Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Is it too soon to be talking 2020?

You forgot the perfect being the enemy of the good and other vacuous statements.
Your a self described numbers oracle. Was it easy to divine the possibility of Trump ripping the tits off the Republican Party in 2016? I doubt it.

Your spinning narratives out of polls which is fine but hardly pragmatism.

Neither is s Pete Peterson obsession over deficits. Most of the time that ‘pragmatism is in service to cutting public goods and services.

I do see that as the next gambit to cutting social security though. Probably a phased in approach with Boomers being left alone but younger generations getting cut out. We’ll see. It’s been a goal of the owner class since WW2.

Your right Jeff. It’s a horrible suggestion and I’m full of shame for suggestion it.
My apologies for anyone who was offended.

We're a bunch of delicate flowers here...

I think we are wagging the dog here on accepting that ACA "went too far and drove the right-wing backlash". Simply because ACA was almost exactly RomneyCare, just with a smaller mandate fine. I think Democrats made a tactical mistake by not just calling it RomneyCare, but in fact it was Republicans who called it ObamaCare just to demonize it. They never complained about RomneyCare.

They made a huge deal about the mandate: An idea of how to add "personal responsibility" right out of the Heritage Foundation. Nope, the main defect of ACA was that Democrats voted for it, and the "the Black Guy" signed it into law. So it had to be bad. The backlash against it was pure Republican recruitment of xenophobia (Barack HUSSEIN Obama) and racism. But ACA was not important. If it had not been passed, it would have been something else.

Remember back when the US recognized only Taiwan as China? That nonsense persisted for years. Then Nixon went to China, and suddenly China was China. But only Nixon could have done it, because if anybody else had, Nixon would have called them a commie! ACA was the same thing. It's only legal if a Republican does it.

Yeah,
I recall stating the Republican Party was more Democratic than the Republican light party and some folks lost their cool.

I keep drawing attention to it and will continue to:

’Election results from the computerized vote counts of the 2020 Michigan Democratic Party presidential primary differed significantly from the results projected by the exit poll conducted by Edison Research and published by CNN at poll’s closing. The large discrepancies greatly exceeded the margin of error for the exit poll projected differences between candidates. In this election candidate Sanders underperformed his exit poll projected proportions by 15.4%. Sanders consequently received 105,000 less votes than projected while others (mainly Biden and Bloomberg) received 111,000 more than projected by the exit poll. Of concern is Michigan’s destruction of the ballot images, that could have been used to greatly facilitate a recount, that were created by their scanners for their counts. This destruction appears to violate both federal and state laws.‘


Nothing to see here...

What was once considered the most reliable of polling and used to predict early election results keeps having swings beyond its historically small margin of error (2%).

Anyone care to guess what the United Nations election monitoring considers rigging with exit polling discrepancies?

Anybody?

Same as they did in 2016 where this same anomoly happened.

Sanders should have been screaming about it this time. Trump was smarter and threatened to burn it down. Republicans backed down.
A fatal flaw of Sanders along with stating he’d support the winner of the primary. He lost all leverage with these people.

I wasn't the least bit offended.
I used to hear that song and wonder how it would feel to hear it if we ever got hit by something almost as monstrous as wartime.
Okay, this might not be as monstrous, but right now the song I hear in my head sounds more like

Chunk, just to clear it up, I wasn't shooting at you with my comment, not nearly. I was just musing about the fact that suddenly David Byrne is coming up short. Maybe if Talking Heads had been around in 1918, he might have written an entirely different song...and by that I measn, vastly different from 1914.

Not at all. In fact, now that I think about it, one of the most compelling scenes in "The Pianist" was where Spielmann is given a loaf of bread and jam by a retreating Nazi officer.



The thing that confounds us about this virus is the fact that it doesn't use a gun and it doesn't wear a uniform.
It doesn't even choose sides.

If only it was a military enemy...peanut butter and groceries would be worth singing about!

‘ “Before the rise of Fascism, both Italy and Germany had a robust social safety net and public services. In Italy, the trains were nationalized, and they ran on time while serving rural villages in 1861. The telecom industry was nationalized in 1901. Phone lines and public telephone services were universally available. In 1908, the life insurance industry was nationalized. For the first time, even poor Italians could ensure that their family could be taken care of if they died a premature death…. In 1934, Nazis outlined their plan to revitalize the German economy. It involved reprivatization of significant industries: railways, public works project, construction, steel, and banking. On top of that, Hitler guaranteed profits for the private sector, and so, many American industrialists and bankers gleefully flocked to Germany to invest. The Nazis had a thorough plan for deregulation….”

The Economy of Evil

Seems Mitch McTurtle can see the handwriting on the wall: "MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN" Which translates as "God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end; You have been weighed and found wanting; Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persian"

So he's urging any Republican-appointed Federal judges to resign before fall so they can be replaced while Republicans are still in control.

Ohio has cancelled their primary today. But voting will go on in Arizona, Illinois and Florida.

As for the ACA, it's the law of the land today, that's fine. But if one studies all the reasons to include all the polls taken at the time of passage and from the 2010 midterms, one can draw only one conclusion. The majority of people weren't ready for upsetting the apple cart, to be thrust out of their comfort zone. Not ready for a complete overhaul of their healthcare system. They were more than willing to do something for the uninsured, but not to have what they were happy or satisfied with healthcare wise put in jeopardy. You can blame this all on the Republicans, perhaps they had a better propaganda machine than the Democrats propaganda machine. Who knows?

Fact is over 90% of Democrats were for the ACA and 90% of Republicans against the ACA and over 90% of each party membership or base voted for their congressional candidates in 2010. Independents, the non-affiliated and far less partisan, the ones each party must convince that their propaganda is right, were averaging the polls in November 2009 when the senate passed it and in March of 2010 when the house passed it came out to independents being against the ACA 54-39%. They weren't ready for it, you could say the Democrats failed in their job to convince them that the ACA would be for the greater good. The Democrats lost the propaganda war.

In November 2010 independents voted for the Republican congressional candidates by a 56-37 margin resulting in a 63 seat pickup for the GOP. In 2006 independents had voted for the Democratic congressional candidates 57-39 and in 2008, once against voted Democratic 52-45.

I study independents, the more or less non-partisans, the non-affiliated, the swing voters if you will. They'll side with the party in power, in this case the party that hold the house until that party does something to make them angry. Then they rebel big time. 2018, 2010, 2006 and 1994 are prime examples of this. As long as things are going smoothly, as long as their boat isn't rocked too much as to fling them in the water, they will stick to the party in power. Throw them into the water, vengeance is mine saith the independent/swing voter.

When a major piece of legislation or one controversial comes up, the party in power needs to ask themselves is this worth it? We can pass this piece of legislation, but that means we're one and done if it angers independents. Or shall we put this controversial piece of legislation on hold until we get more backing from independents, swing voters and proceed to other items in our agenda less controversial, less disrupting, that won't take Americans out of their comfort zone and change the balance of power. For the Democrats, they chose one and done in 2010 followed by six years of basically nothing. Just fighting to retain the ACA and accomplishing nothing else. Their decision and I respect that. I'd done thing differently, but I'm not a democrat. I'm just one of those swing voters. Do something that makes me angry, I'll darn sure vote against you and all of your candidates I can.