2014 Senate race about Obama

[Peter1469]

It is becoming clearer that Obama will be the 2014 Senate race big issue (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014-senate-races-may-be-referendum-on-obama-if-so-democrats-should-worry/2014/02/02/f566ddac-8c1b-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html) despite the attempt by the media and the left (but I repeat myself) to turn income inequality into the big issue.

And that will mean disaster for the democrats in Congress, particularly the Senate. Unfortunately the GOP is barely more competent....


If the 2014 election is a referendum on President Obama, Democrats are in deep trouble.

That’s according to a new state-by-state study of Obama’s job-approval ratings released by Gallup that puts his disapproval rating at over 50 percent in 10 of the 21 states where Democrats are defending Senate seats this fall. In many of those states, Republicans have recruited strong candidates and are preparing to spend big bucks to win the six seats they need to regain the majority.



Obamacare is just the nail in the coffin.

[Green Arrow]

Why is it about Obama? It should be about each Senator or electee and their records.

[Boris The Animal]

Why is it about Obama? It should be about each Senator or electee and their records.It has something to do with the coattail effect. Obama has proven to be probably the most incompetent boob on the face of the Earth and he's about to drag the DemocRATs into a defeat that makes the Seahawks-Broncos game look close.

[Green Arrow]

It has something to do with the coattail effect. Obama has proven to be probably the most incompetent boob on the face of the Earth and he's about to drag the DemocRATs into a defeat that makes the Seahawks-Broncos game look close.

I highly doubt that. Americans are more divided on partisan lines than we have been in the last hundred years. Democrats will still vote Democrat and Republicans will still vote Republican.

[Peter1469]

Why is it about Obama? It should be about each Senator or electee and their records.

That is the way politics works in the US. If Obama was popular my headline would be the same, and the body of the text would be about how the GOP is going to lose a lot of Senate races.

[Cigar]

This could cost Obama his third term :laugh:

[Green Arrow]

That is the way politics works in the US. If Obama was popular my headline would be the same, and the body of the text would be about how the GOP is going to lose a lot of Senate races.

Right. I didn't mean to ask why you're making it about Obama, but rather why, for voters, it's about Obama.

[Green Arrow]

This could cost Obama his third term :laugh:

FDR was the last President (and also first, interestingly enough) to have more than two terms. Unless the constitution is amended again, President Obama doesn't have the option of a third term.

[Peter1469]

Maybe they want the senate to shift hands so Obama has less power.

My general election tactic in Congress is to vote for gridlock.

[Green Arrow]

Maybe they want the senate to shift hands so Obama has less power.

My general election tactic in Congress is to vote for gridlock.

That's why I never vote straight ticket.

[patrickt]

It will certainly be about Obamacare and how senators and representatives voted or say how they would have voted. It will be about the NSA, IRS, ATF, FBI, and DOJ and how the senators and congressmen supported President Obama and AG Holder in those areas. It will be about the former speaker saying we'd have Obamacare if nobody wanted it. It will be about supporting President Obama's desire to fundamentally change America in some way. It will be about the way we grow welfare and increase still further redistribution of wealth.

The leftists are, of course, praying it will be totally partisn.

[Green Arrow]

Obamacare is not going to be a factor for anybody that isn't Republican, I think. It'll take a few elections before people really get the effects and make a decision one way or the other. If it turns out like Republicans expect, most people will naturally view it negatively. If it doesn't, it won't hurt Democrats any and may actually help them, because doubtless Democrats will use its success (something I find doubtful) and Republican fear-mongering in the elections.

It's far more likely that states will avert the damage by taking advantage of Obamacare's co-op provision (about the only thing good about Obamacare), and in those states, the people will know that it was their state co-op, not Obamacare, that improved their healthcare. States like Vermont will end up better off, IMO, as they'll develop a single-payer system.

[Blackrook]

Obamacare is not going to be a factor for anybody that isn't Republican, I think. It'll take a few elections before people really get the effects and make a decision one way or the other. If it turns out like Republicans expect, most people will naturally view it negatively. If it doesn't, it won't hurt Democrats any and may actually help them, because doubtless Democrats will use its success (something I find doubtful) and Republican fear-mongering in the elections.

It's far more likely that states will avert the damage by taking advantage of Obamacare's co-op provision (about the only thing good about Obamacare), and in those states, the people will know that it was their state co-op, not Obamacare, that improved their healthcare. States like Vermont will end up better off, IMO, as they'll develop a single-payer system.
I am going to write a note to myself that you are very bad at making predictions because you are completely wrong about almost everything you said.

[Max Rockatansky]

Why is it about Obama? It should be about each Senator or electee and their records.

It's about the Democratic agenda. A Democratic President is often the leader of the party. Since President Obama's leadership style is laissez faire, this has produced problems across the board for the nation.

My problem with Obama isn't that he's black or even a Democrat, but because he's an ineffective leader. This is why, in many respects, I think we are best served with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, albeit a fairly evenly divided one to prevent both filibusters and steamrolling.

[Green Arrow]

I am going to write a note to myself that you are very bad at making predictions because you are completely wrong about almost everything you said.

Actually, generally my predictions are pretty accurate, but I don't particularly care if you agree or not. I don't know who you are, I just know that you're annoying.

[Max Rockatansky]

Obamacare is not going to be a factor for anybody that isn't Republican, I think. It'll take a few elections before people really get the effects and make a decision one way or the other. If it turns out like Republicans expect, most people will naturally view it negatively. If it doesn't, it won't hurt Democrats any and may actually help them, because doubtless Democrats will use its success (something I find doubtful) and Republican fear-mongering in the elections.

It's far more likely that states will avert the damage by taking advantage of Obamacare's co-op provision (about the only thing good about Obamacare), and in those states, the people will know that it was their state co-op, not Obamacare, that improved their healthcare. States like Vermont will end up better off, IMO, as they'll develop a single-payer system.

Disagreed that it won't be a factor and, despite your initial statement, you seem to think so too. Most people can't see past their own nose, so any negative effects they are feeling now not "a few elections" from the present will come into play in the voting booth. If there weren't problems there'd be no need for states to "avert the damage".

Many Middle Class Americans like myself are feeling the adverse effects ACA in higher medical costs. This too, will come into play over the next "few elections". The Democrats are close to losing the Senate and I wouldn't want to bet any money on the outcome either way. Too many variables.

[Akula]

It's about the Democratic agenda. A Democratic President is often the leader of the party. Since President Obama's leadership style is laissez faire, this has produced problems across the board for the nation.

My problem with Obama isn't that he's black or even a Democrat, but because he's an ineffective leader. This is why, in many respects, I think we are best served with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, albeit a fairly evenly divided one to prevent both filibusters and steamrolling.

Laissez faire
1
: a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights

2
: a philosophy or practice characterized by a usually deliberate abstention from direction or interference especially with individual freedom of choice and action

I disagree with his style being "laissez faire".
He has worked very hard to bring about the "fundamental change" he promised.
It's the perfect execution of the Cloward-Pivens strategy. He knows exactly what he is doing.

[Max Rockatansky]

I disagree with his style being "laissez faire".
He has worked very hard to bring about the "fundamental change" he promised.
It's the perfect execution of the Cloward-Pivens strategy. He knows exactly what he is doing.

http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/f/laissez-faire-leadership.htm

Laissez-faire leadership, also known as delegative leadership, is a type of leadership style (http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm) in which leaders are hands-off and allow group members to make the decisions. Researchers have found that this is generally the leadership style that leads to the lowest productivity among group members

His style is changing after multiple administrative disasters like the ACA bill itself and, of course, the rollout. If you recall, he told Congress to make the bill and send it to him. Pelosi shut the door on the Republicans and did it without their input.

[lynn]

If you think a Republican is going to cancel Obamacare, think again. The government stands to earn a lot of money off this mandate so it is not going anywhere. What will happen is Republican states will now expand Medicaid when they get their political funding to expand it.

[Green Arrow]

Disagreed that it won't be a factor and, despite your initial statement, you seem to think so too. Most people can't see past their own nose, so any negative effects they are feeling now not "a few elections" from the present will come into play in the voting booth. If there weren't problems there'd be no need for states to "avert the damage".

Many Middle Class Americans like myself are feeling the adverse effects ACA in higher medical costs. This too, will come into play over the next "few elections". The Democrats are close to losing the Senate and I wouldn't want to bet any money on the outcome either way. Too many variables.

Not so. I'm saying it won't be a factor for a few elections, and part of that is because states will be mitigating the inevitable disaster with their own systems. That the system will fall apart is inevitable and, in my opinion, inarguable. When is another matter entirely. If you cut down a tree, it doesn't immediately appear on the ground. It falls, usually fairly slowly.

[patrickt]

Actually, generally my predictions are pretty accurate, but I don't particularly care if you agree or not. I don't know who you are, I just know that you're annoying.

That's one of the advantages of rewriting history.

[Green Arrow]

That's one of the advantages of rewriting history.

Oh? And what history have I rewritten, patrick?

[Max Rockatansky]

Not so. I'm saying it won't be a factor for a few elections, and part of that is because states will be mitigating the inevitable disaster with their own systems. That the system will fall apart is inevitable and, in my opinion, inarguable. When is another matter entirely. If you cut down a tree, it doesn't immediately appear on the ground. It falls, usually fairly slowly.

The inevitable disaster of Obamacare? That's my point.

What specific system are you addressing in which it is inevitable to "fall apart"?

[Green Arrow]

The inevitable disaster of Obamacare? That's my point.

What specific system are you addressing in which it is inevitable to "fall apart"?

How do you mean?

[Max Rockatansky]

How do you mean?

You say system instead of Obamacare/ACA. I was wondering if you were writing about that, the healthcare system in general or the nation as a whole. We have several people on this and other forums who think the USA is on the verge of collapsing into Civil War, fracturing into smaller nations or worse.

[Green Arrow]

You say system instead of Obamacare/ACA. I was wondering if you were writing about that, the healthcare system in general or the nation as a whole. We have several people on this and other forums who think the USA is on the verge of collapsing into Civil War, fracturing into smaller nations or worse.

Ah. I was referring to Obamacare when I said "system." When I mentioned the state systems, I was referring to the alternative healthcare systems many states are adopting as a result of Obamacare's co-op provision.

[Max Rockatansky]

Ah. I was referring to Obamacare when I said "system." When I mentioned the state systems, I was referring to the alternative healthcare systems many states are adopting as a result of Obamacare's co-op provision.

Thanks. My statement was simply confirming that your statements show Obamacare to be highly flawed.

[Green Arrow]

Thanks. My statement was simply confirming that your statements show Obamacare to be highly flawed.

Of course. I've never attempted to debate that point. I've always been an opponent of Obamacare. I'm just saying I don't think people will truly see the ill effects of it early enough to impact their decision in this year's election.

[jillian]

It is becoming clearer that Obama will be the 2014 Senate race big issue (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014-senate-races-may-be-referendum-on-obama-if-so-democrats-should-worry/2014/02/02/f566ddac-8c1b-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html) despite the attempt by the media and the left (but I repeat myself) to turn income inequality into the big issue.

And that will mean disaster for the democrats in Congress, particularly the Senate. Unfortunately the GOP is barely more competent....



Obamacare is just the nail in the coffin.

for some reason, the right thinks it only has to yell "obama obama obama" and can act as insanely as it wants.

funny that.

[Max Rockatansky]

for some reason, the right thinks it only has to yell "obama obama obama" and can act as insanely as it wants.

funny that.

Only the far right and, yes, it's funny, but also sad. Five years of simply being obstructionist and floating stupid ideas like Birther and attempting to repeal an act in which there is ZERO chance of repealing are detrimental not only to the Republican party, but also to our nation.

[Akula]

Only the far right and, yes, it's funny, but also sad. Five years of simply being obstructionist and floating stupid ideas like Birther and attempting to repeal an act in which there is ZERO chance of repealing are detrimental not only to the Republican party, but also to our nation.
What act are you referring to that can't be repealed? ACA?

Why can't it be repealed?

[Peter1469]

Or the left can say if you don't agree with the president 100% you are a racist.


for some reason, the right thinks it only has to yell "obama obama obama" and can act as insanely as it wants.

funny that.

[Green Arrow]

Or the left can say if you don't agree with the president 100% you are a racist.

Or "Bush."

[Mainecoons]

Exactly why the direct election of Senators needs to be dumped. The Founders had it right the first time, this is just something else the progressives have screwed up to the detriment of the nation.

[Max Rockatansky]

What act are you referring to that can't be repealed? ACA?

Why can't it be repealed?

The Republicans don't have the votes to overturn a Presidential veto. So why try to repeal it 45+ times? For a group that allegedly wants to save taxpayer dollars, they've wasted a lot of time and money on political posturing.

[Akula]

The Republicans don't have the votes to overturn a Presidential veto. So why try to repeal it 45+ times? For a group that allegedly wants to save taxpayer dollars, they've wasted a lot of time and money on political posturing.

Any law can be repealed. Eventually.

[Max Rockatansky]

Any law can be repealed. Eventually.

Sure it can. Nevertheless, the Republican party has pissed up a rope for 5 years wasting taxpayer dollars and taxpayer time in the process.

I think those taxpayer dollars and time would have been better spent working on achievable goals such as fixing ACA instead of playing politics on your and my dime.

[zelmo1234]

Sure it can. Nevertheless, the Republican party has pissed up a rope for 5 years wasting taxpayer dollars and taxpayer time in the process.

I think those taxpayer dollars and time would have been better spent working on achievable goals such as fixing ACA instead of playing politics on your and my dime.

Just what can be fixed about the ACA?

What people don't realize is that it is really a taxations bill and has nothing to do with healthcare, Never did!

I believe that if the business mandates take effect this year, both parties will be running on the repeal of the ACA!

Hilary if she makes it to the nomination will in fact have not only the economic issues that are likely to still be in place, but she has some issues that cause doubt in leadership. and if the ACA is still 70% unpopular?

She will have no choice!

If the ACA is repealed. the Obama legacy will be

#1 the killing of Osama

#2 The un-stabilization of the middle east and proliferation of nucs to Iran.

#3 10 Billion in new American national debt

#4 the president that had fewer people working when he left office than when he started.

Securing him to unseat jimmy Carter as the worst President ever!

And it is not that he is a bad person, he is just not, nor has he ever been a leader!

[Akula]

Sure it can. Nevertheless, the Republican party has pissed up a rope for 5 years wasting taxpayer dollars and taxpayer time in the process.

I think those taxpayer dollars and time would have been better spent working on achievable goals such as fixing ACA instead of playing politics on your and my dime.

I guess many people aren't comfortable with the government running healthcare...and GM...and the insurance industry...giving wall street bailouts...quantitative easing...etc...

Just because something takes a long time to overcome doesn't mean it isn't worth it.
Not everything the govt does is wonderful and good for the people. Statists see things differently.

[Max Rockatansky]

I guess many people aren't comfortable with the government running healthcare...and GM...and the insurance industry...giving wall street bailouts...quantitative easing...etc...

Just because something takes a long time to overcome doesn't mean it isn't worth it.
Not everything the govt does is wonderful and good for the people. Statists see things differently.

1) I'm not comfortable with government running healthcare either, but it is what it is. FWIW, I'm also not comfortable with the rising costs of basic healthcare.

2) Long time to overcome? Try useless efforts. We're not talking about the Republicans chipping away at a wall like Andy Dufresne in "The Shawshank Redemption". We'll talking about a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and time on what is completely political posturing. USELESS EFFORT. Not chipping away. USELESS. Worse, it makes the Republicans look insane.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

[Akula]

1) I'm not comfortable with government running healthcare either, but it is what it is. FWIW, I'm also not comfortable with the rising costs of basic healthcare.

2) Long time to overcome? Try useless efforts. We're not talking about the Republicans chipping away at a wall like Andy Dufresne in "The Shawshank Redemption". We'll talking about a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and time on what is completely political posturing. USELESS EFFORT. Not chipping away. USELESS. Worse, it makes the Republicans look insane.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

So if a bad government policy/law is in place it is no use to try to change it. It's just a waste of time and money... Ok...fair enough.

What if people (in the past) said that "since slavery is a legal practice there is no use trying to fight it?"...then there's womens suffrage...same thing...prohibition...same thing....What if the colonists took that attitude in 1776?

[Peter1469]

I don't think that they can fix it.


Sure it can. Nevertheless, the Republican party has pissed up a rope for 5 years wasting taxpayer dollars and taxpayer time in the process.

I think those taxpayer dollars and time would have been better spent working on achievable goals such as fixing ACA instead of playing politics on your and my dime.

[Akula]

I don't think that they can fix it.

I think you're right. This govt has become so infiltrated and corrupted by "special" interests and anti american/anti white policies that at this point the system is broken.

This system is so warped, broken and corrupted that it can't be used to fix itself.
We'll never be able to "vote" our way out of the mess this country has become....the answer to 2014 is 1776.

[zelmo1234]

1) I'm not comfortable with government running healthcare either, but it is what it is. FWIW, I'm also not comfortable with the rising costs of basic healthcare.

2) Long time to overcome? Try useless efforts. We're not talking about the Republicans chipping away at a wall like Andy Dufresne in "The Shawshank Redemption". We'll talking about a complete waste of taxpayer dollars and time on what is completely political posturing. USELESS EFFORT. Not chipping away. USELESS. Worse, it makes the Republicans look insane.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

Unfortunately the law has a 65% unpopularity rating, and that means that putting Democrats on the line time and time again supporting it is a political move. Remember that republicans voted 45 times to repeal, however that is 45 times that democrats voted to support!

It is not like the President is willing to work on issue with congress, His policy of my way or the highway has the House unable to do anything of meaning!

If they actually take the Senate this year it will largely be because of these votes and the unpopularity of the ACA and Obama

[zelmo1234]

I don't think that they can fix it.

I think that everyone knows that hey can't fix it!

Especially the Democrats

However if they can get the Republicans to try, then they can share the blame and with a willing media it would become the republicans fault that it failed

[Max Rockatansky]

Unfortunately the law has a 65% unpopularity rating, and that means that putting Democrats on the line time and time again supporting it is a political move.

Chipping away at the law by fixing what can be fixed is not the same as condoning it. The Republicans can take a positive approach by passing or attempting to pass corrective measures while concurrently pointing out the remaining flaws in the system.

Their current approach is that of back-of-the-room bad boys throwing spitballs at the teacher while offering only to return to the status quo as their only recommendation.

[zelmo1234]

Chipping away at the law by fixing what can be fixed is not the same as condoning it. The Republicans can take a positive approach by passing or attempting to pass corrective measures while concurrently pointing out the remaining flaws in the system.

Their current approach is that of back-of-the-room bad boys throwing spitballs at the teacher while offering only to return to the status quo as their only recommendation.

What is it that you think can be fixed?

[zelmo1234]

Chipping away at the law by fixing what can be fixed is not the same as condoning it. The Republicans can take a positive approach by passing or attempting to pass corrective measures while concurrently pointing out the remaining flaws in the system.

Their current approach is that of back-of-the-room bad boys throwing spitballs at the teacher while offering only to return to the status quo as their only recommendation.

Do we really have to address the Republicans don't have a plan issue again???

They did have a plan it was not based in government spending, and programs but in giving people freedom and opening the markets to more competition

It has now been scored by the CBO to reduce cost farther than the ACA and insure more people.

Just because it does not create massive government, does not mean it is not a plan

[Peter1469]

The GOP should STFU over Obamacare until they have a lock over the Senate. Otherwise their name will get attached to the mess called Obamacare.


Chipping away at the law by fixing what can be fixed is not the same as condoning it. The Republicans can take a positive approach by passing or attempting to pass corrective measures while concurrently pointing out the remaining flaws in the system.

Their current approach is that of back-of-the-room bad boys throwing spitballs at the teacher while offering only to return to the status quo as their only recommendation.

[Max Rockatansky]

I don't think that they can fix it.

Some parts cannot, but in a program 11,00 pages long does anyone here really believe there is no room for improvement?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/10/23/affordable-care-act-pages-long/3174499/

Along with partisan sniping, Washington, D.C. sure creates a lot of paper. And the Affordable Care Act is really adding to the pile. The nearly 11,000 pages of regulations for this one law alone would reach three feet high if you made the mistake of printing it.

Some of the details of the law are far more pertinent than others for consumers. Put simply, you need to be insured or face a penalty starting in 2015, you can't be denied insurance or face a wait to get it because you have a pre-existing condition and if you're a senior citizen, there will be a cap on how much more you can be charged for health insurance than a young person.

[Max Rockatansky]

Do we really have to address the Republicans don't have a plan issue again???

They did have a plan it was not based in government spending, and programs but in giving people freedom and opening the markets to more competition

In other words, exactly the same thing we had before Obama. If the Republicans were serious about correcting health care problems in the US, why was nothing done during Bush's 2000-2008 term?