jeff2sf wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Also I think tonight dramatically increases the possibility Obama is a one term president. Disagree strongly with that jeff2sf conclusion.

I simply don't understand how getting this bill through, as opposed to having it defeated today, could HURT Obama. I think you underestimate (which seems to be a popular phrase on here from supporters and protesteres) how much getting something done was compared to getting nothing done and being seen as having failed despite having majorities in both houses

It's just too early to say one way or the other, I think we're being microwave analysts here. I suspect that the earliest signs will be whether or not tea party attendance increases this April 15th vs. last year (if we can get an accurate reporting), and how the markets react to this. Both are still short term immediate things that could dissipate by 2012, but I think both will indicate the degree of change that should be foreshadowed for this November.

I don't think it's impossible for the economy and unemployment to still look ugly in 2012, though Obama will certainly be able to run on "Yeah, but it's better than it was when I got here, let me keep doing what I'm doing to fix it". If the GOP doesn't win big in November, as you speculate, I think this increases Obama's odds of being a one-termer, because they'll continue to drag him down.

VoxOrion wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:

sweet...more taxes. wait, i better be careful of what i say before i'm called a racist.

a friends facebook status



what does that even mean?

If you read this thread for a little while, you'll discover that anyone who isn't for HCR or any other majority party agenda is a racist. Specifically if you decide to go stand on a street corner or attend a rally.

Stop it, Vox. This simply isn't true. Jersey Hoya opposes HCR, no one, not even PTK, thinks he's a racist.

Tea partiers may be different. I am happy to say I don't personally know any Tea partiers (as I'm happy to say I don't know any Moveon.org people).

VoxOrion wrote:

jeff2sf wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Also I think tonight dramatically increases the possibility Obama is a one term president. Disagree strongly with that jeff2sf conclusion.

I simply don't understand how getting this bill through, as opposed to having it defeated today, could HURT Obama. I think you underestimate (which seems to be a popular phrase on here from supporters and protesteres) how much getting something done was compared to getting nothing done and being seen as having failed despite having majorities in both houses

It's just too early to say one way or the other, I think we're being microwave analysts here. I suspect that the earliest signs will be whether or not tea party attendance increases this April 15th vs. last year (if we can get an accurate reporting), and how the markets react to this. Both are still short term immediate things that could dissipate by 2012, but I think both will indicate the degree of change that should be foreshadowed for this November.

I don't think it's impossible for the economy and unemployment to still look ugly in 2012, though Obama will certainly be able to run on "Yeah, but it's better than it was when I got here, let me keep doing what I'm doing to fix it". If the GOP doesn't win big in November, as you speculate, I think this increases Obama's odds of being a one-termer, because they'll continue to drag him down.

As I admit, I was being glib. Before September or October of 2012, pretty much nothing he does can lock up a nomination because there's always the chance that something bad happens after "locking" up the negotiation.

However, as swish noted and jh conceded, once he decided to really make a stand on HCR, he HAD to get it through, and getting it through was much better than NOT getting it through.

kopphanatic wrote:So every major news outlet(including the one that has been giving these imbeciles an unchallenged platform to speak on and has nothing to gain by reporting the story) is wrong and these Congressmen(who experienced the same treatment again on Sunday) are all liars?

No. I'm saying that they are reporting an uncorroborated story that is sexy and exciting.

jeff2sf wrote:Stop it, Vox. This simply isn't true. Jersey Hoya opposes HCR, no one, not even PTK, thinks he's a racist.

Tea partiers may be different. I am happy to say I don't personally know any Tea partiers (as I'm happy to say I don't know any Moveon.org people).

I'm not saying they are or aren't racists. I'm saying from the get-go the opposition to the idea of people picking up signs and marching was to call them racist, and I'm incredulous about the fact that so many of these claims have been refuted over the past year (for example, Pelosi's carrying on last year about Nazi's). The usual response is an eye roll and a "come on, you seriously think they aren't racists" type comment. It's a foregone conclusion in many people's minds.

As the guy who sits on his chair high above the muddled masses, are you pretending that the left doesn't have a very strong pattern of assigning racism and hate to agendas that they disagree with? A lefty seeing racism and hatred on the right is equivalent to the righty assigning socialism and communism to the left. Neither has greater moral authority or backbone, both are lazy gut-instinct self affirming name-calling tactics.

JH and what people think of him is a red herring, it's never the guy you know, it's always "them". Every time. No one stops to think that maybe extending the same benefit of the doubt to the guy you know might be a good idea to the guy you don't know. I can say personally that I came to realize, when talking to friends, that I'd refer to an argument made by dajafi (for instance) and qualify "No, this guy is smart, I disagree with him but he's got his reasons and they make sense". Well, duh. It struck me that maybe that should extend to other people with his point of view. That hardly applies to a lot of people, we're both elitists in that regard and would have to honestly say we think most people are stupid in terms of what they believe and why. Assigning that to all (or the fallacy of only assigning cred to the "other guy" that essentially agrees with you) is counter productive.

Eh, I'm unconvinced. I think that's the people on the margins. For instance, PTK may really BE a socialist/communist, just like rbm-de may really be a racist. I know plenty of people, and see plenty of people on tv that oppose the health care reform because of cost that aren't racist. You made a statement that to oppose hcr = racist in many people's eyes. I simply don't think it's true. Where I'm still figuring out things is whether or not showing up at a rally and screaming your heart out and getting so worked up about that may indicate you're a racist or simply a loser with too much time on his hands. But I'd be wrestling with the same issue about moveon people possibly being socialists.

john cornyn wants to use parliamentary TRICKS to strike down the whole bill in the senate! oh no, not TRICKS. must be a democRAT (not democratic) party plot

Many health related stocks (hospitals and pharma, especially generics) opened up today in an otherwise flat/down market. So, clearly, the socialists have won.

This racism debate keeps cropping up in the context of opposition to Obama/Democrats/the issue of the moment.

I think now about this what I've always thought: it's almost certainly "in there," but it isn't the primary or driving factor. What I'm dubious about is that anybody is claiming otherwise, e.g. "there's no valid opposition to HCR, just the bleatings of racists."

(I'm pretty much certain that there's "mindless" or at least uninformed opposition, based on misunderstandings of what's in the bill and the usual unreasoning terror of government. But it's not because Obama's black or what have you.)

All that said, if John Lewis says that someone shouted the n-word at him, I'm believing. This is not a guy who does the Sharpton victim thing, and he's suffered for his pigmentation beyond what I think any of us can imagine. Racism doesn't have to be the main or even a major driver of the opposition to be an ugly stain on it.

As the President himself observed, he was black before the election.

I would like to jump to a different conclusion, and say that rather than being racist, all those opposed simply hate poor people.

jeff2sf wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Also I think tonight dramatically increases the possibility Obama is a one term president. Disagree strongly with that jeff2sf conclusion.

I simply don't understand how getting this bill through, as opposed to having it defeated today, could HURT Obama. I think you underestimate (which seems to be a popular phrase on here from supporters and protesteres) how much getting something done was compared to getting nothing done and being seen as having failed despite having majorities in both houses.

If the comparison is between Obama today vs. Obama last spring where maybe he says "We can't do health care yet, have to fix economy", I suppose I could buy that that process weakened him and he's worse off. But Obama today vs Obama last month when the process looked dead? Not even close.

Now I was probably being a bit glib there. Obama's not actually a lock, the economy has to go up and the unemployment rate has to go down. But given I don't view the down cycle as lasting another 2.5 years, I think he's in great shape.

Well I went over the top on the response in saying it dramatically increases his chances of being a one term president, but I do think they went up. In the short term, the defeat of HCR would have been a blow to his ability to get much of anything done, and I think it would have hurt the Dems at the ballot box this fall. Individual Dems in tough districts that took the plunge in voting for the bill might be worse off, but the party will probably be marginally better off on the whole with it passing because the base won't be completely demoralized and they won't look ineffectual.

I don't think losing Congress and losing some short term political clout would be bad for Obama's reelection chances. In fact like Clinton after 1994 I think it would probably help. Option A if the GOP wins back the House is they work together with Obama to make the sort of moderate, bipartisan, incremental reforms that voters love, and he regains his postpartisan credibility and gets reelected. Option B if Republicans get into a position where they have to govern in one or both houses of Congress, and they still reflexively oppose everything Obama does, I think you'll see Obama and the Democrats benefit hugely from that in 2012.

With passage of the bill but most provisions being rolled out in 2013 and later, debate on the issue will play a prominent role in the 2012 campaign. Tax increases and the individual mandate will be unpopular to defend. Obviously Obama will have more popular elements of the program to tout, but I think voters and the media like to cling onto the "controversial" elements of things. I dunno. Could be completely wrong, but depending on who we nominate, I think the health care issue won't be a positive for the Democrats, and it usually is.

As dajafi keeps pointing out, the economy will have more to do with this than I'm giving credit for in my breathless snap judgments, but there's more to a reelection than GDP and unemployment numbers. I think on balance Obama's reelect chances went down last night due to a variety of reasons that I touched on in this meandering, poorly structured post.

jerseyhoya wrote: I think you guys are minimizing how unpopular this bill is and how strong of an issue this is going to be in swing districts.

I think you're missing how very important how the issue is framed is to what people think about it. That is, you're imagining that people actually know what the bill has in it. Trust me, even people whose business it is to know what's in it are acting more on their prejudices about its politics than on the facts about the measure.

Now that the measure has passed, the opportunity improves for talking about what the law may do for people vs all the bull shit spewed by Mitch McConnell, Boehner et al

I think the measure is mediocre to poor. But I think things can be done to get better results with it in place.

jerseyhoya wrote:
With passage of the bill but most provisions being rolled out in 2013 and later, debate on the issue will play a prominent role in the 2012 campaign.

if the dems fail to make the 2012 elections about more immediate/more tangible issues, like financial system change, an improved economy, or success in afganistan, they all deserve to lose their seats, or at very least should parade down pennsylvania ave with rahm emmanuel's head on a pike.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: I think you guys are minimizing how unpopular this bill is and how strong of an issue this is going to be in swing districts.

I think you're missing how very important how the issue is framed is to what people think about it. That is, you're imagining that people actually know what the bill has in it. Trust me, even people whose business it is to know what's in it are acting more on their prejudices about its politics than on the facts about the measure.

Now that the measure has passed, the opportunity improves for talking about what the law may do for people vs all the bull $#@! spewed by Mitch McConnell, Boehner et al

I think the measure is mediocre to poor. But I think things can be done to get better results with it in place.

That might be partially true, but I think most people are pretty comfortable with their uninformed opinion of the bill on both sides. I guess now that something has passed people can get real answers to the what does this mean for me question, but the rolling start dates of the various aspects of the bill will be hanging over the debate.

TenuredVulture wrote:Many health related stocks (hospitals and pharma, especially generics) opened up today in an otherwise flat/down market. So, clearly, the socialists have won.

so does this mean joe scarborough likes it now, or not? i forget which way he was concern trolling

phdave wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:No one cares what David Frum has to say, but I thought this was provocative.

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

Also said this:

if HCR prevails, Republicans need an accountability moment. Jim DeMint/ Rush / Beck etc. ed us to Waterloo all right . Ours.

Dueling Waterloo predictions:

– Bill Kristol compared the passage of the health care bill to Napoleon Bonaparte’s Russia campaign, in which the former dictator was initially victorious but eventually beaten back. Kristol predicts that Obama’s “Waterloo will be November 6, 2012.” [3/22/10]

I can't think of anyone who has been more consistently wrong than Kristol, so I'm looking forward to November 6, 2012.

For old time's sake, Bill said this on April 1, 2003:

On this issue of the Shia in Iraq, I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There’s almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq’s always been very secular.

Jump ahead to 1:05 for a funny question and answer.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KQIWVw2RPA&feature=player_embedded#[/youtube]

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote: I think you guys are minimizing how unpopular this bill is and how strong of an issue this is going to be in swing districts.

I think you're missing how very important how the issue is framed is to what people think about it. That is, you're imagining that people actually know what the bill has in it. Trust me, even people whose business it is to know what's in it are acting more on their prejudices about its politics than on the facts about the measure.

Now that the measure has passed, the opportunity improves for talking about what the law may do for people vs all the bull $#@! spewed by Mitch McConnell, Boehner et al

I think the measure is mediocre to poor. But I think things can be done to get better results with it in place.

I'll admit to not being clear on the timing of implementation, but my open enrollment for health care is right around the election. It will be interesting to see what, if any, impact the pre-existing conditions, children covered to 26, FSA contribution limits, etc. have on expected employee contributions and deductibles. That may have a big influence come November, as it goes right to the pocketbook.

In other words, if you getting something cheaper, it's okay - but otherwise it's not?