Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

How will Obamacare effect the Election?

1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 12:40:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Good news, the only reliable source to watch the 2012 election, Elephant Watcher, has analyzed this immediately.

As of now, Mitt Romney is going to become the nominee. Some other guy is still in the race, but I forgot his name and he is not relevant.

If Obamacare had been ruled unconstitutional, it would have been a bad result for Obama. It would have made Obama look foolish for spending so much time on something that was overturned, and it would have made him appear to have overreached. It would have also assisted Mitt Romney in claiming an important distinction between Obamacare and Romneycare; the individual mandate in Romneycare was never threatened, because it is a state law.

The ruling is not all good news for Obama, however. By keeping Obamacare in place, the Court has allowed Romney to keep his longstanding campaign promise to "repeal Obamacare on day one" alive. By characterizing the law as a tax, the Court seems to deliberately twist the knife: The Court implies that Obama raised taxes, broke his promise, and tried to disguise it by not calling it a tax.

That sounds like an unhelpful result for Obama. But the waters are muddied by Romneycare. If the main complaint about Obamacare is that it is a tax increase in sheep's clothing, Romney may be pulled into a bit of hypocrisy that can be counterattacked. While governor of Massachusetts, Romney defended Romneycare by saying the individual mandate was not a tax increase. Therefore, if Romney criticizes Obama for raising taxes, Obama can counter that Romney previously agreed that it wasn't a tax increase. The net result would be a victory for Obama.

Romney can avoid this pitfall, of course, by declining to make that specific attack. But other Republicans, and Romney-supporting SuperPACs, certainly will make the attack. Thus Obama can raise the issue himself--perhaps during a debate--challenging Romney to deny that his allies are wrong. This places Romney in an uncomfortable position.

During the Republican primary, Romney was able to defend himself by listing a number of distinctions between Romneycare and Obamacare. He did so skillfully in the debates, and it took his rivals several months to think of ways to properly attack Romneycare. Romney could have used similar methods if the issue came up during the general election. But with the Supreme Court's emphasis on the idea that the individual mandate is a tax, the debate may narrow its focus in a way that does not benefit Romney--by making the debate about whether Obamacare raised taxes.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 1:07:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well at least he doesn't call himself "1Grammargenius..."

My thoughts are that the cementing of Obamacare is going to cost Obama votes in the election. The reason is that this clearly socialist plan is going to energize the right and placate the left. Obama rode the anti-Bush energy into office and now Romney is getting a piece of that action here. Romneycare probably isn't going to hurt him too badly because anyone that's going to be pissed about that is only going to be ten times as pissed about Obamacare, and frankly I think most people exaggerate the importance of details because the laws are often quite detailed and complex and we're not going to know how effective this is for a long time anyway. All that matters is that Obama just offended the free market and even if it's the best thing for America he's not going to be able to prove that by election-time.
Rob
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 3:38:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 1:07:13 PM, Lasagna wrote:
Well at least he doesn't call himself "1Grammargenius..."

My thoughts are that the cementing of Obamacare is going to cost Obama votes in the election. The reason is that this clearly socialist plan is going to energize the right and placate the left. Obama rode the anti-Bush energy into office and now Romney is getting a piece of that action here. Romneycare probably isn't going to hurt him too badly because anyone that's going to be pissed about that is only going to be ten times as pissed about Obamacare, and frankly I think most people exaggerate the importance of details because the laws are often quite detailed and complex and we're not going to know how effective this is for a long time anyway. All that matters is that Obama just offended the free market and even if it's the best thing for America he's not going to be able to prove that by election-time.

The grand majority of the people do not like it. That is all that needs to be said.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 3:45:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Obama's victory wouldn't be so unclear if weren't for the inequality of voter turnout.

Liberals and Democrats can be so freakin lazy, yet Republicans are so organized and unified.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 4:13:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The real loser in this case is the American health care system.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 5:04:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 3:41:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
It's not socialist at all. It's crony capitalism at its finest.

"Crony capitalist" is not a system that anyone on earth is an advocate of. Hence, it's not a valid answer.

It's not capitalist, this is obvious-- capitalism requires the prohibition of initial force and fraud.

Define socialist before we can see whether Obamacare is socialist.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 5:11:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 3:45:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Obama's victory wouldn't be so unclear if weren't for the inequality of voter turnout.

Liberals and Democrats can be so freakin lazy, yet Republicans are so organized and unified.

Democrats have had a history of never being unified. In the 1860 election they were divided between a northern and southern party. In 1968 George Wallace broke some Democratic votes from the south. We also cannot forget the infamous convention in Chicago of that year. Even in the 1980 presidential primaries when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter for the party's nomination.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 6:36:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 5:11:47 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/28/2012 3:45:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Obama's victory wouldn't be so unclear if weren't for the inequality of voter turnout.

Liberals and Democrats can be so freakin lazy, yet Republicans are so organized and unified.

Democrats have had a history of never being unified. In the 1860 election they were divided between a northern and southern party. In 1968 George Wallace broke some Democratic votes from the south. We also cannot forget the infamous convention in Chicago of that year. Even in the 1980 presidential primaries when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter for the party's nomination.

The Democratic party always seems to find itself on the losing side of history too.
1Historygenius
Posts: 1,639
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 8:10:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 6:36:06 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 6/28/2012 5:11:47 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/28/2012 3:45:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Obama's victory wouldn't be so unclear if weren't for the inequality of voter turnout.

Liberals and Democrats can be so freakin lazy, yet Republicans are so organized and unified.

Democrats have had a history of never being unified. In the 1860 election they were divided between a northern and southern party. In 1968 George Wallace broke some Democratic votes from the south. We also cannot forget the infamous convention in Chicago of that year. Even in the 1980 presidential primaries when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter for the party's nomination.

The Democratic party always seems to find itself on the losing side of history too.

Civil War and Vietnam yes. WW1 and WW2 no. It was a Republican who won those two wars, but Democrats won the two others.
"The chief business of the American people is business." - Calvin Coolidge

Latest debate - Reagan was a better President than Obama: http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,834
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 8:20:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 6:36:06 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 6/28/2012 5:11:47 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/28/2012 3:45:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Obama's victory wouldn't be so unclear if weren't for the inequality of voter turnout.

Liberals and Democrats can be so freakin lazy, yet Republicans are so organized and unified.

Democrats have had a history of never being unified. In the 1860 election they were divided between a northern and southern party. In 1968 George Wallace broke some Democratic votes from the south. We also cannot forget the infamous convention in Chicago of that year. Even in the 1980 presidential primaries when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter for the party's nomination.

The Democratic party always seems to find itself on the losing side of history too.

But they are the masters of rewriting history for the next generation so no one can learn from it.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/28/2012 9:52:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/28/2012 8:20:27 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 6/28/2012 6:36:06 PM, MrBrooks wrote:
At 6/28/2012 5:11:47 PM, 1Historygenius wrote:
At 6/28/2012 3:45:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Obama's victory wouldn't be so unclear if weren't for the inequality of voter turnout.

Liberals and Democrats can be so freakin lazy, yet Republicans are so organized and unified.

Democrats have had a history of never being unified. In the 1860 election they were divided between a northern and southern party. In 1968 George Wallace broke some Democratic votes from the south. We also cannot forget the infamous convention in Chicago of that year. Even in the 1980 presidential primaries when Ted Kennedy ran against Jimmy Carter for the party's nomination.

The Democratic party always seems to find itself on the losing side of history too.

Which is why Democrats have historically dominated congress. ;-)
But they are the masters of rewriting history for the next generation so no one can learn from it.

Not just history; Democrats are good at spinning just about anything, past, present or future. Democrats are masters of propaganda.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle