No.

God no.

I really don't get worked up over voter turnout.

jerseyhoya wrote:No.

God no.

I really don't get worked up over voter turnout.

So you wouldn't like to see the numbers? Instead of a few crusty old politicized judges -- let's find out the numbers? 300 mill Americans, let's say 150 mil voted and it was like 100mil to 50mil for one side or the other -- that wouldn't be a good thing to know?

As for voting -- I've never understood - especially now when we are in the technology age -- why we can't make the voting process unified nationally - and take the human (corruption) angle out. Why is our voting for a mere 12 hours on a lousy Tuesday? You don't think a country of 300 mil couldn't manage to support more than 1 day or put it on a weekend at least, or give people a way to do it from wherever they are, my stepping in to a booth with a machine that is universal. I'm in an airport in Oklahoma, and I can step in to a booth and see the national as well as my State issues and get my voting done.

you wouldn't support maximizing participation and accuracy?, why not?

Arkansas has "early voting" where you can cast a vote in the two weeks before election day. There aren't many polling places--in my county, you can only early vote at the county courthouse until election day, where you can vote at a nearby polling place.

Then Reid turned his attention to Gillibrand, saying something about how "many senators are known for many things," according to a source. He added, "We in the senate refer to Sen. Gillibrand as the 'hottest' member."

Harry Reid everybody!

Philly the Kid wrote:I'm in an airport in Oklahoma, and I can step in to a booth and see the national as well as my State issues and get my voting done.

There's an app for that.

Seriously though, I agree with you. It is hard to imagine why some places are still using machines that people voted for FDR on when we, as a society, are able to watch entire TV shows right on our phones or search for, download and read a book without ever leaving your beach chair. Why can't something like ProxyVote be set up for political elections? This kind of thing could help boost the economy as well by creating a whole industry of businesses and people developing and supporting the infrastructure for computer-based voting.

You would probably still have to have local voting stations for those people who don't have access to a computer but you could probably cut the number in half or something which would save various political entities (i.e. municipalities, counties, states) money.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Then Reid turned his attention to Gillibrand, saying something about how "many senators are known for many things," according to a source. He added, "We in the senate refer to Sen. Gillibrand as the 'hottest' member."

Harry Reid everybody!

I guess that beats being know as the ugliest member. Reid's new nickname is Roger Sterling.

traderdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Then Reid turned his attention to Gillibrand, saying something about how "many senators are known for many things," according to a source. He added, "We in the senate refer to Sen. Gillibrand as the 'hottest' member."

Harry Reid everybody!

I guess that beats being know as the ugliest member. Reid's new nickname is Roger Sterling.

Except Reid ain't funny.

I was thinking last night about how the future of the health care law could be read as (not to be too dramatic) the future of American politics itself.

Here's a measure that provides for a massive expansion of coverage to people in need and cost savings ranging from minor to game-changing, depending on the course of implementation. Within the context of those goals, it's business-friendly to a fault. Each state has a great deal of leeway in setting up its exchanges and other provisions. It's the somewhat more conservative version of what Romney did in Massachusetts.

And the Republicans, who never engaged in good faith in making the policy, want to kill itfor reasons they can't even coherently articulate.

For starters, Republicans say they will try to withhold money that federal officials need to administer and enforce the law. They know that even if they managed to pass a wholesale repeal, Mr. Obama would veto it.

"They’ll get not one dime from us,” the House Republican leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, told The Cincinnati Enquirer recently. “Not a dime. There is no fixing this.”

Republicans also intend to go after specific provisions. Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a senior Republican on the Finance Committee, has introduced a bill that would eliminate a linchpin of the new law: a requirement for many employers to offer insurance to employees or pay a tax penalty. Many Republicans also want to repeal the law’s requirement for most Americans to obtain health insurance.

Alternatively, Republicans say, they will try to prevent aggressive enforcement of the requirements by limiting money available to the Internal Revenue Service, which would collect the tax penalties.

Republicans say they will also try to scale back the expansion of Medicaid if states continue to object to the costs of adding millions of people to the rolls of the program for low-income people.

In addition, Republican lawmakers may try to undo some cuts in Medicare, the program for older Americans. Many want to restore money to Medicare’s managed-care program and clip the wings of a new agency empowered to recommend cuts in Medicare. Recommendations from the agency, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, could go into effect automatically unless blocked by subsequent legislative action.

They claim to want to keep the candy provisions (no discrimination by insurers for pre-existing conditions) while cutting the veggies (individual mandate) that pay for the candy. They boisterously oppose Medicare cost savings less draconian and intrusive than what they put forward a few years back. And they killed provisions that would have saved far more money--the public option, early Medicare buy-in--probably because they knew those components of the reform would be popular and effective, undermining the whole "gummit's no good, so let us run it" argument.

And it might work. I don't think they'll get outright repeal, but between their political skill, the Democrats' gutlessness and the nature of how policy debates are covered, they might manage to de-fund it and make it dead on the books. What a triumph that would be: tens of millions still without health coverage, no regime for controlling costs, but at least we'd be saved from some ignoramus's misguided fear of rampant, icky socialism.

Raese is +3 according to PPP over Manchin

This being a special election is maybe as strategically stupid from the Dems perspective as us nominating O'Donnell

ND
AR
IN
PA
CO
IL
NV
WI
WV
CA
WA
CT

WA looks like it is going in the wrong direction, and I'm not sure CT is ever actually going to be a race. The majority is still in play though with the other 10 seats.

New Fox/POR Poll on Delaware Senate seat has Coons +15 over O'Donnell. Same poll indicates that Castle would be +15 over Coons. Genius.

SQUIRE

Adding: if health care reform goes down, I have trouble seeing how it ever comes up again given the politics and the coming budget crisis. The whole notion of social insurance and a safety net might well follow.

jerseyhoya wrote:Raese is +3 according to PPP over Manchin

This being a special election is maybe as strategically stupid from the Dems perspective as us nominating O'Donnell

ND
AR
IN
PA
CO
IL
NV
WI
WV
CA
WA
CT

WA looks like it is going in the wrong direction, and I'm not sure CT is ever actually going to be a race. The majority is still in play though with the other 10 seats.

I'm ready for a GOP Congress, but I really wish it could happen without Feingold losing his seat. I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but he is the type of Senator I can appreciate even while disagreeing.

What the hell would a gop congress do, besides bloviate? I guess thats what people want. Lets shut down government again, too! It suck at everything, amirite peoples?!

I give up. Im voting republican now just to see what crazy ass crap they try and pull. Im becoming a masochist. Lets keep dadt in place, lets pull the rug out from 50 million uninsured and millions underinsured. Lets stop wall st reform. I want to table everything and just cut taxes. Everything will work out.

See everyone in a year!!!!

Do what they always do. Completely destroy the government, and then use that as an excuse to say "Government sucks, its broken". Then sell everyone and everything to the highest corporate bidder.

Go ahead and vote GOP. Just don't complain when unemployment is around 15% in two years and your social security and medicare is gone. This country deserves everything it gets.

I think we should give all of the House and the Senate tasers and let them go to town on each other at the National Mall.

kopphanatic wrote:Do what they always do. Completely destroy the government, and then use that as an excuse to say "Government sucks, its broken". Then sell everyone and everything to the highest corporate bidder.

Go ahead and vote GOP. Just don't complain when unemployment is around 15% in two years and your social security and medicare is gone. This country deserves everything it gets.

Unemployment of 15%? I don't think a Congress, actively trying to do that, has it within its means to accomplish that.

I'm not thrilled about a GOP Congress, but the numbers are with the Dems now and they can't get DADT passed (for example). It's not clear to me how great they are.

Because the other party is acting like a spoiled two-year old and blocking everything that comes through. This goes beyond the idea of a "loyal opposition". These clowns are all about gaining and maintaining power. They have no interest in actually serving the needs of the people that elect them.

jeff2sf wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:Do what they always do. Completely destroy the government, and then use that as an excuse to say "Government sucks, its broken". Then sell everyone and everything to the highest corporate bidder.

Go ahead and vote GOP. Just don't complain when unemployment is around 15% in two years and your social security and medicare is gone. This country deserves everything it gets.

Unemployment of 15%? I don't think a Congress, actively trying to do that, has it within its means to accomplish that.

I'm not thrilled about a GOP Congress, but the numbers are with the Dems now and they can't get DADT passed (for example). It's not clear to me how great they are.

you mean the bill which will be held up by the gop? That one? I know youre a crusading 'centrist' but you cant even see whats been going on? They get one 'centrist' jerk like nelson to go their way, then get a ton of concessions or get something tabled. Oh boy

Rev_Beezer wrote:I think we should give all of the House and the Senate tasers and let them go to town on each other at the National Mall.

Before doing that, drop the senate/house health insurance. Gotta reign in unnecessary spending.