mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Election Results
Republican Victories Highlight 2016 Stakes
Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • Jim__L

    Could it be simply the Leftist mentality that there’s nowhere worth being except Washington? Why muck about with a State office when it’s just going to be subordinated to the Beltway?

    • FriendlyGoat

      It certainly is a mentality of us leftists that Washington is the most important place to win. But we are not of the mind that the other places don’t matter. Matt Bevin, a wealthy man, now has the opportunity to beat up Medicaid in Kentucky, in part because he supported Kim Davis, the famously-recalcitrant clerk of Rowan County. Those of us in the rest of the country cannot control election outcomes of that type, but I do expect this one to not play out as well as a predictor for the 2016 national results as today’s pundits are suggesting. Kentucky has a year to become a spectacle of the wrong governmental shifts, and it just might.

      • seattleoutcast

        I find it funny that whenever someone wants to remove corruption in one of the left’s social programs, it’s immediately considered beating up the program. We’ve had over a trillion dollars in fraud over the past ten years . Is that okay? Is it “evil” to fix the problem?

        The GAO said three programs were most at fault: Medicare, Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).

        Read more at http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/10/fraudulent-medicare-medicaid-eitc-tax.html#Ko4xwqKEWuSsGSad.99

        http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-92T

        • FriendlyGoat

          We’ll wait to see whether newly-elected Kentucky Governor Bevin goes after Medicaid fraud specifically or whether he seeks to simply reverse the coverage for people who were added to the program under Obamacare in Kentucky. I would bet on the latter, but, of course, I can’t know what he will do. Let’s wait and see if it’s all about prosecuting the medical providers who actually defraud Medicaid or whether it is about knocking recipients off the program.

          • seattleoutcast

            But if they do remove fraudulent people, the left will consider it knocking people off the program, or racist, or something. That is how it has become this bad.

          • FriendlyGoat

            When I speak of knocking people off the program, I am speaking of the possible dumping of most or all of the 525,000 people who have obtained some kind of medical coverage in Kentucky since the passage of Obamacare. I am not talking about the removal of any patients who did not quality for the expansion.

            As for fraud, it generally is not committed by patients, since Medicaid does not pay money to patients. Fraud is generally committed by medical providers who submit improper billing.
            Same with Medicare for that matter.

            You can watch Bevin to see what he does, same as I can.

          • David Warner

            “the 525,000 people who have obtained some kind of medical coverage”

            Obtained coverage? What, did they find it under a rock?

            No, they obtained it in a similar manner to which antebellum plantation owners obtained cheap cotton and Robert McNamara obtained an army to futz around in Vietnam.

          • FriendlyGoat

            The 525,000 people got health insurance via government ACTION, and the plantation owners got slaves via government INACTION.
            You have provided the most stunning example I have ever seen of a conservative twisting the truth—-assuming, as you people always do, that nobody knows the difference. I wish you knew the difference. Hey, now you do.

          • Dale Fayda

            What those 525,000 “obtained” (and remember they were FORCED to “obtain” it) was either a shiny new insurance card which they either can’t afford (INSANELY high premiums), can’t use (INSANELY high deductibles) or they were reduced to accepting welfare (Medicaid), which was the Left’s intention all along, but which almost no provider accepts. And remember, this “progressive utopia” was achieved at an astronomically high cost to the taxpayer, way over what the libs were selling us at the time of this idiocy’s passing.

            And here’s a real life example of what they “obtained” at the cost of hundreds of millions in taxpayer subsudies: http://dailysignal.com/2015/10/14/another-obamacare-collapse-kentucky-health-co-op-goes-under/.

            Obamacare is dead. The only thing left for the two sides to argue over is the cause of death and to when to tag & bag its corpse. The faster every rancid vestige of it is swept off the table, the less pain for the unfortunate population caught up in the chaos which the Democrats have caused.

            “It’s working! Forward!” Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha…!

          • FriendlyGoat

            Obamacare will be tweaked. It will not be repealed. The reason it will not be repealed is that the arguing cabal of Republicans will not be able to articulate a vision for something else that people will actually accept—–once the details are disclosed. No one is going to trust your gang to just throw the issue up in the air with no detailed planning. Obamacare had a four-year delay from passage to implementation for the corporations involved. A Republican plan could not survive even four weeks of actual scrutiny by anyone who knows more than the two words “small government.”

          • Dale Fayda

            Face it, FG – Obamacare as written and sold to us is dead. What remains are bloody shreds in various tages of decay.

            Let me refer you to an excellent article by Kevin Wlliamson in NRO, from which I quote:

            “The grand vision of an efficient pseudo-market in health insurance under enlightened federal management — the heart of Obamacare — is not coming to pass. Obamacare, meaning the operating model that undergirded the law that Congress passed and President Barack Obama signed with great fanfare — is dead, and it will not be revived. What remains is fitful chaos.”

            You can read the entire thing here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426550/obamacare-failures.

            And before you ask – yes, I’m enjoying it immensely [grin]

          • FriendlyGoat

            Obamacare is not “dead” because it is the law and norm under which the entire country is operating. In order for it to be “dead”, both you and NRO have to replace the norm with another norm that actually is understood and agreed upon in the details by the corporations which operate in it. That is what is going to be impossible for Republicans to do. The “principles” of conservatism will not allow functional health care financing. Sooooo—-your side never gets off square one toward actually changing the system.

          • Dale Fayda

            The sad part is that you actually understand the main premise of my post and the that of the article in NRO (assuming you’ve glanced at it), but you keep spinning anyway. The “norm”, as you quaintly put it, is rapidly collapsing on its own and in January, 2017 the collapse will be accelerated.

            I’ve offered lots of recent journalistically documented pieces of evidence of Obamacare’s myriad failures for your consideration – I’m sure you can recall many of them. You have yet to refute any of them or to offer evidence of it “working” as intended. All you can come back with is the equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I?”

            Some of Obamacare’s features may linger on for years, much like the chicken pox virus, which periodically breaks out into painful shingles, but you and yours will get to watch its effects grow ever dimmer and more insignificant, its provisions ignored more and more blatantly, its parts defunded or repealed (as some already were), until it’s just a distant and generally despised footnote in American history, like Prohibition.

            Enjoy… I know I will.

          • FriendlyGoat

            I will agree with you that Obamacare has not succeeded as spectacularly as hoped by liberals. I also do not believe it is either as much a failure or as despised as some writers paint it. As of now, the ACA is the over-riding framework for what health insurance includes, for who writes it, for who regulates it, for how it is marketed and for who must buy or provide it. Until conservatives propose and define a whole new framework that actually works and is not rejected out of hand by citizens (always a huge hurdle for anything defined by “conservative principles”), I’m saying that most of ACA stays in place by default.

            OF COURSE your side is going to try to chip away at it. But, being a little goofy about it, many thought the ridiculously-constructed King v. Burwell case was the “kill shot”. Attorneys could not get two of five conservatives to believe any such thing. Similarly, there is no “easy” jive talk about small government and personal responsibility that actually replaces a major framework of the whole country. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell are just people, not magicians.

          • Dale Fayda

            The objective truth is that Republicans don’t even HAVE to ship away at it – it’s flailing and failing pretty rapidly on its own. That, in a nut shell was the crux of my argument.

            And, yes – the Republicans will most certainly chip away at it, as they were elected to do in one landslide election after another.

      • Jim__L

        So Kim Davis is officially a martyr, then?

        • FriendlyGoat

          Is she dead? I hadn’t heard that.

    • seattleoutcast

      I think the left is easily seduced by the glamorous elections. When it comes down to paying attention to the nuts and bolts of a civic society, it’s easy to shrug it off. Paying attention to fiscal and social policies takes work (especially local ones), and that is something many of the left’s constituents aren’t willing to do.

      • seattleoutcast

        And by glamorous I mean “cult of the personality.”

      • iconoclast

        I have to disagree with that assessment. The long march of the left through education and through most cities (like Seattle) seems to refute the idea that the left is unwilling to work day in and day out to both grind out more small gains while retaining existing gains (the view that the pendulum never swings back is very strong on the left).

  • vepxistqaosani

    Nicholaus Stephanopolous (hmmm … that name seems familiar, somehow) has the cure for the Democrats’ woes at The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-feasible-roadmap-to-compulsory-voting/413422/

    And, I suppose, once they’ve figured out how to force everyone to vote, they’ll move on to enforcing strict rules on whom and what to vote for …

    • iconoclast

      Mandatory voting is a great cover for getting more illegals to vote too.

  • Anthony

    Americans have always attached a particular importance to getting ahead economically. A question not asked (or perhaps assumed) is how does economic tenor of a time affect electoral behavior of its citizenry? Equally assumed above is that voters (citizens) care about the characteristics of their state and local environs – rationis capax. That being the case, does a stagnant economy powerfully influence an electorate to incline more conservatively ceteris paribus? Often the difference between economic growth and economic stagnation (as publicly perceived) affects how states and localities (excluding specific state/local dynamics) make electoral choices.

    To that end, elections in a democratic society do not require unanimity but majority/plurality – what may often count as well as economic backdrop is extent of support/opposition for respective parties (candidates) and the intensity with which some people are for or against (state/local contests may turn on a small number of voters changing their minds).

  • Jim__L

    You forgot to mention the Kentucky election of a female black Tea Party Republican as Lieutenant Governor. First African-American elected to any statewide office in Kentucky since, well, ever, apparently.

    That pokes so many holes in the Left’s various narratives — that the GOP / Tea Party consists of lily-white racists / sexists, that the Tea Party is a flash in the pan(!), that the only path to power for minorities in this country is through the parties of the Left, that it is impossible for a minority to agree with the principles of Conservatism, etc etc etc…

    I have recently spoken to a self-described “free-market socialist” who was absolutely convinced that if Ben Carson were the GOP nominee, a significant chunk of the GOP’s base would secede, which would be joined by the Tea Party, and we’d have a three-party system in America.

    I think Kentucky and Jenean Hampton together just proved that’s purest nonsense. Heck, as early as 2008, 90% of the population approved of Barack Obama — and that 10% includes not just die-hard racists, but also people with enough foresight to predict that the Obama administration would turn out pretty much as it has turned out.

    I’m increasingly leaning towards the idea that the GOP establishment should swallow its pride and offer all the resources, policymakers, and experienced political personnel at its disposal to assist Carson. Having establishment types on his staff would reassure Americans (and donors) that Carson’s lack of political experience would be ameliorated (insofar as that’s an actual problem). The establishment would have a candidate whose favorables are in the category of “living saint”.

    Most (cynical? idealistic?) of all, fracturing the up-until-now monolithic African-American vote by running one of the most universally admired of their own, would toss race-baiting “permanent-majority” strategists into the recycling bin of history and get people to *actually vote their principles for a change*. It would be the most consequential reordering of the American political landscape since LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

    Seriously. If the GOP Establishment were forced to choose between Trump and Carson, (and unless running for president ages Rubio by about ten years in the next three months, they probably will be), it seems like a no-brainer what the choice ought to be.

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      The DNC depends on charges of racism to get blacks to vote for old white racists who are determined to keep the blacks from prospering and becoming independent of their ‘care’.

      They’ll find some way to ‘De-Black’ Carson – they’re probably digging through his relatives trying to find someone, somewhere who could be labeled ‘white’.

      • Another_Lurker

        That is Obama who is half white.

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          He’s a Dem.

          That’s okay.

          Remember, the rules are different for the (D) side.

    • Andrew Allison

      There’s a different way of looking at the experience issue, namely that it’s a bad thing. Reagan, for example, had none, but was smart enough to surround himself with people who did. The knock on Trump is that he’s another “I’m the smartest guy in the room”, and one of those has been more than enough.

  • iconoclast

    WRM might add that the biasing of the Census with illegal and resident aliens has helped with apportionment and, therefore, the electoral college as well. California gaining and undeserved 9 seats is a good example.

  • dankleitman

    That the most popular Republican candidates who are actual Republicans (that does not include Trump who is either a Democrat in disguise or a Trumplican) are Carson, Cruz and Rubio, and that ObamaCare’s attempt to saddle young healthy males with useless insurance to subsidize others are all serious threats to the Democrat’s coalition. The nasty comments by Democrats about Carly are not popular among women either. In 2012 the Dems relied on low information voters and the Republicans made almost no efforts in that direction. 2016 could be different.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service