I disagree. Too much stuff going on, too many entrenched and reliable voters. That almost makes it a "damned if they do, damned if they don't," as I could see scenarios under which PASSING the healthcare reform hurts them.

Really hard to see. Expansions of universal entitlements have a very long history of popularity, with few counterexamples.

It could happen that Obama's health care bill is one of those rare unpopular attempts at universal social insurance, sure, but I'd bet against it.

assuming a military attack on Iran is off the table

Why would you assume that? I expect the Israelis to act before long.

Personally I think the Dems are toast in 2010 if they don't pass something/anything that at least looks like major healthcare reform.

disagree, if healthcare reform doesn't happen, the Dems have the ability to lay the blame on the Republicans for dragging their feet, they can say they tried to be bipartisan and that the Repubs just refused to cooperate. Any healthcare reform without a public option is pretty much maintaining the status quo anyway.

There are a lot of issues on the table and when the 2010 comes around, I would prefer to wait and see what is happening in Afghanistan, the environmental issues, etc.

Really hard to see. Expansions of universal entitlements have a very long history of popularity, with few counterexamples.


Yeah, until the money runs out.

Just because we have never had an extended 3 party system doesn't mean it can't evolve- it has in other countries- plus I really do think the Left and the Right in this country are pulling apart- the right is insisting on control over the Repub party, the left (for now) is merely whining, but that may change

How many non-parliamentary democracies have developed this way, though? American-style representation seems to lead inexorably to a two-party system. There are occasional inflection points where one of the two parties is replaced, but a two-party equilibrium returns.

I do think that third parties could have success at the local level. Libertarians in New Hampshire, greens in Washington state, socialists in Massachusetts, tea party patriots or whatever in Alabama - especially if they set their sights on municipal and statehouse representation, they could have real effects on things. But nationally, it doesn't seem possible.

Yeah, until the money runs out.

Can you cite examples of expansions of universal social insurance which have become unpopular for fiscal reasons?

Any healthcare reform without a public option is pretty much maintaining the status quo anyway.

Strongly disagree. We would maintain the status quo of health care costs (but even the House's public option won't restrain costs very well now that its rates are negotiated), but even the least liberal Senate bill expands Medicaid up to 150% of poverty and gets insurance to almost every American. The least liberal Senate bill places real and strong regulations on the health care industry, instituting community rating (no more pre-existing condition charges) and ending recission (unilateral cutting off of health insurance). These are major expansions of social insurance which will be very popular.

Health care as a section of the economy is a problem, and it would be very good to take some hacks at it with this bill, but even if that doesn't happen, this bill will do all sorts of good for people in need.

Creigh Deeds wouldn't have lost by 18 points if he hadn't run such a shitty race, but the electorate that turned out in Virginia was an electorate which is not happy with the national Democratic party and if the national 2010 electorate resembles this one, Democrats are in trouble.

Sure -- and Deeds also never passed up an opportunity to piss on that base. Health Care reform? Deeds said he'd definitely have VA opt-out. Cap-and-trade? No way!

All Deeds offered the Democratic base was a (D) next to his name. As I've said several times, I have no problem with blue dogs per se, especially in ideologically purple areas (and VA probably qualifies there)... but there are ways to set yourself apart and distinguish yourself as a 'centrist' without taking every possible opportunity to piss on the base.

The base generally doesn't get to fired up when you build your campaign around telling them how fervently you oppose every single line item that some portion of them support.

Really hard to see. Expansions of universal entitlements have a very long history of popularity, with few counterexamples.

It could happen that Obama's health care bill is one of those rare unpopular attempts at universal social insurance, sure, but I'd bet against it.

Right - this what also perturbs me about the left's opposition to any sort of watered down approach... Social Security, as originally passed, was basically constructed to exclude African-Americans... it also included a large number of (now dying off, without it ever being fixed) "gap babies".

I'm all for taking as big a bite of the apple as possible, and it's certainly possible to so twist and shallow up a bill so that it's actually worse than nothing at all. I mean, even the Part D expansion, which had significant, significant problems probably rates (just barely) as a positive, all things considered.... and even though the problems are substantial, they're fixable (in fact, the House bill does fix one of them, gradually closing the coverage 'donut hole'... the other big fix needed - direct price negotiation - was set aside in exchange for other PhRMA concessions).

7) Disagree, think the opposite is more likely Dems MIGHT lose congress in 2010, but by 2012 the economy will be rising- even if it is lower than when Obama took office in 2009, it'll will still be above the bottom- and people on the whole will be more optimistic in 2012 than 2010- he's getting re-elected barring some scandal or a re[peat of the Iran Hostage Crisis.

I don't see either chamber flipping. Whatever the national mood, the dynamics just aren't there. In 1994 - the Dems had a SIGNIFICANT raft of retirements (something like 30+ in the house alone), before we even got to the ethical problems people like Foley and Rosty faced.

Granted, it's still early -- but thus far, the Dems are looking at less than 10 house retirements (and most of those are to higher office seekers). The GOP actually has more open seats so far in 2010 than the Dems - and several (Mark Kirk, for one) that are probably in serious trouble. The news is probably even worse for the GOP in the Senate... The Dems have just 2 open seats (DE and probably IL) - both in blue states. They've got another 2 in trouble (Reid and Dodd, probably add Lincoln to that). The GOP has six open Senate seats they're trying to defend... and their plum recruitment wins -- Crist, Grayson in KY, Kirk in IL -- either already are or could very well find themselves in the primary crosshairs.

Sure - anything can happen...

But the dynamics at this point are VERY different than 1994.

While you can take it with the grain of salt of all exit polling -- I would also note that Obama fav/unfav numbers from VA and NJ were eerily close to his vote shares in 2008.

To me - the lesson for the Dems is that they ought to be running towards Obama, not away from him.

For better or worse, you bet on the President. If Obama turns into the unmitigated disaster Bush was - then they'll get a really good thumping in 2014/2016 - but it's worth noting in a just as polarized climate, the GOP had very, very good electoral success latching onto a 50/50 President prior to the bottom falling completely out.

The Democratic base still likes Obama. In a mid-term, it's the base you need to win. Blue dogs ought to be aware of this...

"Some parts of the current NY-23, when mixed with some parts of other districts that sometimes were in the same congressional district as the arbitrarily chosen parts of NY-23 in order to make this claim and sometimes not, haven't elected a Democrat since the 19th century."

I'm not sure if you meant that to be tongue-in-cheek, but obviously no editor on planet Earth would allow a statement as convoluted as that get to print when "not since the Civil War" is close enough to the truth to suffice for what is essentially a sidebar to the actual story of the election result.

Bush didn't stumble into anything. He launched a calculated strategy of preventive wars that didn't work out well.

With a naive, hubristic view of what the consequences of those wars would be, with virtually no planning for reconstruction. There is a causal connection between those things and the war(s) "not working out well."

Why would you assume that? I expect the Israelis to act before long.

My pet theory? They haven't yet because they need some logistical assistance- which GWB2 wouldn't give them and Obama won't.

They are now secretly negotiating with....
The Saudis, who are secretly ALL IN FAVOR of Israel taking out Iran's nuke capacity- so in favor that they are willing to not only let the IAF flyover the Kingdom, but refuel, etc.

BUT DON'T WANT ANYONE TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE DEALING WITH THE JEWS

This isn't the 1980s- they can still get away with violating Syrian Airspace at will, but Iraqi airspace is controlled by us, and Saudi Arabia's air defense system was set up by us, with US equipment.

This isn't the 1980s- they can still get away with violating Syrian Airspace at will, but Iraqi airspace is controlled by us, and Saudi Arabia's air defense system was set up by us, with US equipment.

You think the U.S. is going to shoot down Israeli planes?

Sure -- and Deeds also never passed up an opportunity to piss on that base. Health Care reform? Deeds said he'd definitely have VA opt-out. Cap-and-trade? No way!

I don't find this very convincing. Voters, whether left or right, don't follow campaigns this well. As I said, Deeds' poor campaign hurt, but we're talking about a massive, massive loss - nearly 20 points - in a state which has been electing Dems by small margins in most of its most recent major elections. You can't pin that all on campaigning - a lot of not particularly well-informed Dems stayed home for reasons other than Deeds' position on cap and trade. Most likely the problem was the economy, which sucks. A loss this big is always overdetermined - Deeds' loss had many causes, some of which are bad signs for the national Democratic Party.

The main sign for the Democrats is pretty simple - they need the economy to improve and they need to do more for people who are taking the hit with the bad economy. Health care reform would help on that score.

Can you cite examples of expansions of universal social insurance which have become unpopular for fiscal reasons?

In Sweden social programs, from housing assistance to unemployment insurance, has steadily been contracted since the mid 80's. And the voters don't seem to mind. Big programs aren't vote getters anymore, so the only party that has them on the agenda is the leftists, the former communists, and they're a marginal party, around 5% of the vote. The Greens want to spend a lot, but only on the environment, they're pretty tough on social spending.

You think the U.S. is going to shoot down Israeli planes?

Don't have to.

In Sweden social programs, from housing assistance to unemployment insurance, has steadily been contracted since the mid 80's. And the voters don't seem to mind.

If Sweden's the tipping point we're no where near that.

and Saudi Arabia's air defense system was set up by us, with US equipment.

Maybe the Saudis dislike the idea of Iranian nukes enough to turn off a radar or two for maintenance.

I don't see either chamber flipping. Whatever the national mood, the dynamics just aren't there. In 1994 - the Dems had a SIGNIFICANT raft of retirements (something like 30+ in the house alone), before we even got to the ethical problems people like Foley and Rosty faced.

I should clarify...while I think the Dems might get hammered next year if they don't pass some sort of meaningful health care reform, I don't think they'll lose either chamber. The majorities are too large and, as you note, this isn't 1994.

I don't find this very convincing. Voters, whether left or right, don't follow campaigns this well. As I said, Deeds' poor campaign hurt, but we're talking about a massive, massive loss - nearly 20 points - in a state which has been electing Dems by small margins in most of its most recent major elections. You can't pin that all on campaigning - a lot of not particularly well-informed Dems stayed home for reasons other than Deeds' position on cap and trade. Most likely the problem was the economy, which sucks. A loss this big is always overdetermined - Deeds' loss had many causes, some of which are bad signs for the national Democratic Party.

I still have to disagree... Yes, VA's top ticket was up for election - but this was NOT a Presidential year.

The voters that come out in off-cycle elections are less and number and generally more motivated. Doubly true in off-off-cycle elections. Just look at the turnout numbers compared to 2008. Look at the turnout in Dem demographics... Sure, Deeds wasn't going to get a 20% AA electorate like Obama, but those turnout numbers absolutely plummeted. Look at the NOVA turnout numbers. The turnout drop-offs were particularly bad in areas that Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, et al had won on.

People always stay home off cycle unless they're motivated. Deeds did NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to motivate any Democrats to come out.

I have a seriously difficult time thinking of one single Democratic position he took in the entire campaign... "I'm a Democrat" is simply NOT going to encourage the base to come out.

If Deeds had run a better campaign, and at least made some minor, modicum of effort to reach out to the base, he probably still would have lost (lets give McDonnell some credit - he DID run a good campaign... and did quite well painting himself as a 'moderate'), but it would have been single digits.

Sometimes, you get beaten because the other team outplays you. Sometimes, you get beaten because you played like ####. Sometimes, you get beaten because "things just happen". All three were in play here, but I still think the first two were what walloped Deeds. Not a lot he could do about the first, but he screwed the pooch on the second six ways from Sunday.

I'm not saying Deeds couldn't have run a better campaign. I'm not saying that off-year elections aren't heavily determined by the mobilization of the base.

I'm saying that the base didn't stay home only because of the campaign. They stayed home in droves - there are always multiple, overlapping causes for events this large. The economy played a big part.

SC - I'm willing to grant that there is a level of expansion of the welfare state where fiscal concerns can help to scale it back. That's interesting about Sweden - I didn't know that. But I agree with JPWF that I don't think the fact that a state with a far larger system of social insurance has cut back on certain kinds of government programs, but cut back to levels which still far exceed their US equivalents, is usefully analogous to the situation in the US.

Hey, I thought this was a baseball site. What's going on here?

I'm not saying Deeds couldn't have run a better campaign. I'm not saying that off-year elections aren't heavily determined by the mobilization of the base.

I'm saying that the base didn't stay home only because of the campaign. They stayed home in droves - there are always multiple, overlapping causes for events this large. The economy played a big part.

Sure - but as you said "heavily determined by the mobilization of the base"... bad campaign had less to do with it than making zero effort TO mobilize that base. Deeds seemed to just take it for granted that they would "self-mobilize".

Or - to put it another way, Deeds could have still run a crappy campaign and kept it within single digits if a part of that crappy campaign had at least paid lip service to something the base cared about. He didn't - he was generally outright hostile to the base, as if he was scared to even be seen seeking their votes. They were more than just discouraged.

Deeds could have still run a crappy campaign and kept it within single digits if a part of that crappy campaign had at least paid lip service to something the base cared about.

I think single digits too low by several points, but given that Virginia had gone narrowly Dem in most of its recent major elections, and given that the current Democratic governor is reasonably popular, your articulation suggests that there were still 5-10 points of this loss not determined by the causes you've cited - a failure to excite the base with policy briefs and the performance of Democrat-ness. So we basically agree.

Can you cite examples of expansions of universal social insurance which have become unpopular for fiscal reasons?

No popularity numbers, but this expansion died a quick death. Apparently for fiscal reasons. Link

Unless the Iranian regime wants to commit suicide, their nuke swill be useless, beyond their existence having the ability to deter an invasion.

Iran's nuke will be no more useless than Pakistan's. Pakistan wanted nukes because India had nukes and hates them. It was a deterrent. Iran wants nukes because Israel has them and hates them. Iran wants a deterrent.

Iran's nuke will be no more useless than Pakistan's. Pakistan wanted nukes because India had nukes and hates them. It was a deterrent. Iran wants nukes because Israel has them and hates them. Iran wants a deterrent.

It's not just Israel. Pakistan is right next door and they have nukes. Likewise Russia. Iran is a scary place to be non-nuclear armed country, regardless of Israel.

EDIT: to be clear, I agree with the general point. I just wanted to emphasize that Iran's security calculations involve many more factors than just Israel.

No popularity numbers, but this expansion died a quick death. Apparently for fiscal reasons. Link

I am very skeptical the program was unpopular.

States have tight restrictions on their abilities to run deficits, and so it's very hard for "experimental" programs not found in others states to survive downturns. They tend to get cut because governors and legislatures have no choice, not because the programs are unpopular. I should have said national programs of universal social insurance.

AARP just endorsed the House's health care bill, a.k.a. the "Pelosi bill". A game changer for the Administration?

Games very rarely change. I mean, some day, I'd like to change a game, but I have to accept that changes in games usually occur over long periods of time, with multiple causes. Dare to dream.

The odds are still strongly in favor of health care reform being passed, but the public option, or the strength of the public option, remains up in the air. I don't think that much of anything could happen to change that calculus, outside of world-historical events. Getting the endorsement of a national group favorably inclined to health care reform in the first place certainly won't have major effects.

Had AARP previously (as in during 2009) expressed support for the type of sweeping health care reform under consideration? If so, mea culpa, but I had assumed they were leading the charge of the "We're old and afraid of change" and "Keep the government's hands off our Medicare" brigades.

It's not just Israel. Pakistan is right next door and they have nukes. Likewise Russia. Iran is a scary place to be non-nuclear armed country, regardless of Israel.

That is true, but the India-Pakistan comparison is more true to Israel-Iran than to Russia-Iran or Pakistan-Iran. A lot of people just toss rational actor theory out of the window when they talk or think about the Islamic Republic. Iran wants nukes, so it's obvious and assumed to those folks that Iran wants nukes BECAUSE THEY'RE CRAZY RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS AND TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO KILL US ALL!!!! In point of fact, Iran has a perfectly docile history of international engagement, their status as "super scary Islamo-fascist terrorist lovers" notwithstanding.

Iran's most bitter near-border neighbor has hundreds of nukes and openly debates whether or not they are going to attack Iran in order to maintain status. Depending on the whim of a often batty electorate half a world away, that neighbor's antagonistic rhetoric is often repeated by the world's only remaining military super-power. History shows that the only way to assure that they will not be attacked/invaded and or occupied by one of those actors is to have nukes. It's a perfectly rational state action to take.

If the interest was honesty on your part, it would be more accurate to say that no part of the current NY-23 has elected a Democrat since 1961.

Except that's not true, either. Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Lawrence counties were part of the 26th from 1983-1993 and elected a Democrat in November 1992.

Had AARP previously (as in during 2009) expressed support for the type of sweeping health care reform under consideration?

Yes, AARP has been generally behind the reform effort this year (with selected ads and press releases) so I think it was assumed that they would support any bill that doesn't cut benefits for their constituents.

I'm not sure if you meant that to be tongue-in-cheek, but obviously no editor on planet Earth would allow a statement as convoluted as that get to print when "not since the Civil War" is close enough to the truth to suffice for what is essentially a sidebar to the actual story of the election result.

If it's a sidebar that needs a statement as convoluted as that to be accurate, then why is it brought up constantly in the last week? I've literally seen it dozens of times from many different people on 538 (I admit, I like to read what Nate says but I have trouble resisting taking a peek at the rabble in the comments).

Except that's not true, either. Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Lawrence counties were part of the 26th from 1983-1993 and elected a Democrat in November 1992.

I was going by the list you quoted. Those counties weren't included.

With a naive, hubristic view of what the consequences of those wars would be, with virtually no planning for reconstruction. There is a causal connection between those things and the war(s) "not working out well."

Strategy != Tactics

Iran wants nukes because Israel has them and hates them. Iran wants a deterrent.

A deterrent from what, from being invaded by Israel?

Gee whiz, even Iran itself hasn't made this preposterous claim you're making here. They and most of their sympathizers claim that they don't even want nuclear weapons, they say they only want nuclear power for the peaceful purposes of generating electricity. Honestly, I don't think even you really believe this bullcrap you're spewing here.

I've literally seen it dozens of times from many different people on 538 (I admit, I like to read what Nate says but I have trouble resisting taking a peek at the rabble in the comments).

It's also been used routinely by the Albany Times-Union, New York Times and CNN, so it's not as if it's limited to bloggers and their commenters or Democratic party apparatchiks. (I know, I know, there's a perfect straight line there for anyone who wishes to make use of it.)

A deterrent from what, from being invaded by Israel?

No, a deterrent from:
(1 Being invaded by the U.S.;
(2 Being unable to stand up to Pakistan should current low-level tensions between Iran and Pakistan ever come to a head.

They also feel boxed in by a large number of nearby Arab-Sunni states, not to mention the presence of the anti-Shi'a Taliban in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Saddam Hussein was supported for so long in Iraq not only by the U.S. but by Arab-Sunni states as a bulwark against the influence of Iran.

Israel is a convenient whipping boy for any Islamic country who wants street cred, but it's not really about Israel.

(I admit, I like to read what Nate says but I have trouble resisting taking a peek at the rabble in the comments).

That's because Nate's work with the numbers is usually excellent, and his commentary on them is detailed and informative.

As to the comments, the worst thing that happened to them was the introduction of their "ignore poster" controls, and the aggressive way in which 90% of the users applied them.

I don't mean to say that I admit to reading what Nate says, but to reading the comments after I read what Nate says. I worded it badly and it sounded like a jab at Nate, which it wasn't.

Iran's most bitter near-border neighbor has hundreds of nukes and openly debates whether or not they are going to attack Iran in order to maintain status.

Iran and Israel were quite friendly under the Shah- Iranian/Israeli antipathy stems directly from the control of Iran by Religious Bigots who have repeatedly claimed that Israel is an abomination that should and will be wiped off the face of the earth.

I'm not here to apologize for Israeli conduct vis avis the Palestinians, but insofar as Israeli/Iranian relations are concerned? Iran (so far) seems to have been the aggressors, Hezobollah is financed by them and in many ways acts as an Iranian Foreign policy arm.

Anyway, the country that most "needs" nukes to ensure its survival as an independent state is not Iran or North Korea, it's obviously Taiwan.

But I suspect Taiwan has lost it's window of opportunity, assuming they do not have an advanced nuke program now, starting one would virtually guarantee an invasion. I suspect their best hopes lie in making themselves too economically useful for Beijing to want to wreck - and that no one in Beijing feels the need to do something stoopid to alleviate internal political pressure (ie: like when the Military Junta in Argentina felt compelled to pick a fight with the UK over the Malvinas/Falklands).

No, a deterrent from:
(1 Being invaded by the U.S.;
(2 Being unable to stand up to Pakistan should current low-level tensions between Iran and Pakistan ever come to a head.

#1 is as ridiculous as Hutcheson's claim. The Islamists took over Iran thirty years ago. If we were going to invade them, or even just bomb the crap out of them, I'm pretty sure it would have happened a while ago, like when they seized the embassy. Honestly, if even Ronald Reagan or any of his successors didn't bomb Iran as punishment for the embassy or any of the other terrorist attacks that we believe they were probably involved in, do you really think there's any chance Barack Obama would do it? Seems laughable to me.

#2 makes a lot more sense. The Persian Shiites biggest enemies are the Sunnis that dominate most of the rest of the region.

I don't mean to say that I admit to reading what Nate says, but to reading the comments after I read what Nate says. I worded it badly and it sounded like a jab at Nate, which it wasn't.

The comments are fun, I particularly like when a column is written by someone other than Nate, within minutes someone will claim the author is an illiterate hack who knows nothing about politics or the English language...

Then there are the auto-trolls- one of whom just has to be liberal sockpuppet masquerading as a wingnut (sorry to use that phrase again, but there really is no other way to describe what this poster presents himself as being)

A deterrent from what, from being invaded by Israel?

That scenario is being casually debated in this very thread. Americans casually assume the US will not "have to take care of" Iran because they'd "be shocked if Israel doesn't take care of it." If you're an Iranian the idea that Israel and/or the US want to "take care of" your nation - in much the same way the US just "took care of" Iraq - it's not a difficult thing to imagine. It's not like Israel is a non-aggressive, peace loving hippie commune. They've been known to randomly launch bombs into disputed territories as well as soveriegn nations, so let's not pretend that it's just *crazy eights* for Iranians to worry about Israel attacking or invading.

And of course, as @344 points out, there's always the threat of US invasion and occupation. If the next POTUS randomly decides Iran is "evil" again then, well, who knows what might happen. The other external pressures on the Republic are also well put.

The Islamists took over Iran thirty years ago. If we were going to invade them, or even just bomb the crap out of them, I'm pretty sure it would have happened a while ago, like when they seized the embassy. Honestly, if even Ronald Reagan or any of his successors didn't bomb Iran as punishment for the embassy or any of the other terrorist attacks that we believe they were probably involved in, do you really think there's any chance Barack Obama would do it? Seems laughable to me.

And as we all know, Barack Obama will be President for Life, until appointing his hand picked successor who will continue his Islamophilic pandering to his Muslim brothers.

like when they seized the embassy.

Any President other than Jimmy Carter, would have done something, anything, more militarily aggressive than Carter did.

You want alternative history?
Fine, the only way Carter wins in 1980, is if he canceled the 1980 debate at the last minute, gets on TV Alone, and announces that he's authorized B-52 strikes on Iran's military infrastructure (which have already commenced as he's speaking) and has directed the USN to blockade Iran- no imports in or out, and that such action will continue until the hostages are freed. (Iran was already experiencing an existential threat at the time...)

Furthermore, I would add that it appears from recent history that nuclear weapons aren't a particularly effective deterrent, or at least that they are only effective if your enemies have a good reason to believe that you will actually use them.

If the Islamists truly believed that a power like the United States, Great Britain, or Israel would ever retaliate against them with nukes, I seriously doubt that they would even consider perpetrating a 9/11 style event.

A deterrent from what, from being invaded by Israel?

That scenario is being casually debated in this very thread.

Oh come off it, the SOLE impetus for an Israeli ATTACK (not invasion, Israel invading Iran is science fiction) IS IRAN"s nuke program, not vice versa

IN your view Iran is building a deterrent to counter a threat- but that threat only arose because Iran is building such "deterrent".

I can certainly see the Iranian Regime wanting to build a bomb to deter US -especially after what happened to their neighbor (even though they are just AOK with that, the ONLY thing they don't like about our invasion of Iraq, deposition of Sadaam and resulting occupation- is well, having that many US troops near them IS WORRYING, especially when GWB2 was in charge- it would be nuts but we COULD simply send them to Tehran on very little notice...)

But continually saying that your hated enemy has no right to exist, predict its imminent demise repeatedly, and embark on as open a military nuke program as anyone has ever seen...

well that makes no sense.

Methinks they are talking smack about Israel as a diversion- they are trying to tell the Arabs (not the leaders- who are not buying- but the Arab people)- "we're not against you, we're with you, Israel is our common enemy- we'll stand up to them when YOUR leaders won't". Plus they don't think Israel can do anything (an attack to take out their nuke program would be logistically many orders of magnitude harder than when Israel took out Iraq's- and they may secretly hope for an Israeli strike (to enhance their street cred as it were- with not just the Arabs but their own disaffected populace)

#1 is as ridiculous as Hutcheson's claim. The Islamists took over Iran thirty years ago. If we were going to invade them, or even just bomb the crap out of them, I'm pretty sure it would have happened a while ago, like when they seized the embassy. Honestly, if even Ronald Reagan or any of his successors didn't bomb Iran as punishment for the embassy or any of the other terrorist attacks that we believe they were probably involved in, do you really think there's any chance Barack Obama would do it? Seems laughable to me.

Not at all...

As MCoA said, Iran's neighbors are basically nuclear powers, and Iran has a long, long history of being invaded -- and a very scant history of invading.

Beyond a small slice under the Cyrus/Darius - Persia/Iran has regularly seen invasions from the north, east, and west... and not unoften - multiple directions (take WWII, for example, when they found themselves invaded by both the UK and the USSR).

I'm not in favor of Iran having nuclear weapons, but it's near complete ignorance to history to suggest that from an Iranian perspective -- there aren't sound reasons for wanting a nuclear deterrence. Sure - they "say" they just want nuclear power for peaceful purposes, but come on... that's how international diplomacy works.

It's like saying to Iraq "let the inspectors in or we invade" - then invading after the inspectors are let in... and don't think that doesn't figure into Iranian calculus, either.

If the interest was honesty on your part, it would be more accurate to say that no part of the current NY-23 has elected a Democrat since 1961.

Except that's not true, either. Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Lawrence counties were part of the 26th from 1983-1993 and elected a Democrat in November 1992.

I suppose this is the epiotme of a pedantic discussion. Obviously Congressional district borders change every 10 years and because settlement patterns in NY have changed so much in a century and the districts have been expanding as NY is a smaller and smaller share of the nation's population (and because the area currently in NY-23 grew even more slowly than most of the rest of the state) there's no perfect analogue to this.

However, just for the hell of it, I went back and consulted Wikipedia about this topic and looked for a continuous chain of people who represented the largest share of this territory in prior Congresses.

The current version of NY-23 was represented by John McHugh prior to this. Before that, McHugh represented the 24th, which looked a lot like the current NY-23 except with less Syracuse-area stuff.

From 1983-93 most of this territory was in NY-26, which was represented by a Republican named David O'Brien Martin.

Martin had served one term representing NY-31, which included most of the same territory and had previously (1973-81) been represented by Republican Robert McEwen.

Before that the North Country was more split.... the NY-30 and NY-31 label covered most of the territory but both included territory closer to Albany and/or Syracuse..but at no time did a Democrat represent either district.

To the extent you see Democrats who represented districts anywhere near this area for as long I could see, their districts always included the central cities of either Albany (whichever district that included Albany was generally safely Dem) or Syracuse (usually, though not always, Syracuse had a Republican House member.)

From 1913-1945 - they took longer to redraw lines back then apparently - NY-31 was more or less the eastern half of the current NY-23 while NY-32 was more or less the western half (minus some stuff close to Syracuse.) During that entire time neither district elected a single Democrat.

So from a historical perspective, this is kind of a big deal, though no more so than the all the House seats in various parts of the South over the years that had not had a Republican representative since Reconstruction until whatever year the GOP won them.

"Any President other than Jimmy Carter, would have done something, anything, more militarily aggressive than Carter did."

What, even Buchanan? I find that hard to believe...

If the Islamists truly believed that a power like the United States, Great Britain, or Israel would ever retaliate against them with nukes, I seriously doubt that they would even consider perpetrating a 9/11 style event.

And use the nukes WHERE?

The 9/11 goons were not sent by any government, and to the extent they were supported by a government (The Taliban), we took that government down.

No [sane] government would contemplate a 9/11 style attack, even if we threw all our nukes into the sun. A stateless terrorist group, now that is something different, and I doubt our willingness to use nukes (again- what target) would deter them. What deters them (OMG I'm going to borrow from Ralph Peters) is KILLING THEM.

IF Al Qaeda thought that another 9/11 would prompt a nuke strike on Mecca- Some of them WOULD STILL DO IT, convinced the entire Ummah would [finally] rise up and overthrow the Western World in response.

Honestly, if even Ronald Reagan or any of his successors didn't bomb Iran as punishment for the embassy or any of the other terrorist attacks that we believe they were probably involved in, do you really think there's any chance Barack Obama would do it? Seems laughable to me.

I wouldn't necessarily put money on that specific scenario, but given how much the neo-cons like to talk about war with Iran and how it's far from impossible (unfortunately) to imagine someone sympathetic to that point of view in charge of U.S. foreign policy four, or eight, or twelve years down the road..... I don't think they're laughing nearly as much as you are.

It's like saying to Iraq "let the inspectors in or we invade" - then invading after the inspectors are let in

Well Hussein did have a little problem, he believed he had to:

1: Convince his own people he had WMDs; and
2: Convince certain neighbors he had WNDS; and
3: Simultaneously convince the West that he not only had no WMDs, he had largely dismantled the infrastructure- and was content to live out his regimes' natural life as a generic robber baron tyrant.

That # 3 was true, was not really known at the time. He did let in the inspectors, but then dicked around with them for quite some while, it was only on the eve of the invasion that his regime finally started directly and unambiguously saying, "ok, seriously, we don't have them anymore, they weren't worth it, we were pretending"

Post war interviews indicate that many Iraqi military officers THOUGHT they had them, but always thought it was a neighboring division that had them...

Lesson? Don't pretend you have WMDS, either have them and say so, or don't have them and say so.

That # 3 was true, was not really known at the time. He did let in the inspectors, but then dicked around with them for quite some while, it was only on the eve of the invasion that his regime finally started directly and unambiguously saying, "ok, seriously, we don't have them anymore, they weren't worth it, we were pretending"

Well... yes and no.

WMDs 'generically'? Sure... nukes? That was a BS claim it was made - notably by Cheney - it was pretty easily and readily debunkable as a claim then, and was certainly thoroughly debunked afterwards.

That still gives me the red ass, 6 1/2 years later... When you get into the minutia of the runup to the Iraq war, that supposedly 'little white lie' in the SoU, in Powell's UN presenation... THAT was the real deal maker. It was the nuclear threat - more so them any chemical or biological weapons, which simply weren't getting traction and home or abroad - that the selling of Operation Mess-o-potamia was built on.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/08/024403.php

Honestly, if even Ronald Reagan or any of his successors didn't bomb Iran as punishment for the embassy or any of the other terrorist attacks that we believe they were probably involved in, do you really think there's any chance Barack Obama would do it? Seems laughable to me.

Ronald Reagan punished Iran by selling them weapons for hostages. Take that, terrorists!

The idea of bombing Iran isn't so laughable when the former VP of the United States thought it was a good idea, advised the president to do so, and openly speculated about bombing them on television and in print. If you're Iran, Cheney's comments aren't going to do anything to make you feel better about the possibility of the Great Satan coming over to blow your house in. Obama's obviously going in a different direction than Cheney, and hopefully Iran accepts Obama's deal — it would make the world safer, if only for a few months or years. But the next president might not be so ready to reach out, and there are plenty of Cheneys crawling about Washington, just ready to blow #### up.

Except that's not true, either. Franklin, Jefferson, and St. Lawrence counties were part of the 26th from 1983-1993 and elected a Democrat in November 1992.

To be even more pedantic, this isn't true. Maurice Hinchey's NY-26 (I know this b/c I know people who worked on both sides of a campaign there) was nowhere near the North Country. It was a goofy barbell-shaped thing designed to string together enough Democrats in Ithaca (home of Cornell), Binghamton (old indsutrial town, home of a large SUNY school), and Kingston (Hudson Valley mill town, and near where Hinchey is from) to counter the mostly rural and Republican territory in between. (It was bi-partisan horse trading; the Republicans in neighboring districts didn't want to represent those cities either.)

Lesson? Don't pretend you have WMDS, either have them and say so, or don't have them and say so.

Or, to paraphrase PJ O'Rourke: "No, the rule is that you never point an unloaded gun at somebody."

Or, to paraphrase PJ O'Rourke: "No, the rule is that you never point an unloaded gun at somebody."

Or to paraphrase Ugly:

"If you're gonna shoot, shoot, don't talk"

States have tight restrictions on their abilities to run deficits, and so it's very hard for "experimental" programs not found in others states to survive downturns. They tend to get cut because governors and legislatures have no choice, not because the programs are unpopular. I should have said national programs of universal social insurance.

This is beginning to sound Andyesqe, where one moves the goalposts repeatedly. You've already ruled out foreign examples. Now you're ruling out state ones. So what's left, exactly? Medicare and Social Security? You're down to two data points?

This is beginning to sound Andyesqe, where one moves the goalposts repeatedly. You've already ruled out foreign examples. Now you're ruling out state ones. So what's left, exactly? Medicare and Social Security? You're down to two data points?

Well, first, I didn't really need to cut back to "national" - my question was about popularity, not maintenance. I can't imagine the Hawaii program was unpopular. Second, I haven't ruled out foreign examples. I'm just asking for foreign examples that are reasonably similar. Where are the universal health care programs being dismantled, where are the voters refusing to maintain the basics of universal social insurance due to fiscal concerns?

EDIT: Are you taking the affirmative stance you believe there's a high probability Obama-care will be unpopular among American voters? Or are you just snarking at the edges?

A deterrent from what, from being invaded by Israel?

That scenario is being casually debated in this very thread.

Uh, no. Bombing Iran to prevent them from getting the thing you call a deterrent is being discussed in this thread. Not invading Iran -- something Israel obviously can't do -- and not bombing Iran outside of its nuclear program.

To be even more pedantic, this isn't true. Maurice Hinchey's NY-26 (I know this b/c I know people who worked on both sides of a campaign there) was nowhere near the North Country.

But that's where the counties that people are using where in. Do you have county level voting for the 1992 election?

So we have a new evolution for the claim.

"This was the first time since the 19th century that some part of what is now makes up some part of what is currently the 23rd congressional district may have attempted to elect a Democrat to Congress."

As I noted, the Republicans handled the 23rd in a poor manner from the get-go, from Scozza being named to election day. But any claims about some significant groundbreaking historicity of that particular election are just as much ######## as the claims that this was an election primarily about Obama and both categories should be shot down mercilessly. And this is before taking into account just what an unusual situation NY-23 was this year, with the 3rd party conservative, the nationals coming in, and a Democrat was was very likely more Republican than the original Republican candidate.

It's kind of like arguing that Bush's Mission Accomplished banner was accurate because administration said that it was in fact accurate becuase the banner was only referring to the specific mission of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Yes, that's technically one interpretation of the banner that's technically accurate and the wording of a banner is a sidebar, but it's still ########.

So what's left, exactly? Medicare and Social Security? You're down to two data points?

AFDC

no wait that was unpopular...ummm

One difference between Sweden and the US (which could mean that we have different tipping points) is that Sweden is homogeneous and the US is not. Programs/ particularly social programs tend to be unpopular among people who see things as "us" and "them" and who believe that a program benefits "them" more than "us".

AFDC is/was deeply unpopular with many segments of society (the segments that were employed and paid taxes) because the benefits were seen as going to a different social class (and ethnicity) IOW the benefits were going to the "other", specifically an "other" that many tax payers did not emphasize with.

And yet it continued- until it also became apparent that AFDC itself was becoming multi-generational- which had not been intended at all...

Ronald Reagan punished Iran by selling them weapons for hostages. Take that, terrorists!

Hey, but he did overcharge them....

Uh, no. Bombing Iran to prevent them from getting the thing you call a deterrent is being discussed in this thread. Not invading Iran -- something Israel obviously can't do -- and not bombing Iran outside of its nuclear program.

You're late, asked and answered already, try to keep up to date.

EDIT: Are you taking the affirmative stance you believe there's a high probability Obama-care will be unpopular among American voters? Or are you just snarking at the edges?

I think that promising to give people something for nothing is never unpopular. I think the effects of Obamacare will be unpopular, yes. Particularly with the elderly, since these plans balance their budgets by slashing Medicare. Most Americans currently have health insurance and are happy with it. (The left likes to call this false consciousness, because Americans just don't realize that their current care is imperfect, but even if that's true, it doesn't matter.)

Social Security polling is actually very entertaining.

People like Social Security. They also think it'll run out of money but are also opposed to raising the retirement age or the amount that they pay into Social Security.

You're late, asked and answered already, try to keep up to date.

Answered poorly with a bunch of mind numbing, hair splitting ########, to be precise. The idea that Iran doesn't want a deterrent because Israel (and others, including the US) doesn't want to *invade*, just *bomb the living #### out of them* is hardly convincing. Are you suggesting that Israel would be perfectly happy if its enemies promised not to invade and occupy after they dropped explosive munitions on their population centers?

Of ####### course not.

Iran has a perfectly normal right to self defense. Its history to date suggest that it is the LEAST likely of any country in the region to actually attack another nation. Two of its most hostile neighbors in the region have nukes. Of course they want to even the playing field.

I think that promising to give people something for nothing is never unpopular. I think the effects of Obamacare will be unpopular, yes. Particularly with the elderly, since these plans balance their budgets by slashing Medicare

Sigh...

As someone always so obsessed with precision, I would think you would at least acknowledge that nothing in the way of beneficiary coverage is being cut (in fact, coverage --- namely in the gradual elimination of the Part D donut hole -- is being expanded).

The Medicare cuts are in areas that are redundant - if everyone/96% of everyone is covered under some sort of insurance, it stands to reason that the CAH/DSH/Charity care subsidies can be cut since their raison d'être falls by the wayside.

It's one thing to say "Medicare will be slashed" -- but you wade into dishonest hackery when you prepend "Particularly with the elderly" because there are no cuts to the benefits the elderly get from Medicare. There are also cuts to the Part C subsidies to insurers, but I doubt many seniors are going to care about that... I mean, Part C has been rebranded about half a dozen times in its own short existence, so its not exactly a popular program anyway.

...and that's all without needing to get into the mind-blowing idea of the GOP/libertarians suddenly morphing into the defenders and saviors of Medicare.

I think that promising to give people something for nothing is never unpopular. I think the effects of Obamacare will be unpopular, yes. Particularly with the elderly, since these plans balance their budgets by slashing Medicare.

This doesn't answer the question. Assuming that some amalgam of the Senate/House bills passes, will it help the Democrats in upcoming elections? Will the guarantees of coverage and regulations on the insurance markets be walked back in the next ten years? I think the answers will be unambiguously yes and no.

But any claims about some significant groundbreaking historicity of that particular election are just as much ########

No part of the district has been represented by a Democrat since 1963, before most Americans were even born. Sounds pretty damned groundbreaking to me.

This doesn't answer the question. Assuming that some amalgam of the Senate/House bills passes, will it help the Democrats in upcoming elections? Will the guarantees of coverage and regulations on the insurance markets be walked back in the next ten years? I think the answers will be unambiguously yes and no.

I think they'll ultimately be yes - especially in the short-term. While the exchanges and the PO won't activate until 2013 - the hammer on preexisting conditions and the elimination of the industry's anti-trust exemption (not to mention increased funding and scope to federal and state regulatory commissions) WILL kick in earlier.

Do let me note, per earlier threads on HCR - I do not buy into the pro-reform party line about our nation's health care problems being all about the insurance industry, but particularly in individual cases and in certain states where mega-insurers DO have a monopoly (and do exactly what happens in a monopolistic situation) -- both of these items should provide immediate relief.

On the senior side, being able to tout a fix to the Part D donut hole is a pretty big thing to take back home and run on.

Its history to date suggest that it is the LEAST likely of any country in the region to actually attack another nation.

And what does that have to do with it?

Gee, until the Sino-Japanese War, the Japanese hadn't attempted to invade anyone else in 500 years.


Actually, I don't think Iran will DIRECTLY attack Israel, but they clearly like poking at Israel (for their own reasons), and some in Israel clearly like the IDEA that Iran is threat (for their own reasons as well). And if Iran gets nukes, I don't think they'll use them.

I can see Iran "invading" a neighbor under certain circumstances.

1: We leave Afganistan, Taliban takes over country (or significant chunk) prior to 9/11 they threatened to take the Talibs out- the Talibs may give them reason again, especially if teh region bordering Iran becomes destabilized.

2: They may enter into one of the former SSRs it borders if they become destabilized (and Russia doesn't object).

3: They may enter into parts of what are now Iraq if it destabilizes after we leave.

If we could make peace with Vietnam (and vice versa) we could make peace with Iran, except Iran's leaders have made hating America part of the official religion. There was more than one reason the Shah wanted to cozy up with us. A real politik appraisal of Irans' position vis a vis its neighbors would lead an Iranian politico to think that cozying up to US, would be a good idea- the current regime can't do that- or thinks they can't (The Vietnamese had no problem though)

But that's where the counties that people are using where in. Do you have county level voting for the 1992 election?

So we have a new evolution for the claim.

The closest thing (almost identical in fact) to the present NY-23 that existed through the '02 elections was numbered NY-24. John McHugh was the Congressman for that entire stretch.

The closest thing (still pretty close) to the present NY-23 that existed through the '92 elections was numbered NY-26. For that entire stretch the Congressman was another Republican.

Before that, the closest thing to the present NY-23 that existed (not as similar, as Rome and Utica were in there) was labeled NY-31. It too, was represented by Republicans.

The further back you go, obviously, the maps get less and less similar. (Usually, the districts get smaller as you travel backwards.) But Wikipedia tracks this stuff as far back as 1913, and there is no instance of a Democrat winning an election in any district that consisted primarily of what's now in NY-23, or indeed, in the region commonly thought of as the "North Country") dating back that far. Even in Democrat-wave elections like 1930-32-34 and 1964.

Yes, the numbers are not consistent. After the 1990 census, NY lost a seat and had to rejigger things, as has happened frequently to NY in the last half-century. As a result, in the 1992 election the label NY-26, instead of being attached to a North Country district that elected Republicans, it became attached to a district in a different area of the state (if you look at a map of current districts, that version of NY-26 looked similar to the present-day NY-22) that elected a Democrat. The district that included most of the North Country in elections from 92-00 was NY-24, but that label became attached to a district that includes some of what's normally classified as North Country but is generally centered around Rome/Utica and includes parts of the Southern Tier.)

The general claim, as far as I can tell, is that that part of New York State had not elected a Democratic Congressperson in a very long time. And while some of the specifics of "not since the Civil War" might be problematic in one sense or another, it's part of a regional alignment pattern similar to what we saw in much of the South through the '80s and '90s.

2: They may enter into one of the former SSRs it borders if they become destabilized (and Russia doesn't object).

And Russia might not... aside from the pissing matches it gets into with its former 'republics' - nearly 20 years after the breakup, the nations bordering the Caspian Sea still don't really have a good, working treaty over it for both fishing and natural gas rights.

Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, (and I think one of the other stans) have essentially said they are not bound by the treaties that were formerly established between the USSR and Iran, while both Russia and Iran continue to abide by them. Given that Russia no longer has a border with Iran, this has caused significant friction in the region, as you've got 2 or 3 nations between Iran/Russia that are essentially saying they're free to do whatever wherever they want in what is a significant resource in the area.

The general claim, as far as I can tell, is that that part of New York State had not elected a Democratic Congressperson in a very long time. And while some of the specifics of "not since the Civil War" might be problematic in one sense or another, it's part of a regional alignment pattern similar to what we saw in much of the South through the '80s and '90s

I don't have any problem with the general claim.

My quibble was with the dishonest nature of the meme. One could say "the Northeast has gotten much less Republican over the last 30 years" and I wouldn't object at all.

Combining the molding-clay claim with completely ignoring a very unusual situation in this particular election is being used to make it seem like we witnessed some grand historic event.

I reiterate, the claim is no different than the comparable claim (I don't read right-leaning websites other than the libertarian-leaning Reason, if you can call that right, so I'm guessing that someone made this claim for illustration) that Anh Cao's election to LA-2 was a monumental victory for Republicans in that district wasn't represented by Democrats since 1890. I would be right in the larger sense that the South has been trending more GOP, but I would be dishonest in using LA-2 an some matter of great historical import when Cao really only won because of some very unusual extenuating circumstances in the district.

I reiterate, the claim is no different than the comparable claim (I don't read right-leaning websites other than the libertarian-leaning Reason, if you can call that right, so I'm guessing that someone made this claim for illustration) that Anh Cao's election to LA-2 was a monumental victory for Republicans in that district wasn't represented by Democrats since 1890. I would be right in the larger sense that the South has been trending more GOP, but I would be dishonest in using LA-2 an some matter of great historical import when Cao really only won because of some very unusual extenuating circumstances in the district.

And you will most likely be correct in respect to Cao. Jefferson is finally gone, and the next Democratic candidate will presumably be if not less corrupt then at least further away from being caught. But this is where not reading right-leaning blogs gets you in trouble. Because Erickson and Malkin and Armey and all the other tea party leaders are proud of what they did in NY-23. They see Scozzafava dropping out as a mandate to support extremists in every race where they don't think the incumbent Republican is suitably right-leaning enough. And it seems like they see almost everyone* as not sufficiently loyal to their cause over one issue or another. So they are going to repeat those extenuating circumstances where ever they can in 2010, and that will cost the Republicans some seats they otherwise would have picked up. Whether it will be as many as Democrats lose through liberal voter apathy will have to be seen, but the same circumstances which hurt the Republicans in NY-23 will also be a major factor next year.

* edit example: There have been right-leaning blog entries post-election against Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform for backing Scozzafava despite what they say are tax increase votes in her past. If Grover Norquist isn't anti-tax enough for you, then who is?

My quibble was with the dishonest nature of the meme.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Does all this boil down for you to the difference between "until Tuesday, NY-23 hadn't sent a Democrat to Congress since the Civil War" and "until Tuesday, the North Country/Adirondack region of New York State hadn't sent a Democrat to Congress since the Civil War"? Is that what you're struggling so mightily against and what seems to be causing you to see dishonesty and a pernicious lefty plot? Give it up already. You're nibbling around the edges and convincing nobody.

? Is that what you're struggling so mightily against and what seems to be causing you to see dishonesty and a pernicious lefty plot? Give it up already. You're nibbling around the edges and convincing nobody.

I thought he was filling in for DMN who was MIA for much of this thread until recently.

Is that what you're struggling so mightily against and what seems to be causing you to see dishonesty and a pernicious lefty plot? Give it up already. You're nibbling around the edges and convincing nobody.

I see normal partisan dishonesty, nothing more. Unlike most of you, I don't have a horse in this fight - I hate Democrats and Republicans pretty much equally.

Because Erickson and Malkin and Armey and all the other tea party leaders are proud of what they did in NY-23. They see Scozzafava dropping out as a mandate to support extremists in every race where they don't think the incumbent Republican is suitably right-leaning enough. And it seems like they see almost everyone* as not sufficiently loyal to their cause over one issue or another.

And the lefties cry out constantly about the cowardly Blue Dogs or about Max Baucus selling them out or demanding Joe Lieberman's blood. I fail to see the difference.

There was a pretty unusual situation in a very short amount of time which enabled the wingnuts to get unusual traction. The wingnuts have been ######## about Charlie Crist for months and the he's still up by 15 and Rubio's someone who's actually electable. Democrats waiting for the wingnuts to successfully force Republicans to nominate a whole slew of unelectable right-wingers over moderates in 2010 is wishcasting.

It's one thing to say "Medicare will be slashed" -- but you wade into dishonest hackery when you prepend "Particularly with the elderly" because there are no cuts to the benefits the elderly get from Medicare. There are also cuts to the Part C subsidies to insurers, but I doubt many seniors are going to care about that... I mean, Part C has been rebranded about half a dozen times in its own short existence, so its not exactly a popular program anyway.

Yes, there are cuts to Medicare Advantage; that's precisely my point. I don't know where you get the idea that it "isn't popular."

And of course reimbursement rates are to be slashed, at least in theory, although it's likely that Congress will back away from that, as they have each year in the past. But they can't pretend that this bill is affordable unless they pretend that they're not going to reject the cuts this year.

...and that's all without needing to get into the mind-blowing idea of the GOP/libertarians suddenly morphing into the defenders and saviors of Medicare.

Who said anything about that? I made an observation, not a normative statement.

Answered poorly with a bunch of mind numbing, hair splitting ########, to be precise. The idea that Iran doesn't want a deterrent because Israel (and others, including the US) doesn't want to *invade*, just *bomb the living #### out of them* is hardly convincing.

You're being even stupider than usual, just to keep up those progressive bona fides by condemning Israel just for fun. Israel doesn't want to "bomb the living #### out of them," which is why it hasn't done so, and the only bombing it is considering is the deterrent itself.

If Iran has no nuclear program, then Israel has nothing to bomb. It makes no sense to say that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons to prevent Israel from attacking its nuclear weapons.

This doesn't answer the question. Assuming that some amalgam of the Senate/House bills passes, will it help the Democrats in upcoming elections?

No.

Will the guarantees of coverage and regulations on the insurance markets be walked back in the next ten years? I think the answers will be unambiguously yes and no.

It will have to be, because it will be completely unaffordable.

And the lefties cry out constantly about the cowardly Blue Dogs or about Max Baucus selling them out or demanding Joe Lieberman's blood. I fail to see the difference.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/cornyn-we-will-not-spend-money-in-a-contested-primary.html

If NY-23 was an unusual situation, why is the NRSC afraid to risk any money on it's favorites in the open seats? Find a story like that about any previous national campaign committee, ever.

And the lefties cry out constantly about the cowardly Blue Dogs or about Max Baucus selling them out or demanding Joe Lieberman's blood. I fail to see the difference.

There was a pretty unusual situation in a very short amount of time which enabled the wingnuts to get unusual traction. The wingnuts have been ######## about Charlie Crist for months and the he's still up by 15 and Rubio's someone who's actually electable. Democrats waiting for the wingnuts to successfully force Republicans to nominate a whole slew of unelectable right-wingers over moderates in 2010 is wishcasting.

We'll see...

Mark Kirk is already on his 3rd 180 - the Chicago Tribune (hardly a leftist rag) is all over a supposed Kirk memo begging for Palin's blessing (not public blessing, mind you -- just some sort of quasi-blessing)... so I think it's more than just 'wishcasting' - or if it is, it's spread to the candidates themselves.... or the candidates themselves are taking queues from Democratic wishcasting.

The RSCC has announced that it won't get involved in any more primaries (I believe that they had been spending in the CO Senate race to protect their chosen recruit).

You've got rumbles in KY that the 'establishments' chosen candidate (Grayson) is in a spot of trouble.

Rubio's certainly "electable" in the classic sense, but Crist vs. Meeks/whomever is probably unwinnable... Rubio v. Meeks/whomever is probably a toss-up. 15 pts? Sure... but it was 30 points just a few months ago. Compare the Rubio/Crist graph to some Lamont/Lieberman primary grafs from 2006. Lamont rose a lot more quickly, but Rubio is certainly bound to make a race of it.

I'll grant that there were a variety of extenuating circumstances in NY-23...

But - Lieberman was an isolated case. I don't think Schozzafava will be.

Sure, many lefy Dems are quite unhappy with Baucus -- but I have not seen one single even moderately sizeable name get behind a primary challenge, much less an organized support at a grassroots level behind challenging him.

To put a slightly human and common sense face on this issue, I grew up in Oneida County (on the edges and sometimes in NY-23, as previously stated) and am actually currently there. The election is notable and unusual in the face of the past thirty years, as it signals a slow and perhaps only temporary movement away from the traditional rural and conservative lives and mores that I have been around for a long long time. (I'm still not sure people really understand exactly how much nothing is up here.) I'm not sure it signals much else. I'm of a mind that ALL of these victories are more local than national, but that may come from my connection to the one that everyone seems to be waving their arms about.

You've got rumbles in KY that the 'establishments' chosen candidate (Grayson) is in a spot of trouble.

And who's the opponent? (I know; I just want to see you say it.)

If NY-23 was an unusual situation, why is the NRSC afraid to risk any money on it's favorites in the open seats? Find a story like that about any previous national campaign committee, ever.

For the same reason I'm afraid to risk any money betting in the ponies. Poor use of resources. Why fund fights? In the link you posted, they're still going to support candidates that request an endorsement.

Are you seriously going to argue that NY-23 wasn't an unusual situation? I know it's been like a year since I last voted, but I seem to recall most elections having primaries, a Republican that's to the right of the Democrat, and no viable third party.

Yes, there are cuts to Medicare Advantage; that's precisely my point. I don't know where you get the idea that it "isn't popular."

The fact that it's been "Medicare Choice", "Medicare Plus", and "Medicare Advantage" (and something else I'm forgetting) -- one doesn't generally need to rebrand popular programs multiple times.

Prior to Part D - prescription coverage was basically the only reason any senior had to sign up for a Part C plan, since Medicare alone didn't cover Part C. The pure 'benefits' of such plans were marginal - and debatebale - Part C was basically just a boondoggle exercise to try to privatize Medicare coverage... but done in the dumbest way possible because Medicare was still paying the bill! The idea was essentially "Well, we're not getting rid of this entitlement, might as well let a private industry make a buck off it".

And of course reimbursement rates are to be slashed, at least in theory, although it's likely that Congress will back away from that, as they have each year in the past. But they can't pretend that this bill is affordable unless they pretend that they're not going to reject the cuts this year.

We're talking about different things... there's already a doomsday trigger to slash reimbursement rates that was initially discussed as being a part the HCR, but has been dropped. It will be taken up separately.

Outside of the (good riddance) cuts to Part C, the other cuts in Medicare are NOT to the basic CMS payment rates... they're to the subsidization beyond standard Medicare reimbursement that Medicare has always shouldered.

And who's the opponent? (I know; I just want to see you say it.)

Ron Paul's kid... I forget his first name, so you'll have to settle for partial satisfaction :-)

Sure, many lefy Dems are quite unhappy with Baucus -- but I have not seen one single even moderately sizeable name get behind a primary challenge, much less an organized support at a grassroots level behind challenging him.

Exactly, because there's nothing viable against him. In New York, there was a viable 3rd party which made a revolt possible under the right circumstances, which occurred with a crony non-primary nomination and a Republican candidate that was described as to the left of the Democrat.

Prior to Part D - prescription coverage was basically the only reason any senior had to sign up for a Part C plan, since Medicare alone didn't cover Part C. The pure 'benefits' of such plans were marginal - and debatebale - Part C was basically just a boondoggle exercise to try to privatize Medicare coverage... but done in the dumbest way possible because Medicare was still paying the bill! The idea was essentially "Well, we're not getting rid of this entitlement, might as well let a private industry make a buck off it".

I'm not saying it's well-designed. But it provides seniors with subsidies so that they can get very nice private coverage cheaply. That's a benefit. Those subsidies are going to be cut and they're no longer going to get that very nice private coverage, unless they dig into their own pockets. That's a harm (from their perspective, not mine).

We're talking about different things... there's already a doomsday trigger to slash reimbursement rates that was initially discussed as being a part the HCR, but has been dropped. It will be taken up separately.

Right, but the fact that it's in a separate bill -- so what? That's the legislative process, not a substantive difference.

Ron Paul's kid... I forget his first name, so you'll have to settle for partial satisfaction :-)

You should be shot for forgetting such a memorable thing. His first name, of course, is "Rand."

Mark Kirk is already on his 3rd 180 - the Chicago Tribune (hardly a leftist rag) is all over a supposed Kirk memo begging for Palin's blessing (not public blessing, mind you -- just some sort of quasi-blessing)... so I think it's more than just 'wishcasting' - or if it is, it's spread to the candidates themselves.... or the candidates themselves are taking queues from Democratic wishcasting.

No doubt some are. In Kirk's case, he has an extremely close primary to worry about, so there isn't much time for some of the high spirits from the NY race to subside. Conversely, there's also some quotes from Democrats that are clearly worried, probably taking queues from Republican wishcasting (Mark Warner for one) more than reality.

Ron Paul's kid... I forget his first name, so you'll have to settle for partial satisfaction :-)

You should be shot for forgetting such a memorable thing. His first name, of course, is "Rand."

I was going to guess "Ru."

I'm not saying it's well-designed. But it provides seniors with subsidies so that they can get very nice private coverage cheaply. That's a benefit. Those subsidies are going to be cut and they're no longer going to get that very nice private coverage, unless they dig into their own pockets. That's a harm (from their perspective, not mine).

Private coverage that was essentially filling a hole in Medicare -- drug coverage (I miswrote originally) -- which has now been added by Part D.

One can get a 'Part D' plan without it technically being an 'Advantage' plan.... but yes - some people simply kept their Advantage plans when Part D came online, and others signed up for Advantage plans when Part D came out.

BUT- even with part D essentially being a "loss leader" in Advantage - participation in Part C/Advantage is still less than 20% of Medicare participants in total.... and if you took out Part D - that number is closer to 10-15%.

I'm saying 'Advantage' isn't popular because the overwhelming majority of Medicare beneficiaries choose to eschew it.

You should be shot for forgetting such a memorable thing. His first name, of course, is "Rand."

I do feel stupid for that... passed up a perfectly good Ayn Rand slap, too.

dammit.

Right, but the fact that it's in a separate bill -- so what? That's the legislative process, not a substantive difference.

It's the Commutative Property of Government Budgeting

z > (z-y) + y

As long as you're super quiet about adding that second y.