For the first time since 2011, more people support letting Obamacare "stand" rather than repeal it, per Quinnipiac pic.twitter.com/2RrdrigPWo
— Brett LoGiurato (@BrettLoGiurato) June 1, 2015
Digging an embedded program out is tough. Each day that PPACA stands on its three legged stool makes repeal a whole lot harder. For once, status quo bias favors progressives.
Valdivia
This is good news indeed, except chicken-little that I am, I find myself still pretty nervous about the King decision.
rikyrah
Maybe some of the idiots who are benefitting from Obamacare, but call it something else, have woken up.
Tommy
The problem for repeal is it is working. I have often said in your threads I work for myself. I now pay almost $100 less a month for a much, much better plan. And it was more than that before this year and I changed my plan to upgrade. I have to think there are a lot of Republicans out there that are in my situation. And they are seeing what I’ve found, it works BETTER than I would have thought.
rikyrah
@Valdivia:
I don’t find it being a Chicken Little at all, since they never should have taken the case in the first place.
NonyNony
@rikyrah: Margin of sampling error of +/- 2%. It’s basically the same as the November poll, but the trend from 2012 (when “REPEAL” was at an all-time high due to a presidential election) to now is heartening.
Valdivia
@rikyrah: I felt a sense of dread when they took it and have been so-so since arguments. If they were going by the law it would be a resounding defeat. But since it’s about the defeat of ObamaCare….who knows right? I am trying to stay hopeful and think a 5-4 maybe even 6-3 is possible. Let’s see what happens.
clone12
Republican will one day rue the fact that they had branded this as “ObamaCare” and did all the free advertising for the Democrats.
Benw
@rikyrah: one hopeful sign is that Roberts refused to kill the ACA once already. And the Roberts court is above all pro-business and the insurance companies have to love the ACA. I’m trying to stay optimistic!
Matt McIrvin
Roberts didn’t kill the ACA last time… but by opening up the Medicaid gap, he broke it just enough to help poor people in red states feel resentful about how it’s not helping them.
This time around, the question isn’t whether the ACA should be invalidated outright, it’s whether it should be broken still further in a way that will generate far more resentment. I could see Roberts going with that, and explaining that Congress and the President could fix it quite simply if they could just agree on a fix. If they can’t… well, he might think, elections have consequences and this is a political problem rather than a legal one.
WereBear
I always call it Obamacare, and I love what POTUS says, “I don’t mind when they call it that, because I do.”
fuckwit
This could all be shot down by the SCOTUS, and if so fixing it will take until 2016 or 2030 or whenver we’ve taken back the statehouses and redistricted and gotten a majority of the House again AND over 2/3 of the Senate… could be a long time.
Shakezula
Not just entrenched but life-saving and life changing. People and providers will be harmed if the SC pulls the plug. Not that I expect the GOP to gaf.
Big ole hound
Strange how so much is made of polls by a tiny school in New Haven with the funny name Quinnipiac. I guess they must be considered the closest to accurate. How do these guys always seem to get it pretty close to right? Maybe because they aren’t sponsered by anyone we trust them?
JPL
@Valdivia: I’m not worried at all, since Scalia wrote a book about why context matters. Surely, he wouldn’t rule against himself. lol
JPL
The republicans only care about what the fox viewers think, so other polls don’t matter.
shortstop
@clone12: @WereBear: Living in their bubble, they assumed everyone shared their batshit hatred of the guy. It never occurred to them that pasting his name on it was a compliment and would solidify his legacy.
Xenos
The opposition to Obamacare was always a mile wide and an inch deep, for the most part. 15-20% of the voters who wanted a more left-wing program were lumped in with the antis, so that 35% plus 18% would make up a reportedly conservative majority of anti-Obamacare advocates.
The rank dishonesty of the media has been really depressing. But corporate media stands to be as discredited as the Republicans if the program gets scuttled by the courts.
FlipYrWhig
I’m telling you, if the Court decision is against Obamacare, Republicans will get away scot-free. Why, after all their sabotage? Because what Republicans _still_ think “Obamacare” is is free medical care for mooching blacks and browns. If Republicans who have gotten health insurance through Obamacare lose it because of the Court and Republicans, I have zero confidence that they’re going to know enough to lay blame in the right direction. Because the way it works in their minds, “Obamacare” is welfare. If they’re the ones benefiting from having health insurance they didn’t use to have, it HAS to be due to something other than “Obamacare.” Because “Obamacare” is for Those People, like “Obamaphones.”
shortstop
@Valdivia: I’m extremely nervous. Please, don’t let us see former Rep. Jean Schmidt again drama-queening her thanks to Jesus, this time for real.
shortstop
@FlipYrWhig: I don’t think anyone’s disagreeing with your assessment. I wish I could say otherwise.
FlipYrWhig
@shortstop: I think a lot of people who benefit from Obamacare have no idea they’re benefiting from Obamacare and blame Obama for helping too many undeserving people instead of themselves.
Chris
@Matt McIrvin:
And broke it just enough to massively screw thousands of the poorest and most defenseless people in society – as it stands, it’s basically “the more you need help, the less it’s there for you” (people scraping by with jobs of $10,000 a year or so get help with the subsidies, but those who aren’t even that fortunate get nothing).
Which, I’m absolutely positive, was enough in and of itself to persuade Republicans on the court to do it. They don’t just do these things out of political calculus. The simple thrill they get from watching the Unworthy sink deeper into the quicksand is enough.
FlipYrWhig
@shortstop: Whoops, reply crossed in the aether. But thanks(?) for agreeing with my dire assessment.
WereBear
@Chris: Yes, sadly, so.
I’ve been a radical Lefty since my teens, thanks to my omnivorous reading habits, but due to the cloak of politeness of the last century, I had always assumed conservatives didn’t have the facts, didn’t understand the issues, were in thrall to their religion, etc.
Which is still true.
But what this century has done is bring into stark highlights just how much SPITE motivates them. Lots & lots of it.
Valdivia
@shortstop: I had forgotten about that episode of derp. I too hope we don’t get to see her give her exulted thanks for real. Everyone was sure it would be struck down last time and it wasn’t. And though the medicaid scape-hatch has been very prejudicial, that decision which makes a coercion argument, is the one that I think makes it unlikely that they will favor the government’s in King. Then again, who knows right? Those who heard the case, and know the law and the workings of the Court were unsure, but optimistic. So I am following them :)
srv
We should stick with the status quo
Patrick
@Valdivia:
Amen. If they use this to defeat the ACA, then literally every law can now expect a lawsuit since every bill from Congress have some type of language issue. And most people know that when reading context, there is no language issue. But that would no longer be the case if they rule against ACA. Context would not matter per the USSC.
Chris
@WereBear:
Agreed. Of course, my information comes almost exclusively from this century, so maybe that helps. But a big part of my political journey to as far left as I’ve come has been from repeated exposure to every different part of the conservative base repeatedly proving that they were, in fact, exactly the spiteful psychopaths that the DFHs claimed they were.
A few years into the 2000s it was clear that the Bush administration and the fanatic bloggers and pundits who defended them were that way, but okay – that’s politicians and rabid believers. Nothing too unusual about that. Then the exposure to conservative churches and religious networks came in college (the “ordinary people” rather than politically active fanatics): turns out, they’re all just as fucked up. Then 2008 rolls around, with the main candidate being McCain that everybody on both sides of the aisle just kept saying was the voice of all these “moderate,” non-crazy Republicans I’m always hearing about. And… he selects Sarah Palin and generally proves himself to be as much a snake in the grass as anyone else around. And then you have the rise of the Tea Party Movement, embodying all the psychotic memes I’d gotten to know in the previous decade, and pretty much no one among any of the Republicans I know has anything but praise for them.
I kept up the illusion for years that there was some kind of faction of sane and moderate Republicans somewhere out there, if not a majority, if not enough to change their party, at least enough to be statistically significant. Nope. What you see in the comments section of Newscorp media is what you get.
Amir Khalid
@srv:
No, I think the status quo ante would be better.
KG
@srv: the sad part is, this isn’t even new or an outlier of some sort. there have been reports that TSA has had a 100% failure rate at major airports during the busiest time frames for a few years. security theater is, shockingly, useless – and probably makes us less safe (I’m surprised there was never a Boston marathon style bombing at a TSA checkpoint in an airport).
ETA: and a little google-fu tells me that we’re over 10 years with routine failure rates around 70% (or “slightly better than chance”)
Amir Khalid
@KG:
If you went around American airports taking group photos of TSA agents, you might have pictures of matchstick men.
(Sorry.)
shortstop
@FlipYrWhig: I guess I sounded like I was contradicting myself, so to summarize: If the ACA survives, I believe enough people will come to understand what it gives them that “Obamacare” will be a net positive label. But until then, I agree completely that vast swathes of folks simply don’t know that they’re benefiting from it. And so if it goes down, the GOP will pay no price. The reason the right keeps playing divide-and-conquer by race, ethnicity and income is because it always works.
raven
So we start off the day making fun of people who foster fear and spend thew afternoon being terrified. Get a fucking grip.
Omnes Omnibus
@Patrick: This is the reason that I don’t believe that Roberts will side with the troglodytes on this case. An anti-ACA ruling on this case would have huge ramifications.
Emma
@shortstop: The GOP will pay no price if there’s not a pushback from Dems. I don’t think Obama will allow his signature program go down without a fight.
Matt McIrvin
@Big ole hound: My experience watching election polls is that Quinnipiac’s polls aren’t any better or worse than anyone else’s. But they do a lot of polling.
Valdivia
@Emma: This. Also: the media love themselves tragic stories so however many people don’t know they are benefitting from ACA, there will stories in every local newspaper about the people who had insurance and then the Court took it away and the GOP refuses to fix it. I think there is a tendency to assume the media’s penchant for creating a narrative always works against us Dems, sometimes it works for us. In this case I think it might.
Amir Khalid
@KG:
An agency so inept at its job should be undergoing serious, top-to-bottom reorganisation — replacing the leadership, rethinking the work, firing incompetent agents, hiring new people untainted by the old practices and teaching them from scratch. I understand that in the civil service, in America as anywhere else, this is somewhat easier said than done.
But I suspect the W Bush administration made an utter dog’s breakfast of setting up the DHS as a whole, and the messed-up TSA is but one item among the department’s failings. I wonder what those other failings might be.
Germy Shoemangler
Here’s a conservative comment someone left on my local news:
The cost of Obamacare could rise for millions of Americans next year, with one insurer proposing a 50 percent hike in premiums, fueling the controversy about just how “affordable” the Affordable Care Act really is.
The eye-popping 50 percent hike by New Mexico insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield is an outlier, and state officials may not allow it to go through. But health insurance experts are predicting that premiums will rise more significantly in 2016 than in the first two years of Obamacare exchange coverage. In 2015, for example, premiums increased by an average of 5.4 percent, according to PwC’s Health Research Institute.
In his eyes, the whole thing’s a failure and needs to be repealed.
brantl
. This always happens, when thoughtful progressive ideas are actually IMPLEMENTED.
FlipYrWhig
@Emma: @Valdivia: But the key here isn’t entirely “who gets the blame?” IMHO it’s “will Republicans and apolitical types rightly blame Republicans for messing with their lives?” And I don’t think that’s going to happen. I think Democrats will blame Republicans, Republicans will blame Democrats, and the whole thing shakes out in tennis terms as a hold service rather than a break. A lot of observers seem to think that non-Democrats will hold any anti-Obamacare outcome against Republicans and raise a ruckus about it. I just don’t think that’s going to happen. People who lean Republican on everything else aren’t going to lean against them because the Supreme Court something somethinged Obamacare.
trollhattan
How long before we start seeing pictures of angry old women holding signs that read, “Keep you’re government hands of my Obamacare!!!”?
Germy Shoemangler
@trollhattan: I’ve always said that if Teddy Roosevelt or even Nixon had managed to push through some sort of universal healthcare system, the scooter-riding tea protesters would accept it without question while cursing the damn libruls.
Remember Reagan’s speech against Medicare? It was released as a freaking LP.
srv
@FlipYrWhig: As you know, Kansas and many other areas have a long history of voting in their best interests.
Repealing ACA will be the seminal “Big Gov’t Has Failed” moment. It could be the springboard Reagan never had to roll back much more.
And the Dems captain will be Hillary of HillaryCare. Tell me how that plays out during the campaign and if she wins.
Emma
@FlipYrWhig: So we’re going to lose either way and there’s nothing we can do about it. Jesus. Defeatist much? No wonder we liberals get our tochis handed to us on a regular basis. Say what you will about the Crazy Crowd, they never admit defeat and never stop fighting.
I think that the people that can be reached will understand who stopped their healthcare.
JPL
@srv: The republicans will say that big gov’t failed but that only wins, if we let it. As Richard pointed out the Price plan is worse than what we had before ACA.
gene108
@Valdivia:
The media will report that Congressional Dems, in 2009 and 2010, President Obama and Secretary Sebelius should have been more careful in drafting the law and therefore they forced the 5-4 decision to gut Obamacare.
Also, they will reference the right-wing meme that politicians did not read the bill, which is another reason the court was force to vote 5-4 in gutting Obamacare.
And if the media does not report this per se, the Republicans and the right-wing media will put talking points out blasting Congressional Democrats and President Obama, with points like those above that media will have no choice but to report what Republicans are saying about the SCOTUS ruling.
If the law goes down in King v Burwell, we are screwed, unless Democrats can rally people to take over state governments and set up state exchanges, which I do not see happening.
trollhattan
@Germy Shoemangler:
I do, and wasn’t it a gig paid by the AMA? Strange bedfellows if you ask me.
“Medicare’s just the first step. Next thing you know, the government will be telling us smoking is bad.”
Germy Shoemangler
@trollhattan: I remember the cigarette ads for smokes that were soothing for the throat, perfect for digestion. And Ronnie posed for quite a few of them.
MomSense
@Germy Shoemangler:
Wasn’t that recording made by the “Coffee Cup Connection” and funded by the AMA? The caffeinated beverage of choice has changed but it’s the same play book.
Germy Shoemangler
@MomSense:
The same bogus threats of soshilizm, the same complaining about scary government.
There’s currently one right wing troll who I read for enjoyment. He comments on my local news site. Little by little he reveals personal info. He is retired, collecting social security and on medicare. And you should hear him rant against liberals and government.
cahuenga
It takes awhile for the fabricated fear to wear off.
raven
@cahuenga: Ha
Valdivia
@FlipYrWhig: @gene108: I just don’t see this working exactly according to the GOP playbook this time. One thing is to abolish a theoretical benefit, another is to take it away from thousands of citizens in their own states. When the Medicaid decision was made everyone pretty much said Republicans would never expand, and little by little you see some GOP states dealing with the reality and creating their own version of it. Though I am nervous about the decision I think I will reserve the we are all absolutely doomed for when it actually happens.
@Emma: I am totally with you on this one.
shortstop
@Emma: We killed Tinkerbell! We slew her ass!
Brachiator
@Tommy: Great points. As more people find that the health care laws actually help them, I wonder if GOP politicians will continue to oppose Obamacare on principal, or begin to shift their ground and offer revisions to the law.
I also wonder if they will even continue to refer to it as Obama care, which would continue to give the president full credit for health care reform.
gene108
@Valdivia:
I’ve rarely seen the media be sympathetic to people, who are put upon. Their usual attitude is “why did you let person ‘A’ to that to you”, as opposed to blaming Person B for the offending action.
They are a bunch of would be bullies, who assume if you are not strong enough to fight back, you get what you deserve.
In short, I’ve lost hope in the media being helpful.
Brachiator
@Germy Shoemangler: Sounds so typical, this guy. “It’s liberal if you get it. It’s just what’s due me, if I get it.”
shortstop
@Valdivia: Okay, but again, if enough people don’t realize where the benefit is coming from, taking it away is much easier. The point on which we’re disagreeing is not whether people mind losing a benefit; it’s whether people understand that they’re benefiting from the ACA via lower insurance costs, better coverage, and protection against rescission and denial of coverage. Happily, polling indicates that people understand more than they did two years ago, but there are still an alarming number of folks who think Obamacare is a separate being that only benefits racial and economic Others, that the ACA holds no benefits for people on employer-provided insurance, etc.
gene108
@Brachiator:
Look at Kentucky. People there love KyNect, but hate Obamacare and President Obama.
The amount of research required for the average person to make the connection that the benefits their Republican* state government is giving them has anything to with Obama is a bridge too far to cross for enough folks that battling against Obama will never be a losing strategy.
* I know Kentucky is mostly run by Dems, but if Republicans start embracing the PPACA, they will dissemble how it is related to that law Obama passed in 2010, which will be enough to fool a lot of folks and if they try to implement the law their “improvements” will be poison pills that will eventually kill the law off, like they are proposing to do with Social Security and Medicare.
Valdivia
@gene108: I don’t want to belabor the point but don’t you remember the stories of all the people who lost their insurance when ACA began? One every night in every media market. I know they are assholes these media people, but it makes good copy so now you can expect the same stories in reverse. It might work out as both sides at the end, but the first stories won’t be and people will be pissed.
@shortstop: I have to differ on one little point. Those who get subsidies in the individual market know exactly what they are getting because they shop in the federal exchange and these are the people who will lose their subsidies, and then prices will skyrocket for them and they won’t be able to get what they got quite cheap through ACA anymore. King will not invalidate all of the ACA, just the subsidies for the federal exchanges.
Iowa Old Lady
@shortstop: Hell, there’s people that still think there’s death panels.
Valdivia
I should add: I do not disagree that the general public does not know what benefits they are getting through ACA, but those that shop in the Federal Exchange for their own insurance, not through work, are pretty aware of what they are getting and these are the people who will be affected.
shell
But the GOP (especially the raft of ‘candidates’) can still please their base by pretending to huff-and-puff-and-blow-Obamacare-down.
Brachiator
Upon further reflection, if SCOTUS votes against ObamaCare, it will give an advantage to Republicans, and hurt the public. Tea Party purists and a chunk of the GOP don’t care what the public think or want, because they oppose Obama Care, medicare and social security on principle. They are convinced that the government should not be involved here and that the magic of the free market will solve any problems related to health care.
The GOP has also purged many moderates and rigged voting districts to favor Republicans.
Voter anger would have to be substantial and sustained to overcome any Republican inaction, should the Court rule negatively on this issue.
cmorenc
@Chris:
…Republicans are also fond of re-branding their cruelty toward the unworthy as beneficial “tough love” which will in the long run, force the unworthy into becoming better, more self-reliant people, once they’re forcibly weaned from any vestiges of government benefits (the funding for which was amorally ripped from the hands of worthy “makers” in excessive income and wealth taxation).
FlipYrWhig
@Valdivia:
Fair point. I still think what would happen would be this:
“Hey, wait, I thought I was supposed to get a discount on my health insurance because of Obamacare. What happened?”
“Oh, well, thing is, the Supreme Court said Obama and the Democrats wrote the law wrong, and now you’re screwed.”
“Thanks a lot, Obama. Fuckin’ Obama can’t do anything right.”
“Yep, Democrats always over-promise and then we’re the ones who get left holding the bag.”
“Stupid Democrats screwed me again.”
Brachiator
@gene108: Great example. It is a reminder that some people refuse to give the president credit for anything, and will happily grasp onto anything that supports their denial, even if in the end they end up hurting themselves. They will blame Obama for that, too.
FlipYrWhig
@Iowa Old Lady: Someone somewhere linked a grotesque comment about Beau Biden’s death, where the local crackpot said that the Biden family deserved to suffer after the Democrats killed thousands of children by passing Obamacare and thus preventing them from getting health insurance.
OK, someone who thinks that way isn’t reachable. But counting on a backlash against Republicans from voters who aren’t already Democrats… that’s really not going to happen. Republicans don’t learn. They reelect Brownback. They want to punish the [n-word]-lovers. That means more to them than anything. Their grievances are at The Government, not at their party’s politicians, not ever.
Valdivia
@FlipYrWhig: I guess we will see how the Court decides and how it shakes out. I am not totally naive and think everything will work out, I just think it won’t be as easy for the GOP this time.
shortstop
@Valdivia: Right, but the numbers aren’t there to overcome the much larger anti-ACA bias and/or ignorance, even assuming that you could get all 16.4 mil who’ve bought through the exchanges to correctly blame GOP attacks rather than the well-publicized “unsustainability” of Obamacare.
@Brachiator:
Exactly. Valdivia thinks there’ll be enough. I think there won’t be. I most earnestly hope that she’s right and I’m wrong.
Valdivia
@shortstop: My only thought is that in each state, there will be a pretty good number of people who lose their insurance, they can pressure their own legislators about it. Important also to remember that those losing benefits cannot be classified as moochers, since they are mostly middle class, very different from the medicaid expansion. I think if a fix happens it will happen locally, not that there will be a national mass movement. I am hopeful, not deluded! :)
Wouldn’t it be great if Richard piped in with what he thinks, or people in the industry think will happen?
Brachiator
A good Politico piece on possible GOP strategy for repealing Obama Care can be found here.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/republicans-obamacare-repeal-118472.html
A tidbit (and I don’t think the GOP care about hurting the poor or the Middle-class):
Republicans could try to get rid of the mandates and taxes, but then they’d have to plug a trillion-dollar hole. Cut the Medicaid expansion to the states? Sounds simple enough, but then they could put themselves at odds with governors.
They’ll also have to decide if they want to scrap federal Obamacare subsidies, currently on the hot seat across the street at the Supreme Court, which this month will rule whether they’re constitutional. Gutting them would yield almost a trillion dollars in savings, which could then be used to repeal other parts of the law. But moderates also may experience a political backlash for slashing health care tax credits for poor and middle-class families. Extending or replacing the subsidies, though, could further limit their repeal options and alienate conservatives at the same time.
rikyrah
Got news for those Asians who took this fool up on his ‘ help’. …
If they think that those Legacy Ivy Leaguers are going to go all Meritocracy and allow them to take their children’s spots…
well, I ain’t been Black in America longer than 3 days.
I’m just sayin’.
……………
The Unlikely Race-Blind Mastermind Who’s Teeing Up the Roberts Court Just Scored Again
By Cristian Farias
The Supreme Court did not rule on any blockbuster cases this week, but it did accept an appeal in Evenwel v. Abbott, a case expected to become a blockbuster of its own when the court begins its new term in October.
Behind the case is Edward Blum. He is not himself a lawyer, or even a party in the case, but he’s made a name for himself getting the Supreme Court to hear landmark disputes — all of them with huge constitutional implications. Blum heads the Project on Fair Representation, a little nonprofit that funds litigation aimed at abolishing all distinctions and preferences based on race.
Here’s proof of his influence: In 2013 alone, the court decided two cases he helped engineer back-to-back: Fisher v. University of Texas and Shelby County v. Holder. One almost dealt a blow to affirmative action nationwide; the other effectively crippled the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Roberts court’s appetite for these cases is proven, and Blum is the man bringing them.
Since Fisher didn’t exactly come out the way Blum would’ve wanted — the justices kicked the case back to an appellate court for a second look, and he lostagain there — he decided to bring it back to the high court for a do-over. And he just may get his wish: Yesterday, the justices considered whether Blum’s case against the admissions policy at the University of Texas is worth reviewing again.
If the savvy Blum gets his way — veteran Supreme Court reporter Tony Mauro calls him a “mastermind” — he will effectively have two cases before the Supreme Court, ready for argument for when the court returns from its summer recess.
This is a remarkable success rate, though there’s nothing remarkable about how these cases come about. All of them seem to follow the same mold: Identify a legal principle, usually a settled equal-protection standard or statute from the ’60s and ’70s; recruit plaintiffs who are presumably “harmed” by the principle or its application to a specific policy; and then argue that it’s illegal to keep the principle, its application, or the policy in the books.
In November, for example, Students for Fair Admissions, a new advocacy groupBlum formed, filed a lawsuit against Harvard University challenging its admissions policy. Like the Fisher case, the long game behind the Harvard suit is to target affirmative action, but using a slightly different vehicle: The allegation there is that the university “intentionally and improperly” discriminates against Asian-American applicants on the basis of their race, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/05/meet-the-mastermind-teeing-up-the-roberts-court.html
shortstop
@Valdivia: I never thought you were deluded, just a little more optimistic than history might warrant. ;) Again, I’m rooting for your predicted outcome, not mine.
rikyrah
mofos, please
……….
Republicans seek to win over black voters once Obama’s gone
Republicans believe they have an opportunity to nudge their support up among black voters in the 2016 presidential election with President Obama not on the ballot — and take a major stride toward winning the White House in the process.
But they also acknowledge that it won’t be an easy task.
Republicans believe the 2016 Democratic nominee will not be able to produce the spike in black turnout nor the increase in already-overwhelming black support that Obama enjoyed in his two victories.
Even a modest rise in black backing for the GOP could be critical in swing states, independent experts acknowledge.
“There is not going to be any massive increase,” said David Bositis, a researcher specializing in voting behavior who worked for many years for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a black-oriented think tank.
“But in many places it does not take a massive increase. You have states like Ohio and Florida where you only have to have a very modest switch to flip the state.”
The last Republican presidential nominee to win 15 percent or more of black support was President Ford in 1976.
And experts warn that major shifts in voting behavior are a long time coming.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/243505-republicans-seek-to-win-over-black-voters-once-obamas-gone
Valdivia
@shortstop: those two (hope/delusion) can be easily confused :)
As I said I am nervous about it, but find myself less certain that it will be guaranteed doom as a lot of people here think. I have been reading a lot of the health economists who cover this and they are not predicting doom so that keeps me sane. I would be very curious what Richard thinks, since he is more in the know than we are.
Valdivia
@rikyrah: ha ha ha ha ha. Right. Like that will happen.
rikyrah
@Valdivia:
it all depends as to whom is actually John Roberts’ True Master – big business or right-wing politics, because in this case, they are not one in the same
Valdivia
@rikyrah: That sounds right to me, and I guess we will find out in a few weeks.
Iowa Old Lady
@rikyrah: That headline made me LOL sitting here all by myself. LOLOLOLOL
FlipYrWhig
@Valdivia: I’m not expecting “guaranteed doom.” I just think it’ll be the same partisan divide as usual, rather than Republican voters wising up and blaming Republican politicians for making their lives worse.
These are the only things a Republican politician could conceivably fear:
(1) “Will the people who voted for me vote for the other guy or stay at home because of something I did?”
(2) “Will the people who didn’t vote at all vote for the other guy because of something I did?”
I don’t think the Something I Did that tips the scale is going to be “my party wasn’t very sad when a provision of the health insurance reform law was ruled invalid.” These days I’m not sure a Something I Did that qualified would be “molested a prize llama.” IMHO tribalism is too strong to count on these kinds of things manifesting beyond a trickle.
Brachiator
@rikyrah: This is delusional, and not only because of Republican policies.
“The GOP spent more than 8 years insulting Obama and his family in particular, and black people in general. We did everything we could to keep racism and hatred alive in our constituents. But now that Obama is gone, we want you to vote for us.”
Chris
@cmorenc:
Not coincidentally, I believe this is also what wife beaters and child abusers say when beating their “loved” ones up. “It’s for your own good.” “This’ll hurt me more than it hurts you.” “One day you’ll thank me.”
SatanicPanic
@FlipYrWhig: But that works both ways. Democrats are inclined to blame Republicans on everything too, so if the ACA gets struck down I could see that motivating Democratic voters.
Chris
@rikyrah:
They’ll have an opportunity, from the moment they walk out onto the podium… until the moment they open their mouths and remind the audience what they’re really about.
muddy
@Chris: It’s also remarkable how this motivational strategy does not work on the wealthy and big business. If they don’t receive every penny of largess, they will lose their will to achieve and not work at all.
Cuz shut up that’s different.
KG
@Amir Khalid: the agency is (and in my opinion, always has been) a joke. particularly when it comes to screening, it is kabuki security theater and really always has been. the screening process has been incredibly reactionary and utterly stupid from the very first day. you can’t take a cup of coffee or a coke through the check point, or a bottle of shampoo in your carry on. one guy in Europe gets on a plane with a defective shoebomb and we all have to take off our shoes, one guy (again in Europe) gets on a plane with a defective bomb in his underwear and we are all subject to full body scans. but I don’t think this is something that can be laid entirely at the feet of the Bush Administration. the issues have been abundantly clear through the entirety of the Obama Administration – Congress has been unwilling/unable to act either, which makes things a bigger joke.
As for DHS, I found it dumb from the beginning. All of the agencies that were transferred to DHS were preexisting (with the exception of TSA), and they were in those other various departments for a reason. The Secret Service,for example, was part of the Treasury Department because it’s main objective is to deal with counterfeiting. It was ultimately doing something for the sake of doing something and likely made the implementation of policy more difficult. If TSA were in the Transportation Department there would be institutional knowledge within the larger Department to help deal with the issues TSA has dealt with (it was a part of the Transportation Department for about a year and a half before DHS was formed).
Tommy
@Brachiator: I don’t think African Americans are going to soon forget the hatred showed to Obama when he is out of office. I don’t mind bare-knuckle politics but what the Republicans did to Obama was so out of line I don’t even have words for it.
Valdivia
@FlipYrWhig: My point does not entirely contradict yours. I just don’t think this falls into the usual script our politics of tribalism have pre-written. I am very likely to be wrong, and you right. I just think that that there is a chance that this time we can’t really know until the Court decides and see what happens after.
FlipYrWhig
@SatanicPanic:
Sure, I wouldn’t rule that out. But Republican strategy is all about doing what you feel like doing and then daring the other guys to take you down. I don’t think too many of them are deterred by the notion that they’re poking the hornet’s nest.
Tommy
@KG: It is a total joke. I used to fly weekly but only a few times after 9/11, the TSA, and all the BS. I flew days after the regulations changed and you could not bring on bottles and other items. There were entire trash cans of stuff people had to throw away.
But the most bizzare was I was in Vegas. A lady going through security in front of me had a $500 bottle of wine she had bought. It was her only carry on other than a small purse. She was like look, the seal is in place.
The TSA agent told her she couldn’t bring it on the plane and suggested, I kid you not, she go find a place to “pound it.”
trollhattan
@rikyrah:
That crunchy sound was my eyeroll–they almost got stuck up there. re. That last Republican president to garner 15% of the black vote, can anybody imagine ANY Republican, RINOs included, saying this in 2015?
Ajabu
@rikyrah:
“well, I ain’t been Black in America longer than 3 days.”
Same here. And we’ve just been itching to vote for a Republican knowing that we won’t have a Black candidate this time. What about that Ben Carson? (playing the part of Herman Cain for the upcoming performance…) Maybe Alan West will run. Or even Ron Christie. They’re Black, right? And we are a monolith, you know. We ONLY voted for Obama because he’s Black, of course.
Well, I guess when the GOP nominates a Black man this time we’ll just have to vote for him, won’t we.
Mofos please, indeed.
Matt McIrvin
@Tommy: I used to fly a lot in and out of Boise, Idaho on business. The first time I flew after September 2001, new security procedures were in place, but the whole airport only had one security checkpoint with, I think, two metal detectors. The resulting line for security wound all the way around the airport’s administrative offices and down a stairwell into the baggage-claim area.
ruemara
Nice to know my worries about the ACA are just groundless, according to some. I have no doubts in my mind that Roberts would love to have mandates, no subsidies, no regulations, no cost controls. Without the ACA, I don’t get insurance. It’s still to expensive, but I also know how devastating it is to not have insurance and have something happen. It can take everything from you and to think the 5 sociopaths on the court would not boot people off their insurance without a backward glance, that’s a bit naive. I won’t feel ok until the Robert’s court is an 7-2 liberal majority.
Bubblegum Tate
@Germy Shoemangler:
Funny, I just saw the same comment–like, the exact same comment–on a wingnut blog. It’s almost as thought they’ve been supplied with talking points….
At any rate, I’d be interested to hear Richard’s take on it.
agorabum
@NonyNony: bad poll; when ‘should amend’ is included, amend or let stand has had the majority for some time. But, still good news, as presumably that is even better.