Election Day Open Thread

I've got court today. Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Monday Morning Open Thread | ACLU Files Brief Opposing Tsarnaev Prison Restrictions >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 178 (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Dadler on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:02:06 PM EST
    Very long article (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:55:21 PM EST
    Here's an excerpt...

    How to Keep the NSA Out of Your Computer

    JOSEPH BONICIOLI mostly uses the same internet you and I do. He pays a service provider a monthly fee to get him online. But to talk to his friends and neighbors in Athens, Greece, he's also got something much weirder and more interesting: a private, parallel internet.

    He and his fellow Athenians built it. They did so by linking up a set of rooftop wifi antennas to create a "mesh," a sort of bucket brigade that can pass along data and signals. It's actually faster than the Net we pay for: Data travels through the mesh at no less than 14 megabits a second, and up to 150 Mbs a second, about 30 times faster than the commercial pipeline I get at home. Bonicioli and the others can send messages, video chat, and trade huge files without ever appearing on the regular internet.
    In some ways, a community mesh resembles a food co-op. Its members crunch the numbers and realize that they can solve the last-mile problem themselves at a fraction of the price. In Kansas City, Isaac Wilder, cofounder of the Free Network Foundation, is using this model to wire up neighborhoods where the average household income is barely $10,000 a year. His group partners with community organizations that pay for backbone access. Wilder then sets up a mesh that anyone can join for a modest sum. "The margins on most internet providers are so ridiculously inflated," he says. "When people see the price they get from the mesh, they're like, 'Ten bucks a month? Oh, shit, I'll pay that!'"
    So now digital-freedom activists and nonprofits are making mesh tools specifically to carve out spaces free from government snooping. During the Occupy Wall Street actions in New York City, Wilder set up a local mesh for the protesters. In Washington, DC, the New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute is developing Commotion--"internet in a suitcase" software that lets anyone quickly deploy a mesh. "We're making infrastructure for anyone who wants to control their own network," says Sascha Meinrath, who runs OTI. In a country with a repressive government, dissidents could use Commotion to set up a private, encrypted mesh. If a despot decided to shut off internet access, the activists could pay for a satellite connection and then share it across the mesh, getting a large group of people back online quickly.

    Meinrath and his group have tested Commotion in American communities, including Detroit and Brooklyn's Red Hook neighborhood, where locals used it to get back online after Hurricane Sandy.

    Press Release, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:57:47 PM EST
    October 1, 2013
    WASHINGTON, DC -- New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute (OTI) today released the first round of its Commotion Construction Kit, a "do it ourselves" guide for building wireless communications infrastructure. The materials are part of the Commotion project, an open-source communications toolkit that uses mobile phones, computers, and other wireless devices to create decentralized mesh networks and share local services.

    "In an age of pervasive government surveillance and corporate data mining, the Commotion project is an essential resource for taking control of our communications and data," saidJoshua Breitbart, Director of Field Operations at OTI. "With the guides we are publishing today, you do not have to be a techie or engineer to build a wireless network with your neighbors."

    Another Inductee for Drug War Hall of Fame (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:05:40 PM EST
    The incident began January 2, 2013 after David Eckert finished shopping at the Wal-Mart in Deming.  According to a federal lawsuit, Eckert didn't make a complete stop at a stop sign coming out of the parking lot and was immediately stopped by law enforcement.      

    Eckert's attorney, Shannon Kennedy, said in an interview with KOB that after law enforcement asked him to step out of the vehicle, he appeared to be clenching his buttocks.

    You will not believe how far downhill things went from there.

    oh. my. god. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:29:53 PM EST
    That is absolutely incredible. May millions be showered upon him.

    I'm surprised (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    they didn't "plant" something on - I mean in - him.

    I was busted with a quarter ounce of blond lebanese in 1970. I was charged with possession of 1 gram by very happy mellow relaxed cops.


    Meanwhile, while all you folks are complaining (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:59:30 PM EST
    a friend writes and tells me there's a new slogan in Maine:  Welcome to Potland!

    According to this story, the City of Portland had a referendum on a new ordinance to legalize possession (up to 2.5 oz.) and recreational use of MJ in the city.  No taxes, no fees, no assessments, no nothing.  Outright legal.  

    And if the results are to be believed (which sounds reasonable) the referendum will pass with something like 70 percent of the vote.

    The story goes on to note that this does not affect state law (which allows medical MJ) or federal.  But, it appears statewide legalization is next on the referndum target list.


    Can you imagine (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:02:53 PM EST
    lobster mac and cheese munchies?

    Whoopie pie munchies?

    Dear God....


    Being in marketing & advertising (none / 0) (#106)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:54:32 AM EST
    I can imagine the Maine Office of Tourism developing a new slogan around this.

    "Wow, Man! Chill in Maine! It's Far Out, Man!"


    Or Oregon (none / 0) (#116)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:39:32 AM EST
    Whatever. It's early out.

    If repeated anal sodomy... (none / 0) (#127)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:51:10 AM EST
    isn't grounds for complaining, I don't know what is scribe.

    But great news from Portland!


    Okay, so this makes no sense to me: (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:11:37 PM EST
    National Democrats stand by the decision not to play seriously in New Jersey, according to several who spoke with The Daily Beast. The calculation was two-fold, they said. First, the money required just to land a punch on Christie in the pricey New York and Philadelphia media markets could fund an entire campaign somewhere or sometime else when a Democrat had a chance of winning. "When you have someone this powerful and this popular, you shrug it off and wait for the next one," a top Democratic donor said of Christie. "It's not worth the financial investment to try to take him down or out."Second, Democrats firmly believe that no matter how strong Christie looks on Election Day 2013 in New Jersey, the Republican nominating gauntlet will eat his 2016 presidential candidacy alive before he ever gets a chance to face off against a Democrat in a general election. "When it comes to national elections, we've seen how efficient and effective Republicans are at destroying each other's reputations, so I'll leave it to them," said Robert Zimmerman, a national committeeman for the DNC. "Chris Christie is a very powerful national candidate, but the question is can a mainstream Republican be elected by the Republican Party today? No."


    Charlie Pierce:



    Very wrong.

    Incredibly wrong.

    Spectacularly wrong.

    Also, stupid.

    First of all, according to the latest NBC News/WSJ Poll, Christie's numbers are plummeting just like those of every other candidate. He's at 33 percent favorable right now. This is not a "powerful national candidate." He's weak and he's insecure and you can make him pop his cork as predictably as Old Faithful. In fact, your job, Democratic panjandrums, was to make him a national candidate before he is ready to be one. It was to make him a national candidate on your timetable, not his. Define, define, define. Spend whatever it takes to do that. Second, as Steve M. relentlessly points out, the Tea Party folk don't necessarily like the fact that Christie spent quality time with the Kenyan Usurper, but they love, love, love the way Big Chicken bullies the helpless and powerless. To hate like that gives their lives meaning, and Christie is a perfect vessel for that. They'll settle for that more easily than they settled for Willard Romney, god knows. So depending on the Tea Party folk to bring him down is to gamble high on phantoms.


    And what campaigns, precisely, elsewhere in the country, was the Democratic party spending its money on that were so important that they took precedence over blowing out at least one tire on the Christie bandwagon? If you can't learn from the mistakes you made that helped elect George W. Bush, an intervention is clearly called for.


    My take is that (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:46:44 AM EST
    the real reason the Democrats did not even try to "bloody" Christie is that their new mission is to resuscitate the so-called Republican mainstream and Chrisite has been given the job of first responder.   Cruz and Rand must be seen by the Democrats and high rollers as a greater threat to their idea of a responsible and responsive two-party system, even if these tea-partiers will be easier for a Democrat to defeat. Probably, the same strategy would be in play if it looked like a committed liberal were to take over the Democratic party.

    On a recent MSNBC program (Lawrence O'Donnell), Jon Favreau, former head speechwriter for President Obama, argued for building up the Republican party by recognizing and applauding those Republican office holders  who speak up against the tactics of the tea party Republicans. Favreau is not likely to have too many independent thoughts.

    It  seems to escape Democrats that the differences between mainstream Republicans and tea party Republicans is, in large measure, tactics.   Otherwise, just Republicans, same Ideology and policies.    Seamless.


    To try and "bloody" a candidate (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:25:31 AM EST
    That has been polling anywhere from 20 to 40 points ahead for the last year would be a colossal waste of money.

    Disagree on this one, (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    C.G.   Barbara Buono seems to as well, feeling "betrayed".  The poll results could be causation or correlation, but, at least, a good old college try would have dented those polling numbers and reduced the invincibility factor.   Romney leaks on Christie's vetting were about the only blood that was drawn; certainly the Democrats could have  mounted policy-oriented critiques, starting with his turning down of the trans-Hudson tunnel project and the resulting stimulus to the NJ economy.  

    No, here's why Christie should have been (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:21:54 PM EST
    challenged, and the money spent promoting a Democrat (bold is mine):


    31 percent.

    That's the number of the night, people.

    That's the percentage of self-identified "liberals" that voted for Chris Christie, essentially endorsing the idea that he should run for president of the United States, since that was the real purpose of the New Jersey gubernatorial election yesterday. It certainly wasn't about who's going to be the governor of New Jersey, since Big Chicken is eighty-eight-and-out-the-gate as soon as the dust clears from next autumn's midterms, if not sooner. (All that talk about "Washington" in his acceptance speech was a pretty clear indication that the man has his travelin' shoes on already.) No, as soon as it was determined by the strategic geniuses in the Democratic party that Barbara Buono would be fed to the woodchipper -- and good on her for calling the duplicitous bastards on it last night -- the only issue in the election became whether or not you think Chris Christie should run for president. And 31 percent of the liberals who voted assented to that proposition. How the hell did that happen on a night when the state also kicked him squarely in the nuts by overwhelmingly reversing his veto of an increase in the minimum wage, a veto that is the perfect expression of everything Chris Christie stands for as a politician? If you want to know why actual liberalism continues to be a dead parrot in our politics, and why the only real political dynamic in the country revolves around a choice over whether we will drift slowly to the right or stampede headlong in that direction, look to that number.

    There is no reason on god's earth why a self-identified liberal would vote for Chris Christie. He's a tool of the ascendant oligarchy, awful on women's rights, terrible on infrastructure, very high on union-busting, and a short-tempered, thin-skinned bully into the bargain. If you're a New Jersey Democratic legislator who needs a little somethin'-somethin', I can see why you would support him. But 31 percent of liberals? Please. Because of that number, and because he also got 32 percent of the overall Democratic vote, the Christie '16 narrative is now set in stone. He's the Obamist candidate who can bring folks together.

    All that stuff that the Romney folks dug up when they were vetting him for VP?  That's the stuff that should have been used to nip this thing in the bud - or at least give this nascent presidential flower some kind of rot.


    Not for nothing... (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:32:45 PM EST
    a self-identified liberal concerned about the ascendant oligarchy has no business voting for Democrats either.

    I really don't care how Brand D big shots spend their millions, that being said I tend to agree with CG.  Christie was a lock, and money wasn't a big reason why...the Hurricane Sandy response was a big reason why.  Love him or hate him, he proved himself to be a competent executive in a crisis.  


    He has fought for New Jersey to (none / 0) (#163)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:51:34 PM EST
    be able to rebuild from Sandy and he will continue to, nobody was going to unseat him.  And plenty of time to spend money much better spent nipping his nascent flower.

    Or They Realized the Obvious... (none / 0) (#134)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:25:39 AM EST
    ...the differences between Christie and say Obama are negligible and trying to paint one as the bad guy while letting other shine is an almost impossible feat.

    In 2009 Christie was supported by 9% of democrats, yesterday 32%.  LINK

    He doesn't match well against Clinton, but his popularity exceeds Obama's.

    He did very well with Hispanics as well.  The only place I could find the numbers is FoxNews, so take it for what it's worth:

    The governor retained the strong support of men (63 percent), independents (66 percent), seniors (66 percent), and working class whites (76 percent), who had favored him in 2009.  Tonight Christie added majorities of women (57 percent) and Hispanics (51 percent) to his column. He did better among black voters (21 percent) and union households (46 percent) than he did in 2009, even though he did not win those groups.

    I think Christie's only problem in 2016 will be the primary and whether he can win over the extremists that have taken over the R party, not likely IMO.


    All ideology aside... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:51:06 PM EST
    With every presidential election being a coin-flip for the foreseeable future, I think I'd rather the Christie's of Brand R win the Brand R Civil War.  

    Especially so with the possibility of ACA electoral blowback coming in 2014 and 2016 if Brand D doesn't get their ACA sh*t together...if we're gonna get stuck with Republicans in charge, we could do a lot worse. Better a Christie than a Romney, or heaven forbid a Cruz...no?


    D.C. Council calls on Washington Negros... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:04:38 AM EST
    ...to ditch `racist and derogatory' name

    In the latest challenge to the Washington Redskins' name, District lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to call on the team to change it, saying it is widely recognized as "racist and derogatory."

    "Enough is enough -- the name must go," said David Grosso (I-At Large), who first introduced the name-change resolution in May.


    What party is the "I-At Large" party, seems like something I could vote for.  

    The Skins seriously need to change their name, "enough is enough".

    Bob Coasta says it best IMO.

    From Wiki (none / 0) (#129)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:07:55 AM EST

    In 2012, David Grosso and six other individuals declared their candidacy for two seats as at-large member of the Council of the District of Columbia.[8] Grosso ran as an independent candidate. In accordance with the District's Home Rule Act, one of the seats is reserved for an individual who is not affiliated with the Democratic Party.[8]

    I hereby propose... (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    a constutional amendment making 1 senate seat per state, and 50% of the house seats per state, at large seats that members of the Democratic and Republican parties can not hold.

    Since De Blasio is a lock... (none / 0) (#1)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:51:13 AM EST
    the ballots I'm most anxious to see come in are NY States proposal to open up some real casinos instead of just the one-armed bandit only joints, and NJ's constitutional amendment to raise the minimum wage from a total joke to a mere pittance.  Since Christie vetoed the increase through normal legislative channels and the feds have their heads up their arses about it, as usual.

    Did you see (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    that NY Post front page on De Blasio? Have they jumped the shark or what? Talk about massive desperation...

    No but lemme guess... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:58:20 AM EST
    more red baiting? (Googling now....)

    Ding Ding Ding I won a cigar! ;)


    Yep (none / 0) (#10)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:19:26 PM EST
    you win the CIGAR!!!

    What's the margin going to be I wonder?


    Don't Forget... (none / 0) (#33)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    ...you owe taxes on that 'gift' cigar !!!

    LOL... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:26:47 PM EST
    yeah, and I'm supposed to get shaken down for 7 bucks a pack in cigarette taxes.  Richie Incognito shoulda became a taxman, he missed his calling;)

    They Are Trying to Shake Coloradans Down... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:19:07 PM EST
    ...for 25% on the newly legalized sacrament.
    After becoming one of the first states to legalize recreational marijuana last year, Colorado may set another new standard on Tuesday when voters go to the polls: approving a pot sales tax.

    If Proposition AA passes, recreational cannabis sales will have a 25 percent tax slapped on them starting Jan. 1, when retailers being selling pot legally, with 15 percent of that being an excise tax to be used for public school construction projects and 10 percent being a special sales tax to fund enforcement of regulations on the retail marijuana industry.

    The steep tax, which would come on top of Colorado's 2.9 percent retail sales tax, would generate $33.5 million its first year and $67 million its second year in state tax revenue if approved, according to the non-partisan Colorado Legislative Council -- but some marijuana advocates argue such a high tariff could encourage a black market.


    Even after they legalized it, they still manage to fund enforcement w/o funding treatment, incredible.  

    So where does the anti-tax crown fall on taxing canibus, republicans, tea party ?  I already know, just want one of you clowns to admit to not carrying about taxes that don't effect you and/or things you dislike.


    Cigarette tax paid in Colorado is higher (none / 0) (#70)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:59:05 PM EST
    $1.85 per pack in state and federal taxes plus 2.9% in retail tax comes to approx. 50% tax per pack at what I believe is the current price in Colorado of about $5.60 per pack after taxes.

    Lets not use tobacco taxes... (none / 0) (#111)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:54:08 AM EST
    as a gauge for proper taxation of an-y-thing CG.

    The really scary part is the CO 50% tax rate sounds like a bargain compared to NY's 10 bucks a pack after taxes, even more in NYC.  I believe the proper term is "highway robbery".  God Save The Poospatucks!


    Here's what they are proposing in Michigan (none / 0) (#81)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:28:08 PM EST
    for medical marijuana

    The bill would: amend the public health code and classify marijuana as a Schedule 2 controlled substance; provide for the licensure and regulation of facilities to grow and test pharmaceutical-grade pot, and allow those facilities to sell the drug to pharmacies to dispense.

    Medical marijuana users would have to get an additional, enhanced certificate from a doctor to be able to buy the drug from a pharmacy. The bill also would restrict the sale of pharmaceutical-grade cannabis to 2 ounces per month, per customer who is at least 18 years old.

    The option is needed for medical marijuana users, said state Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw Township, to ensure a safe product free of toxins.

    I just hope CO does the right... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:01:37 AM EST
    thing in naming the new schools...Robert Nesta Marley Elementary, Jack Herer High School, John Sinclair Middle School, etc.  

    I thought the legislature, (none / 0) (#173)
    by NYShooter on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:36:54 PM EST
    acting in line with public opinion polls, over-rode both the minimum wage veto, and, the same-sex marriage veto.


    Funny, isn't it? Christie rules against the will of NJ voters on so many issues, and, gets re-elected in a landslide.

    Was his opponent that bad, or, are the voters just nuts? Inquiring minds want to know.


    The only (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 11:51:33 AM EST
    thing that seems semi-exciting is the VA governor's race.

    If a race between a TP Republican (3.67 / 3) (#6)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:03:59 PM EST
    and his nuttier-than-a-fruitcake running mate, and a Third Way, DLC "Democrat" is exciting, just shoot me now...

    I hear that... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:06:58 PM EST
    where's Monty Brewster when Virginie needs him.

    I really (none / 0) (#12)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:21:17 PM EST
    don't think TM is much of a DLCer but in all honesty I thought the DLC no longer exists. And I'm not seeing any third way stuff from  what I have read. He is going full force at Krazy Ken on social issues and has not been attacking the left of the party that I know of.

    Meant "DNC" not "DLC." (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:34:20 PM EST
    It wouldn't be hard to attack Krazy Ken from the left, but with the exception of Northern VA, most of the state is fairly conservative, so I don't think he's running as much to the left as we all would probably like him to.

    I think my general "meh" about McAuliffe is that he's part of that whole Clinton inner circle, and I am, sorry to say, just really tired of that whole crowd.  They can talk a good story, but they're all bought and paid for by big-money interests.

    If he can keep Cuccinelli out of the governor's mansion, that's a good thing; if Dems could defeat the nutcase running to replace Ken as AG, that would be good, too.

    Here's a tidbit Charlie posted on that guy:

       Mr. Obenshain has been a driving force behind a new law tightening voter ID requirements, whose transparent intent is to drive down voter turnout among minorities and the poor, who tend to vote for Democrats. He has been a champion of efforts to roll back abortion rights, including by the "personhood" legislation that would extend legal rights to unborn children and by banning some insurance plans from covering abortions. Outrageously, Mr. Obenshain sought to force women to report miscarriages to the authorities. His explanation - that he was doing the bidding of a prosecutor who sought to protect newborn babies and that he withdrew the bill when he grasped its flaws - casts doubt on his basic legal competence and qualification for the office he now seeks.



    McAuliffe was DLC at one time. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 05:49:51 PM EST
    All the Cool Kids were back in the day. Wasn't  DLC was a Latin acronym for "Punch a Hippie"?



    Okay. (none / 0) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:49:58 PM EST
    The AG race is supposed to be the closest one.

    Which, as a Virginia resident (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:51:04 PM EST
    Scares me the most.

    Having (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:54:48 PM EST
    the cooch as your governor isn't as scary as this guy as AG? Or is it scary because the race is so close? I would THINK that even if the crackpot wins the AG race it's going to be a lot harder for him to pull the crap that the cooch has pulled due to the fact that he's up against a governor not of his own party.

    Women should carry the Dems to victory (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:38:42 PM EST
    in all three races, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Attorney General, for the first time since 1989. It could be a big day in Virginia.

    while the AG race appears to be the closest, it's probably the race with the least difference from today to tomorrow should the GOP hold the seat. There isn't much difference between current AG Cuccinelli and GOP candidate Mark Obenshain.

    While the top two races gave garnered the attention, women should fear the GOP at AG also. Obenshain has promoted jailing women who don't report a miscarriage within 24 hours to the authorities.


    Just saw a tweet about an exit poll (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 07:01:18 PM EST
    McAulliffe carried 70% of unmarried women.

    How's that war on women working out for ya, GOP?


    90% in (none / 0) (#92)
    by CoralGables on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:41:39 PM EST
    Dems could take all three or just one of three. It's that close. Hopefully the 10% still out is all urban areas (it usually is in Virginia)

    Without being too confident (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:03:51 PM EST
    I don't think Cooch will win, so it doesn't scare me.

    But a close AG's race is reason enough to be nervous.


    Cuccinelli makes (none / 0) (#60)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:45:36 PM EST
    Terry McAuliffe look like Che guevara.  Hope Cuccinelli not only loses big, but that he whimpers away to join a monastery somewhere in the Andes never to be heard of again.

    Today's  NYT op-ed column by Frank Bruni will not exactly warm the cockles of the Clintons heart--Bruni includes McAuliffe and his relationships with the Clintons as a negative factor.  


    Flashback (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:24:31 PM EST
    to 2008 is what that little piece did and it completely ticked me off. First of all he might be right about the desire for liberal firebrands but the places he named are NYC and MA which probably forebode for the future but don't indicate anything in the present as far as the rest of the country goes.

    I'm also sure if she decides to run that she will have competition from someone on the left. So that goes without saying and it will be a good thing. It will help her hone her message.

    And as far as poetry??? That is what Obama was supposed to bring and that has not worked out all that well has it? I would rather have someone like Hillary who actually can EXPLAIN and UNDERSTAND her policies to someone like Obama who hands off the stuff to be written by a lobbyist and shows up when it's time to put his signature on the piece of legislation.  


    I generally like Frank Bruni (none / 0) (#61)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:51:43 PM EST
    But he is putting way too much stock in a poll that is 3 years out from a presidential election, for a candidate who has not declared if she is running.

    Would she be a perfect candidate?  No, but wringing his hands over the fact that she has baggage is just silly at this point.

    Just as it would be silly if he wrote this same kind of column about a potential Republican candidate.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:11:09 PM EST
    Frank Bruni is usually pretty good, but this seemed not only premature as you note, but also, unfair and unbalanced.  Secretary Clinton's accomplishments at State, for example, were superficial, essentially giving credit only for miles logged.  And, the comments about Chelsea Clinton attributed to President Clinton did not seem to take into account the fact that President Clinton is her father.   Even the comment about Terry McAuliffe went unadorned with reasons--just presented.   I did hesitate to link the article, but did so because of the prominence of the author and being in the paper of record--indicating something brewing, in Democratic circles, perhaps.

    Well (none / 0) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:26:53 PM EST
    if it's about something brewing then the p*mas are right that the party will NEVER let a woman run for president much less Hillary run for president and it's also a darn shame if that is the case.

    My favorite (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:34:52 PM EST
    parts of these recent kinds of columns is where people (once again) fret about how they don't want her to run because the Republicans will throw all kinds of stuff at her.

    That kills me and makes me roll my eyes at the same time.

    They've thrown everything at Obama and they just look crazy.

    And Hillary Clinton has already dealt with crazy and squashed them like bugs. I mean, there isn't much else they can throw at her, except murder.  Oh wait, they've done that already too. And she's honed herself on the campaign trail with all the cr@p the Democrats threw at her, too, so she should just say, "Bring it on."

    Today is Election Day in Virginia.  We have been inundated with horrible ads and discussions about the races here.  Can we please, please have a respite, at least until after the New Year about having a discussion in the media about the 2016 horse race???


    Hillary still beats Chris Christie (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    Here is PPP's latest poll:

    Hillary Clinton continues to be the overall frontrunner for 2016, leading all of her potential Republican opponents by at least 5 points. Chris Christie comes the closest at 44/39, followed by Jeb Bush at 48/39, and Rand Paul at 49/37. Clinton's average lead of 9 points in these head to heads is up from an average lead of 4 points on our July poll, perhaps another outgrowth of the shutdown. Clinton leads Ted Cruz 50/33- that 17 point margin would be the most a Democrat has won by since Barry Goldwater was on the ballot.

    Watch Tweety.  He may have a man-crush on Christie. He voted for W in 2000.


    Yes, Chris Mathews (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:54:32 PM EST
    seems to be getting another thrill going up his leg with Chris Christie.   Last night, Tweety went off on Guy Cecil, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee for assessing a win by Christie as has having zero impact on Republican resurgence, nationally.  Tweety all but kicked his guest off his show, saying he was "wasting his time with flackship."     Tweety wants a horse race, and wants to see the Republicans rise again--with Christie leading the way.  And, it is unlikely that Mr Cecil will be a guest again.

    Rather than focusing on 2016 (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    I'd rather focus on 2014 using this suggestion:

    David Dayen @ddayen
    Every Dem candidate for federal office next year should be asked: How much should we expand Social Security?

    This should be the goal. This should be the 2014 Dem litmus test, not just because it's what crazy hippies want but because it's smart politics. Atrios

    on the other hand Ed S (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by DFLer on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:38:43 PM EST
    reamed Christie on new one on his show, warning Dems who would think to vote for him how basically conservative, anti-union, anti-gay marriage etc., he really is.

    What I find (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 04:55:21 PM EST
    most interesting about that poll is not Hillary's numbers but the fact that the "strongest" Republicans don't break 39%.

    IIRC, Bruni was nearly patient zero (none / 0) (#87)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 07:04:27 PM EST
    of CDS in the 90's. Huge grain of salt recommended.

    Could you explain? (none / 0) (#89)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:07:34 PM EST
    Or provide link(s)?   Do not understand.

    Clinton derangement syndrome.... (none / 0) (#91)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:38:25 PM EST
    I'll check the  Daily Howler archives....I could be wrong.

    I stand corrected, I was remembering Bruni (none / 0) (#93)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:51:59 PM EST
    more from the 2000 campaign, with gems like this. Still not trusting him 13 years later.

    When you're caught in a lie (none / 0) (#8)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:12:40 PM EST
    Well (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    at least in that article they aren't gunning at Obama lying while letting the GOP get away with lying too.

    What did the GOP lie about again? (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:33:31 PM EST
    Just refresh my memory.

    Obama lied for sure.  That's a given.


    There isn't enough time in the day.... (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:38:56 PM EST
    but I'll give you one....

    "Death Panels"


    They have (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:41:43 PM EST
    been lying about people's insurance plans. They are trying to say that people are going to have to pay four times more for a policy when the original policy was basically a discount plan and not even an insurance policy. They have been lying and lying and lying. Either that or they don't anything about insurance. Take your pick. But this is really an example of how they have a problem criticizing their own plan. Instead of admitting it's their own plan and criticizing it which would be impossible they just have to lie about it. It's getting tiresome and now they think that Medicaid should have been expanded when they were screaming about that a few years ago and the people that are going to be hurt the most are their own red state voters but maybe that is what they really want to happen. In order to keep their red state voters in line they have to make sure they suffer the most.

    You should probably set some (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    parameters - are we talking about GOP lies so far this week, within the last month, in 2013, since Bush left office, what?

    We could start with the ever-popular, guaranteed-to-be-a-hit-at-the-local-Tea-Party-meeting: our Kenyan, Socialist, Muslim president.

    Let's see, what's another good one: Obama is a liberal.

    How about this?  Obama's soft on terrorists (I guess a real man wouldn't send drones to do the killing, would he?).

    Ooh - I love this one: Obama wants to take away our guns.

    I'll make it easier: if Democrats support it, Republicans will lie about it to make it sound evil and destructive.  They will offer nothing in its place, other than old policies that didn't work the first (second and third and fourth) time around.

    If Democrats are pushing for fairness and equality, Republicans will tell whatever lies they have to to make that sound like a bad thing.  Sometimes it's hard to see that, what with all the Confederate flag-waving and gay-bashing, and slut-shaming, but don't let that stuff distract you: "equality is bad" is a lie the GOP can't stop telling (with a few exceptions, of course - some of the GOP have seen the light).

    But maybe you were specifically referencing the ACA, in which case...maybe we should accept that both sides are doing their share of spinning and twisting, because I've heard it from both sides.  What's the endgame, though?  Republican politicians want the ACA to fail in as massive a way as possible, and Democratic politicians - you know, the ones responsible for it - want it to succeed.  

    Not that the Dems' motives are pure as the driven snow, not by a long shot, but that's really the difference between the two sides.  I suspect the quality and affordability of actual health care is somewhere in the middle of the list of Why The ACA Needs To Succeed, with the #1 item being "Because I don't want to give up this great job," followed by (2) "I can get an even better job with a health insurance company or a K Street lobby shop," (3) "I have a lot of stock in insurance and pharmaceuticals and I'll be damned if I'm going to have to actually live on my Social Security."  You get the picture, and it's not pretty.

    The reality is that no one really knows what's going to happen when January 1 rolls around and people start using their brand-new insurance, so my suggestion would be to take everything you read and hear with as much salt as your blood pressure can withstand - and pay some attention to the lies coming out of GOP quarters, because that will give you some clues about what they're really afraid of.


    I am (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    SO SICK of all the lying. Thank you Anne for an HONEST post.

    All I can tell anybody is that I have checked out what's available to me. There are 39 plans. One of the plans I had 3 to 5 years ago. It cost me $800 a month. It now costs $544 a month BUT the co-pays are now $60 instead of $25. So there is an apples to apples comparison. Take it for what you will.


    All I'll say to you Anne (none / 0) (#48)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:59:59 PM EST
    is the problems we're seeing right now with ACA were all predicted by lying republicans.

    Were some of their predictions off base and exaggerations?  Of course.   But I'd propose none as big a whoppers as the people cramming this bill through congress told.

    The only excuse for most dems on this bill was ignorance because they never read it and took the presidents and the architects word for it.

    My problem with ACA is it will fail miserably at it's stated goals.

    Providing insurance for the uninsured and saving the whole system money.

    For one that goal was always impossible, and two it's not working out so well.   For all the economic and ideological reasons libertarians and republicans predicted.

    Unlike some I don't give credit for intentions.  It's lazy IMHO to give dems credit for "Doing something" when that something is bad policy.

    I am of the opinion that if "something" doesn't work "nothing" or "something else" is better.

    On this one point, Obama's lies, there really isn't a defense other then changing the subject.


    Okay (none / 0) (#53)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:10:26 PM EST
    So the GOP "exaggerated" but Obama "lied". You can't bring yourself to admit that the GOP has been lying too?

    Heh (none / 0) (#54)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:11:51 PM EST
    All I'll say to you Anne is the problems we're seeing right now with ACA were all predicted by lying republicans.

    Were some of their predictions off base and exaggerations?  Of course.   But I'd propose none as big a whoppers as the people cramming this bill through congress told.

    Funny how Obama's statements are "lies" but when your fellow wingnuts do it, they're just "off base" and "exaggerations".

    As far as your "proposal", well ...

    ... that's just funny.


    What's even funnier is Republicans (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    making dire predictions about a plan they wanted to build with the same blueprints Obama used.

    Well, "funny" probably isn't the right word; perhaps "ironic" works better.


    Enough about this (1.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:51:25 AM EST
    It's not the republican plan.

    It's the democratic plan that used some republican principals and then piled on top extra regulation and the employer mandate.

    I'm getting tired of this talking point.


    That' s a shame (none / 0) (#196)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:32:48 PM EST
    BTW - "Extra regulation" and the individual mandate were in the Heritage Foundation/'94 Republican plan.

    Keep swinging!


    Ironic? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:31:05 PM EST
    Yes, but it's also pretty hysterical. Who knew Bob Dole was a socialist? I guess Bob Dole was a secret agent send to "destroy America" as we know it. In hindsight maybe they are glad that Bill Clinton beat him? The political environment is definitely rich with irony.

    Here's a whole (none / 0) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:47:03 PM EST
    list of them link

    The More Appropriate Question... (none / 0) (#34)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:00:48 PM EST
    ...should be what didn't they lie about.  And i am drawing a big huge blank.  But what do you care, you are a libertarian.

    I don't care (none / 0) (#38)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:19:47 PM EST
    but the don't pay attention to my guy look at them excuse I keep reading on this site is just silly.

    Obama lied to sell his plan knowing full well it was untrue.

    Now he is lying about the lie.

    Some will give him a pass, some will lie about it, some will ignore it and most on this site will just start slamming republicans.

    Fine.  Doesn't change the fact that Obama lied.

    His list includes...

    You can keep your health plan.
    You can keep your doctor.
    The site will be ready Oct 1st
    The site will be as easy as using Amazon
    ACA will bend the cost curve
    ACA will reduce the deficit

    Anymore?   We can acknowledge the lies or we can just ignore them and slam republicans to make ourselves feel better.

    All the above lies both republican and libertarian critics called out before the law passed but nobody cared.   Now they are front and center and the only way to combat them is to keep lying.  



    What should we do about it, Slado? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    I can agree with you that Obama - and many of the good-soldier Dems in Congress - has not been completely truthful with the American public. He put together a complicated plan, built on a dysfunctional and broken private-insurance system, and then he, as they say, started writing checks he couldn't cash.

    Maybe the way he put it together, there was no way to explain in 30 seconds the nuance of how it would work, who would be able to keep their plans, and who wouldn't.

    But he had over three years to put together a mechanism for people to shop for insurance, and there's just no excuse for it.  No excuse for the hands-off, where's-my-magic-wand, oh-I-know-I'll-give-a-speech approach to this undertaking.

    Had the rollout gone more or less like clockwork, we wouldn't be having this conversation.  People who already had insurance might have been able to make a switch to something better even before they knew their old plan was going to be discontinued.  But the rollout bombed, and a huge chasm of fear opened up and with the problems still ongoing, that fear isn't going away.  And trust?  That ain't happening either.

    I can see all that, admit all that, but I also know something else.  The GOP has no alternative that isn't tort reform and selling insurance across state lines.  They've got NOTHING - so they're going with what they know: fear and distrust.  Obama's mistake is that his failure to produce a working system served up a steaming pile of that for the GOP platter.

    Now, what are we gonna do about it?


    So you're (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:42:48 PM EST
    okay with the GOP lying apparently. You are doing exactly the same thing you are accusing the Obama supporters of doing.

    I get it. If lying helps you make your case then it's okay. You actually are on the same page as Obama when it comes to that kind of thing.


    Of course it upsets me (none / 0) (#45)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:54:10 PM EST
    but republicans didn't pass this law and that's what I'm talking about.

    Let's focus here.  


    Look (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:05:52 PM EST
    overall this is probably going to be a wash. You and the GOP are selectively picking stories of people that are supposedly "hurt". I'm sure there are SOME people that have a LEGITIMATE beef but shopping this particular case in CA which is an INSURANCE problem that has literally been going on for YEARS just looks completely dishonest and using a lady in FL who had a discount plan as an example really make the GOP look completely clueless when it comes to insurance. The GOP here in GA even required the insurance companies to LIE to their insured. I'm sure they didn't have much of a problem with it as they are very astute at doing that without the legislature interfering. The fact of the matter is the GOP really can't criticize it without making up stuff because there is no way to really criticize this from the right. The only way to criticize it is from the left so they are left to lying about it as "criticism"

    Big assumption (none / 0) (#142)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:53:26 AM EST
    That this thing is going to work out.

    I would predict that young people aren't going to sign up in the numbers they need so a few things are going to happen...

    Costs that now appear low will ahve to rise on the exchanges.

    If the government forces the costs to stay low then people on exchanges will ahve less and less access to doctors.

    That's were we're headed.  Why?  Because Obama lied about this plan and it defies economic logic.

    We shall see.

    When all this happens what will be the excuse then?


    The basic idea (none / 0) (#165)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    of Obamacare worked in getting most people health insurance in Massachusetts.

    So, to assume the same thing won't work on the national level is not consistent with prior experience.

    The Massachusetts model does make a lot of money for insurance companies....but for what it purports to do, there is no reason why the basic idea of rebates and mandates won't work nationally.


    Massachusetts (none / 0) (#172)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:35:23 PM EST
    Is a small state and not quite as diverse as the country as a whole, so to keep making the comparison, as if it is easily transferable, is silly.

    Why silly? (none / 0) (#175)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    What does diversity have to do with it?

    Fewer minorities (less diversity) makes it easier to implement Romneycare?

    Specifically, why won't the Massachusetts model  work similarly on a national level?

    You parrot what Romney says about his healthcare plan.  Care to offer specifics beyond the cant?


    So, when Vermont gets its single-payer (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:11:23 PM EST
    plan up and running in 2017, and it works, will you then acknowledge that single-payer can go nationwide?

    Look, you've pooh-poohed all of jb's reasons for why the MA model doesn't necessarily work across the country.  But consider why "the experts" believe the single-payer experiment in Vermont will make a good starting point (all bold is mine):

    The reasons tiny Vermont may be ripe for one of the costliest and most closely watched social experiments of its time?

    It's the most liberal state in the country, according to Election Day exit polls. Democrats hold the governor's office and big majorities in both houses of the Legislature.

    It has a tradition of activism. Several times in recent years, hundreds of people have rallied in Montpelier for a campaign advocating that healthcare is a human right.

    It's small. With a population of about 626,000 and just 15 hospitals, all nonprofits, Vermont is seen by policy experts as a manageable place to launch a universal healthcare project.

    "Within a state like Vermont, it should be much more possible to actually get all of the stakeholders at the table," said Shana Lavarreda, director of health insurance studies at the University of California at Los Angeles' Center for Health Policy Research.

    Vermont's small size also is often credited with helping preserve its communitarian spirit. People in its towns know one another and are willing to help in times of need.

    "The key is demography," said University of Vermont political scientist Garrison Nelson. Discussions about health policy "can be handled on a relative face-to-face basis," he said.

    And, for better or worse, Vermont has little racial or income diversity, Nelson pointed out.

    Then there's the fact that Vermont is close to universal healthcare already. Lavarreda noted that the state became a leader in insuring children in the 1990s. Now 96 percent of Vermont children have coverage, and 91 percent of the overall population does, second only to Massachusetts.

    At this stage, no one knows whether state-level universal healthcare will succeed, and it's an open question as to whether Vermont can work as a model for other states.

    "Developing a single-payer system for Vermont is a lot easier than in California or Texas or New York state," said U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders. The independent, frequently described as the only socialist in the Senate, has been pushing for some form of socialized medicine since he was mayor of Burlington 30 years ago.

    I want the country on a Medicare-for-All plan as much as the next person, but it would be foolish of me not to be cognizant of the political, fiscal and demographic differences that exist from state to state.  Would Texas be able to institute a new payroll tax, as Vermont will do, in order to fund a single-payer system?  Shoot, there are states working overtime to heave the old, the poor and the sick overboard - if we have to rely on a state-by-state move to single-payer, the same states that have refused to create state exchanges or expand Medicaid are going to refuse to get on that bandwagon, too.

    I think Vermont can and will do it, and my hope is it will drive interest for a national plan built on the expansion of Medicare.

    We'll see.

    That being said, if Vermont can do it, would you support efforts to grow a national single-payer system?


    Yes (none / 0) (#192)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:30:03 PM EST
    And I would support single payer now, if that were an available option.   I support the ACA not because I love insurance companies but because it will provide us and many, many others with coverage.  When single payer does that, fine.  

    I have said that I support single payer before.  I have said I am even open to socialized medicine akin to what the Brits have.  But I am realistic too.  

    As to Vermont, what they are talking about in your post are political and financial issues, not medical ones.   It is not that Vermont has different types of people that require a completely different type of medical care.  It is that it would be easier politically to implement it in Vermont given its smaller size, etc.

    With the ACA, the political issues are already here.  The financing has already been addressed.  This idea that different types of human beings with different medical needs inhabit different states makes no sense.      

    Medicare is already a national program. Obviously all the variations in disease, etc. can be easily enfolded into a national plan.

    Massachusetts is much bigger and more "diverse" than Vermont, if we need a test case.   If a version of the ACA worked there, I see no reason why it can't work in similar fashion in other places too.  No one has cited any evidence to the contrary.

    As to single payer, one (and perhaps the only viable) way to take it beyond Vermont would be via initiative.  Just bypass the elected officials, as is done from time to time with the Minimum Wage.  Yes, I would vote for it now.  



    Hmmm, strange question (none / 0) (#178)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:20:57 PM EST
    Why would you automatically assume something that works in Massachusetts work the same way in Florida?

    Hmmmm....I dunno - different populations, different needs, different tax bases, different financing options, smaller population of people to cover. Texas is very different than Massachusetts, which is very different than Oregon. Just to start. Especially as insurance companies are regulated by state law and can't necessarily sell across state lines.

    The biggest issue is that Massachusetts didn't need to increase income taxes to pay for it - most funding for the new law came from the federal government as part of Medicaid, and from shifting around state funds. They had funds from the federal government to fall back on.  With Obamacare, the federal government does not have that luxury, so they will have to raise the money some other way.

    The plans have some similarities, but the solution is not as simple as taking Massachusetts' plan and plunking it down on the rest of the country.

    You parrot Rachel Maddow.  Care to offer anything besides insults?


    Different populations? (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:34:20 PM EST
    Different needs?

    People get sick differently in Massachusetts?  You know, people in Texas get a different kind of cancer than people in Oregon?  People in Massachusetts get different diseases?

    Can't sell across state lines?  Gawd, you have swallowed the Fox talking points whole.   The Republican idea here is for insurance companies to evade state consumer protection statutes. How does that make healthcare better?

    Not raising taxes, so what?  That was already done.

    You haven't stated anything specific about how Massachusetts people have different health care needs than people in Texas.


    Hmmm... (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:47:44 PM EST
    People in Massachusetts get different diseases?

    Yes, actually, in some cases they do.

    You think a large migrant farmer population in the desert heat might have different issues than fisherman off the Atlantic coast?

    You think Massachussetts has a problem with leprosy cases?  Texas does - about 150 cases a year.

    You haven't stated anything specific about how Massachusetts people have different health care needs than people in Texas.

    Actually, what I said was that a plan designed for Massachussetts wouldn't necessarily be able to be cookie cut and placed over the whole country because of many things - one being that different states face different health issues - but also because of the diversity of the populations (you know, some populations of people get health issues not rampant in other populations), and HOW THE PLANS ARE FUNDED.

    Jeebus - you really want to start an argument again today without actually reading anything.


    Leprosy cases??? (none / 0) (#184)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    That is why Romney care cannot work elsewhere?

    Desert heat?  Heat stroke can occur in the summer in Massachusetts....

    The funding of Obamacare has been secured, whether Republicans like it or not.

    You talked about diverse populations making a difference.

    As to reading, I have read your posts, but you haven't cited anything about health care needs being different in different states.

    In terms of health care needs, Medicare works just fine nationally.

    The one argument that could be made, but you do not mention, is that the scales are different, not that the people are different....But I do not see that that is the case.


    As usual, you pick a word (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by sj on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:45:48 PM EST
    to start a fight while ignoring the overall point of the comment.

    It is conventional wisdom that different locations/populations suffer from different ailments. Granted, CW is always the most reliable, but, as far as I know Colorado isn't home to a lot of coal workers pneumoconiosis.

    Arizona just recently even recognized Lyme Disease which is a concern in Maryland and Colorado.

    I'm pretty sure that no one in my family is going to suffer from Sickle Cell anemia.  Or Tay-Sachs. And there are a lot of my people in Eastern Colorado and Northern New Mexico (by "my people", this time I mean not only my family but my genetic compadres).

    Asthma risks are different in urban and rural environments.

    Native American populations have a higher than average alcoholism rate although the reasons are still being studied and debated.

    Those who suffer from poverty have a greater risk of substance abuse.

    Location is something insurance underwriters have always considered. It's true to my personal knowledge for home owner's insurance, car insurance and health insurance.

    Health care needs vary from state to state because of environmental factors and because populations/demographics vary. Pretty much all types coverages were available no matter what, but the cost of those types of coverages varied greatly because the risks varied.

    But I'm sure that you are aware of that, with your in-depth knowledge of how insurance works and all.


    Show me how (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:09:29 PM EST
    differences like that really matter in terms of providing health care to people.

    If you really believe that those differences are significant, why do they not matter for Medicare?  

    Do you really agree with jb's assertion of standard Republican talking points about eliminating regulations to sell insurance across state lines?


    Let's see (5.00 / 2) (#193)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:30:52 PM EST
    If I moved to Rockville, MD from where I live now in Arlington, VA, I could still purchase a plan from CareFirst Blue Cross.  Putting in my age, but with a Rockville zip code instead, and looking at the same plan I am considering purchasing as of 1/1 (because, as I've explained, my very good plan is being cancelled) - so I'm looking at the somewhat lesser plan - my monthly premiums would be $177.00. But because I live 20 miles away, I will have the great opportunity to pay $253.00.

    Did I mention it was the exact same plan with the exact same company?

    And yes, with each state regulating insurance, I know this would be difficult - too bad they didn't take care of THAT in the law.

    So while you want to continue to falsely paint me as speaking "Republican talking points", please just know that I would prefer to pay $80 a month less for the same thing I will be getting anyway. I don't know why that is a bad thing.

    Maybe you're made out of money, but I know I could use an extra $1000 a year.


    You are talking about price, (none / 0) (#199)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:43:29 PM EST
    not care--which will and does vary.

    Each state regulating insurance--I am not sure what you are referring to.   My understanding is that the Republicans want to evade, specifically, the restrictions here in California.  

    ERISA pre-empts a lot of stuff here already with respect to employer provided HMOs, but otherwise, if a carrier gets out of line here, you can whack 'em pretty good.  Specifically, insurance carriers can be required to pay a plaintiff's attorneys fees if the carrier "unreasonably" denies coverage, and Glory Be, you can get some punitive damages if the carrier merely breaches its insurance contract by "consciously disregarding the rights" of its insured.

    Many a Publican and Pharisee want to get rid of that system.


    Like a Car (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:31:50 PM EST
    Folks with more money not only have better diets in general, but also have access to many other things, like gyms or soccer fields or parks to run/walk in.  Overall they are in better health than poorer folks.  Add in the fact that people with more money tend to get, not only preventative care, but also seek treatment when needed, not letting it spiral out until major care is needed.

    I would imagine that would make the price of future care less than people with poor diets limited access to healthy activities and untreated past illnesses.  And unfortunately in America, race is fairly parallel to wealth, it why certain races have much lower life expectancies.

    So like a car, one that has been under warranty(insured), in general, is probably been better maintained and will most likely have lower future costs.


    The same can be said of (none / 0) (#200)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:46:12 PM EST
    seniors, maybe even more so. BUT, Medicare is still a national plan.

    The medical differences are not significant enough to make a national plan unworkable.


    Because Medicare is single payer? (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by sj on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:36:34 PM EST
    If you really believe that those differences are significant, why do they not matter for Medicare?  
    Because Medicare is not expected to make a profit? duh!

    This is not new information. This is not controversial information.

    Short people have different issues than tall people. City dwellers have different issues than farmers.

    Large states have different issues than small states. Those different issues are why we are a bicameral nation*.

    This isn't even controversial. Questioning it however, is somewhat controversial as you appear to be  grasping at straws trying to prove a negative.

    But you know, I could very well be wrong. So how about you prove to us why those are non-issues in a profit-based health insurance system.

    With links, please, as we did.

    Speaking of being bi-cameral, has anyone heard from andgarden lately?


    Medically different (none / 0) (#201)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:50:14 PM EST
    The finances of the ACA are already addressed.

    Sorry, it SHOULD read (none / 0) (#191)
    by sj on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:10:29 PM EST
    Granted, CW not is always the most reliable...
    D@mn. And I even proof read this one.

    MKS: The question is the burden (none / 0) (#204)
    by christinep on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:16:09 PM EST
    I tend to think that the argument that a healthcare system that works (and works fairly well) in a diverse, populous state supports the argument that the adapted model would suggest a successful national application as well.  At least, on the surface.  

    As I'm sure we all know in this thread ... this "Does Massachusetts model suggest success" discussion tends to round & round because none of us can prove or establish either proposition.  But, if does seem appropriate that a rejoinder to the Massachusetts-model-for-a-national-application should consist of something more than "Massachusetts is a state and we are a whole country."  Your push for specifics makes sense.

    To jbindc or anyone who contends that the fact that the Massachusetts model cannot portend success because--well--because it cannot: Is there something a little bit more?  While I agree that state programs in any area do not equate to successful federal application, nonetheless--in all honesty and with that caveat--shouldn't there be some underlying factual basis or reasoning offered?  Person MKS has given an example of a US State where it has worked well; Person jbindc seems to respond "it can't work" without anything further than attempting to shift the discussion back.  


    No (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    the reason is not because Obama lied. Can you not handle the truth? The truth is that the insurance companies think paying the CEO 18 billion dollars in bonuses is more important than people getting care for what ails them. Costs are going to go up no matter what because of the insurance business model. This business model has caused skyrocketing costs even before Obamacare came along.

    We are going to continue to have problems and MASSIVE problems with our healthcare costs in this country until people can start handling the truth. Admitting the problem is the first step and dancing around the problems with out talking about the crux of the problem gets us nowhere.


    Selective outrage (none / 0) (#46)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    All the above lies both republican and libertarian critics called out before the law passed but nobody cared.   Now they are front and center and the only way to combat them is to keep lying.

    Shall we make a list of the conservative and libertarian lies about the ACA?

    Funny how you're just fine with those.


    Funny... (none / 0) (#59)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    "All the above lies both republican and libertarian critics called out before the law passed but nobody cared."

    Wow, so your claim is no one cared about the lies of your party, but they do care about the lies of the other party, seriously ?

    I won't defend Obama for a minute, but that statement is the statement of a partisan hack, someone who believes no one cared when they did bad and only care when their opponent did the exact same thing.

    You need to stop posting 10,000 version of 'I hate Obama', we get it, rather we got it 6 months ago, now it's just tiresome partisan hackery.


    They told you (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    that they represent you.

    The GOP lied, too (none / 0) (#47)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:59:50 PM EST
    So many times they make Obama look like an amateur.

    If your recollection is that poor, it needs more than "refreshing".


    This is called deflecting (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:01:24 PM EST
    The only thing you can do when "your guy" is caught in a lie.

    Did Obama lie or not?

    It's a simple question.


    Just responding to your request ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:09:03 PM EST
    ... to have your memory refreshed about GOP lies.

    As far as Obama - sure he lied.  What I'm pointing out is your selective outrage at his lies, while you're fine with the dozens of lies made by Republicans/conservatives/libertarians on the issue of healthcare reform alone.  Heck, you're even having trouble recalling them.

    This list should get you started, if you're having such difficulty.


    So, what comes after the answer? (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 03:15:43 PM EST
    If I say, "you're right, Obama lied," then what?

    Does that conclude the matter for you?  Is that it - do you go away?

    I've asked you several times now, Slado, what are we supposed to do now - what's next?

    You must have some idea, so what now?


    You're asking Slado what to do? (none / 0) (#79)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:11:47 PM EST
    Hey, Donald (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 07:05:06 PM EST
    This is not on the topic of the ACA, but I need to ask you.
    In advance of the vote in Hawaii on same-sex marriage, what in the ever-loving he!! is the matter with the president of the Hawaii police union???

    The president of the Hawaii police union on Monday expressed outraged at the idea that his state could pass a law legalizing marriage between members of the same sex.

    Tenari Maafala told the state House that he had a duty to honor all laws as a law enforcement officer.

    "The bottom line is this, the day I retire and bills like this are introduced, I will never ever honor such law," he said. "You will have to kill me to dishonor my father in heaven, you would have to kill me to impose these types of laws upon my children, and my nieces and my nephews."


    So, the president of the police union has announced in advance that he would never honor a law he doesn't like.  He needs to retire immediately, not wait until (hopefully) the law is passed.


    Doesn't surprise me. (none / 0) (#98)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:26:14 PM EST
    Tenari Maafala is a Christianista. His union has little or no political influence with the present administration, having endorsed Gov. Abercrombie's crazy GOP Christianist opponent in 2010. Police union leadership across the country tends to lean GOP, and don't necessarily speak for the rank and file on this or other social issues.

    That said, I really wish that SHOPO's rank and file would put a little more thought into the sort of people they choose to represent them at the bargaining table. By and large, union leadership out here of late has run the gamut from the thoroughly corrupt to the hopelessly incompetent. The one notable and refreshing exception is Eric Gill of SEIU-HERE, Local 5, a good man and a great leader.



    Fix it (none / 0) (#145)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:58:48 AM EST
    Obamacare is here to stay.

    Get rid of the individual and employee mandates and let the goverment partner to insurance companies to subsidize low cost insurance for those who are uninsured.

    Derugulate the insurance industry so we can sell across state lines and increase competition in a real way, not a federaly mandated way.

    Tort reform.


    all these ideas are out there but they were dismissed when ACA was written.

    Also we need to cut reform social security and cut defense in order to pay for all this.

    There is no free lunch.   If you want more people to have insurance someone has to pay for it.

    Instead of admitting to this basic principal ACA was built on the false assumption that Washington could provide insurance to more people for less money.

    All these unintended consequences are a result of government not being able to defy the laws of economics.

    In order to sell it Obama had to lie.


    There aren't any "laws of econmics" (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by jondee on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:53:28 PM EST
    the way there are laws of thermodynamics or laws of quantum mechanics.

    Cut social security, tort reform, deregulation: talk about going through all the ultra-conservative articles of faith..  


    Tort reform is a farce (none / 0) (#169)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:28:36 PM EST
    And what do you really mean by tort reform? The proposals I have heard from conservatives are stupid or quite trivial.....

    And, deregulate the insurance industry?  Let them pillage even more?  Yes, I know that conservatives love that idea, but California has some hard won restrictions on carriers that we are not eager to have conservatives wreck.  


    Social Security is fine (none / 0) (#170)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:32:00 PM EST
    But go ahead and try to cut it.

    No, he's not. (none / 0) (#113)
    by Farmboy on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:26:15 AM EST
    What Obama said in 2009 repeatedly was, "If you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it."

    Should he have then explained that doesn't mean you'll always have the same insurance plan forever and ever? No, because most people's plans change on an annual basis. Sure in some reductio ad absurdium way the President could have spent the thirty minutes describing all of the possible ways in which you may not have your same 2009 insurance plan at some point in the intervening four years, such as what if you changed it in for a better plan, or your employer changed coverage, or you added Medicare, or you lost your job, or changed employers, or retired, etc. But in his repeated speeches on the subject, he didn't.

    However, as the media is proudly describing as some sort of "reveal," (ooh, they can use the Google), the White House did post documents to that effect on their web site at the time, so folks could read for themselves the details.

    Regardless, while some of those events that caused you to change insurance plans were your choice, and some were out of your control. the ACA didn't make you get rid of your insurance plan. Calling Obama a liar because you don't have the same plan you had in 2009 is spurious, as is calling him a liar for pointing out that what he said applied to the insurance you owned when the ACA came in.


    Oh dear gawd (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:07:34 AM EST
    he lied like a rug.

    "If you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it."

    He championed an excise tax whose sole purpose was to eliminate good health care coverage. People have to have skin in the game - don't you know. According to Obama and his advisors, the best way to control costs is to make actual health care so expensive that people will put off getting the actual care they need because they cannot afford the up front "skin in the game" cost of care.


    You know who the cheerleaders remind me of? (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    They really are starting to sound like birthers.  No matter how much evidence you give them to the contrary, they will tell you that you are mistaken and they know better.

    Nice article yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:28:14 AM EST
    on a Colorado couple and their health insurance. Both have pre-existing conditions. They save over $1000 per month on the exchange.

    I know, but... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Edger on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:32:02 AM EST
    How can you take some far right against the wall wingnutbar like Darrell Issa seriously when he starts quoting from other far right wingnutbars like the White House? Gawd. If he at least quoted from someone with some credibility it would be a different story altogether.

    "Blood-spattered" football uniforms? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Anne on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    Okay, now that I have your attention, it's Under Armour, and they've designed a uniform for the Northwestern football team, that will be auctioned off for the benefit of the Wounded Warrior Project.

    Good cause, no question.  But the uniforms?  They make me a little queasy, to be honest.

    Okay (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by sj on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:48:38 PM EST
    That has an "ick" factor.

    Typo? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Edger on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:06:44 PM EST
    You left out the letter "s" at the beginning of "ick".

    At least it's not the shocking pink ... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 05:54:25 PM EST
    ... that teams wear in gratuitous acknowledgement of Susan G. Komen for the (Right Wing-Induced Anti-Liberal) Cure.

    Don't know who did that (none / 0) (#76)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:00:37 PM EST
    But the Oregon Ducks wore pink to raise money for the Kay Yow Cancer Fund.  A fund that doesn't seem to have any ties to Susan Komen.

    Maybe all the breast cancer foundations ... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:26:10 PM EST
    ... adopted hot pink.

    Regardless, and speaking for myself only, I find pink to be a positively ghastly color, particularly for a football uniform. That's even worse than those gawdawful "Screaming Yellow Zonkers" uniforms the Ducks wore for the Tennessee game earlier in the season.

    Perchance their designers were inspired that week by a glass of Pepto Bismol?


    The other cancer orgs (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:48:46 PM EST
    Seem to have adopted a slightly lighter shade of pink than Komen uses.  Before spending money I usually have to investigate though because I have bumped into a few Komen items probably manufactured slightly flawed that have used a lighter shade too.

    Yes, they (none / 0) (#15)
    by Zorba on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:48:12 PM EST
    make me queasy, too.  As you said, good cause, but questionable execution.
    Under Armour prides itself on being rather controversial, though.  I just wonder why Northwestern went along with this design.

    Healthcare.gov update (none / 0) (#14)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:45:30 PM EST
    So, yesterday, I tried again to get into the system. It didn't like either of the two email address and passwords that I had previously set up, so I had to do it for a third time.

    No problem.

    I got in and put in some information and got an email saying I had an eligibility notice waiting for me on the site.

    This morning at 7:30 am, I clicked on the link in my email to get my eligibility notice.  I got the "Please Wait" window to pop up while the little swirly thing loops around to show you that the system is "thinking".  It times you out about every 30 minutes and gives you the option to continue waiting or log out. I continued to wait while I work, and always pressed the button to allow the system to continue churning away.

    It is now 1:43 pm here in DC.

    The system is still "thinking".

    I'm going to let it go all afternoon and see if I get in.

    Forget the government site... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 12:58:19 PM EST
    and insurance shop here pal.  Posted about this yesterday, 3 dudes came up with this site and it actually works without costing taxpayers millions.  Not applicable in states with their own exchanges, but it works for VA.

    See my comment in the other thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:02:52 PM EST
    Not trusting the info they are posting.

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#23)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:09:43 PM EST
    we are talking about the insurance industry after all...pay your premiums, bend over, cross your fingers and toes;)

    If you don't qualify for a governement subsidy (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:48:17 PM EST
    to help pay your premiums there are plenty of ways to shop online for health insurance. Does this site hook people up with their government subsidies?

    I believe it does both (none / 0) (#30)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:53:37 PM EST
    I think there is a way around now just to shop for plans (since I know I won't get a subsidy), but I was curious if I could see the process through.

    But some of the plans the site lists as available for Virginia, are not available in Arlington, where I live (at least when I go to the individual companies' sites.)

    BTW - It's 5 minutes to 3 and it's still churning.


    afaik... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:06:03 PM EST
    if you're making over 400% of poverty level you ain't getting no subsidy.  45 grand and change for a single...no soup for jb.

    Nope. (none / 0) (#39)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:20:20 PM EST
    Just higher premiums for a lesser plan.

    All for the... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 02:29:30 PM EST
    greater insurance company good!  Don't be so selfish;)

    As if we did not already know this (none / 0) (#24)
    by ragebot on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:31 PM EST
    the govt loans to banks are even worse than we thought.


    C.I.A. Touted modern art to show the world (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 05:21:41 PM EST
    and especially the Kremlin U.S. artists had artistic freedom.

    The Independent

    Exciting art find in Germany (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 05:39:24 PM EST
    The remarkable horde of paintings, valued at an estimated €1 billion, was found hidden behind piles of junk in the flat of reclusive 80-year-old Cornelius Gurlitt. They were discovered by chance in spring 2011 when prosecutors began investigating Mr Gurlitt for tax avoidance - but their existence was only made public at the weekend.

    "I think that's as much of a story as the find itself," said Anne Webber, founder and co-chair of the commission for Looted Art in Europe. "It's actually been two and a half years since these paintings were found, and they've been kept completely secret. And there are some very hard questions for the Bavarian government about why they've kept this list secret.

    "We need to ask why they haven't published a list of all the paintings that have been found, so that the families who are looking for their paintings - and have been looking for the past 75 years - can find them, and have them returned to them," she added. link

    I am expecting to see some of this (none / 0) (#78)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:10:06 PM EST
    treasure trove at the Neue in Manhattan eventually.

    I hope that the majority of the treasure (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by MO Blue on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 06:34:02 PM EST
    trove goes back to their rightful owners.

    It is a strange and curious (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by KeysDan on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:20:33 PM EST
    case.  Gurlitt  has not yet been arrested, although, apparently, the art trove was confiscated some time ago but a sale of art occurred recently.   But getting the art back into the hands of the rightful owners is essential, wether the art was simply stolen or sold under duress for a fraction of their worth, or used as bribes to flee Germany.  

    According to the Munich paper (none / 0) (#94)
    by scribe on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 08:54:03 PM EST
    no one's seen Gurlitt at either of his apartments - the one in Munich where the art was found (and which looked like someting out of "Hoarders", right down to the rotten food) or the one in Salzburg - for at least a year or two.  He would be about 80 now and was reputedly in poor health.  He set off the investigative radar when he was stopped on a train from Switzerland back to Germany - a routine check, they say - and was found to have an envelope full of cash.  So that set a tax evasion investigation into motion and that's what led to the discovery.

    Apparently, he would quietly sell a piece every couple of years or so, when he needed money.  But he apparently got them from his father, who was one of the 4 or so art dealers on whom the Nazis laid the job of selling the stuff they'd stolen.

    Interestingly, some of the art is believed to have belonged to the late father of the former wife of DSK (remember him?), so it'll be another case of the rich get richer.

    Just don't be expecting to see any of it in exhibitions any time soon.


    The Neue exhibited all the recently (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by oculus on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 10:12:11 PM EST
    recovered Klimts and the bought one from the descendant who got them after they were recovered.

    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:23:35 PM EST
    Terry Mac won the VA governorship causing the tea party more heartburn and the crazy nut who was running for Lt. Gov. also lost. Still waiting to see what happens with the Attorney General's race.

    They are blaming Sarvis (none / 0) (#100)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:40:17 PM EST
    for the loss of the TP governor candidate, in Red State.

    Oh, (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:54:15 PM EST
    you've got to be kidding. Of course, you're not actually kidding. So they learned nothing from all this I guess. Just like I predicted they are going to double down on crazy in 2016 and nominate someone like Ted Cruz.

    It was still pretty close (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:54:57 AM EST
    Here are some of the reasons it was so close

    And the Cuccinelli camp is blaming the national Republican party (the funds dried up in October) more than Sarvis.  

    And more things to take away from last night, especially:

    Chris Christie's victory helps make him a more viable Republican presidential candidate.  Period.  Yes, he will face challenges if he chooses to run.  But there is no question that winning reelection so handily helps his cause, relative to a narrower victory.  And this should concern Democrats. There is some evidence that moderate candidates do better in presidential elections -- and anything that makes it more likely that the GOP nominates someone like Christie as opposed to someone like Ted Cruz isn't good for Democrats.  In short, last night made it more, not less, likely that Christie could be the nominee.  And, relative to someone like Cruz, having Christie as the nominee makes it more likely that the GOP can retake the White House in 2016.

    That's the (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:16:47 AM EST
    conventional wisdom about Christie but it isn't going to happen. The GOP is a southern dominated party right now and there's no way that Christie gets the nom. First of all Romney looked at him for VP and there were so many problems that he took a pass. Christie is Rudy Giuliani the sequel. Expect him to repeat what happened to Giuliani back in 2008. The tea party is having none of being told who to vote for anymore. They are going to pick their candidate be it someone like Rand Paul or Ted Cruz but it's not going to be Christie.

    There's 3 years to go (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:25:37 AM EST
    Ted Cruz's light will be out by then.

    Again - the Republicans will be eager to win.  If they think they can win with Christie, they (being much more disciplined than Democrats) will coalesce behind him.

    Add to that, Christie now takes over as head of the RGA (Republican Governors' Association).  As such, he will be attending to lots of party business (already scheduled) and have high visibilty (with lots of press) in states like (wait for it), Iowa, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina and Florida.


    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:48:00 AM EST
    not this time. Too many tea partiers and Christie hugged Obama. The tea partiers even say they are not interested in winning. They are interested in "standing on principle" whatever that principle may be. They were told that they had to vote for McCain and Romney because they were the only ones that had a chance of winning the general election and they are having none of it anymore. IMO it's going to take another presidential election or two before the fact that the GOP has a problem.

    And even if Christie somehow did freakishly win the nomination the evangelicals and the tea partiers are already saying that they're going to sit home.


    Shrug (none / 0) (#144)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:54:36 AM EST
    It's a long time until 2016 and many things can happen before then.

    But there were many around here saying the same thing about Mitt Romney and how he never would get the nomination.

    They were wrong.

    I just don't see the rest of the Republican Party (which would be most of the party members and voters)sitting idly by and letting the tea party destroy their chances at the WH, if there is a viable candidate.  They watched that happen in 2012.


    Well (none / 0) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:13:04 AM EST
    I was not one of those. I said back in 2008 and 2012 that the voters would come out and vote for whomever they were told to vote for. I always thought if the voters were told to vote for Romney that they were going to do it. As you can see now they are in revolt and refusing to vote for who they are told to vote for. 2016 is too early for any of this to change ESPECIALLY if the GOP keeps the house. They are going to think that the tea party is on the way back if that happens.

    It is out of the control of the Republican Party at this time. There is nothing they can do about it. They created this monster and they are going to have to take the punishment that the voters mete out for enabling crazy people.


    Agreed,,, (none / 0) (#137)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:46:37 AM EST
    ...Ted Cruz will be in the Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin hall of fame.  Where they say crazy stuff to crazy people, be on Fox fairly routinely, but no one really takes them seriously and no one is putting them on any ticket.

    But there is a good chance some new crazy will emerge over ACA.  Which IMO is going to be the 2014 albatross the D's can't remove.  Too far out for 2016, but I think ACA will be on it's last breathe considering the R's will get both houses in 2014 if it's not seriously revamped, as in letting people get what they more or less had before*.  An R vote will most certainly kill it completely, which just might be what they run on.

    I don't see how Christie makes it out of the primaries without shifting a lot of his positions.

    But Romney did it, but he lost, so there is that.

    * LINK

    The Obama administration dodged questions Tuesday about whether it will support legislation to fulfill President Barack Obama's oft-stated promise that anyone who likes their health care plan will be able to keep it under the nation's new law.

    How hard would it be to get legislation to allow people to keep the plans they once had for a year or two, can't see anyone opposing it.  And it would make some 93 million Americans pretty damn happy.


    Already been introduced (none / 0) (#140)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:51:11 AM EST
    The Keep Promise Act was introduced Monday, sponsored by Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Mary Landrieu (D - LA)

    The bill, S. 1642, would make changes to the grandfather clause under ObamaCare, which Landrieu said was "not written as tightly as it should have been." Under the bill, all insurance companies would have to continue to offer plans offered before the new ObamaCare standards took effect, and would also have to explain to policyholders how their current plan might fall short of those standards.

    However, her bill makes clear that no one would be forced to buy plans that meet these new standards.

    Landrieu said that not everyone would agree with her view of ObamaCare but said her bill is needed to help 5 million to 7 million people stay on their health plans. Landrieu said millions of people have received letters saying their health plan is being canceled under ObamaCare and said none of these letters would have been sent if the grandfather clause were more clearly written.

    Mmm....maybe not so much (none / 0) (#131)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:20:28 AM EST
    I have heard and read these in multiple sources today, so food for thought for the Dems going into 2014 and beyond:

    Exit polls show a majority of voters -- 53 percent -- opposed the law (Obamacare). Among them, 81 percent voted for Cuccinelli and 8 percent voted for Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis. McAuliffe won overwhelmingly among the 46 percent who support the health care overhaul.

    Cuccinelli actually won independents by 9 percentage points, 47 percent to 38 percent, according to exit polls conducted for a group of media organizations. They made up about one-third of the electorate.

    "Obamacare helped close the gap," said Richmond-based strategist Chris Jankowski, the president of the Republican State Leadership Committee.


    McAuliffe declared in his victory speech that "a historic number of Republicans" supported him. But that's just not how it happened.

    The Democrat won only 4 percent of self-identified Republicans, according to exit polling. His key was getting more of his people to the polls -- 37 percent of voters self-identified as Democrats and 32 percent self-identified as Republican.

    In the exit polling, 28 percent of voters supported the tea party movement and another 28 percent were neutral. Virtually all the rest who oppose the tea party backed McAuliffe.


    Exit polls showed McAuliffe won women by only 9 points, the same margin Obama won them by in the presidential election last year. The Washington Post poll last week had put McAuliffe ahead among women by an astonishing 24 points.

    This raises questions about whether women are starting to tune out "war on women" messaging and whether apocalyptic suggestions that Cuccinelli would try to ban common forms of birth control were effective at driving women to the polls who might not typically vote in an off-year.


    A 54 percent majority of those voting Tuesday disapproved of Obama's job performance, according to the exit polling. But 30 percent of those who "somewhat disapproved" of Obama nonetheless voted for McAuliffe.

    And despite the widespread criticism directed at Republicans for the government shutdown, an equal number of voters pinned the closure on Obama vs. congressional Republicans.

    And in 2009 (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:39:50 AM EST
    the GOP candidate won the Virginia gubernatorial election by 17.3%.

    That's a 20 point swing towards the Dems in 4 years in Virginia.

    In the Lieutenant Governor's race the swing to the Dems was 23 points.

    For Attorney General the 4 year Dem gain was 15 points


    In 2009 (none / 0) (#138)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 10:46:50 AM EST
    The Dem Candidate was lame.

    Did a poll at work yesterday in a room with about 20 people - almost all who are Dems who live in and around Virginia.  Not ONE of them could name the Dem nominee in 2009.

    It was Creigh Deeds, FTR.

    Who lost to McDonnell in 2005 to become Virginia's AG.


    Yes (none / 0) (#149)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:06:48 AM EST
    Creigh Deeds.

    Who just happened to pummel the 2013 Governor elect back in the 2009 primary. Yes, pummel. Deeds beat Terry McAuliffe by 23 points in the 2009 Dem primary.

    No matter how you look at it there has been a huge move in Virginia. Barring any change in the recount of the AG race, The Dems now hold 4 of the 5 offices that are elected statewide (Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and both Senators).


    Just because Terry McAuliffe won (none / 0) (#152)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    Doesn't mean voters actually like him.  The fact that Creigh Deeds beat him in a primary 4 years ago means nothing. Voters here HATED both candidates, and held their noses and chose the least of the worst.

    Is this the beginning of turning Virginia blue?  Maybe.  But if the Republicans nominate someone like Christie, it can very easily go back into the red column.

    We'll see what happens with Mark Warner next year when he is up for re-election.


    You know (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:08:37 PM EST
    if Romney couldn't carry it in 2012 I'm not so sure Christie could carry it in 2016. Christie is essentially from the same wing of the party as Romney and if Romney couldn't pull it out I don't see Christie as being able to either. The demographics and everything else in VA is swinging away from the GOP at this point.

    Politically, that's true (none / 0) (#159)
    by sj on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:32:11 PM EST
    Christie is essentially from the same wing of the party as Romney
    But Christie can make himself seem likeable. Something Romney was never able to do.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    but I think he has the same problems that Romney had. Romney was fine until he started his condescending talk about the voters. Christie is going to have the same problem that Giuliani had for the most part. Christie has a problem with exploding at people and I'm sure during a long presidential campaign he would explode at least once.

    The problem with your theory is (none / 0) (#164)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:11:36 PM EST
    Obama was condescending to voters too - it didn't hurt him.

    But when Christie says stuff like this:

    Now listen, I know that if we can do this in Trenton, New Jersey, maybe the folks in Washington, DC should tune in their tvs right now to see how it's done. See, listen, we're New Jersey. We still fight, we still yell. But when we fight, we fight for those things that really matter in people's lives. And while we may not always agree, we show up everywhere. We just don't show up in the places that vote for us a lot, we show up in the places that vote for us a little. We don't just show up in the places where we're comfortable, we show up in the places where we're uncomfortable.

    Because when you lead, you need to be there. You need to show up, you need to listen and then you need to act. And you don't just show up six months before an election, you show up four years before one. And you just don't take no for an answer the first time no has happened. You keep going back and trying more. Because when I was elected four years ago, I wasn't elected just by the people who voted for me. I was the governor of all the people.

    And tonight, overwhelmingly, those people have said, `come on board, it's fine here, let's have more people support the governor' and now we have a big, big win tonight. What people have told me over the last four years is that more than anything else, they want the truth. They want the truth. You know, we don't always agree with each other in New Jersey. Some folks don't agree with some of the things I do and certainly they don't agree with some of the things I say sometimes. But they know, they know they never have to wonder. When they walked into the voting booth today, they didn't say, `hey I wonder who this guy is and what he stands for, what he's willing to fight for, what he's willing to do when the chips are down.'

    And this

    I know that tonight a dispirited America, angry with their dysfunctional government in Washington looks to New Jersey to say, "is what I think's happening really happening? Are people really coming together? Are we really working, African Americans and Hispanics, suburbanites and city-dwellers, farmers and teachers, are we really all working together?" Let me give the answer to everyone who is watching tonight - under this government, our first job is to get the job done. And as long as I am governor, that job will always, always be finished.

    people listen.

    I think part of Christie's advantage is that he doesn't care if you like him or not.  While George Bush touted himself as a straight shooter, I think Christie IS a straight shooter and he comes off like that. And that's very refreshing when all we've had to choose from is a bunch of panderers who just want to be liked.

    And if he goes off on some conservative activist at a rally, it can only help him win votes.

    The only real problem I see is having Democratic voters cross over in the primaries to vote for the crazier Tea Party candidates.


    Well (none / 0) (#166)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:19:44 PM EST
    the tea party is mad at him because he refused to campaign for crazy ken and NJ does not represent the entire country and while he's the flavor of the moment I don't see him being able to get out of the primaries. Like I said before tea partiers are already saying that they would rather lose with Ted Cruz than win with Christie. Also the Romney campaign has been dishing dirt on some of his corrupt practices. It's going to be a repeat of what Giuliani had to go through. The only way Christie could win is if the Dems don't run Hillary and run some third rate candidate. The press is all gaga over him which is the same thing they did to Obama which should tell you he's not what he seems to be.

    Democratic voters (none / 0) (#167)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:22:14 PM EST
    who vote for Tea Partiers?

    Christie did not run as a Republican.  It will be interesting to see if he can do that again.  He is very much like Giuliani before the 911 glow wore off.


    Giuliani was a mayor (none / 0) (#186)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:27:17 PM EST
    Christie is a governor. Big difference.

    And again - he will have the added bonus of being the president of the RGA in 2014, which will give him national exposure and national power:

    Christie and his executive committee will decide how the RGA spends its considerable money and resources, defending seats the party currently holds and taking chances on new candidates.

    He knows the drill better than anyone. When former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour took the reins of the RGA in June 2009, his faith in Christie meant the group would invest $7.5 million to his campaign against the better-funded Jon Corzine.

    "If it wasn't for Haley Barbour, I wouldn't be governor of New Jersey," Christie told The Star-Ledger at a gathering of governors last year. "A guy like that who was with you when not only wasn't there anybody on the bandwagon, there wasn't a bandwagon, you remain incredibly indebted to somebody like that."

    "I think he's going to be the most popular draw on the campaign trail for 2014."
    The national leadership role will also take Christie around the country many times over to raise money, make speeches and show off his prowess as a world-class schmoozer born and bred on bare-knuckle Jersey politics. He did the same thing last year as RGA vice chairman.

    "I think he's going to be the most popular draw on the campaign trail for 2014," said Schmidt, a native of North Plainfield. "He's going to have a great opportunity to build that national fundraising network to run for president, a reason and an excuse to campaign all over the country for all sorts of other candidates other than his own ambition."

    Seems to me that if he controls the purse strings of a lot of races, and can be a big pull to help other candidates raise money, it might not be so easy for a local yokel tea party candidate to rise to the top and cause trouble.  And where he raises a lot of money for candidates, they aren't going to throw their support to the tea party. (I also don't think he'd tolerate their nonsense and cow-tow to the tea party).

    This could be a perfect storm for him.


    It doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:50:40 PM EST
    matter. Christie is from the Northeast and the tea partiers will never vote for him after they swallowed McCain and Romney. Romney's campaign has even started letting the oppo research on Christie out of the bag. Do you think the GOP is going to allow someone who defended Muslims be a nominee?

    It's not about a local person and it's not about money. I'm sure he'll have plenty of money to run with but the GOP base just does not like him and have already said that they are not going to vote for him. Christie's problems are going to come from people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul not some local yokel.


    Not just people (none / 0) (#177)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:02:22 PM EST
    but women....He loves to demean and shake his finger at women.

    And yet (none / 0) (#179)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    He ran against a Democratic woman and won 57% of the women's vote....

    Okay, but see how well it wears (none / 0) (#181)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    over the long haul, after the Sandy afterglow fades....

    I suppose Christie could beat Hillary, but I think she will get more women voters than he.


    Exit polls yesterday (none / 0) (#187)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:31:22 PM EST
    had Hillary beating Christie in New Jersey.

    Yep -3 years out (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    I have more faith in Hillary (none / 0) (#195)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:32:36 PM EST
    than that.  

    Christie has no place to go but down.  But anything is possible.


    I didn't say anyone liked him (none / 0) (#153)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:35:55 AM EST
    I said there was a 20 point swing towards the Dems in four years.

    Another positive for the Dems...It's the first time since 1973 Virginia has chosen a governor in the same party as the sitting President.

    It's not the beginning of turning Virginia blue. Virginia is blue. Holding four of five statewide offices and winning the last two presidential elections confirms that.


    I don't disagree about a 20 point swing (none / 0) (#154)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:40:40 AM EST
    But I live here.  Virginia is NOT blue.  It is at most, purple. Even all the "Expert" prognosticators last night spoke of it in the future tense "Maybe this means Virgnia is turning blue."

    A handful of counties does not a blue state make.


    Is it possible that the swing is a (none / 0) (#156)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:11:40 PM EST
    reflection more of the general unhappiness with these Tea Party Republican candidates and less with the desire to turn the state blue?

    I read a couple quotes in my paper today from Virginia voters who said their vote represented less a vote for McAuliffe and more a vote against Cuccinelli - and that tells me that those people, anyway, are less afraid of the Democrat than they are of the Republican, but don't feel the Dem will be objectionably "Democratic."

    Cuccinelli seems like he was so close to the crazy cliff that all voters wanted was someone they didn't think was going to take them over the edge.


    Comparing the exit polls (none / 0) (#171)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:33:10 PM EST
    From 2009 to 2013, there are a few differences:

    McDonnell won 66% of independents, while Cuccinelli only won 47% (gee, that's 20 points right there), and McAuliffe only won 38%.

    McDonell won college graduates (61%).  McAuliffe only won 51%.

    In 2009, 48% of the people approved of the job Obama was doing.  20% of those people still voted for McDonnell.  This year, 46% of people approve of the job Obama is doing and only 3% voted for Cuccinnelli.

    We just had a government shutdown, so we can't compare to 2009.  Virginia was the state most affected by it. 45% of voters blamed Obama for the shutdown, while 48% blamed the Republicans.

    Cuccinelli not only won the rural areas of Virginia, he beat McAuliffe in all the suburbs by 6 points.

    My favorite number is the 13% of people who think Cuccinelli's views are too liberal...


    Welll (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    The polls showed that 39% of the 47%were voting FOR McAuliffe and the rest were voting AGAINST Cuchinelli. Not sure on the reverse numbers for Cuchinelli but I think it was about 1/2 so about 22-23% were voting for Cuchinelli with the same amount voting AGAINST McAuliffe

    You know (none / 0) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:01:39 AM EST
    they might have "disapproved" but in the end it didn't seem to matter. It was only a deciding factor for something like 27% of the voters and then those split 50/50 for and against.

    I think the historic number of Republicans wasn't the voters but the party elders in the GOP which actually did abandon Cuchinelli as I understand it.


    And the race (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:26:50 PM EST
    in Alabama (believe it or not) actually crushed a birther candidate who also is a tea partier.

    Pussy Riot (none / 0) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Tue Nov 05, 2013 at 09:46:25 PM EST
    Jailed member is being transferred to Siberian prison. link

    Sent to Siberia? (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:14:52 AM EST
    Oh, how cliché! What's Putin going to do with her next -- take her out to sea and make her walk the plank?

    Seriously, though, we should probably be minimizing our dealings with this sociopath, to the minimum extent only necessary to keep each other from blowing up the planet. This guy is bad news, and while he's obviously the Russian people's problem, we shouldn't compound their pain by enabling him.


    Meet Ed Murray, Seattle's new mayor. (none / 0) (#108)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 03:04:56 AM EST
    Ed Murray rode a strong wave of Seattle voters annoyed and exhausted by Mayor Mike McGinn's confrontational style, handily defeating the incumbent with 56% of the vote today to become the city's first openly gay chief executive.

    Funniest comment I've read so far:

    "I just want to go on record to tell the new mayor that he is doing a lousy job and I will not be voting for him in four years. I mean, why wait?"

    Congratulations to Mayor-elect Murray and his husband Michael Shiosaki.

    Overnight Virginia (none / 0) (#109)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 06:30:37 AM EST
    New Dem Governor. New Dem Lieutenant Governor. And in the Attorney General race the Dem has taken a 600 vote lead overnight but still with 4 precincts uncounted.

    From what I can find those 4 precincts are not necessarily Dem friendly. Will definitely be awhile before a winner is determined in this one as the trailing candidate will surely ask for a recount.

    Definitely (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 07:17:20 AM EST
    going to be a squeaker with the AG race but the polls always said it was going to be a squeaker.

    One Precinct and Provisionals still out (none / 0) (#119)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:08:14 AM EST
    The Republican now in the lead by 219 votes. The clean sweep may slip away.

    To put that in perspective (none / 0) (#120)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:09:54 AM EST
    The percentages right now for Attorney General are:

    Rep 49.90%
    Dem 49.89%


    With all precincts in (pending recount) (none / 0) (#125)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    Obenshain (R) wins by 319

    Nope (none / 0) (#151)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:16:17 AM EST
    The Rep up 742 now (none / 0) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 12:15:54 PM EST
    as they tidy up the vote count and start going through provisional ballots

    Place your bets, place your bets! (none / 0) (#114)
    by kdog on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:26:48 AM EST
    NY Prop 1 passes allowing 7 real casinos in NY State...yay!  

    Still might take 7 years till we get one in the NYC area...till then still just stupid slots at Aqueduct and of course the crooked gaming on Wall St.  Boo!  

    In other good news, NJ voters passed the constitutional amendment to raise the state's min. wage.  Yay!  A smackdown to Christie despite his big win.

    Detroit elects first white mayor in 40 years (none / 0) (#115)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 08:33:39 AM EST
    Mike Duggan - who won the primary as a write-in candidate.

    Although it is unclear when he can actually take over due to the appointment of the city manager.

    RIP Astrodome (none / 0) (#123)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 09:29:34 AM EST
    The once known Eighth Wonder of the World didn't get the votes for the $200+ million dollar bond to keep it around.  Not sure where the money is going to come from to rip it down, but the city has said it's either got to go or be rehabilitated by SuperBowl 51 which will be here in a little over 3 years.

    I had been their once for a baseball game, the first night Big Dog (Randy Johnson) threw for the Astros.  Back before computers tracked tickets and one could come and go and sneak people in, which made more people in that dome then ever before.  First time I was in a covered 'outdoor' sport field.  It was amazing.  Been there pretty much every here when it's opened as a sort of indoor drinking venue during the rodeo.  It's pretty cool because you get to enter the dome through the same archway the players once entered through.  I also went to the Galleryfurniture.com Bowl game.

    Good to see they finally let the voters, vote.  I have not lived in Houston long enough to have any real attachment.  It's in horrible shape and I don't think anyone believes it can be rehabilitated for $200M.  See below, the original bond to build it was $18M.

    Some cool pics.

    Known as "The Eight Wonder of the World", the Astrodome was home to the Houston Astros for 35 years and was the first dome stadium in any sport. Before Major League Baseball awarded Houston an expansion franchise, a dome stadium was already being planned by Judge Roy Hofheinz. Trying to lure a major league team to the Houston area, Hofheinz built a model of a domed stadium and presented it to National League owners. On October 17, 1960 Houston was awarded a franchise. Voters then approved an $18 million bond to build the stadium. Plans were drawn for the domed stadium and construction began January 3, 1962. Meanwhile, the baseball franchise, originally known as the Colt .45s began playing in April 1962 at Colt Stadium, adjacent to where the dome stadium was constructed.

    The dome stadium would be able to house baseball, football, rodeos and many other attractions. Initially it was named the Harris County Dome Stadium, but later renamed the Astrodome. The Colt .45s played three years at Colt Stadium, then changed their name to the Houston Astros when they moved into the Astrodome. The move to the Astrodome was welcomed because it was air-conditioned. On April 9, 1965, the first baseball game was played at the Astrodome, an exhibition match between the Yankees and Astros.


    AN AXE LENGTH AWAY, vol. 179 (none / 0) (#146)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:00:13 AM EST
    The Chavez legacy (none / 0) (#147)
    by Slado on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 11:00:14 AM EST
    Here it is

    What a great guy he was.  Real hero of the people.

    If Bush had not tried (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by MKS on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 01:37:59 PM EST
    to assassinate him in 2002, perhaps a different outcome would have obtained.

    Bush used the butchers of the 1980s in an attempt to kill Chavez.

    People forget how truly odious the Republicans were.


    Really, what's it to you? (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 02:48:18 PM EST
    Hugo Chavez was the thrice-elected president of Venezuela, not the United States. Your limpdiqued party-line opinion of him proved meaningless to those millions of Venezuelans who supported him, and offered absolutely nothing of consequence for those oligarchs who loathed him.

    Personally, I've long felt that Chavez was a really nothing more than a loudmouthed populist circus clown. He was someone who posed no significant threat to either us or our way of life, and he was certainly never worth the excessive animus which those on the crackpot right in this country affixed to him.

    And because of the American right's terribly misguided obsession with Chavez, an attempted coup against the guy was placed into motion by the Bush administration in April 2002, which backfired very badly upon this country, and needlessly elevated the man's stature throughout Latin America from local buffoon to international hero.

    But the bottom line here is this: Hugo Chavez is dead, and yet here you are, STILL obsessed with him. Why is that? And further, why shouldn't we consider that to be much more of a reflection upon you than him?



    Second that (none / 0) (#198)
    by Yman on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 04:43:17 PM EST
    What's with the Chavez obsession?

    Actually, christine (none / 0) (#205)
    by jbindc on Wed Nov 06, 2013 at 05:21:13 PM EST
    Person jbindc seems to respond "it can't work" without anything further than attempting to shift the discussion back.  

    I don't recall saying it CAN'T work.  What I said was that to try and compare what is in Massachusetts and ASSUME it can overlay perfectly onto the whole country is a silly assumption.

    But the one shifting the discussion back would be you and MKS.