Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Forbes)   If 70 percent of 35 million people on Obamacare-sponsored health coverage vote for Hillary, Republicans lose in a landslide   (forbes.com) divider line 133
    More: Obvious, house republican leaders, obamacare, Republicans, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, flexible spending accounts, majority leaders, McMorris Rodgers  
•       •       •

1299 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Apr 2014 at 10:44 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-30 09:09:34 AM  
Most of them won't vote and at least a quarter of those who do will vote Republican.
 
2014-04-30 09:12:36 AM  
That doesn't seem likely to happen.
 
2014-04-30 09:37:49 AM  
I would rather see Warren as President over Hillary

At least Warren has principles
 
2014-04-30 09:47:21 AM  
Hillary IS a Republican.

So we all lose in a landslide of deregulation.
 
2014-04-30 10:16:04 AM  
I was told there would be no math.
 
2014-04-30 10:16:13 AM  
Sweet. Merciful. fark. Stop pushing Hillary for Summerslam!

I don't want a dynasty. I don't want another conservative Democrat. I don't want an aging political opportunist who got the ball rolling on the ridiculous birther movement that still furthers the pure crazy on the right. I don't farking want Hillary.
 
2014-04-30 10:24:39 AM  

Bloody William: Sweet. Merciful. fark. Stop pushing Hillary for Summerslam!

I don't want a dynasty. I don't want another conservative Democrat. I don't want an aging political opportunist who got the ball rolling on the ridiculous birther movement that still furthers the pure crazy on the right. I don't farking want Hillary.


Just have to face the fact that she has a good shot at the nomination if she decides to run.  That's just the way it is.  That doesn't mean, though, that she WILL get it--she had at least as good a shot in 2008.
 
2014-04-30 10:33:10 AM  
FTFA: "The GOP platform has speciated, from 'repeal' to 'repeal and replace' and now 'replace.'"

I haven't been hearing Boner crowing about the "jerb-killing abomination" part as much lately, either.

It's pretty clear that they're going to accept it as soon as "Repeal" is no longer needed as a campaign slogan, and start perverting it to make mo' money for their corporate masters.
 
2014-04-30 10:45:55 AM  
What about the other 19 million killed by Obamacare death panels? They will undoubtedly vote Generic Republican.
 
2014-04-30 10:47:38 AM  
Lucky for conservatives they are masters of getting dopes to vote against their own self interest, don't sweat those numbers.
 
2014-04-30 10:48:48 AM  

cman: I would rather see Warren as President over Hillary


I'd rather see 51 Warrens in the Senate.
 
2014-04-30 10:49:39 AM  
KEEP YOUR GOVERNMENT MITTS OFF MY OBAMACARE!
 
2014-04-30 10:51:17 AM  
Republicans put the death panel in the ACA to avoid exactly this situation.
 
2014-04-30 10:51:52 AM  

cman: I would rather see Warren as President over Hillary

At least Warren has principles


I'd like to be awaken with a blow job, but that's not going to happen either.  Warren is not running.  Hillary is.
 
2014-04-30 10:54:22 AM  
And if 70% of the 150m people that revieved a tax cut from Bush the lesser votes for the CP candidate Hillary is sunk.
 
2014-04-30 10:55:11 AM  
I hate that everything is broken down by politics and not if it's a good idea.
 
2014-04-30 11:00:15 AM  
Well, it's a good thing for the GOP that you never see 70% turnout of  any demographic group (barring demographic groups partially defined by the fact that they vote) in any election ever.

Hell, 30% of total in turnout is usually considered excellent, and if you hit 50% of anything your political team is probably sacrificing virgins to the gods of the outer darkness or something.

// Has Mrs. Clinton actually officially declared or stated outright that she's running and I missed it at some point?  Because logically, she shouldn't if the party wants a really unassailable shot at the presidency again, and she's usually pretty good at seeing the expedient path form A to B.
 
2014-04-30 11:01:34 AM  

Headso: Lucky for conservatives they are masters of getting dopes to vote against their own self interest, don't sweat those numbers.


"I have health insurance for the first time in my life, and can finally get desperately needed health care.  Better fark all of that up so's I can stick it to teh libs".
 
2014-04-30 11:03:21 AM  
=======////||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||

And so it begins....
 
2014-04-30 11:03:56 AM  
How can you lose a race you won't run?
 
2014-04-30 11:04:01 AM  
I can see a scenario where the Democrats do exceptionally well in both 2014 and 2016.  It's certainly possible that large numbers of people who both previously never voted and benefited from Obamacare start voting for Democrats.  If this actually happened, the polls prior to election day mostly won't pick them up either, because mostly polling models take past voting habits into account and therefore will dismiss these folks as unlikely to vote since they haven't in the past (even if they say they are likely to vote), so all or most polls will have an systemic error favoring the Republicans.

Mostly wishful thinking at this point, though.
 
2014-04-30 11:06:27 AM  
0.tqn.com
 
2014-04-30 11:08:01 AM  
I echo the desire for a warren presidency -- only because a 51 warren senate is impossible

I'll take Hillary but that doesn't mean I'm happy with her republican ways
 
2014-04-30 11:09:20 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: cman: I would rather see Warren as President over Hillary

I'd rather see 51 Warrens in the Senate.


Or 5 on the Supreme Court.
 
2014-04-30 11:09:28 AM  
Except that the GOP has completely taken control of the ACA narrative. There are still large numbers of people who want it repealed and Democrats are running away from it in droves.
 
2014-04-30 11:10:47 AM  

Geotpf: I can see a scenario where the Democrats do exceptionally well in both 2014 and 2016.  It's certainly possible that large numbers of people who both previously never voted and benefited from Obamacare start voting for Democrats.  If this actually happened, the polls prior to election day mostly won't pick them up either, because mostly polling models take past voting habits into account and therefore will dismiss these folks as unlikely to vote since they haven't in the past (even if they say they are likely to vote), so all or most polls will have an systemic error favoring the Republicans.

Mostly wishful thinking at this point, though.


If republicans can't retake the senate this year then they haven't a prayer to do so in 2016 and the presidency at this point I'm placing odds at 50/50 because were so far out but if republicans continue to hold their derpfest that started in 2009/2010 then their odds are only going to get weaker.
 
2014-04-30 11:11:45 AM  
If my Aunt had balls she'd be my Uncle.
 
2014-04-30 11:12:37 AM  

Delta1212: Most of them won't vote and at least a quarter half of those who do will vote Republican.


FTFY. Americans are the gold standard in voting directly against their interests. Black people have figured this out, and the GOP has worked overtime trying to suppress/gerrymander the vote. Much of the working poor, however, have not.
 
2014-04-30 11:16:14 AM  

Delta1212: Most of them won't vote and at least a quarter of those who do will vote Republican.


And probably fewer than half of them even know they're on "Obamacare."
 
2014-04-30 11:20:24 AM  

GoldSpider: [0.tqn.com image 550x416]


I haven't seen that one yet... very chuckleworthy.
 
2014-04-30 11:21:29 AM  
We aren't even through the 2014 primary for farks sake.

All these "Hillary is running!!! WE'RE SURE OF IT" just smack of distraction from the current candidates running for the Senate, House and other races.
 
2014-04-30 11:24:07 AM  

keldaria: Geotpf: I can see a scenario where the Democrats do exceptionally well in both 2014 and 2016.  It's certainly possible that large numbers of people who both previously never voted and benefited from Obamacare start voting for Democrats.  If this actually happened, the polls prior to election day mostly won't pick them up either, because mostly polling models take past voting habits into account and therefore will dismiss these folks as unlikely to vote since they haven't in the past (even if they say they are likely to vote), so all or most polls will have an systemic error favoring the Republicans.

Mostly wishful thinking at this point, though.

If republicans can't retake the senate this year then they haven't a prayer to do so in 2016 and the presidency at this point I'm placing odds at 50/50 because were so far out but if republicans continue to hold their derpfest that started in 2009/2010 then their odds are only going to get weaker.


You give them 50/50 odds for taking back the presidency in 2016? Lay off the crack man. It's more like 0%. The only reason they still have some power in congress is because of the absurd amount of gerrymandering. National elections are immune to that.
 
2014-04-30 11:25:25 AM  
What exactly is "Obamacare-sponsored insurance"? No, really.

I have insurance through my job (where there are more than 48 other employees), does that count? What if I told you this policy conformed to all Obamacare regulations? Regarding "sponsorship", if my company takes tax breaks, isn't that "sponsorship" (because they don't, you know, flag the molecules)?

// did subby mean "subsidized"? As in, "buys insurance through an exchange, with a subsidy provided by the government"?
 
2014-04-30 11:26:06 AM  

Bloody William: Sweet. Merciful. fark. Stop pushing Hillary for Summerslam!

I don't want a dynasty. I don't want another conservative Democrat. I don't want an aging political opportunist who got the ball rolling on the ridiculous birther movement that still furthers the pure crazy on the right. I don't farking want Hillary.


I still fail to see how Hillary running and/or winning is some sort of "political dynasty".  Hillary's dad ran a small textile business and her mom was a homemaker.  Bill Clinton's dad was a traveling salesman who died before he was born and his mom was a widow abused by her second husband.  Meanwhile Chelsea is a special correspondent for NBC News and works with the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative in non-political roles.  Heck, the only way Hillary is a "Clinton" is by marriage.  If anything she is the first Rodham in politics, like Bill is the first Clinton in politics, as far as family is concerned.  There is no "Clinton political dynasty"(Or Rodham).

If you don't want Hillary fine, and I can even give the "you don't want another conservative Democrat" argument credit as a legitimate argument regarding a potential Hillary Clinton presidency.  Same if you used the "political dynasty" argument against Jeb Bush due to the generations of the Bush family who was in, is in, or is entering politics.  Same with the Kennedy family.  But the Clintons are not a political dynasty whether Hillary runs and even if she wins.

I will tell you something though; if the next POTUS is not a conservative Democrat, I will pretty much guarantee you that the POTUS will not be a liberal Democrat.  It will be a Republican.  The decision for the liberals of the Democratic party are similar to what they faced with Gore vs Bush.  Either elect a conservative Democrat and at least get a few things you want, or vote for a Ralf Nader type who promises you everything but delivers nothing because they have no chance at winning; giving the election to the Republican who does everything you don't want done.  Not only do you not get anything you want; stuff you wanted and and got from the previous conservative Democratic administration gets "rolled back" by the new Republican POTUS.
 
2014-04-30 11:26:54 AM  
Hillary has to get the nomination first.
Let's hope there is no first term senator that she has to face. Didn't work out too well last time.

Warren 2016!
 
2014-04-30 11:28:17 AM  

themindiswatching: Except that the GOP has completely taken control of the ACA narrative. There are still large numbers of people who want it repealed and Democrats are running away from it in droves.


[notsureifserious.jpg]
 
2014-04-30 11:29:54 AM  

bigbadideasinaction: Delta1212: Most of them won't vote and at least a quarter half of those who do will vote Republican.

FTFY. Americans are the gold standard in voting directly against their interests. Black people have figured this out, and the GOP has worked overtime trying to suppress/gerrymander the vote. Much of the working poor, however, have not.


It'll be less than half because of the number of Republicans who should be covered under Obamacare but refused to sign up because death panels and such.
 
2014-04-30 11:30:03 AM  
And if it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

/got nuthin'
 
2014-04-30 11:32:19 AM  

keldaria: Geotpf: I can see a scenario where the Democrats do exceptionally well in both 2014 and 2016.  It's certainly possible that large numbers of people who both previously never voted and benefited from Obamacare start voting for Democrats.  If this actually happened, the polls prior to election day mostly won't pick them up either, because mostly polling models take past voting habits into account and therefore will dismiss these folks as unlikely to vote since they haven't in the past (even if they say they are likely to vote), so all or most polls will have an systemic error favoring the Republicans.

Mostly wishful thinking at this point, though.

If republicans can't retake the senate this year then they haven't a prayer to do so in 2016 and the presidency at this point I'm placing odds at 50/50 because were so far out but if republicans continue to hold their derpfest that started in 2009/2010 then their odds are only going to get weaker.


Certainly.  2014 should, for a wide variety of technical reasons, favor the Republicans.  Likewise, 2016 should, for a wide variety of technical reasons, favor the Democrats.  If they can't win in such a favorable environment, the Republicans will never control the Senate or Presidency again.

However, the chances of them losing the House any time soon is also fairly low, and they just need one of the three to gum up the works.
 
2014-04-30 11:33:32 AM  

Lord_Baull: themindiswatching: Except that the GOP has completely taken control of the ACA narrative. There are still large numbers of people who want it repealed and Democrats are running away from it in droves.

[notsureifserious.jpg]


While I suspect the "running away from" claim may be overstated, I'm inclined to believe that a lot of congressional Democrats are campaigning on issues other than the ACA.
 
2014-04-30 11:35:27 AM  
There may be a couple wins for Republicans until 2020.  Then with the census and redistricting, it is all downhill from there.  Maybe some states with more that 50% of stupid people could drag it on until 2030.   But whatever the Republicans pass in the next 20 years or so to harm the public can be reversed.
 
2014-04-30 11:37:06 AM  

themindiswatching: Except that the GOP has completely taken control of the ACA narrative. In my imaginationThere are still large numbers of people who want it repealed and Democrats are running away from it in droves.

 
2014-04-30 11:37:52 AM  

heavymetal: If you don't want Hillary fine, and I can even give the "you don't want another conservative Democrat" argument credit as a legitimate argument regarding a potential Hillary Clinton presidency.  Same if you used the "political dynasty" argument against Jeb Bush due to the generations of the Bush family who was in, is in, or is entering politics.  Same with the Kennedy family.  But the Clintons are not a political dynasty whether Hillary runs and even if she wins.

I will tell you something though; if the next POTUS is not a conservative Democrat, I will pretty much guarantee you that the POTUS will not be a liberal Democrat.  It will be a Republican.  The decision for the liberals of the Democratic party are similar to what they faced with Gore vs Bush.  Either elect a conservative Democrat and at least get a few things you want, or vote for a Ralf Nader type who promises you everything but delivers nothing because they have no chance at winning; giving the election to the Republican who does everything you don't want done.  Not only do you not get anything you want; stuff you wanted and and got from the previous conservative Democratic administration gets "rolled back" by the new Republican POTUS.


This.
 
2014-04-30 11:38:02 AM  

GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: themindiswatching: Except that the GOP has completely taken control of the ACA narrative. There are still large numbers of people who want it repealed and Democrats are running away from it in droves.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

While I suspect the "running away from" claim may be overstated, I'm inclined to believe that a lot of congressional Democrats are campaigning on issues other than the ACA.


It's still contentious enough that if you're running in a red-ish district, you won't be able to convince many Republican constituents that's it's a good thing no matter what (even if they're directly benefiting).

The insane amount of demagoguery really has taken a toll, and that much misinformation and scaremongering takes a while to undo. I'm much more hopeful about Democrats' chances in 2016, after the law's been around long enough for the workings to be more familiar to average Americans.
 
2014-04-30 11:39:26 AM  

GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: themindiswatching: Except that the GOP has completely taken control of the ACA narrative. There are still large numbers of people who want it repealed and Democrats are running away from it in droves.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

While I suspect the "running away from" claim may be overstated, I'm inclined to believe that a lot of congressional Democrats are campaigning on issues other than the ACA.



I'm not surprised. Why would they? It's a done deal. That's like campaigning in support of the formation of the EPA.
 
2014-04-30 11:40:36 AM  
See, this is all fine and dandy whargarbll doublespeak by the GOP, but here's the important issue:

Every time they vote on something in the House, it seems to have an ACA tie. Not necessarily a repeal tie (although everyone who approved Ryan's budget voted to repeal without replacing), but a "do something that will negatively impact the law" repercussion. Go ahead and talk about how you're backing away from repeal, but you're still farking with it and you're still not presenting an alternative.

I know! Keep trying to fark with it while passing terrible budgets, anti-marriage-equality laws, anti-abortion laws and Voter ID laws. Everyone will love you for it. I promise. Keep it up.
 
2014-04-30 11:40:42 AM  
If 2/3rds of the 1/2 of the 12% of the 130 million goats in Pakistan vote for Hillary then Sarah Palin is automatically president. Or something
 
2014-04-30 11:41:14 AM  

The Name: Delta1212: Most of them won't vote and at least a quarter of those who do will vote Republican.

And probably fewer than half of them even know they're on "Obamacare."




The older ones do, and they are more likely to vote.
Obamacare will hold together through the midterms and become Hillarie's aca for 2016. The older people are signing up for a good deal and they'll be all for it by the end of this administration.

The question is if the younger ones will avoid it or become annoyed at seeing part of their paycheck disappeared to pay for others free rides.
If they don't go along then the system will start to collapse and Hillarie's chances with it. If they do then aca survives, but its unlikely to be greeted with smiles from the same younger crowd that likes to swing democrat.

What we may be seeing is the trade in demographics. Older people going dem and younger people going repub.
 
2014-04-30 11:44:46 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: GoldSpider: Lord_Baull: themindiswatching: Except that the GOP has completely taken control of the ACA narrative. There are still large numbers of people who want it repealed and Democrats are running away from it in droves.

[notsureifserious.jpg]

While I suspect the "running away from" claim may be overstated, I'm inclined to believe that a lot of congressional Democrats are campaigning on issues other than the ACA.


It's still contentious enough that if you're running in a red-ish district, you won't be able to convince many Republican constituents that's it's a good thing no matter what (even if they're directly benefiting).


It amazes me how effective the right wing spin machine is. My ex is a single issue voter (pro-life) and she swallows up the rest of the platform so she can stay in denial about being a single issue voter. She lost her crappy health insurance that her crappy retail job offered (it was horrible, she had a kid two years ago and they wanted 2 grand up front to deliver and she still owed 5k after) and qualifies for the medicare expansion here in Colorado. She refuses to sign up because she doesn't want any of that socialized Obamacare.

So for now she is going without health insurance.
 
2014-04-30 11:45:54 AM  

Bloody William: I don't farking want Hillary.


I, also, don't f*cking want Hillary. I'm not saying it HAS to be Warren. But I would really like it if we got somebody a little less corporate.
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report