Captain Wiggles Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 60 million on a congressional election but no money for healthcare? #priorities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said: BUt the bottom line is that in the end, Ossoff spent about 220 dollars per EXTRA vote (over Stooksbury) and Handel spent about 200 per extra vote (over Price). This is not correct. Handel got 57k fewer votes than Tom Price (134k to his 192k). That's about $420 spent per vote under Price. Ossoff got about 5k more votes than Stooksbury (124k to his 119k). A big achievement to get no dropoff in a congressional election, but at a steep price of $6,300 per extra vote. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-congressional-runoff-ossoff-handel https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-house-district-6-price-stooksbury Edited June 21, 2017 by Bliz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bliz said: This is not correct. Handel got 57k fewer votes than Tom Price (134k to his 192k). That's about $420 spent per vote under Price. Ossoff got about 5k more votes than Stooksbury (124k to his 119k). A big achievement to get no dropoff in a congressional election, but at a steep price of $6,300 per extra vote. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-congressional-runoff-ossoff-handel https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/georgia-house-district-6-price-stooksbury Crap. I was adding the two amounts. That means that Ossoff spent millions and didnt get more votes than a guy who didnt spend anything. And Handel spent millions to LOSE votes. This makes it worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Excuses Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Just now, Kilmer17 said: Crap. I was adding the two amounts. That means that Ossoff spent millions and didnt get more votes than a guy who didnt spend anything. And Handel spent millions to LOSE votes. This makes it worse. Special elections usually have abysmal voter turnout. This one didn't and I think even surpassed 2014 midterm turnout. I think it actually shows that the money made a huge difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, No Excuses said: Special elections usually have abysmal voter turnout. This one didn't and I think even surpassed 2014 midterm turnout. I think it actually shows that the money made a huge difference. SC-5 offers a good contrast since it was a much more "usual" special election. 2016 turnout was around 300,000. Last night was like 87,000. A HUGE dropoff, like 70% dropoff. The dropoff in GA-6, even among the GOP that had a pretty significant dropoff, was very small by comparison. If GA-6 had had a similar dropoff they'd have had about 90k votes TOTAL, so the difference between 90K votes and 250k votes, 160K votes, stems from the money pumped in there. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zazzaro703 Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 14 hours ago, SkinsHokieFan said: The opposition is incredibly weak and timid i would love to see what foxnews would be doing if Hillary was President and under federal investigation. The exact same. More and more people are finally beginning to see it too finally. We should be banding together to throw the majority of these crooks out of office rather than fighting each other as the left and right. Both offer the same exact thing... broken campaign promises and obstructing the other party while the money continues to flow into their pockets and not ours. FoxNews is no different from CNN or MSNBC, all are owned by multinational corporations that do not have our interests first. CNN is currently the worst though, no one should be giving them any internet traffic and/or tuning their TV to them but the other major outlets are not far behind. CNN in the last month has been caught orchestrating rallies and printing blatant fake news with anonymous sources they no aren't true trust to print a small retraction a week later knowing the damage is already done and people will remember the false headline and not the retraction. I couldn't help but chuckle when a few months ago when the whole fake news garbage came out someone posted a pic with CNN in the middle as most trusted.... Wow. MSM is the biggest offender of putting fake news out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Zazzaro703 said: FoxNews is no different from CNN or MSNBC, all are owned by multinational corporations that do not have our interests first. CNN is currently the worst though, no one should be giving them any internet traffic and/or tuning their TV to them but the other major outlets are not far behind. I actually think MSNBC is ok if your average viewer is looking to get a left of center opinion on the issues. Of course there is a slant, but I don't feel they go to the extreme that Fox does (I don't really watch much CNN anymore to be honest so I can't make a fair judgement) as far as just making things up or making completely ignorant positions feel mainstream. Are they perfect? No, but I think you will get at least more critical thinking and in depth analysis on issues from there. Tucker Carlson is already making his early Fox career into a clown show by constantly looking for the biggest loons he can find, (usually from college campuses that do not represent mainstream democrats or even progressives) and tries to frame the debate as "wow the left is crazy" Cable news on the whole though is just a non-stop headache. Edited June 21, 2017 by NoCalMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PF Chang Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 32 minutes ago, Zazzaro703 said: CNN in the last month has been caught orchestrating rallies and printing blatant fake news with anonymous sources they no aren't true trust to print a small retraction a week later knowing the damage is already done and people will remember the false headline and not the retraction. Any specifics for this claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 44 minutes ago, PF Chang said: Any specifics for this claim? I am not sure if for the "orchestrating rallies" he is referring to where CNN just wanted to move a small group of protesters to a different area for a better angle? I know the right wing blogs were going wild with that, even though the protest/protesters were 100% legit, it was just CNN looking for a better camera shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 I too get sick of party bickering. It's like a bunch of spoiled kids with the "you did it too!" argument. The media slants both ways which is equally as tiresome. But I don't need to belong to a party to know that taking 23 million people off of healthcare, adding back caps and limits, gutting medicaid, etc. and using those savings to finance tax cut for millionaires is a despicable and shameful act. I don't see how people with a soul can defend such a blatant and shameful policy. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 23 minutes ago, AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy said: I too get sick of party bickering. It's like a bunch of spoiled kids with the "you did it too!" argument. The media slants both ways which is equally as tiresome. But I don't need to belong to a party to know that taking 23 million people off of healthcare, adding back caps and limits, gutting medicaid, etc. and using those savings to finance tax cut for millionaires is a despicable and shameful act. I don't see how people with a soul can defend such a blatant and shameful policy. The CBO report has already been proven to be off with the latest Obamacare enrollment figures. Their projection was for a far larger number of people to be enrolled and increasing enrollments in the future - which didn't and isn't happening and is actually declining. Right now there is no telling the actual total numbers the new ACHA would effect but most is now 12 million but that number has a declining trajectory. The effect of this is a smaller political price to be paid by the Republicans if they pass their plan. Edited June 21, 2017 by nonniey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 35 minutes ago, nonniey said: The CBO report has already been proven to be off with the latest Obamacare enrollment figures. Their projection was for a far larger number of people to be enrolled and increasing enrollments in the future - which didn't and isn't happening and is actually declining. Right now there is no telling the actual total numbers the new ACHA would effect but most is now 12 million but that number has a declining trajectory. The effect of this is a smaller political price to be paid by the Republicans if they pass their plan. I'd imagine the CBO projections along the way were not accounting for obstruction at the state level which led to different healthcare providers leaving the exchange. There are factors that can alter projections. It's like saying an event on a fairgrounds is projected to have a certain number, then on the day of the event thunderstorms happen which alters the attendance, but then blaming the event itself and not the thunderstorm. Edited June 21, 2017 by NoCalMike 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, nonniey said: The CBO report has already been proven to be off with the latest Obamacare enrollment figures. Their projection was for a far larger number of people to be enrolled and increasing enrollments in the future - which didn't and isn't happening and is actually declining. Right now there is no telling the actual total numbers the new ACHA would effect but most is now 12 million but that number has a declining trajectory. The effect of this is a smaller political price to be paid by the Republicans if they pass their plan. I don't need an estimate to figure out that gutting Medicaid is gonna hurt a hell of a lot of people. You're right, there's no telling what the actual number will be. But kicking anyone off of healthcare is one too many. We can't be the greatest country in the world if we can't even take care of our own people. It's disgusting. You can spin it however you like, but those "projections" are actually living, breathing people. And those people will suffer. All because a bunch of rich pigs want more. Edited June 21, 2017 by AlvinWaltonIsMyBoy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooked Crack Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 1 hour ago, nonniey said: The CBO report has already been proven to be off with the latest Obamacare enrollment figures. Their projection was for a far larger number of people to be enrolled and increasing enrollments in the future - which didn't and isn't happening and is actually declining. Right now there is no telling the actual total numbers the new ACHA would effect but most is now 12 million but that number has a declining trajectory You are just pulling numbers out of nowhere it seems. Most of the people who are getting kicked of are Medicaid patients. The 12 million number is less than the number of Medicaid recipients expected to lose coverage. I'm going to assume it's easier to score removing a benefit than creating one from scratch. I just don't see Republicans not throwing those folks under the bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 53 minutes ago, visionary said: Pointing out that I made that statement, before the Trump election. I stated that I was seeing a whole lot of polls predicting huge electoral victories for Hillary, but that those predictions were based on things like 1% margins. And pointed out that the polling companies have invested a lot of money, and years of time, into getting their likely voter models to be as accurate as possible. And that the presence of Trump had the potential to alter those criteria of who is likely to vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 This is why she needs to go. She doesn't deliver. She is the poster-child for how to run against somebody other than your opponent (her) and win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 As disliked as she is, she has been pretty effective in congress and especially at keeping dems in the house from breaking rank. Maybe she could take on a less prominent role though and do that stuff in the background. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 1 minute ago, visionary said: As disliked as she is, she has been pretty effective in congress and especially at keeping dems in the house from breaking rank. Maybe she could take on a less prominent role though and do that stuff in the background. That's a fair point. But that messaging is selfish and a loser. I'm sure it was leaked by those who were ready for her to not be in a leadership role. At the very least her foresight is poor because this wasn't hard to see. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Nancy should not be top dog among Dems anymore. That being said, I'm not sure they're going about removing her the right way. Ideally there would be a way to manuever her to a graceful stepping down. But closed door meetings and tweetstorms aren't conducive to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 Just now, visionary said: As disliked as she is, she has been pretty effective in congress and especially at keeping dems in the house from breaking rank. Maybe she could take on a less prominent role though and do that stuff in the background. She absolutely needs to go because my party needs more Kamala Harris types out front. She's done good things and she sure as heck keeps the party in line, but everyone's day comes. Having said that, I'm not naive enough to think that simply changing leadership will change the basic attack by the GOP. They do an effective job demonizing Dem leadership. It's time for a new generation of leaders in Congress to be leading the charge against these terrible bills. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 1 minute ago, Hersh said: She absolutely needs to go because my party needs more Kamala Harris types out front. She's done good things and she sure as heck keeps the party in line, but everyone's day comes. Having said that, I'm not naive enough to think that simply changing leadership will change the basic attack by the GOP. They do an effective job demonizing Dem leadership. It's time for a new generation of leaders in Congress to be leading the charge against these terrible bills. Optics matter and old white people fighting old white people stand out on TV. I don't want to be ageist, but she's pushing 80 years old. I know Bernie fired up his people for rallies, etc. But if the Dems are a party of diversity. It needs to show. Yeah, the GOP attacks will be the same. But they don't even need to fire people up about Pelosi. The same way they didn't with Clinton. They were known "enemies" of whatever Clickservative/Conservative thing we have going now. If you have to spend time and money educating these people who your new boogieman is. Then the other side is doing something right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 32 minutes ago, Hersh said: She absolutely needs to go because my party needs more Kamala Harris types out front. What type is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 22, 2017 Share Posted June 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: What type is that? People who haven't accrued multiple decades worth of public exposure and, by extension, villification. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now