2018 mid-term

[C N Red]

7 minutes ago, Clifford Franklin said:

 

Better for whom? When the ACA passed the uninsured rate fell 6-8%. I'm pretty sure those people would say the ACA isn't perfect and Medicaid could be better, but it drastically improved their healthcare situations.

 

 

Like I said in my post on this this morning, Ricketts was re-elected so now he and the state can put work requirements or do whatever else they want to conservative this thing up. Or he could just pull a Paul LePage in Maine and not pass it anyway, ignoring the will of the people.

 

But either way it won't fix a lot of the problems in healthcare which screw up premiums, because that doesn't really have anything to do with Medicaid. That's something that's got a lot of causes that we'll have to all tackle together.

 

People should have healthcare. This isn't just lazy people. It's the working poor. It's the disabled. It's single mothers and their children. They have just as much right to go to the doctor as any of the rest of us even if they don't have a great gig. I am extremely proud of our state for choosing to extend a helping hand to these people today.

Dont disagree, but you are gonna start seeing a lot more people with medicaid that are now able bodied, can work, and dont have kids. Thats who this expansion is about. Not about people who actually need it, its actually probably gonna hurt a lot of those who actually need it. To fund it for more its most likely they will have to take away some coverage from those who actualky need it. I would be VERY surprised if this gets enacted that the state unemployment rate doesnt increase. Also the reason the uninsured rate went down is b/c the gov't subsidizes people for insurance now. So, the less you make(work)the more they will pay for your insurance. Its taking a lot of money away from other things that need it to pay people for not willing to work enough in many instances. Ive had people tell me they only work so many hours a week so they get their full alottment of obamacare subsidies, even though there are hours available to work.

[schriznoeder]

 

[Danny Bateman]

46 minutes ago, HuskerNation1 said:

 

Go back and revisit all the concessions Trump made on immigration which many on the Right were upset about.  Resist has been the only position from the Dems for the last 2 years.  Regarding corruption, what specifically are you referring to?

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/trump-daca-deal-is-a-dream-come-true-for-democrats-commentary.html

 

This was early phase of Trumps concessions and the Dems immediately turned it down and refused to bargain. There were then other permeatations of a proposal and they all got rejected.

 

He conceded nothing. He offered to codify DACA which his AG revoked. He offered to give back what he took away.

 

What I described is exactly what happened. He agreed to a framework with Schumer & Pelosi re: DACA & the wall, and the Stephen Miller & Tom Cotton got ahold of him, made the deal a whole bunch more conservative, and it fell apart. That is asking too much and giving nothing back.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-stephen-miller-submarined-the-trump-schumer-pelosi-daca-deal

 

Re corrupt: I don't have time to list examples. Go read the Trump's cabinet thread. There's all kind of corruption and abuses of power, spread all throughout his administration, from the man himself to his cabinet to appointed officials at various agencies and most definitely Congress. Its not hard to find, but we may disagree on what specifically constitutes corruption.

[deedsker]

2 minutes ago, C N Red said:

Dont disagree, but you are gonna start seeing a lot more people with medicaid that are now able bodied, can work, and dont have kids. Thats who this expansion is about. Not about people who actually need it, its actually probably gonna hurt a lot of those who actually need it. To fund it for more its most likely they will have to take away some coverage from those who actualky need it. I would be VERY surprised if this gets enacted that the state unemployment rate doesnt increase.

I agree. Able bodied people who work, but still struggle to maintain expensive insurance coverage. They are the biggest benefactors.

[schriznoeder]

5 minutes ago, schriznoeder said:

 

 

Speaking of indictments, two people who are under federal indictment (Duncan Hunter and Chris Collins) got elected to the House. Seems reasonable. 

[Danny Bateman]

4 minutes ago, C N Red said:

Dont disagree, but you are gonna start seeing a lot more people with medicaid that are now able bodied, can work, and dont have kids. Thats who this expansion is about. Not about people who actually need it, its actually probably gonna hurt a lot of those who actually need it. To fund it for more its most likely they will have to take away some coverage from those who actualky need it. I would be VERY surprised if this gets enacted that the state unemployment rate doesnt increase.

 

I mean it's a deeply conservative state. It's not like they're just going to roll over and welcome a full-blown lazy socialist takeover. It's going to have some checks.

 

I don't disagree there are people who game the system. I just think it's worth the loss helping them if it means we can help those who legitimately need it. @deedsker actually makes a good point. There are some people who work their tails off and barely make ends meet who pay premiums to maintain health insurance that is functionally useless for them. They will benefit them if they fall below that 138% poverty level. 

[schriznoeder]

This is fantastic (thread).

 

 

[Danny Bateman]

 

Also, a dead guy who owned the Bunny Ranch was the first state leg district just called in NV. Died a week or two ago. 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't for one second believe this was a win for the GOP because they reinforced their Senate majority. Chances are they were going to do that anyways - they could have done nothing (which they literally did) and gained more seats than Democrats simply because there were more Democratic seats up for grabs than GOP seats. 

 

That Cruz won was disappointing, but not surprising. This was a good night for Democrats as they now control the House and can provide oversight. But its up to House Dems to legislate, not just investigate. They can't afford to overplay their hand here.

 

I will be interested to see the voter turnout, but I believe it was high, which is another good sign. People rarely turn out for the midterms so just wait until 2020. 

 

 

[Moiraine]

In 2020 the Republicans will be defending 20-22 seats and the Democrats will be defending 11-13 seats. (I think there were 2 special elections for seats that will need to be won again).

 

Most of these are red states but there is Iowa, Colorado, New Mexico and Maine. On the other hand the Democrats will be defending Alabama and Virginia. I doubt the Democrats will be a shoe in to win the Senate in 2020.

 

 

One bit of good news for Democrats is this election was during a good economy and the recession is projected to hit June 2020.

[Danny Bateman]

1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

In 2020 the Republicans will be defending 20-22 seats and the Democrats will be defending 11-13 seats. (I think there were 2 special elections for seats that will need to be won again).

  

 

 Another bit of good news for Democrats is this election was during a good economy and the recession is projected to hit June 2020.

 

I think if they nominate someone good in 2020 and Trump continues his current trajectory, all bets are off. Doug Jones is an almost certain loss unless Alabama substantially changes between now and then or the GOP nominates another pedophile. Tonight they passed fetal personhood & the right to display the Ten Commandments on public property by ballot measure. So that's probably another -1 in the Senate column.

 

Dems will need to continue to figure out how to cut into Republican's lead in rural America, which Trump makes hard.  But the map will be much more favorable. But the coattails if Dems nominate a broadly popular candidate and Trump is flailing will be very generous even in red states.

 

Another thing to remember is that the House gains would have been much larger tonight with this margin without gerrymandering. Not sure we really learned too much tonight. But the GOP became Trumpier. Which is a huge turn off for a lot of us.

[Big Red 40]

So is Dems gaining control of the house a big deal or not ? How so ?

Is the GOP increasing their majority in the senate a big deal ? Why ? 

I’m Getting mixed answers all over on those questions what do you guys think ? 

 

[Danny Bateman]

17 minutes ago, Big Red 40 said:

So is Dems gaining control of the house a big deal or not ? How so ?

Is the GOP increasing their majority in the senate a big deal ? Why ? 

I’m Getting mixed answers all over on those questions what do you guys think ? 

 

 

House - yes. They will be able to provide oversight on Trump because they will assume control of all House congressional committees. The majority has a majority on committees as well, so they can subpoena and investigate things they are concerned about re: Trump, his cabinet, Congress itself or anything else in the public interest. They may not be able to pass a lot of dynamite legislation out of the House because their majority may not be as large as it would be without gerrymandering, meaning they run into the same problem the GOP had in the Senate.

 

Senate - Yes, but less so, IMO, since they already had the majority. They can pass more conservative, Trumpy stuff if they want but it won't get through the House if there is no bipartisan support. Honestly the rural red areas leaning more strongly into Trump and the GOP itself becoming more Trumpy are the biggest stories of the night here. A lot of the new GOP senators won by explicitly hugging Trump as much as they could. Most of the Dem moderates lost. Also, in the House, the House Freedom Caucus is going to get bigger. Things are going to get more partisan. Our rural/urban divide is getting larger.

[knapplc]

As the dust settles on this election, a couple of things are clear to me:

 

1)  The people who reject Trump's ugly brand of politics are getting out the vote. 

 

2)  The Democrats still don't have a unifying message or strong leader

 

 

 

That makes 2020 very interesting.  The election is in two years, meaning candidates need to start ramping up their campaigns within the next 8-10 months.  Who will it be?  Which Democrat is going to be that leader?  Because with no clear message and no strong leader, Trump's going to roll in his reelection bid unless enough people vote "Never Trump" and pick the same alternative candidate.

 

There's a long time to go between now and then, and I guess we'll have to see what Mueller does. But the Democrats have the same problem they had since President Obama's term ended - nobody knows who or what they are.

[Ratt Mhule]

8 hours ago, HuskerNation1 said:

That is quite a statement to make with no explanation of what in the heck you are trying to say.

 

Okay since you wont answer my question and tell me what you think DACA is then I will answer it for you. First of all, you keep saying DACA illegals. How can someone be illegal when they are in a program that gives them LEGAL status? They are as legal as someone who has a visa or a green card, which are also LEGAL people. Therefore, they cannot be DACA illegals.

 

Secondly, these are young people that have been here pretty much their entire lives. They only speak english and know nothing about their country of origin. They pay taxes just like you and I. They go to college and work high paying jobs. A lot of them work in important fields: medicine, science, etc. Jesus, 900 of them fight in our military!! These are people we should WANT in this country and can HELP this country. Just admit it already, you dont like people that look different than you thats why DACA bothers you so much.