Anti-Public Option Democrats

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I guess we have a lot of factual disagreements, Lief. I don't think except with the possible exception of France (France basically does subsidize insurance premiums and lets you choose you own doctor, but I am not an expert on its system, except that I know it seems to work better than the UK system), that the lower cost in single payer systems, is not largely explained by more Draconian rationing, and well drug prices, which the US subsidizes via higher prices for research, which is a separate issue, requiring laws that require drug companies not to charge higher prices (except for cost saving volume discounts) for non-monopsonistic governmental buyers. The Torie plan would end the US subsidizing drug research for the planet. It is a pity that it does not get more attention. But in the end, even that is nibbling around the edges. The issue is how to effect more Draconian rationing.

I assume that you know that VA medical care is currently a national scandal?  That is an example of what happens when the government just does its own thing without competitive checks. If that is the way to go to save money, count me out.

There is no arguing that we have the highest quality health care in the world. Wouldn't that risk reducing our level of quality. I don't buy the arguement that Technology actually hurts the situation. For instance currently in development is a vaccine that works on all Influenza viruses whether it be the Spanish Flu of 1918, the 1976 pandemic, the current Swine Flu pandemic or the really big doomsday Avion Bird Flu. If this thing turns out the successfull the cost savings from not having to worry about that doomsday Flu are wealth worth it too me. Of course the vaccine could turn out too dangerous to use but thats always a risk.

[Torie]

The quality of our health care under any system will be reduced, because we can't afford the current system, unless we get technology to give us cheap treatments (the deus ex machina "solution" that politicians love to talk about to make the tough choices just go away, which just isn't going to happen, but I digress). I am being switched to a new psoriasis drug. The cost? Close to $1,000 per shot per week. Insurance will pay two thirds of that, the drug company will rebate the bulk of the remaining one third (itself a scandal but that is another issue), and I may end up paying $50 per shot. You can see how this kind of treatment could bankrupt any system in a hurry, since I have a condition that will attend me until I assume room temperature, and with my new fitness kick, heck that might be in 35 years or something? It's fiscal meltdown baby, all due to new medical technologies.  I mean, hey, it is only cutting edge technology that could come up with something that cost I assume a huge amount to invent, and to recover those costs ends up with a cost of $1,000 per 40 mg  shot per week. My hands almost shake with I think of the cost of the fluid I am injecting into myself sometimes.

[Meeker]

If there are 50 votes for the public option, they should do it by any means necessary (budget reconciliation).

If there are 49, then settle for co-ops and hope we pick up seats in 2010.

But yeah, the whole obsession with 60 votes has to go; elections have consequences.

LOL! And passing legislation the public clearly doesn't support won't have consequences?

No wonder America's so fucked up these days....

Yeah, and that worthless Social Security is going to drive Mr. Roosevelt into the ground. And this bullsh**t Medicare and Medicaid is surely going to doom Mr. Johnson (but it doesn't really matter as Nixon will just repeal what is sure to be a complete disaster).

[opebo]

I wonder if those who want single payer or public option, would rather 1) settle for mandatory health insurance with subsidies for the poors, with regulations about coverage and transparency and allow competition across the land and come up with some sensible solution about how to deal with non-poors without health insurance with pre-existing conditions (probably not a large group), or 2) if they can't get the votes, do nothing, and let the current system go further insolvent, in hopes that panic will cause a public option down the road to be enacted, concerned that if option 1 were enacted, option 2 would no longer be in play.

Nobody has made the case to me that the public option is something other than a scheme to slowly through government subsidies of the public option squeeze out private options except for those who are well like me, with the financial resources to say screw it, F you, and I will pay my own way for the kind of service I want.  It is a nose in the tent scheme it seems to me, until someone convinces me otherwise.

Yes I always hoped that the Public option would be precisely that - a way to slowly but surely get rid of every other type of health care and move us finally to single payer.

But I would opt for #2 - force a vote to expose the fake democrats and let the current system fail further.  Either way it is genocide, so we might as well stick to a harder line.

[JSojourner]

If there are 50 votes for the public option, they should do it by any means necessary (budget reconciliation).

If there are 49, then settle for co-ops and hope we pick up seats in 2010.

But yeah, the whole obsession with 60 votes has to go; elections have consequences.

Opponents can object at any time that an item in the budget reconciliation is not really germaine to the budget, and it takes 60 votes to override the objection, so this 50 vote "solution" is DOA, and a bluff by the proponents of the Obama plan. It will never happen, unless I am missing something. That in fact is why Obama in fact has essentially abandoned the public option, and is going with repacking as public cooperatives, which may just be a name change for PR purposes (in which case it too will fail), or a substantive change. Time will tell. He knows the 50 vote action is a chimera.

Well, there's also the question of whether the Democrats who oppose it would actually vote to sustain a filibuster. One can certainly take the centrist position of opposing the bill but also opposing a filibuster attempt.

Well if Obama thought he had 60 votes, he would be taking a different tack then he is taking. I guess the issue is whether there is some fig leaf still out there that with clever repackaging,  will get Obama most of what he wants leading to eventual demise of the private insurance except around the rich edges. I doubt it.

Right.  And by my count, these are the Democrats firmly against -- or seriously wavering -- on the public option:

Bayh
Conrad
Ben Nelson
Pryor
Landrieu
Baucus
Johnson
Feinstein
McCaskill
Begich

And possibly Kay Hagan

11 is a pretty daunting obstacle.  No matter what happens in the House, if the Senate opposes it, the matter is dead in the water.  I am not saying Obama shouldn't fight for it on general principle.  I'm just saying that, if he doesn't, this will likely be why.

All in all, I am disappointed.  But as Torie said earlier, public option is about as far from a panacea as you can get.  We really need single payer, universal health care.  And before that happens, the conservative nuts showing up at tea parties will resort to bloodshed and violence.

People keep saying LBJ got even more controversial measures passed.  True.  But Johnson's allies included some liberal Republicans. He could cow a few (though hardly all) of the unrepentent members of his party.  But their votes were less crucial because he knew he could count on a certain number of Republicans to do the right thing.  Sadly, we cannot count on that today. 

[IllinoisFreedomFighter]

A quick question to those of you out there that support the public option/ single payer...

What has Government done to deserve this level of trust from you?  By insisting that Government take over Health Care, you are not only trusting them with 1/6 of the economy, but you are literally trusting them WITH YOUR LIFE!
You will never be able to count on my as a supporter of Government involvement in Health Care, as it is not one of the Enumerated Powers in the US constitution, but I am seriously at a loss for how anyone comes to become this trusting of Government, which is corrupt by nature.  Ever hear of the phrase "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"?

[Хahar 🤔]

Feinstein is a horrible, horrible person. I'm glad that I'll be able to vote her out in 2012.

A quick question to those of you out there that support the public option/ single payer...

What has Government done to deserve this level of trust from you?  By insisting that Government take over Health Care, you are not only trusting them with 1/6 of the economy, but you are literally trusting them WITH YOUR LIFE!
You will never be able to count on my as a supporter of Government involvement in Health Care, as it is not one of the Enumerated Powers in the US constitution, but I am seriously at a loss for how anyone comes to become this trusting of Government, which is corrupt by nature.  Ever hear of the phrase "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"?

The alternative is insurance companies, who are accountable only to their shareholders.

[JSojourner]

A quick question to those of you out there that support the public option/ single payer...

What has Government done to deserve this level of trust from you?  By insisting that Government take over Health Care, you are not only trusting them with 1/6 of the economy, but you are literally trusting them WITH YOUR LIFE!
You will never be able to count on my as a supporter of Government involvement in Health Care, as it is not one of the Enumerated Powers in the US constitution, but I am seriously at a loss for how anyone comes to become this trusting of Government, which is corrupt by nature.  Ever hear of the phrase "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"?

What has government done to earn my trust?  Saved my daughter's life. Helped my wife and me afford to purchase our first home.  Provided my brother with educational opportunities he would never have had, had it not been for the G-I bill.  Shut down and punished a local company that was dumping poisonous toxins into the water table. Medicare.  Medicaid. Wic. Head Start. CDB Grants.  I could go on.  My family and others I love have all benefitted greatly from "big guv'mint".  Now, can government become corrupt?  Of course.  And insurance companies, HMO's and pharmaceutical concerns cannot? 

I will always understand and respect the conservative/libertarian view that government must be carefully watched.  I will never understand or respect the notion that the corporate sector -- with profit as the perpetual bottom line -- needs little or no monitoring. 

You say we are insisting that government take over health care...well yeah.  Because we're about a quarter or halfway there already.  I have to laugh and cry at the same time when I hear conservatives saying they want government out of health care one minute and the next minute whining that government should keep its hands off Medicare. 

Oh, and I agree that government is corrupt by nature.  But only because government is us.  We are government.  And we humans are corrupt by nature.  That's what makes the whole American experiment in government so astounding.  We have become a government of, by and for people (who are, by nature, corrupt) but who seek to rise above our natural state of corruption.  Our Founders and those who follow in their footsteps are striving to form a more perfect union.  We're not there yet.  In fact, we have a long way to go.  But throughout our history, we can point to shining lights in various political parties who have behaved (at least most of the time) as though they were guided by the "better angels" of their nature.

I'm sorry you have given up on that vision.   

[Mechaman]

Feinstein is a horrible, horrible person. I'm glad that I'll be able to vote her out in 2012.

That comment alone makes you a mega Freedom Fighter in my eyes.

[Mechaman]

A quick question to those of you out there that support the public option/ single payer...

What has Government done to deserve this level of trust from you?  By insisting that Government take over Health Care, you are not only trusting them with 1/6 of the economy, but you are literally trusting them WITH YOUR LIFE!
You will never be able to count on my as a supporter of Government involvement in Health Care, as it is not one of the Enumerated Powers in the US constitution, but I am seriously at a loss for how anyone comes to become this trusting of Government, which is corrupt by nature.  Ever hear of the phrase "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely"?

What has government done to earn my trust?  Saved my daughter's life. Helped my wife and me afford to purchase our first home.  Provided my brother with educational opportunities he would never have had, had it not been for the G-I bill.  Shut down and punished a local company that was dumping poisonous toxins into the water table. Medicare.  Medicaid. Wic. Head Start. CDB Grants.  I could go on.  My family and others I love have all benefitted greatly from "big guv'mint".  Now, can government become corrupt?  Of course.  And insurance companies, HMO's and pharmaceutical concerns cannot? 

I will always understand and respect the conservative/libertarian view that government must be carefully watched.  I will never understand or respect the notion that the corporate sector -- with profit as the perpetual bottom line -- needs little or no monitoring. 

You say we are insisting that government take over health care...well yeah.  Because we're about a quarter or halfway there already.  I have to laugh and cry at the same time when I hear conservatives saying they want government out of health care one minute and the next minute whining that government should keep its hands off Medicare. 

Oh, and I agree that government is corrupt by nature.  But only because government is us.  We are government.  And we humans are corrupt by nature.  That's what makes the whole American experiment in government so astounding.  We have become a government of, by and for people (who are, by nature, corrupt) but who seek to rise above our natural state of corruption.  Our Founders and those who follow in their footsteps are striving to form a more perfect union.  We're not there yet.  In fact, we have a long way to go.  But throughout our history, we can point to shining lights in various political parties who have behaved (at least most of the time) as though they were guided by the "better angels" of their nature.

I'm sorry you have given up on that vision.   

While I'm not as nearly libertarian as I was when I joined this forum 2 months ago, I kind of agree with Illinois Freedom Fighter on this one. At least when we're talking about single payer healthcare, the public option is a different matter for me. As long as there is still a private option available, I might be open to the idea of government run hospitals. If we are to implement publicly funded hospitals though, I'd prefer these hospitals be funded on the state level instead of the federal level or better yet let each individual state decide (like in Massachusetts) on what type of healthcare system they would prefer. I think if we leave it up to the states on this one, everybody wins: Texans crying "State's rights" will shut up about secession, Vermont people crying "healthcare for all" would be satisfied, Americans go to the bar holding hands and singing songs from Cheers. Win win for everyone, nobody goes home crying like little babies or beating up people at townhall meetings. People in left leaning states can have their single payer healthcare, people in right leaning states can have their completely privatized healthcare systems. I never thought I'd become a pragmatist on this subject, lol.

Yes I realize I just set myself up to be sacrificed by the Conservative and even Libertarian Purist Brigades. Bring on the flames.

[IllinoisFreedomFighter]

JSojourner, I have to take exception with most of your list, as you are obviously a "taker".  You see government programs as "good", and do not care whatsoever where the funding for them is coming from.  I do not know how they saved your daughter's life- I won't ask for an elaboration as it is probably an issue that is quite emotional for you.  Government gets its resources to provide all the services on your list through taxation, both direct and indirect.  Direct= the income tax, sales tax, parking tax, and all the other ways politicians figure out to get more money.  Indirect= inflation, yes when there is a deficit/debt, it must be "monetarized", which means more money is printed and all the money you have loses it's value- wealth is taken from you.  In both cases, wealth is removed from the productive sectors of our economy.  You like what you get, but I resent those that get it as some of that money was mine, and other productive members of our society.

You say you want government to take over health care because we are already halfway there after you site that medicare and medicaid (the MAIN reasons we are halfway there) are things the government has "done for you".  Obviously in your worldview, the government increasing in size and scope to eventual communism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If WE are the Government, than why did it pass a $Trillion banker bailout against popular support.  I cannot get a meeting with my representative, and I've tried almost a dozen times.  Don't really feel like part of the government, how many of you do?

How have I given up the vision of our founding fathers?  WOW- what a twisting of words, and jump of logic.  The founding fathers enumerated the powers of the Federal Government in Article 1 Section 8, and then made it clear in the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights that ALL OTHER POWERS are reserved to the states and to the people.  Guess what is not on the list of powers?  You guessed it, Health Care.  Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and all of you advocating even more Federal involvement are the ones giving up on the vision of our founding fathers- THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENT!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?!  

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Wow it is really sickening to see Democrats who freaked out over Bush and Republicans wanting to use the nuclear option, etc., on judicial appointments now having no problems thinking about using it to screw over the taxpayers out of a trillon dollars

[Хahar 🤔]

JSojourner, I have to take exception with most of your list, as you are obviously a "taker".  You see government programs as "good", and do not care whatsoever where the funding for them is coming from.  I do not know how they saved your daughter's life- I won't ask for an elaboration as it is probably an issue that is quite emotional for you.  Government gets its resources to provide all the services on your list through taxation, both direct and indirect.  Direct= the income tax, sales tax, parking tax, and all the other ways politicians figure out to get more money.  Indirect= inflation, yes when there is a deficit/debt, it must be "monetarized", which means more money is printed and all the money you have loses it's value- wealth is taken from you.  In both cases, wealth is removed from the productive sectors of our economy.  You like what you get, but I resent those that get it as some of that money was mine, and other productive members of our society.

You say you want government to take over health care because we are already halfway there after you site that medicare and medicaid (the MAIN reasons we are halfway there) are things the government has "done for you".  Obviously in your worldview, the government increasing in size and scope to eventual communism is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If WE are the Government, than why did it pass a $Trillion banker bailout against popular support.  I cannot get a meeting with my representative, and I've tried almost a dozen times.  Don't really feel like part of the government, how many of you do?

How have I given up the vision of our founding fathers?  WOW- what a twisting of words, and jump of logic.  The founding fathers enumerated the powers of the Federal Government in Article 1 Section 8, and then made it clear in the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights that ALL OTHER POWERS are reserved to the states and to the people.  Guess what is not on the list of powers?  You guessed it, Health Care.  Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and all of you advocating even more Federal involvement are the ones giving up on the vision of our founding fathers- THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENT!

In other words, you are more concerned that the "productive members of our society" keep their money than that those who are "unproductive" (for instance, Jim's daughter) be able to live. Putting aside all else that is quite disturbing about this, "productivity" is not measured by wealth.

[Meeker]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?!  

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

lol

Not that the rest of this post is any less amusing, but could you enlighten us as to which 25 districts and which 5 senate seats the Democrats have already "locked in" a loss?

[Ebowed]

Well, the GOP will gain HI-01 for sure.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?!  

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

lol

Not that the rest of this post is any less amusing, but could you enlighten us as to which 25 districts and which 5 senate seats the Democrats have already "locked in" a loss?

Don't laugh boy. The God himself gave jmfsct a list of endangered districts.
The problem is of course that apparently He just copy-pasted it from Charlie Cook's site.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?! 

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

lol

Not that the rest of this post is any less amusing, but could you enlighten us as to which 25 districts and which 5 senate seats the Democrats have already "locked in" a loss?

Don't laugh boy. The God himself gave jmfsct a list of endangered districts.
The problem is of course that apparently He just copy-pasted it from Charlie Cook's site.

The ole “let’s try to pawn off predictions made by Christians that agree with historical averages as merely random religious visions, even though he never claimed his prediction had any religious origin” flies about as well as the public-option your attempting to pass in order to bankrupt all the insurance companies.

[Torie]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?!  

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

You don't think your wishes are coloring a bit your predictions?

[Nym90]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?!  

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

Ok, someone needs to bookmark this and bump it after election night 2010.

Whether the prediction turns out to be true or not, come to think of it.

[Frodo]

Let's assume that the Republicans here are right, and that Democrats will lose control of Congress next year by passing a health care bill (with a strong public option) by means of the nuclear option.  And let's also assume that Democrats will lose control of Congress (like they did last time around...) because they fail to pass a health care reform bill even with 60 seats in the Senate. 

Given this scenario, Democrats really have nothing to lose if they are going to lose their majorities next year anyway regardless of the fate of this health care reform package.  The way I see it, they might as well use the nuclear option to get the bill President Obama campaigned on originally, and accomplish something worthwhile before they are booted out.  And in the meantime, they should use similarly tough tactics with regard to other aspects of President Obama's agenda, like climate change and financial regulatory reform.   

[Torie]

Are you sure your matrix score is accurate, Frodo? 

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?! 

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

Ok, someone needs to bookmark this and bump it after election night 2010.

Whether the prediction turns out to be true or not, come to think of it.

-5 Senate seats and -25 House Seats is not too much out of the norm for a mid-term...a mere picnic compared to 1994.  You probably can expect the Dems to do worse in the House than the Senate since the whole House is elected every two years and many of those historically GOP seats lost in 2006 and 2008 are going to be hard to defend given all the government encroachment on traditionally private sectors of the economy.

You didn’t expect the pendulum to perpetually keep swinging to the left, did you?

[Meeker]

Dems, read the handwriting on the wall - the public option is DOA.  and any form of health reform barely has a pulse.  You spent huge amounts of political capital while managing to turn the public against almost every one of your policies.

To date, you've already locked in huge loses in 2010 mid-terms.  At least 25 house seats and 5 Senate seats.  Minimum.  And this is before you pass tax increases, before Afghan implodes, and before Israel repaints the desert red with the blood of Muslims.

And don't count on the recovery to bail you out of political hot water...4 million jobs were created in 1994, yet the Dems lost control of the congress.  And tempers and running a lot hotter this go around.

After taking control of the banks and the autos, passing a poorly crafted stimulus, and after running up a $2 Trillion deficit, regardless if Bush is to blame...did you NOT think the public would react violently to an attempted Federal take over of the health care system?! 

As it is, this health care battle is over, and you're now simply left to fight amongst yourselves.  You've turned the seniors against you (the most likely voters), and you're quickly on your way to disillusioning younger voters.

Ok, someone needs to bookmark this and bump it after election night 2010.

Whether the prediction turns out to be true or not, come to think of it.

-5 Senate seats and -25 House Seats is not too much out of the norm for a mid-term...a mere picnic compared to 1994.  You probably can expect the Dems to do worse in the House than the Senate since the whole House is elected every two years and many of those historically GOP seats lost in 2006 and 2008 are going to be hard to defend given all the government encroachment on traditionally private sectors of the economy.

You didn’t expect the pendulum to perpetually keep swinging to the left, did you?

My objection wasn't the notion that "it won't be a good year for the Democrats", but to make claims with random numbers of seat loss that it seems you basically pulled out of your ass is kind of ridiculous. Especially the Senate seats... a five seat loss with the 2010 map is virtually impossible even in a 1994 or 2006 style year.

[Nym90]

What Meeker said. No, of course I don't expect it to keep moving left, but I also don't expect that we're back to 2002-2004 again, either.

Yes, Democrats will almost certainly lose seats in the House, but unless there's a lot of unexpected retirements, losing more than 15 seats would be very unlikely.

The odds are against GOP gains in the Senate at all given how well the GOP did in 2004 and the fact that you have way more open seats to defend than we do; even a 1-2 seat gain would be great for you guys, given the lay of the land there.

Yes, health care played a part in the 1994 result (especially the fact that in the end there was no bill passed at all, whereas there almost certainly will be something passed this time, even if it's watered down....I'm not sure where the idea that any reform at all barely has a pulse is coming from.....you really think there aren't 60 votes in the Senate for co-ops?). The fact that no health reform at all passed in 1994 helped deflate the left and reduce Dem turnout. Blacks weren't too happy about the death penalty expansion in the 1994 crime bill either (many liberal black Congressmen voted against it for that reason, which is a big part of why Clinton needed the more moderate/conservative Dems in the first place, helping lead to their defeats due to having supported the assault weapons ban that was included in the bill as well), and thus black turnout was depressed in 1994, something that under Obama, isn't too likely to happen....even if it's down from 2008, it's still going to be well above 1994-1996 levels almost for certain.

You also had gun control in 1994 as a huge issue, Dems had actually passed two major gun control bills in the previous Congress, which is two more than will have been passed by 2010 in this Congress.

Also, there were far more retirements in 1994 than there are likely to be in 2010, since the Dem majority is so much newer. Even freshmen Congressmen get reelected at a very high rate, much more so than the rate of retention of open seats. 22 of the seats Republicans gained in 1994 were open seats, and there aren't going to be 22 Dem open seats period this time, much less 22 attainable open seats.

If worst comes to worst, there is always the "remember Bush" fall back position for the Dems. I agree it's not a particularly potent argument, but at least the colossal failures of a GOP Congress will be remembered in 2010, whereas in 1994 the GOP had a much better case to be the party of "change" having been out of power for 40 years instead of just 4.

You are also leaving aside the fact that Obama's approval rating is still pretty solid (RCP average says 53 percent, and his percentage of the vote in 2008 was, well, 53 percent). If he were to get down into the 40-45 percent range, you'd definitely be on to something, but it's just pure speculation to assume that he will.

And yeah, tax increases on the middle/lower classes aren't happening.....and of course no one can possibly know what's going to happen in the Middle East, but you've been wrong in your predictions of doom and gloom there before.

Regarding a possible terrorist attack or some such, if Bush wasn't blamed for 9/11/01, would Obama be blamed for one happening on 9/11/09?