dajo9;842848116 said:

---

In Georgia, Democrats funneled in millions, most of it from small donor contributors from around the country, like me. Republicans countered with millions from unknown PAC's. The impact was a huge increase in turnout on both sides, a dramatic shift towards the Democrats, but ultimately a Republican victory.

---

Small donors can only contribute so much money for so long before they quit, Super PACs are basically unlimited cash machines. Worth noting that despite the expanded turnout, the margin between Republican and Democrat was exactly identical as the primary (Ossoff had 48% of the primary vote with 92,673 votes, and in the general election had 48.1% of the vote with 124,893 votes).

Democratic Party is going nowhere until Pelosi and Schumer are gone, funny that Trump will probably outlast them both.

The problem is that the Ossoff race became a surrogate election on the Trump candidacy so the money, pollsters and strategists descend with their messaging, obliterating everything else. All the chips were moved into this race. In the end, though, the district is heavily Republican, white and affluent, so it did turn into a Trump vs Pelosi campaign of competing fossils and in that district Pelosi is no better. The South Carolina guy actually ran a grassroots campaign and turned out to be pretty good at it without all the competing national ideology stuff and at $20 plus millions in savings. Money wasn't the driver with the Presidential election and it wasn't here.

And yes, the idea that Schumer and Pelosi have jobs after all this carnage is laughable

GB54;842848158 said:

---

And yes, the idea that Schumer and Pelosi have jobs after all this carnage is laughable

---

I don't agree. This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Majority or Minority Leader actually does, which is to hold party members together and get them to vote a particular way. Both Schumer and Pelosi have been good at that. It's not their job to be broadly popular; usually people in their positions are not (McConnell and Ryan are no more well-liked as national figures).

sycasey;842848164 said:

---

I don't agree. This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Majority or Minority Leader actually does, which is to hold party members together and get them to vote a particular way. Both Schumer and Pelosi have been good at that. It's not their job to be broadly popular; usually people in their positions are not (McConnell and Ryan are no more well-liked as national figures).

---

Pelosi and Schumer are party leaders in their respective Congressional bodies, if you vote Democrat in a Congressional race then you are voting for adding (or keeping) someone to their contingent. Hard pill to swallow for a lot of voters is voting for someone who would ostensibly follow Pelosi's lead since she is Minority Leader and no one wants to substantively challenge her.

sycasey;842848164 said:

---

I don't agree. This seems like a fundamental misunderstanding of what a Majority or Minority Leader actually does, which is to hold party members together and get them to vote a particular way. Both Schumer and Pelosi have been good at that. It's not their job to be broadly popular; usually people in their positions are not (McConnell and Ryan are no more well-liked as national figures).

---

They aren't just policy leaders. They are responsible for developing a national strategy to win elections. Shumer was head of the Democratic Senator election campaign committee in 2014 and 2016. Pelosi is the nominal head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The party is in shambles nationally and locally.

GB54;842848169 said:

---

They aren't just policy leaders. They are responsible for developing a national strategy to win elections. Shumer was head of the Democratic Senator election campaign committee in 2014 and 2016. Pelosi is the nominal head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The party is in shambles nationally and locally.

---

Their OFA fund speaks to their single mindedness of stopping Trump. Seems like conservative Repubs are doing a better job at that (the four today vs. Senate healthcare). Maybe the whining will end before the 2018s and the Dems will find some valid purpose in which case they may come together and right the ship, but right now it is looking glum for them.

Pelosi was House Leader when the ACA passed. So she gets a little credit for that. Beyond that, she has funneled money back into California which we had been losing since Reagan left office. But other than that, she has been an ineffective talking head. To narrowly focused partisans, that may be enough. There is little reason to remember this ineffective speaker/minority leader when she finally leaves office. Tip O'Neill made deals with Presidents, even Reagan. He was effective. Gingrich made deals with Clinton. He too was effective. I hate it that things are so polarized we may never have an effective speaker again.

OdontoBear66;842848215 said:

---

Their OFA fund speaks to their single mindedness of stopping Trump. Seems like conservative Repubs are doing a better job at that (the four today vs. Senate healthcare). Maybe the whining will end before the 2018s and the Dems will find some valid purpose in which case they may come together and right the ship, but right now it is looking glum for them.

---

They should win the House- off year election with a President with approval ratings in the 30's. I don't think these special elections change that but they'll need more than "we're not Trump"

1979bear;842848218 said:

---

Pelosi was House Leader when the ACA passed. So she gets a little credit for that. Beyond that, she has funneled money back into California which we had been losing since Reagan left office. But other than that, she has been an ineffective talking head. To narrowly focused partisans, that may be enough. There is little reason to remember this ineffective speaker/minority leader when she finally leaves office. Tip O'Neill made deals with Presidents, even Reagan. He was effective. Gingrich made deals with Clinton. He too was effective. I hate it that things are so polarized we may never have an effective speaker again.

---

+1. A voice of sanity. Compromise in the middle, but hard fought is OK.

GB54;842848227 said:

---

They should win the House- off year election with a President with approval ratings in the 30's. I don't think these special elections change that but they'll need more than "we're not Trump"

---

They should win in the off year, but how do you gauge the support for the agenda, not Trump himself, which most Republicans do not defend verbally, but wind up voting for his ilk for they like the policies if not the demeanor. So what does one say in an opinion poll? I love Trump. Well, maybe, but doubtful for the most part.

GB54;842848227 said:

---

They should win the House- off year election with a President with approval ratings in the 30's. I don't think these special elections change that but they'll need more than "we're not Trump"

---

I'm not sure if they actually do for 2018. "Obama sucks" worked just fine for Republicans in 2010 and 2014. Midterms are like that.

But for 2020, definitely need more.

I will give the republicans this, they are much more likely to vote for someone they hate as long as the person talks about cutting taxes or other things they care about (but mostly taxes). For whatever reason, democrats want to be inspired to vote whereas republicans will plug their nose and vote for Trump no matter how he performs.

Unit2Sucks;842848538 said:

---

I will give the republicans this, they are much more likely to vote for someone they hate as long as the person talks about cutting taxes or other things they care about (but mostly taxes). For whatever reason, democrats want to be inspired to vote whereas republicans will plug their nose and vote for Trump no matter how he performs.

---

Believe in policy over people. I cannot remember a candidate that I can really say I have liked to the point I would defend him/her historically. I do know though, what I believe to be good policy. Defending the policy is easy. Defending the person not always so.

Were I to pick it would have been Charles Dirksen and Mark Hatfield, but then, I am sure they had their weak underbellies too.

OdontoBear66;842848602 said:

---

Believe in policy over people. I cannot remember a candidate that I can really say I have liked to the point I would defend him/her historically. I do know though, what I believe to be good policy. Defending the policy is easy. Defending the person not always so.

Were I to pick it would have been Charles Dirksen and Mark Hatfield, but then, I am sure they had their weak underbellies too.

---

Are you seeing good policy from the current administration?

Unit2Sucks;842848636 said:

---

Are you seeing good policy from the current administration?

---

Like, for example, the health care bill the Senate has drafted?

sycasey;842848640 said:

---

Like, for example, the health care bill the Senate has drafted?

---

Again, "Like,.....,the health care bill", is similar to defending people. Any bill that the Repubs can possibly pass right now will be short of what I think is good for medicine for America. If they had the super majority that the Dems have in California they could draft a plan that they could put their name behind. Such is not so. I deem Obamacare a disaster that just gave entitlements to many and screwed up medical care even worse. More a transfer of wealth. So, first off, Obamacare must go in importance. If it must be done stepwise, so be it. Looking at a quasi Medicaid system for all down the road is just bad medicine. May be great for numbers, but bad medicine. Band aid work.

OdontoBear66;842848656 said:

---

Again, "Like,.....,the health care bill", is similar to defending people. Any bill that the Repubs can possibly pass right now will be short of what I think is good for medicine for America. If they had the super majority that the Dems have in California they could draft a plan that they could put their name behind. Such is not so. I deem Obamacare a disaster that just gave entitlements to many and screwed up medical care even worse. More a transfer of wealth. So, first off, Obamacare must go in importance. If it must be done stepwise, so be it. Looking at a quasi Medicaid system for all down the road is just bad medicine. May be great for numbers, but bad medicine. Band aid work.

---

What do you think the end goal should be for a health care bill? Repealing Obamacare is one thing, but beyond that what should happen? IMO, the status quo from pre-Obamacare was not sustainable either.

Do you think the bill proposed by the House or the Senate takes any steps towards accomplishing that end goal? I understand that legislation will be compromised by competing interests. But in theory it should still try to make things better for the country and its people. How do the House or Senate bills accomplish that?

Sycasey - I wouldn't expect the tail to wag the dog here. The goal of this reform is to reduce taxes on the wealthy not to improve healthcare. The impact on health care is the tail in this instance but make no mistake, the dog is very much tax reduction.

Unit2Sucks;842848667 said:

---

Sycasey - I wouldn't expect the tail to wag the dog here. The goal of this reform is to reduce taxes on the wealthy not to improve healthcare. The impact on health care is the tail in this instance but make no mistake, the dog is very much tax reduction.

---

Sure, I suspect that is what McConnell and Ryan really want to do (and don't particularly care what happens to health care as a result), but my question is more aimed at OdontoBear66 and others who identify as conservatives. What do they think the end goal should be? And if the Republican plan doesn't achieve those goals, should they support it?

After all, he said he was about policy. Let's talk about policy.

sycasey;842848658 said:

---

What do you think the end goal should be for a health care bill? Repealing Obamacare is one thing, but beyond that what should happen? IMO, the status quo from pre-Obamacare was not sustainable either.

Do you think the bill proposed by the House or the Senate takes any steps towards accomplishing that end goal? I understand that legislation will be compromised by competing interests. But in theory it should still try to make things better for the country and its people. How do the House or Senate bills accomplish that?

---

I hope I am identifying more as a former health care practitioner than a conservative political pundit. Health care of late has been more of a social program than one with the intent of the best medicine possible. Cost and numbers, not quality before changing. In designing it so, it is and has lost a lot of its quality care features to becoming an assembly line type product of numbers. Maybe what I would like to see is a two tiered program----basic medical services for those in need and without the wherewithal to pay, and a second tier of the historical fee for service medicine (whether financed with insurance premiums or cash). If I am not mistaken I believe Sweden, England and others have some form of system like this. Now, for those imbued in only politics I know this would not sit. I am quite sure that a single payer system (which would be akin to medicaid for all) where we were heading was the deathbed of quality medical care. You will ultimately get what you pay for, and if the government pays, I worry.

Odonto - would you be in favor of the type of system you proposed if it required additional tax dollars in order to be deficit neutral?

OdontoBear66;842848695 said:

---

I hope I am identifying more as a former health care practitioner than a conservative political pundit. Health care of late has been more of a social program than one with the intent of the best medicine possible. Cost and numbers, not quality before changing. In designing it so, it is and has lost a lot of its quality care features to becoming an assembly line type product of numbers. Maybe what I would like to see is a two tiered program----basic medical services for those in need and without the wherewithal to pay, and a second tier of the historical fee for service medicine (whether financed with insurance premiums or cash). If I am not mistaken I believe Sweden, England and others have some form of system like this. Now, for those imbued in only politics I know this would not sit. I am quite sure that a single payer system (which would be akin to medicaid for all) where we were heading was the deathbed of quality medical care. You will ultimately get what you pay for, and if the government pays, I worry.

---

I was on Kaiser before Medicare, am on Kaiser after Medicare and nothing has changed

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/23/opinion/trumps-lies.html

GB54;842848705 said:

---

I was on Kaiser before Medicare, am on Kaiser after Medicare and nothing has changed

---

Nor has anything changed for me either. Medicare with the best Medigap policy is expensive but accesses the best medicine while being cost fair. But, at my age and with my background I speak of medical care for the future not necessarily for me, and for "care" not payment options as number one. My concerns were with quality medicine in my comments as they are in my concerns for the future.

OdontoBear66;842848723 said:

---

Nor has anything changed for me either. Medicare with the best Medigap policy is expensive but accesses the best medicine while being cost fair. But, at my age and with my background I speak of medical care for the future not necessarily for me, and for "care" not payment options as number one. My concerns were with quality medicine in my comments as they are in my concerns for the future.

---

You said that a single payer system would be the deathbed of medicine but it works fine for you.

OdontoBear66;842848695 said:

---

I hope I am identifying more as a former health care practitioner than a conservative political pundit. Health care of late has been more of a social program than one with the intent of the best medicine possible. Cost and numbers, not quality before changing. In designing it so, it is and has lost a lot of its quality care features to becoming an assembly line type product of numbers. Maybe what I would like to see is a two tiered program----basic medical services for those in need and without the wherewithal to pay, and a second tier of the historical fee for service medicine (whether financed with insurance premiums or cash). If I am not mistaken I believe Sweden, England and others have some form of system like this. Now, for those imbued in only politics I know this would not sit. I am quite sure that a single payer system (which would be akin to medicaid for all) where we were heading was the deathbed of quality medical care. You will ultimately get what you pay for, and if the government pays, I worry.

---

The two tiered system you describe sounds a lot like Obamacare. Before Obamacare we had a three tiered system in which the third tier was no coverage. That is also Trumpcare.

I hope Obamacare does get "blown up" (as our esteemed POTUS says) because it is the only way to truly punish and inflict pain on Trump's base. I always vote against my own financial interests, but Trump's base insists on voting in favor of my financial interests.

GB54;842848725 said:

---

You said that a single payer system would be the deathbed of medicine but it works fine for you.

---

I guess you are suggesting Medicare A/B, which is base plan...The thing that makes my Medicare insurance good is the Medigap J that we pay dearly into and is with UNH, not the USA.

Trump's response to getting caught red handed:

"Are you familiar with the Russian saying, 'The past is unpredictable?' Which of us can say with certainty what has occurred, actually occurred, and what is simply rumor, opinion, misinformation? We see what we believe, not the other way around."

~VM Varga, Fargo Season 3

bearister;842848755 said:

---

Trump's response to getting caught red handed:

"Are you familiar with the Russian saying, 'The past is unpredictable?' Which of us can say with certainty what has occurred, actually occurred, and what is simply rumor, opinion, misinformation? We see what we believe, not the other way around."

~VM Varga, Fargo Season 3

---

You forgot to include Gloria Burgle's response: "I'm pretty sure you just made that up."

NYCGOBEARS;842848768 said:

---

You forgot to include Gloria Burgle's response: "I'm pretty sure you just made that up."

---

The hearing impaired hit man in the Neil Young Buffalo Springfield era suede fringe leather jacket is a bad mother f'er.

bearister;842848776 said:

---

The hearing impaired hit man in the Neil Young Buffalo Springfield era suede fringe leather jacket is a bad mother f'er.

---

Yep. Wrench deserves his own series.

The best thing about Varga was the eating disorder- it's not just for chicks anymore

GB54;842848778 said:

---

The best thing about Varga was the eating disorder- it's not just for chicks anymore

---

And that rotting tooth.

NYCGOBEARS;842848781 said:

---

And that rotting tooth.

---

"With bulimia, the stomach acids in the vomit pass through the mouth and can erode tooth enamel, causing tooth erosion and sensitivity, discoloration and possible tooth loss."

David Thewlis' performance was virtuoso. His accent reminded me of Pete Townshend's.

I can't believe Mary Elizabeth Winstead is not a major star. Wow, is she striking.