The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 30,014
..or too late.
I agree that a Sanders win would probably cost the Dems the chance to flip the Senate in 2022.
Democratic caucuses and primaries
- Thread starter d4m10n
- Start date
..or too late.
I agree that a Sanders win would probably cost the Dems the chance to flip the Senate in 2022.
If I had a gun to my head and had to choose between a guaranteed Democratic as President in 2020 or a guaranteed 2022 Majority in the Senate for the Democrats I would really, really have to think on it.
You could make a fair case that McConnell is worse then Trump.
You could make a fair case that McConnell is worse then Trump.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
lobosrul5
Philosopher
That seems to be some sort of bookmaking site?? If they're taking a "juice" then they make money by having everyones bet add up to 100%. That doesn't mean their odds reflect reality. To be honest, I'm finding a distinct lack of Senatorial polls for the last several months. So I really don't know how anyone can be sure. But, dems need to somehow hang on to their seat in AL, that seems unlikely, hang on to the 1 seat thats close and they might lose, thats Michigan. Then pickup all 3 seats that they have a real shot at taking, thats AZ, CO, and NC.
Only a few minor provisions of the ACA were in effect at the time of the 2010 election. The exchanges did not open until three years later. The fact that the economy was still in sad shape was the real key to GOP gains in 2010. Wall Street was doing fine but Main Street was still suffering.
The stimulus programs kept our economy from falling into an abyss but the recovery was painfully slow. In early 2009 few understood just how bad the damage was. When that did become apparent in early 2010, the Democrats no longer had a filibuster proof Senate. The GOP blocked every attempt to stimulate faster economic growth.
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Another thing to keep in mind... A recession is coming. (Not suggesting any sort of great predictive powers here, but recessions do happen every decade or so, and the current expansion has gone on for quite some time.) I would much rather have a republican in the white house when a recession hits than a Democrat.
Worst case scenario: Democrats wins the presidency, economy crashes (even if its just due to bad timing, rather than anything the president does), voters sour on the Democrats, and we end up with a one-term president followed by more republicans.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
I agree. Trump without the Republican Senate would be in a tough spot, and would at least not be able to appoint as many far right Christofascist judges.
It wasn't the ACA that was the problem, it was Obamacare. OBAMACARE!!!! DEATH PANELS!!!!! Have you already forgetten Caribou Barbie?
lobosrul5
Philosopher
I remember distinctly a poll that showed the disparity between Americans who supported the ACA versus Obamacare. It was a pretty wide gulf.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Worst case, Trump wins. Ginsburg and Breyer die. We'll have a stacked SCOTUS for many decades to come.
And in this case the "Worst Case" is statically overwhelmingly likely to happen.
We won't make it 2024, probably not 2022, hell maybe not the end of 2020 without Trump getting to nominate at least one more SCOTUS judge.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Yes, I often see people present betting odds as if they were probabilities, but that's not true. They're reflective of what the self-selecting group of bettors think will happen - and you can't even draw any solid conclusions about that because each individual's opinion will be weighted by how much money they've invested in to it, and that's no indicator of certitude, track record, or knowledge of the situation being bet on.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
TurkeysGhost
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2018
- Messages
- 35,043
Wonder if the topic of Coronavirus will come up in the debate tonight.
Interesting feature of our privatized insurance system in this country, the country is chock full of uninsured and underinsured people who have a very strong incentive to avoid medical care because of the high personal costs.
I have a 12,500 yearly deductible. I would avoid seeking treatment for the virus so long as I thought the disease was not life threatening. Many others would make the same calculation. People avoiding hospital bills would make containing the outbreak very difficult.
It's going to be very hard to contain a virus in a country where people are financially punished for consuming medical care.
Interesting feature of our privatized insurance system in this country, the country is chock full of uninsured and underinsured people who have a very strong incentive to avoid medical care because of the high personal costs.
I have a 12,500 yearly deductible. I would avoid seeking treatment for the virus so long as I thought the disease was not life threatening. Many others would make the same calculation. People avoiding hospital bills would make containing the outbreak very difficult.
It's going to be very hard to contain a virus in a country where people are financially punished for consuming medical care.
Last edited:
I can't imagine it not getting name dropped at least, but if we're talking direct policy questions of a "What would you as POTUS do combat the Coronavirus" I doubt it, but they might come at it in more of a "What would you do as POTUS to combat epidemics/outbreaks like the Coronavirus" kind of thing.
Distracted1
Philosopher
Well, If they weren't wasting $9600 per year on their health insurance they would be able to afford to get healthcare!
Duh!
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Yup I'm in the same boat, although not quite that high. A Coronavirus outbreak might just about be the last straw before people start marching with torches and pitchforks demanding HC reform. Then again, what treatments can hospitals even offer? IV lines? Young and healthy people who contract it might be best off just staying home.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Just out of interest, the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak does provide an opportunity to mention childhood vaccinations. According to my Google, parents have to pay to have their children vaccinated for childhood diseases. Is this correct?
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
I hope a candidate mentions that while the loss felt by those impacted is absolutely the same, tens of thousands die of flu every year, so "as President" they would assign it the appropriate priority no matter how much the media want to exaggerate it into a looming existential threat. Toss in something about Trump letting scientific agencies and bodies go unstaffed.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Yes, however most insurance will kick in at least some of the bill, there are also some programs out there that will reimburse low income families. https://www.vaccines.gov/getting/pay
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
But McConnell will of course stand by well established precedent and refuse to hold confirmation hearings while there is an election pending.
Ha, Ha, I crack myself up!
In all seriousness, if a Dem is elected Potus but the R's still have the Senate, Mitchy will refuse to hold hearings for four years.