T1B

Mustang wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:I'd fully endorse an independent or a Libertarian... 'cept for that pesky issue of his last name.

But...

1. We're going to pass a health care plan
2. Written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it,
3. Passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,
4. Signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes,
5. With funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,
6. Overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
7. Financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What possibly could go wrong?

Genius. One of the simplest, best approaches I've seen to this issue. Will they run you out of Oregon for this kind of thinking?

Massachusetts: 'Bottom has fallen out' of Coakley's polls; Dems prepare to explain defeat, protect Obama
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
01/15/10 7:10 AM EST




Here in Massachusetts, as well as in Washington, a growing sense of gloom is setting in among Democrats about the fortunes of Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley. "I have heard that in the last two days the bottom has fallen out of her poll numbers," says one well-connected Democratic strategist. In her own polling, Coakley is said to be around five points behind Republican Scott Brown. "If she's not six or eight ahead going into the election, all the intensity is on the other side in terms of turnout," the Democrat says. "So right now, she is destined to lose."

Intensifying the gloom, the Democrat says, is the fact that the same polls showing Coakley falling behind also show President Obama with a healthy approval rating in the state. "With Obama at 60 percent in Massachusetts, this shouldn't be happening, but it is," the Democrat says.

Given those numbers, some Democrats, eager to distance Obama from any electoral failure, are beginning to compare Coakley to Creigh Deeds, the losing Democratic candidate in the Virginia governor's race last year. Deeds ran such a lackluster campaign, Democrats say, that his defeat could be solely attributed to his own shortcomings, and should not be seen as a referendum on President Obama's policies or those of the national Democratic party.

The same sort of thinking is emerging in Massachusetts. "This is a Creigh Deeds situation," the Democrat says. "I don't think it says that the Obama agenda is a problem. I think it says, 1) that she's a terrible candidate, 2) that she ran a terrible campaign, 3) that the climate is difficult but she should have been able to overcome it, and 4) that Democrats beware -- you better run good campaigns, or you're going to lose."

With the election still four days away, Democrats are still hoping that "something could happen" to change the dynamics of the race. But until that thing happens, the situation as it exists today explains Barack Obama's decision not to travel to Massachusetts to campaign for Coakley. "If the White House thinks she can win, Obama will be there," the Democrat says. "If they don't think she can win, he won't be there." For national Democrats, the task is now to insulate Obama against any suggestion that a Coakley defeat would be a judgment on the president's agenda and performance in office.

The private talk among Democrats is also reflected in some public polling on the race. Late Thursday, we learned the results of a Suffolk University poll showing Brown in the lead by four points, 50 percent to 46 percent. That poll showed Obama with a 55 percent approval rating. Also on Thursday, two of Washington's leading political analysts, Stuart Rothenberg and Charlie Cook, each changed their assessment of the Brown/Coakley race from a narrow advantage for Coakley to a toss-up.

ucantdoitdoggieSTyle2 wrote:

BSmack wrote:He peaked too soon. Besides, I caught his act on Hannity's radio show last week and although he's well spoken, he's definitely a movement conservative. And movement conservatives don't get elected in Mass.

Actual polling numbers indicate you don't know WTF you're talking about.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... 398436.pdf

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:BOOM goes the dynamite!

WAR not the GOP, but all Americans

BSmack wrote:

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:BOOM goes the dynamite!

WAR not the GOP, but all Americans

Shut the fuck up you psychotic pill popping idiot. At least UCant earned the right to gloat by calling his shot. Where the fuck were you before the votes were counted?

BSmack wrote:

Roger_the_Shrubber wrote:BOOM goes the dynamite!

WAR not the GOP, but all Americans

Shut the fuck up you psychotic pill popping idiot. At least UCant earned the right to gloat by calling his shot. Where the fuck were you before the votes were counted?

Lillian Vernon wrote:...commie plans goodbye, dickmunchers.

BSmack wrote:

Lillian Vernon wrote:...commie plans goodbye, dickmunchers.

You mean like bailing out the banks?

sin

BSmack wrote:

Lillian Vernon wrote:...commie plans goodbye, dickmunchers.

You mean like bailing out the banks?

sin

OCmike wrote:Trampis, nothing in the current bill was going to change that. This bill was about getting the rest of us to foot the bill for the poor while keeping HMO profits flat.

All meaningful changes were either intentionally scrapped or omitted altogether. And no, passing a trillion dollar clusterfuck with a wink and a promise to "fix it later" is not an acceptable starting point.

Real healthcare reform can only be done a few items at a time with a couple of years in between each to let the market (after anti-trust exemption is repealed) settle.

JMak wrote:Now Obama is being an idiot...

Talking to George Stephanopolous today, Obama said that Brown's victory was a part of the same wave that Obama rode in on and a reflection of voter's anger over the last eight years...

Obama's still blaming Bush. But Brown was out there explicitly opposing Obama's policies which Obama adopted because he was opposed to Bush's policies...what a foolish little simp Obama is...

Jsc810 wrote:Look at what Senator-elect Brown is saying now:

BOSTON -- Scott Brown said he expects to be seated quickly in the U.S. Senate, but he was conciliatory on the question of what he will do there, noting that he voted for universal health insurance coverage in Massachusetts and wanted his election to encourage a new bipartisanship in Washington.

"We're past campaign mode: I think it's important for everyone to get some form of health care," Brown told a news conference Wednesday morning. "So to offer a basic plan for everybody I think is important. It's just a question of whether we're going to raise taxes, we're going to cut a half at trillion from Medicare, we're going to affect veterans' care. I think we can do it better."

So who knows how he will vote on that bill.

Jsc810 wrote: So who knows how he will vote on that bill.

mvscal wrote:Chimpy passed that legislation all by himself, did he? Just for the record, how did Onogger vote on that bill?

Lillian Vernon wrote:HAHAHAHA

Where are LTS and Moving sale?

Have they blown their heads off yet?

Kiss your filibuster-proof majority and all your commie plans goodbye, dickmunchers.