US Senate voting on healthcare at 1am on a Monday morning

[Hutch]

Y'see, here's the deal.  Quoting Eugene Robinson, a nanny-state writer:

The bill making its way through the Senate by the slimmest of margins is imperfect, to say the least. But before listing its many flaws, let's consider the measure's one great virtue: For the first time, we will enshrine the principle that all Americans deserve access to medical care regardless of their ability to pay[/b]. No longer will it be the policy and practice of our nation to ration health according to wealth.

Never have I seen such a coherent description of Statism.  Where does this line of reasoning (if it can be called reasoning) end?

[Monkeyleg]

Where does this line of reasoning (if it can be called reasoning) end?

When either I have the same lifestyle as Bill Gates, or Bill Gates has the same lifestyle as me. Care to guess which way that would go?

[longeyes]

from Rush Limbaugh, 12.21.09:

"They're not listening to us. They have the polling data. You're wasting your time e-mailing them. You're wasting your time faxing them. You're wasting your time calling them. This is no longer a representative republic. This is not a democracy. You're nothing but a gnat. You're an inconvenience, especially if you disagree with what they're doing. You're somebody to be gotten even with. You're somebody whose mind isn't right yet. You are somebody that they're going to have to erase. They don't want to have to deal with your opposition. This is why I've been saying for practically my entire broadcast career behind this microphone, the only way to understand this is to understand what liberalism is and who liberals are, radical leftists, and at that point you will understand how truly insignificant you are. They don't matter to you. They're not even thinking about what you want and don't want. They're not thinking about how they can best respond to public opinion here to prolong their careers or to do the best for the country.

This is about them. This is about power in perpetuity. This is about ruling you, not governing the country. This is not about we the people. It's about them the political class. They have sought this moment ever since FDR. They have sought total control over this country, over this population, over individuals in this country for years. They have made a mockery of the notion that they're interested in what you think or care about their public opinion. They're not. They know the risks that they're running. That's why they have these slush funds to help with their reelection efforts, to try to help whatever fraud it takes next November with ACORN or what have you. They know that nobody wants this. They know vast majorities don't want this. That alone ought to tell you what we're dealing with and who we are."

[grampster]

True.  Love him, hate him, ambivilant about him, Limbaugh knows what Liberals are. 
Never listen to what Liberals say, watch what they do.

[Boomhauer]

from Rush Limbaugh, 12.21.09:

"They're not listening to us. They have the polling data. You're wasting your time e-mailing them. You're wasting your time faxing them. You're wasting your time calling them. This is no longer a representative republic. This is not a democracy. You're nothing but a gnat. You're an inconvenience, especially if you disagree with what they're doing. You're somebody to be gotten even with. You're somebody whose mind isn't right yet. You are somebody that they're going to have to erase. They don't want to have to deal with your opposition. This is why I've been saying for practically my entire broadcast career behind this microphone, the only way to understand this is to understand what liberalism is and who liberals are, radical leftists, and at that point you will understand how truly insignificant you are. They don't matter to you. They're not even thinking about what you want and don't want. They're not thinking about how they can best respond to public opinion here to prolong their careers or to do the best for the country.

This is about them. This is about power in perpetuity. This is about ruling you, not governing the country. This is not about we the people. It's about them the political class. They have sought this moment ever since FDR. They have sought total control over this country, over this population, over individuals in this country for years. They have made a mockery of the notion that they're interested in what you think or care about their public opinion. They're not. They know the risks that they're running. That's why they have these slush funds to help with their reelection efforts, to try to help whatever fraud it takes next November with ACORN or what have you. They know that nobody wants this. They know vast majorities don't want this. That alone ought to tell you what we're dealing with and who we are."

Preach it, Rush. I've been saying this for years.

I fully expect heavy voter intimidation during the next major election...now that they have control, they want to scare us into submission...

It's going to get real interesting in the next few years. Real interesting.

[longeyes]

I expect the 2010 elections, which will come in the wake of much more toxic legislation, to be "the sobriety test."

Either we can brake The Monster...or we can't, for whatever reason.  At that point a lot of people will start thinking outside the traditional political box...

[sanglant]

Never listen to what Liberals say, watch what they do.

yep, always watch the hips. err, unless it's rosie or nancy. that was a close one.

[Scout26]

The Dems/Liberals are thinking strategically, while the Repubs/Conservatives are thinking tactically.

If/When this goes to Obama's desk (after the conference committee gets done with it and both houses again vote to approve), no matter what is in it, it will be a huge victory for the left.  It will be imperfect, so each year it will need to "fixed", or "improved" or otherwise subject to the usual Liberal excuse for why .gov programs fail: "Under-Funded".

The Republican Party better vow to "Undo" and repeal this legislation, otherwise, yes they'll pick-up seats in 2010, but voter dis-satisfaction with both parties continue to grow and Longeyes might be predicting the future.

If the "Stupid" party were smart, the day after this thing gets signed, they would launch Operation "Undo": Send enough (R) Reps and Senators to Washington for a veto proof majority in 2010 and we WILL repeal this (and other specific) legislation/programs.  Then if they get a majority, whether it's a veto proof majority or not,

FARKING DO IT !!!!  

That's a strategic change, not just a tactical.

[SteveT]

If the "Stupid" party were smart, the day after this thing gets signed, they would launch Operation "Undo": Send enough (R) Reps and Senators to Washington for a veto proof majority in 2010 and we WILL repeal this (and other specific) legislation/programs.

Actually, there's only 37 Senator Seats up for election in 2010, 19 Dems, 18 Republican as they currently stand.   Winning ALL of these would make the Senate Makeup, 59 Repubs and 41 Dems, not even a filibuster proof Majority, much less veto proof (that would be 67 Senators)   And, of course, winning all of them is a wild fantasy.

Obama's coalition is young voters, minorities and traditional liberals.   McCain's was older white voters (obvious problem with that demographic, they die).  If the 2008 election had been whites only, McCain would have won.   In 2008 the voters were 74% white, 26% minorities, in 2012 it's looking to be 70% white, 30% minorities.   That's a huge expansion of Obama's base through no other means than just demographics (i.e. not policy).   Furthermore, the success of Obama's campaign among young voters ages 18-29 was around 70%, some of these voters will obviously go the other way, but he's likely to keep most of them in 2012 when they will be the 22-33 age bracket.   The voters who are now 15-18 who couldn't vote last year will probably also follow their near peer group and vote for Obama again.

Having YOUR voters die off while the nation's demographics increase your opponent's has to be a nightmare situation for any political strategist.   Pat Buchanan of all people wrote a column about this noting that in 5 election cycles starting in 1992 18 States with 248 electoral college votes went Democratic EVERY time, while 13 states with 93 electoral votes went Republican.   Imagine the difference for Karl Rove and James Carville.   Rove has to find 178 electoral votes to win, while Carville has to find only 23.   It's a huge uphill climb.

[Monkeyleg]

SteveT, your breakdown of Obama's voter base is correct. However, you're making some assumptions that I think we'll find will not hold true in 2010.

Young people are unreliable for voter turnout. They were energized last year. This year there won't be the enthusiasm, both because it's an off-year election and because many young people are disenchanted with the lack of hope and change.

Minorities are also unreliable for voter turnout, as they vote in disproportionately lower numbers than whites. Without Obama on the ballot, the percentage of minority voters going to the polls will drop.

As for traditional liberals, they also don't turn out as much in off-year elections. Then, too, many of the more liberal ones are disenchanted with Obama's "centrist" policies.

I'm not saying the Republicans will gain both houses. I don't think they will. I do think that the Democrats will have a difficult time keeping the senate, though.

[SteveT]

Voter turnout is a slim reed to hang one's hopes on.    That said, I think you're right.   I don't see Senate or House control shifting.  I see 5 seats in the Senate, that leaves it 55-45 with Repub filibusters being effective when used.

Actually, my larger point was with demographics' changing, mostly because of increased legal Hispanics, how does a conservative party win elections?   The party that woes the Hispanic vote will win in increasing numbers, and while Hispanics can be socially conservative on many issues, they love entitlement programs.    I'd be interested in anyone's reasonable (meaning real world) answers to how conservatives will win national elections in the future. 

Hope everyone is enjoying their 2010 so far.

[lupinus]

Obamas base last year may well not be so reliable in the next two elections. Not only for the reasons stated, but the hope and change is wearing off QUICK.

A lot of people who were ready to dance in the streets are now, not so happy. I work and associate with several of them, many are ticked with his performance thus far now that the happy feely stuff has worn off.

[makattak]

Voter turnout is a slim reed to hang one's hopes on.    That said, I think you're right.   I don't see Senate or House control shifting.  I see 5 seats in the Senate, that leaves it 55-45 with Repub filibusters being effective when used.

Actually, my larger point was with demographics' changing, mostly because of increased legal Hispanics, how does a conservative party win elections?   The party that woes the Hispanic vote will win in increasing numbers, and while Hispanics can be socially conservative on many issues, they love entitlement programs.    I'd be interested in anyone's reasonable (meaning real world) answers to how conservatives will win national elections in the future. 

Hope everyone is enjoying their 2010 so far.

Liberals plans are unsustainable.

Liberals don't breed at replacement rates.

Conservatives will win because liberals will die off. Your analysis is the near future. Long term, liberalism will die.

[Balog]

As long as liberals have a death grip on public education I don't know how the "we'll outbreed them" plan will work. And honestly all of Western society is being outbred by other sub-groups.

[longeyes]

Beware of population extrapolations as indices of future politics.  Anyone predicting out to 2050 in this day and age is foolish.  The best demographers are the Four Horsemen.

[Monkeyleg]

The best demographers are the Four Horsemen.

I thought it was the Four Tops.

[MicroBalrog]

It hasn't passed yet!

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Not technically.  But they've proven they have the votes, so it will pass.

[Balog]

Be interesting to see how much nasty stuff gets snuck in during the reconciliation process.

[MicroBalrog]

Not technically.  But they've proven they have the votes, so it will pass.

The thing is, they've now been stuck with this far too long. Obama has no significant reform to show for since January 20th last year. This is bound to hurt him, and this also leaves him less time to pass additional reform.

[SteveT]

I had to look this up...

It's from the center for vital statistics, and the numbers quoted are yearly per /1000.

Birth rate was 11.6 for non-Hispanic whites, 16.5 for non-Hispanic blacks, 14.8 for American Indians, 16.5 for Asians and 23.4 for Hispanics.[45]

[MicroBalrog]

And?