts by Obama and his supporters to focus on extremists or prominent individuals who call themselves conservatives and try to portray them as mainstream conservatives will ultimately backfire. In fact, they are already failing. Just look at Obama's approval ratings. 45% now, I believe.

So go ahead and focus on the fringe. Go ahead with the incessant ad-homs and mockery. Go ahead and keep on doing exactly what you are doing. Meanwhile, the mainstream conservative movement is gaining momentum not in spite of it, but because of it.

People of all political ideologies and walks of life are starting to wake up and see that the Change™ promised by Obama is very different from the Change™ we are getting - if you can truly say that there has been Change™ at all.

Well, the trouble there being that these "extremists" that we focus on at our peril include members of Congress, a bunch of state Governors, the head of the RNC, an entire national news network, a number of extremely popular pundits, and the putative head of the whole shebang, Rush Limbaugh.

What you're calling "the mainstream conservative movement" is in fact hopelessly out of touch with where America is headed (I know, you think that's a good think because you're warding off some kind of Islamo/Fascist/Immigrant apocalypse, have I mentioned the crazy?).

Old white people with guns, resentments and a really tenuous grasp of reality. That's your "mainstream conservative movement." Fox and talk radio is the worst thing that ever happened to American conservatism, because it allows you to only talk to yourselves, and buddy, that's some bad company.

[Frank777]

Fox and talk radio is the worst thing that ever happened to American conservatism, because it allows you to only talk to yourselves...

Funny, I don't remember you having this complaint about Air America...

[addabox]

Funny, I don't remember you having this complaint about Air America...

Yes, because Air America was a national TV news network, hugely popular among liberals, and pretty much set the agenda for the Democratic party.

Well I remember how Democratic elected officials were forced to bow and scrape before Randi Rhodes, were they to displease her.

[Frank777]

You mean like going nakedly insane and talking about secession and how the normative processes of the American government are much like the Third Reich and showing up for presidential events with automatic weapons and longing for a bloody revolution and making a lot of coded references to killing the president or killing liberals and mostly dealing from a position of delusional fantasy about things like death panels and Obama's citizenship and how allowing tax breaks to expire is objectively fascist and how the Veteran's Administration encourages soldiers to commit suicide and how the government is preparing reeducation camps and concentration camps and paying threatening visits to patriot's houses under cover of darkness and just basically behaving like paranoid schizophrenics?

Of course you would take the acts of fringe elements and portray them as the GOP mainstream.
That's what liberals do.

At least those elements aren't on the GOP payroll (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/caught-on-tape-obama-hcan-organizer.html)...

[franksargent]

Of course you would take the acts of fringe elements and portray them as the GOP mainstream.
That's what liberals do.

At least those elements aren't on the GOP payroll (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/caught-on-tape-obama-hcan-organizer.html)...

Oh nooooooooooooooooooooooooos, the other side is doing the same thing as the other side has been doing for several weeks now, how ... SHOCKING!

Monkey see, monkey do, aka tit-for-tat.

D'oh!

Hit me with a dumb stick.

[franksargent]

Yes, because Air America was a national TV news network, hugely popular among liberals, and pretty much set the agenda for the Democratic party.

Well I remember how Democratic elected officials were forced to bow and scrape before Randi Rhodes, were they to displease her.

Exactly!

Mainstream conservatives = Wingnutia extremists
Mainstream liberals != Wingnutia extremists

[Frank777]

Yes, because Air America was a national TV news network, hugely popular among liberals, and pretty much set the agenda for the Democratic party.

Well I remember how Democratic elected officials were forced to bow and scrape before Randi Rhodes, were they to displease her.

Hey, don't blame me because liberals are generally less successful than conservatives...

[FormerLurker]

Hey, don't blame me because liberals are generally less successful than conservatives...
:err:
OK then - we'll just blame you because conservatives like political talk radio more than liberals do.

[franksargent]

:err:
OK then - we'll just blame you because conservatives like hate talk radio more than liberals do.

tftfy :D

[franksargent]

Hey, don't blame me because liberals are generally less successful than conservatives...

Yeah, I know what you mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family). :lol:

The Duggar's extremely conservative beliefs have come under fire and been a source of considerable controversy for the family. The family believes in controversial and scientifically dubious conservative theories such as young earth creationism. The Duggar family also supports several anti-gay activism groups such as Bob Jones University, Focus on the Family and preacher Bill Gothard. The family's association with controversial fringe Christian movements such as the Quiverfull movement has also come under fire.

In addition, the Duggar parents have controversial parenting ideas. None of the family's female daughters are permitted to do typically 'male' activities, such having short hair, wearing pants or attending college. The Duggars follow the teachings of Bill Gothard, which include that children not go to college, children should not leave the home until they are married, families do not use birth control and refuse many forms of pre-natal care, stringent social conservatism (including dubious ideas such as young-earth creationism) is strictly enforced and taught at a young age, and gender roles are adhered to.

[addabox]

Hey, don't blame me because liberals are generally less successful than conservatives...

Interesting. So you're saying that the Democrats would have a system of interlocking echo-chamber media designed to promote an insular, fact free world view, if only they could be more "successful."

And this supports Air America as a counter example to becoming so self-referential that you lose touch with the mainstream how?

[addabox]

Of course you would take the acts of fringe elements and portray them as the GOP mainstream.
That's what liberals do.

At least those elements aren't on the GOP payroll (http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/09/caught-on-tape-obama-hcan-organizer.html)...

Michelle Bachman is a fringe element? Sarah Palin is a fringe element? Rush Limbaugh is a fringe element? Glenn Beck is a fringe element? Michael Steele is a fringe element?

The American Right is a gobbling freak show, at the moment, and pretending otherwise does them no benefit.

Of course, we've been steadily moving where the line for "right wing extremism" lies rightward, so it's pretty interesting to hear "reasonable moderates" being at least tacit birthers, or perfectly mainstream Republicans being cagey about "death panels", or elected party members not seeming in the least bit displeased when their constituents talk about the need for a bloody revolution, or state governors flirt with succession.

You know, dissolve the United States of America. That, nowadays, is "food for thought" in the Republican Party. Bringing automatic weapons to presidential appearances is supported by mainstream right wing pundits.

Fringe my ass. Dead square center.

[Frank777]

Yeah, I know what you mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duggar_family). :lol:

And we're back to comparing fringe elements and pretending they are mainstream. Yawn.

[midwinter]

I was going to respond, but Adda has achieved perfection.

[franksargent]

And we're back to comparing fringe elements and pretending they are mainstream. Yawn.

No.

I'm not "comparing fringe elements and pretending they are mainstream" I'm showing an example of extreme conservatives and stating that they are the tip of the iceberg that the conservative Titanic has already run into. 8-)

In other words, conservatives are sinking and it is of their own doing.

[Taskiss]

Looks like progressive liberals are the wingnuts now, if by "wingnut" you mean those who hold minority positions...

By all means, caricaturize your opponents, it'll make your position all that much more untenable. To bring down opposition you have to know the opposition, and by identifying such fringe elements as the real opposition you're ignoring the real "menace" - the independents who are fiscally conservative. That's the group that's going to pull down the progressive liberals. They don't want to pay the cost of the liberal agenda.

The independents are revolting! Expect to see a bloodbath in 2010.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/september_2009/obama_approval_index_september_1_2009/244513-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_september_1_2009.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/september_2009/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009/244522-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009.jpg

[franksargent]

Looks like progressive liberals are the wingnuts now, if by "wingnut" you mean those who hold minority positions...

By all means, caricaturize your opponents, it'll make your position all that much more untenable. To bring down opposition you have to know the opposition, and by identifying such fringe elements as the real opposition you're ignoring the real "menace" - the independents who are fiscally conservative. That's the group that's going to pull down the progressive liberals. They don't want to pay the cost of the liberal agenda.

The independents are revolting! Expect to see a bloodbath in 2010.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/september_2009/obama_approval_index_september_1_2009/244513-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_september_1_2009.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/september_2009/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009/244522-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009.jpg

Rasmussen Reports (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports) (the favorite pollster of conservatives, I wonder why)

Criticism

Democratic Party activists have pointed out that Scott Rasmussen was a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign. Rasmussen presidential polling numbers tend to be an outlier among samples taken from other polling organizations. Others have pointed out that the reason Rasmussen's polls trend more Republican than other mainstream polls is simply that he samples likely voters. John Marshal of Talking Points Memo has said, "The toplines tend to be a bit toward the Republican side of the spectrum, compared to the average of other polls. But if you factor that in they're pretty reliable. And the frequency that Rasmussen is able to turn them around — because they're based on robocalls — gives them added value in terms of teasing out trends." MSNBC does not use Rasmussen polls. Conversely, conservative media frequently refers to Rasmussen, praising them for being the first to ask about a relevant issue or to ask questions that other pollsters do not.

Toplines - Massachusetts Kennedy - August 20, 2009 (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/massachusetts/toplines/toplines_massachusetts_kennedy_august_20_2009)

1. When there is an open Senate seat, should the Governor appoint a replacement or should there be a special election to determine the new Senator?

27% Governor should appoint the replacement

66% There should be a special election

7% Not sure

2. Under Massachusetts law a special election is held to fill an open senate seat. While waiting for a special election should the governor appoint an interim senator?

52% Yes

40% No

7% Not sure

Robocalls like the one above, which ask leading questions, are 100% pure BULLSHIT!

I wonder what the numbers would have been if these questions were reversed, or if only question #2 were asked.

Rasmussen Caught With Their Thumb On The Scale (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/8/27/773158/-Rasmussen-Caught-With-Their-Thumb-On-The-Scale)

Rasmussen is well known for not conducting random sample surveys.

Even, heaven forbid, Real Clear Politics Polling summaries (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html#polls) shows the Rasmussen polling data tracking 6-8 points below five other surveys in Obama's approval ratings.

Rasmussen spread is -8 while the next six average +13, here we can say with certainty that Rasmussen polling results are the single, and only, outlier.

Also, Rasmussen never publishes the entire polling questionaire, and other relavent information necessary to determine inherent biases in their questions and methodologies.

They're in the polling business to make money. Zogby is similar, even Gallup is similar, there is no transparancy in these companies wrt presenting complete polling data.

Therefore, Rasmussen is never to be trusted as a polling organization. :\

Fuck, I learned this over 30 years ago, by myself even: 1) Never answer a phone survey as you are unable to see the entire questionaire, and 2) only answer a written survey questionaire once you've completely read through the questionaire and you are unable to detect any underlying theme or biases in said survey, such as buried questions. Usually, I just fuck with them, flip a coin, whatever.

[Hands Sandon]

Looks like progressive liberals are the wingnuts now, if by "wingnut" you mean those who hold minority positions...

By all means, caricaturize your opponents, it'll make your position all that much more untenable. To bring down opposition you have to know the opposition, and by identifying such fringe elements as the real opposition you're ignoring the real "menace" - the independents who are fiscally conservative. That's the group that's going to pull down the progressive liberals. They don't want to pay the cost of the liberal agenda.

The independents are revolting! Expect to see a bloodbath in 2010.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_index_graphics/september_2009/obama_approval_index_september_1_2009/244513-1-eng-US/obama_approval_index_september_1_2009.jpg

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/obama_total_approval_graphics/september_2009/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009/244522-1-eng-US/obama_total_approval_september_1_2009.jpg


Obama's highly unlikely not to win a second term. Blacks will strongly support him again and Obama's a genius at leading teams to get new registered voters and that will include millions of new Hispanics. With Sotomayor and amnesty for illegal aliens you can expect him to better his vote in 2012 from 67% in 2008. Independent's, once the fear of healthcare reform and any other fear mongering dies down will also likely vote above 50% for Obama. Given what junk the Repubs are likely to have on offer too in 2012 and it'll be a slam dunk win for Obama. I'm sure those graphs make you feel better but it's delusional to think that they will in any significant way reflect the 2012 election.

[Taskiss]

I'm sure those graphs make you feel better but it's delusional to think that they will in any significant way reflect the 2012 election.They make me feel backed up by more than conjecture. I'm funny that way, I need more than what I want the answer to be when I analyze a situation.

[Hands Sandon]

They make me feel backed up by more than conjecture. I'm funny that way, I need more than what I want the answer to be when I analyze a situation.

I think the next few elections are going to be pretty hard on whites, especially Independent one's who'd like to think their vote could have a make or break impact. That vote is diminishing significantly in the percentage of votes cast. Just the hard facts I'm afraid, Independents are increasingly irrelevant to US politics and at the same time are increasingly, right now, muddled.

[franksargent]

They make me feel backed up by more than conjecture. I'm funny that way, I need more than what I want the answer to be when I analyze a situation.


So you link to a clear statistical outlier. You didn't analyze anything, you read something, with a bias that fits your belief system. The truth hurts.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Taskiss]

I think the next few elections are going to be pretty hard on whites, especially Independent one's who'd like to think their vote could have a make or break impact. That vote is diminishing significantly in the percentage of votes cast. Just the hard facts I'm afraid, Independents are increasingly irrelevant to US politics and at the same time are increasingly, right now, muddled.You have anything more than personal opinion going for you with that?

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/January/20080131130854hmnietsua0.9798853.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28voter%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[franksargent]

I think the next few elections are going to be pretty hard on whites, especially Independent one's who'd like to think their vote could have a make or break impact. That vote is diminishing significantly in the percentage of votes cast. Just the hard facts I'm afraid, Independents are increasingly irrelevant to US politics and at the same time are increasingly, right now, muddled.

United States Senate elections, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010)

Give that a read, as it stands right now the D's have p > 0.5 of picking up one or two additional Senate seats.

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_2008)

The R's have to net 40 to regain the House by a slim one vote margin.

From 538.com

But, if you held a Presidential election today, Barack Obama would almost certainly be retained, and if you held a Congressional election today, the Democrats would quite probably keep their majorities.

[Hands Sandon]

You have anything more than personal opinion going for you with that?

http://www.america.gov/st/usg-english/2008/January/20080131130854hmnietsua0.9798853.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_%28voter%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008


I have millions of blacks and hispanics and only a couple of million whites!

"Projected Population Changes for the U.S. by Major Demographic Groups (in thousands)

2008
2050
Percent Change
NonHispanic White
199,804
203,347
2 % change in whites vote
Black
41,098
65,703
60 % in black votes
Asian
15,519
40,586
162 % in Asian vote
Hispanic
46,697
132,792
184 %" in Hispanic vote.

That comes to 240,000,000 non whites to 203,000,000 whites in 2050 as to 200,000,000 whites to 103,000,000 non whites today.

~ http://thenewvoters.news21.com/latino/latino-overview

The white independent vote is going to shrink dramatically as a percentage.

[Taskiss]

"No" would have been much more succinct.

Interesting quote from your source...

Latino Voters Could Transform American Politics
...
...but only if they can overcome political participation rates that are significantly lower than the rest of American voters.In other words, unless things change, the independent vote won't shrink.

[Hands Sandon]

"No" would have been much more succinct.

So you don't think those numbers matter?

Another major factor is that blacks and hispanics are registering to vote in much higher numbers than before. So in real terms their voting significance will be even greater.

[Hands Sandon]

"No" would have been much more succinct.

Interesting quote from your source...

In other words, unless things change, the independent vote won't shrink.

Taskiss the indep vote is going to shrink HUGELY. Your in DENIAL!!!

[Hands Sandon]

United States Senate elections, 2010 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010)

Give that a read, as it stands right now the D's have p > 0.5 of picking up one or two additional Senate seats.

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_elections,_2008)

The R's have to net 40 to regain the House by a slim one vote margin.

From 538.com

So the dems have aprox 60 seats and repubs 40 and yet dems have 18 repub seats up for grabs and the repubs only 18 dem seats up for grab. That's 18 of each. I'd say that gives the dems an advantage given their overall higher numbers already because they won't actually have the opportunity to lose a fair percentage of their current numbers. Recent gains count and that's likely to push them well over 60 seats. I'll go out on a limb and guess that they'll gain 7 new senate seats. That'll give them 65 (after Ted Kennedy get's filled by a dem) with 2 democratic caucus independents to the repubs 33.

[addabox]

Looks like progressive liberals are the wingnuts now, if by "wingnut" you mean those who hold minority positions...

By all means, caricaturize your opponents, it'll make your position all that much more untenable. To bring down opposition you have to know the opposition, and by identifying such fringe elements as the real opposition you're ignoring the real "menace" - the independents who are fiscally conservative. That's the group that's going to pull down the progressive liberals. They don't want to pay the cost of the liberal agenda.

So which of the people that I listed in my previous post are you considering "fringe"?

[Taskiss]

So you don't think those numbers matter?

Another major factor is that blacks and hispanics are registering to vote in much higher numbers than before. So in real terms their voting significance will be even greater.What I "think" is no more authoritative than what you think. When social issues are in dispute, I prefer to form opinions based on research, and for that I turn to sources like those I posted.Taskiss the indep vote is going to shrink HUGELY. Your in DENIAL!!!No, Hands... I'm in Missouri - the "Show-Me" state. So... you need to show me. ;)

All 435 seats in The House are up for election in 2010. Most people want to see the whole shebang cleared out.

[Hands Sandon]

What I "think" is no more authoritative than what you think. When social issues are in dispute, I prefer to form opinions based on research, and for that I turn to sources like those I posted.No, Hands... I'm in Missouri - the "Show-Me" state. So... you need to show me. ;)

All 435 seats in The House are up for election in 2010. Most people want to see the whole shebang cleared out.

I'll concede somewhat on this. Blacks and hispanics are less likely to be independent's than whites and given white's are a rapidly shrinking percentage of the electorate and will indeed be a rapidly shrinking percentage of the votes cast, then the independent vote will drop substantially as a percentage too. However, it appears that young hispanics whilst being far more liberal than their parents are also more likely to be independents. How all this tallies up over time remains to be seen.

[franksargent]

So which of the people that I listed in my previous post are you considering "fringe"?

Republicans.

See now that all those Independents are such a growing force, thay will join ranks and form the Independence Party.

Their platform rests entirely on one pillar, that pillar being Independence.

That's their entire ideology, Independence.

They used to be called the Undecided Party.

But now they know who they are and what they want, Independence.

See Alex Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio_host)) or the American Independent Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Independent_Party) or the Independence Party of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Party_of_America).

The American Independent Party is a political party that was a vehicle for the 1968 presidential campaign of Governor of Alabama George C. Wallace, considered a leading advocate of racial segregation.

The Independence Party's platform is somewhat ambiguous. The party itself is designed to draw independent voters.

[midwinter]

All 435 seats in The House are up for election in 2010. Most people want to see the whole shebang cleared out.

Don't most people always want to see the whole shebang cleared out? And don't incumbents have something like a 95% re-election rate?

[jimmac]

Here's a crock!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32605508/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

GOP accused of health reform ‘fear-mongering’
Letter says Republicans ‘might’ face discrimination when seeking treatment


Republicans. Ya gotta love em'!:rolleyes:

[addabox]

So which of the people that I listed in my previous post are you considering "fringe"?

For instance, here's as mainstream as it gets Mike Huckabee, on health care reform: (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26635.html)

Huckabee says that “Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff” when it comes to Obama’s “health care rationing.” Huckabee also says: “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics may be dead, but a Union of American Socialist Republics is being born.”

So I'm curious if that strikes you as "mainstream", because it strikes me as savagely stupid nonsense, and it strikes me that Mike Huckabee knows that it's savagely stupid nonsense but doesn't care because getting some more people really, really worked up about how that commie/socialist/fascist Obama wants to kill your grandmother is politically expedient.

So maybe you agree with Huckabee, in which case I can see why we'd have trouble seeing eye to eye on what, exactly, constitutes "the fringe."

Myself, I can't see how anyone not in some kind of fugue state could regard Mr. Huckabees remarks as anything but contemptible, dangerous pandering of the sort that used to be confined to basement meetings of the clinically enraged.

[franksargent]

Don't most people always want to see the whole shebang cleared out? And don't incumbents have something like a 95% re-election rate?

That's because everyone thinks the other 532 legislators who are not representing them totally suck the big one.

[franksargent]

All 435 seats in The House are up for election in 2010.

All seats in the House are up for election in even numbered years. I didn't know that.

[jazzguru]

Well, the trouble there being that these "extremists" that we focus on at our peril include members of Congress, a bunch of state Governors, the head of the RNC, an entire national news network, a number of extremely popular pundits, and the putative head of the whole shebang, Rush Limbaugh.

What you're calling "the mainstream conservative movement" is in fact hopelessly out of touch with where America is headed (I know, you think that's a good think because you're warding off some kind of Islamo/Fascist/Immigrant apocalypse, have I mentioned the crazy?).

Old white people with guns, resentments and a really tenuous grasp of reality. That's your "mainstream conservative movement." Fox and talk radio is the worst thing that ever happened to American conservatism, because it allows you to only talk to yourselves, and buddy, that's some bad company.

You've got me - and the conservative movement as a whole - all wrong. And rather than asking me or my fellow conservatives what we believe, you are telling us what we believe.

[NoahJ]

Bringing automatic weapons to presidential appearances is supported by mainstream right wing pundits.

Semi-automatic weapons. It could not fire on automatic even if he wanted it to. Doesn't mean he should have brought it. Keeping it honest.

[franksargent]

OK, so it would appear that there will be a lot of teabaggers in DC licking each other's balls for the freedom to lick each other's balls in public places.

Is this like the Freedom March (http://forums.appleinsider.com/March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom) except that all the people will be old and white?

Get to the back of the bus T.

[addabox]

Semi-automatic weapons. It could not fire on automatic even if he wanted it to. Doesn't mean he should have brought it. Keeping it honest.

Tee hee. Sorry, there's something sort of giddy making when it's come down to the distinction between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons as being a significant point, when it comes to BRINGING FUCKING RIFLES TO PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES.

[midwinter]

Tee hee. Sorry, there's something sort of giddy making when it's come down to the distinction between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons as being a significant point, when it comes to BRINGING FUCKING RIFLES TO PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES.

Technically, they weren't AT the presidential appearances. They were just on the perimeter. With their semi-automatic guns, their signs about killing tyrants, and their preachers praying for Obama's death.

Just trying to keep it honest.

[addabox]

Technically, they weren't AT the presidential appearances. They were just on the perimeter. With their semi-automatic guns, their signs about killing tyrants, and their preachers praying for Obama's death.

Just trying to keep it honest.

Was it Megan McArdle in the Atlantic that was opining that getting excited about guns at (in the vicinity of) presidential appearances was stupid because gun owners, on the whole, didn't kill people any more than non-gun owners?

And somebody else, forgot who, pointed out that perhaps the relevant sample would be PEOPLE WHO BRING GUNS TO PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES WHO HATE THE PRESIDENT.

[midwinter]

And somebody else, forgot who, pointed out that perhaps the relevant sample would be PEOPLE WHO BRING GUNS TO PRESIDENTIAL APPEARANCES WHO HATE THE PRESIDENT.

Interestingly, 100% of presidents who have been shot have been shot by someone with a gun in their vicinity.

[addabox]

Interestingly, 100% of presidents who have been shot have been shot by someone with a gun in their vicinity.

Typical liberal spin. If shooting the president is illegal, only criminals will be shot while being president.

[addabox]

You've got me - and the conservative movement as a whole - all wrong. And rather than asking me or my fellow conservatives what we believe, you are telling us what we believe.

And if I asked I'm sure you'd favor me with the reason and sensibleness, but I'm obliged to form my opinions about the state of the Republican Party by the conduct of its elected officials, party chieftains, prominent spokespersons, popular pundits and random editorialists.

Whatever the "conservative movement as a whole" might be, it's not distinguishing itself by talking sense or reproaching lunatics.

[jazzguru]

And if I asked I'm sure you'd favor me with the reason and sensibleness, but I'm obliged to form my opinions about the state of the Republican Party by the conduct of its elected officials, party chieftains, prominent spokespersons, popular pundits and random editorialists.

Whatever the "conservative movement as a whole" might be, it's not distinguishing itself by talking sense or reproaching lunatics.

The Republican Party ceased to represent true conservatism quite some time ago. Before the George W Bush era, certainly.

A few lunatics are claiming to represent us, and the media and Democrats are only too happy to put these people on pedestals as shining examples of modern and pervasive conservative thought, which is not true.

By doing so, they hope to marginalize the more moderate and sensible conservative base.

That strategy will ultimately fail. It is failing.

Nobody on the left seems to be willing to admit - or truly can't comprehend - that it is Obama's policies and actions that are failing. It is the policies themselves that are causing so much opposition.

So instead of looking at these policies and ways to change them to appeal to a wider base, the left is marginalizing, mocking, and ridiculing anyone who dares oppose them.

This only serves to divide more, to crank up the rhetoric another notch.

[midwinter]

The Republican Party ceased to represent true conservatism quite some time ago. Before the George W Bush era, certainly.

It's a good thing the conservatives stopped voting for these bastards who don't represent their interests, then!

[addabox]

The Republican Party ceased to represent true conservatism quite some time ago. Before the George W Bush era, certainly.

A few lunatics are claiming to represent us, and the media and Democrats are only too happy to put these people on pedestals as shining examples of modern and pervasive conservative thought, which is not true.

By doing so, they hope to marginalize the more moderate and sensible conservative base.

That strategy will ultimately fail. It is failing.

Nobody on the left seems to be willing to admit - or truly can't comprehend - that it is Obama's policies and actions that are failing. It is the policies themselves that are causing so much opposition.

So instead of looking at these policies and ways to change them to appeal to a wider base, the left is marginalizing, mocking, and ridiculing anyone who dares oppose them.

This only serves to divide more, to crank up the rhetoric another notch.

You know, I keep talking about particular people, national figures and major pundits, and folks keep responding by dismissing "a few lunatics" that apparently are being promoted by crafty liberals.

So, again, go back to that list of folks I provided and tell me which ones are lunatics and which ones speak for you.

And which ones are being promoted by liberals. Is Glenn Beck a mole?

[midwinter]

A primer (http://www.alternet.org/politics/142333/the_wing-nut_code:_what_glenn_beck_and_sarah_palin_are_real ly_saying_to_their_followers/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet) for what Adda is saying.

[franksargent]

A primer (http://www.alternet.org/politics/142333/the_wing-nut_code:_what_glenn_beck_and_sarah_palin_are_real ly_saying_to_their_followers/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet) for what Adda is saying.

Good read, good link, have it bookmarked under Teddy. 8-)