Republicans now 60%+ favorites to win the Senate

Originally posted by whodey
True, some people are insulated from all the crap done to the economy.

No offense sh, but too bad we have attorneys running the government.

We don't have attorneys we have Community Organizers. If I understood correctly, even the head of the CDC was once a community organizer.

Originally posted by Eladar
We don't have attorneys we have Community Organizers. If I understood correctly, even the head of the CDC was once a community organizer.

But I thought Obama was an attorney.

Originally posted by whodey
But I thought Obama was an attorney.

Obama was a Community Organizer. He may have a law degree and teach law, but the job that landed him in Congress was being a Community Organizer, aka "get out the vote for democrats" guy.

Originally posted by sh76
60.4% in the 538 model:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/senate-forecast/

65% in the HuffPo model

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2014/senate-outlook

Both models, incidentally, were built by people who lean left (not that it really matters).

For those who have been so impressed by the effects of the ACA and think that all of the critic ...[text shortened]... late as to why many of the President's 2012 voters appear to be abandoning the Democratic party?

I would speculate that rather few Obama voters from 2012 will abandon the Democratic party in 2014. Virtually all the potential Republican Senate gains this year will be in States that didn't vote for Obama. And, of course, the turnout in off-year elections is significantly different from that in Presidential election years.

Originally posted by sh76
Because we want good changes, not bad changes.

What "good changes" do you expect a Republican Senate to propose to the health care system?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Especially with fuel prices lower just in time for the election. Incumbents will benefit wouldn't you agree? Is there a pattern here?

For many years October and Novermber have the lowest fuel prices. I don't think anyone benefits from this except the consumer, and it is usually a short benefit as prices go back up in December and January.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
My point exactly.

If measured by the stock market? Or by the nominal unemployment rate, which doesn't reflect the labor participation rate? Or by the reported low inflation rate which excludes food, fuels, and other energy? Or that counts 30 hour a week jobs as "full time"?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What "good changes" do you expect a Republican Senate to propose to the health care system?

Repealing some of the regulatory additions to insurance wrought by the ACA would help.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I would speculate that rather few Obama voters from 2012 will abandon the Democratic party in 2014. Virtually all the potential Republican Senate gains this year will be in States that didn't vote for Obama. And, of course, the turnout in off-year elections is significantly different from that in Presidential election years.

Iowa and Colorado are two states that Obama won handily in 2012 and seem poised to flip to the GOP in the Senate.

Originally posted by sh76
Iowa and Colorado are two states that Obama won handily in 2012 and seem poised to flip to the GOP in the Senate.

They may or they may not (and is winning by 5-6% "handily"?). But those are the only exceptions so your rhetorical question doesn't seem to have much of a factual basis.

Originally posted by sh76
Repealing some of the regulatory additions to insurance wrought by the ACA would help.

House Republicans announced earlier in the year that they would be presenting a full set of proposals to replace the ACA. It never happened. Nor will any such proposals come out of a possible Republican Senate.

Do you have any specific proposals? What "regulatory additions" are you talking about?

Originally posted by no1marauder
House Republicans announced earlier in the year that they would be presenting a full set of proposals to replace the ACA. It never happened. Nor will any such proposals come out of a possible Republican Senate.

Do you have any specific proposals? What "regulatory additions" are you talking about?

- Prohibiting yearly limits
- Requiring coverage of dependents 25 and younger
- Regulations that require choice of doctor
- Requirements of free preventative care
- Requirement to cover birth control
- Requirement to cover drug abuse treatment
- Prohibiting requiring referrals certain services
etc.

I'm not saying any of these things are bad ideas for individual policies. But I don't like making people who don't need these things subsidize those who do. Let the market tailor the plan to the needs of the individual who is purchasing it.

Sure, some abusive practices should be banned, but the ACA is overkill.

Originally posted by no1marauder
They may or they may not (and is winning by 5-6% "handily"?). But those are the only exceptions so your rhetorical question doesn't seem to have much of a factual basis.

They're really big exceptions.

And yes, going from a 6 point loss to a 2 point win is a big swing.

Also, even the red states will have swung dramatically from the senatorial elections of 2008. So, perhaps my OP should have specified both 2008 and 2012.

Originally posted by sh76
- Prohibiting yearly limits
- Requiring coverage of dependents 25 and younger
- Regulations that require choice of doctor
- Requirements of free preventative care
- Requirement to cover birth control
- Requirement to cover drug abuse treatment
- Prohibiting requiring referrals certain services
etc.

I'm not saying any of these things are bad ideas for ...[text shortened]... who is purchasing it.

Sure, some abusive practices should be banned, but the ACA is overkill.

The market was tailoring it and over 50 million people weren't covered at all. Of course in any insurance market people who don't use some of the thing insured will have to pay for some others who do; that's not a reasonable objection. All of those provisions contribute to better overall health care for Americans and are cost effective.

The market is inadequate in health care for reasons explained on this board many times.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The market was tailoring it and over 50 million people weren't covered at all. Of course in any insurance market people who don't use some of the thing insured will have to pay for some others who do; that's not a reasonable objection. All of those provisions contribute to better overall health care for Americans and are cost effective.

The market is inadequate in health care for reasons explained on this board many times.

You can expand Medicaid to cover many of the people that were not covered (as the ACA did).

I have no problem with some of the rules; like preventing arbitrary cancellations or covering pre-existing conditions (in some cases) for people not eligible for Medicaid because otherwise they'd never be able to get coverage. But the ACA goes too far. Requiring my premium to a private insurer to subsidize a drug addict or someone who wants birth control or a 25 year old young adult who doesn't want to get his own plan is inefficient. If you want to cover those people under Medicaid, that's one thing. But limiting the policies a private company can sell to me to include all sorts of goodies I don't need because someone else wants them doesn't make sense, IMO. I'd rather have Medicare for all than the ACA. At least that might reduce per capita healthcare costs.