Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Link

By pointing to Part D's failures, you're making an argument that the federal government cannot effectively and cost effectively provide healthcare services.

jerseyhoya wrote:

One recent poll, conducted by Rutgers University, showed that 74 percent of likely voters along the Jersey Shore are supporting him.

The backlash is ferocious.

I think most people understand they're doing everything they can, it's just a terrible situation.

jerseyhoya wrote:It isn't even a poor disaster response. It's just less than perfect (though a tremendous amount of progress has been made). Lots of people lost everything, and most of the disappointment is with insurance companies rather than the state, but you can't undo a lot of the damage.

To be honest I'm not even sure what we code Jersey Shore to be at the poll (I think Monmouth/Ocean/Atlantic/Cape May), but whatever it is, a Republican candidate running statewide in New Jersey hasn't won 74% of the vote in a single county in any statewide race since 1985. GHWB getting 72% in Sussex in 1998 is the only time a Republican has broken 70% in any county, and Christie is set to do it along the entire shore region. Clearly, they hate how he's handled things.

JFLNYC wrote:Judging politicains' effectiveness by their poll number seems a perilous route for Republicans.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

One recent poll, conducted by Rutgers University, showed that 74 percent of likely voters along the Jersey Shore are supporting him.

The backlash is ferocious.

I think most people understand they're doing everything they can, it's just a terrible situation.

There's a lot under the covers though--first, all the Shore counties are at least Republican leaning. Second, while there are some lowish income areas along the shore, some of the hardest hit areas are relatively affluent and I'd assume many of those people have substantial resources to deal with whatever they need to deal with. The north coast of Monmouth County might be one exception. I guess what you could call the "Bayshore" area--Cheesequake, Cliffwood Beach, South River, etc.) were hard hit as well, but that's Middlesex County, and not really considered the Shore. Finally, a lot of lower income people haven't moved back--how would the survey count them?

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It isn't even a poor disaster response. It's just less than perfect (though a tremendous amount of progress has been made). Lots of people lost everything, and most of the disappointment is with insurance companies rather than the state, but you can't undo a lot of the damage.

To be honest I'm not even sure what we code Jersey Shore to be at the poll (I think Monmouth/Ocean/Atlantic/Cape May), but whatever it is, a Republican candidate running statewide in New Jersey hasn't won 74% of the vote in a single county in any statewide race since 1985. GHWB getting 72% in Sussex in 1998 is the only time a Republican has broken 70% in any county, and Christie is set to do it along the entire shore region. Clearly, they hate how he's handled things.

The article linked clearly stated that Christie could be pressuring insurance companies and debt collectors to take it easy on those effected, did it not? Seems like Christie is passing the buck.

traderdave wrote:Aasif Mandvi gets a guy "fired":

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/republican-pre ... 57019.html


Good thing there is no further need for the Voting Rights Act; right, John Roberts?

“When a n—– can use the word n—– and it not be considered racist, that’s the utmost racism in the world, and it’s hypocrisy,” he told me, a reporter calling to see if he’d been unfairly branded a racist.

Yelton said Republicans had lost an opportunity to use his statements as proof that they are open to all views.

“They can turn it into a positive if they want to,” said Yelton, 66. “The party does not try to control the speech of individuals. That’s the point they could have made. You have to let people have an opinion.”

jerseyhoya wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Judging politicains' effectiveness by their poll number seems a perilous route for Republicans.

Whether someone is going to vote for you is probably the best way to measure whether people think you're being helpful on their behalf or they think you're breaking promises to them/not doing a good job.

jerseyhoya wrote:

SK790 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:It isn't even a poor disaster response. It's just less than perfect (though a tremendous amount of progress has been made). Lots of people lost everything, and most of the disappointment is with insurance companies rather than the state, but you can't undo a lot of the damage.

To be honest I'm not even sure what we code Jersey Shore to be at the poll (I think Monmouth/Ocean/Atlantic/Cape May), but whatever it is, a Republican candidate running statewide in New Jersey hasn't won 74% of the vote in a single county in any statewide race since 1985. GHWB getting 72% in Sussex in 1998 is the only time a Republican has broken 70% in any county, and Christie is set to do it along the entire shore region. Clearly, they hate how he's handled things.

The article linked clearly stated that Christie could be pressuring insurance companies and debt collectors to take it easy on those effected, did it not? Seems like Christie is passing the buck.

It didn't say whether him writing letters would be effective. If they thought it would help and was a reasonable thing to do, I'm sure they'd be doing it. Not really sure how that's passing the buck in any case.

The governor’s office noted that $8 billion in federal aid had already been distributed, and that the administration had established 17 federally approved assistance programs for victims. In answering the criticism at a hearing on Tuesday, his office said that 100 homeowners, out of 4,100 approved for rebuilding grants, had signed contracts with builders, suggesting that the logjam was slowly easing.

He set high expectations for recovery, initially promising that the shore would be open by Memorial Day, then pushing it to the Fourth of July, and only more recently saying that recovery would take 18 to 24 months. For months, some storm victims have hounded him on Twitter, complaining with hashtags like #redtape and saying that the shore is #notokay, despite the images of the rebuilt boardwalks on television.

Criticism of the governor crystallized this summer around the “Stronger Than the Storm” ads, intended to encourage tourism. The Asbury Park Press reported in August that the firm hired to run the campaign, a lobbying and public affairs company led by a prominent Democratic fund-raiser who had recently brought on well-connected Republicans, had been chosen over an advertising firm that had bid 40 percent less but that did not propose using the governor’s family in the spots. The firm chosen then hired an advertising agency that already worked for state agencies.

jerseyhoya wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

One recent poll, conducted by Rutgers University, showed that 74 percent of likely voters along the Jersey Shore are supporting him.

The backlash is ferocious.

I think most people understand they're doing everything they can, it's just a terrible situation.

There's a lot under the covers though--first, all the Shore counties are at least Republican leaning. Second, while there are some lowish income areas along the shore, some of the hardest hit areas are relatively affluent and I'd assume many of those people have substantial resources to deal with whatever they need to deal with. The north coast of Monmouth County might be one exception. I guess what you could call the "Bayshore" area--Cheesequake, Cliffwood Beach, South River, etc.) were hard hit as well, but that's Middlesex County, and not really considered the Shore. Finally, a lot of lower income people haven't moved back--how would the survey count them?

Well sure, we'll see what happens in a few weeks. The poll could be wrong (note: this is the same pool of respondents who had Booker beating Lonegan by 22, so it's already been wrong once!). Subsamples have higher margins for error, and people who used to live in those counties presumably would count elsewhere, though a lot of people who are out of their houses are renting nearby. But it's my sense most people who've been affected think he and the state have done a pretty good job given the circumstances, at least going off of people I know. A lot of people are still displaced or suffering from the effects in other ways, and some subset of them are probably not pleased with Christie or the state, and some further subset of them probably have legitimate grips, but with such a big catastrophe not everything's gonna be perfect. His passion, energy and focus on working with national figures and local leaders on fixing things that were broken are clear as day to anyone paying attention.

jerseyhoya wrote:The comparison of Christie on Sandy to Obama on healthcare.gov is beyond laughable. Healthcare.gov is the website that the Obama administration created to help facilitate the enactment of its signature policy achievement of its first term. They set the parameters/deadlines/objectives. It was all voluntary and their idea. Sandy wasn't Chris Christie's policy brainchild. It was a catastrophic, once in a generation type storm that destroyed a big chunk of the state. Running into problems in responding to a cataclysmic outside event is different than not living up to basic expectations from your own law. When you are the person that starts the ball rolling on a program, you own subsequent difficulties in a way that someone reacting to an unexpected natural disaster does not.

And the shore was open by Memorial Day, although it will take years for it to be back to normal. It was important for him to keep pushing a positive line to get people down there visiting to help out the storeowners and everyone else who relies on Summer tourism to make their living. If you went down this summer, chances are things were things were different than in the past depending on what beach you go to, but most of the stores were open and the ocean was still there. Huge gulf between 'open' and 'fully recovered'.

jerseyhoya wrote:Sandy wasn't Chris Christie's policy brainchild. It was a catastrophic, once in a generation type storm that destroyed a big chunk of the state. Running into problems in responding to a cataclysmic outside event is different than not living up to basic expectations from your own law.

CalvinBall wrote:i think we covered it but can someone talk about blue cross dropping 45 percent of their policy holders in the philly area?