Dems could retake House if voter anger carries into 2014

I think the great wild card in regards to Obamacare is going to be the IRS enforcement for those who fail to comply. Its a double edged sword. If enforcement is rather weak it reinforces the choice not to participate as the better choice, if the enforcement is harsh it will likely keep many younger people away from the polls, as they are the most likely to not participate. In no way do I believe that this shut down will play any significant factor in next year's elections...

 

Shiet, more "hope and change"... great....

 

Enforcement will not happen until 2015....after the election. It should have an effect on the next presidential show.

 

If there is no enforcement until 2015 what is the motivation to get insurance if you don't want it? That makes no sense whatsoever...

 

It will never happen. The majority of voters in this country aren't that bright. They will have moved on to the next shiny thing dangling in front of them and will have forgotten all about everything by then.

 

Sorry, I don't engage in hyperbole. I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologue.

 

It's not what I want especially, it's how your party is disarticulating itself.

 

The dems will not take back the House in 2014. My understanding is that my Congressman who voted against the deal that re-opened the government has gotten very little negative feedback from within the district. My district swings back and forth between parties somewhat regularly. I won't vote for him, but I didn't vote for him last time, and the reality is this will be a non-issue in a year from now, even though it isn't much of one now district by district. Larry Sabato only has 9 toss up districts, 205 safe GOP seat v. 170 safe DCCC seats; 25 likely/leaning GOP seats and 26 likely/leaning DCCC seats at this point in time (http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/category/2014-house/)

 

Remember, the law is enforced through your tax return and that is not due for 2014 until April 15 2015, by which time I expect the entire scheme to merely be a bad memory used to frighten children.

 

A one party government won't represent the entirety of American. In fact, it will probably be closer to an Oligarchy than a Republic if either party takes complete control. No matter how badly you hate the opposing party, you have to remember that without them, nothing is stopping your party from destroying the freedom we have been bragging about for so long.

 

Obama was elected by about 30% of eligible voters... remember that... he doesn't have a mandate and most Americans didn't vote for him

 

The voters will not forget the only people in history to use a government shutdown as an excuse to CLOSE OUR WAR MEMEORIALS, CUT GI DEATH BENEFITS,and ALLOW an ILLEGAL ALIEN AMNESTY PARTY at the same time...

 

The odds have increased. Iowa Electronic Markets put the chances at around 40% now, up from 20% a month or two ago, and down from 50% on the eve of the default.

Obvious Buyer's Remorse at the moment.

But many Americans have short memories, Republican gerrymandering means Dems will need to win about 4% of the popular House vote just to get a draw, and midterms usually result in relatively lower Democratic turnout. So I think that 40% is about right.

 

Wait til people get their vastly increased health care premiums under ObamaTax, or get denied health care by a death panel.

 

The right's pathetic desire to delegitimization this twice elected president is pathetic and reeks of bigotry and desperation. Enjoy losing the House in 2014 !

 

When do fat and slim mean the same thing?

 

Obama delegitimizes his own self everytime he opens his mouth. Did you catch his infomercial in the rose garden yesterday? If Democrats had any sense, they'd be embarrassed by this piece of fluff they call a leader. He's a joke.

 

who knew a black president could make you blush so much ?

 

Actually hes only half black. And half smart.

But he'd still be a lousy leader if he was green plaid.

 

So you want higher turnout?

That's funny because you right wingers are always trying to suppress the vote.

Why do you think that is?

I'd like to see higher turnout myself.

So, tell you what, lets go with the Australian system.

Compulsory voting.

Australia gets about a 95% turnout with their system.

Do you have any idea how (*)(*)(*)(*)ed the Republicans would be if our voter turnout was 95%?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system_of_Australia

 

I am not trying to delegitimize Obama's victory, He won. But I am bringing perspective to this argument that just because he won people want his policies. So lets look at the facts: 30% of eligible voters chose him over Romney or anyone else. Together Romney and Obama were only able to pull in 58% of all possible votes; that means 42% of eligible voters chose to vote for another candidate or stay home, 12% more than voted for the winner. That should say something to anyone who uses logic. 70% of possible voters didn't pick Obama, He also got less possible voters in 2012 when compared to 2008 that should say something as well. 70%... let that sink in, when the vast majority of voters didn't pick your guy perhaps America isn't to keen on his policies, its an incredibly easy argument to make when using logic and the facts.

As for losing the house, I would love to see the Democrats and Republicans lose control of the house, they are far to alike for me thats why I voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson last presidential election and refuse to vote for any R or D going forward for any office. But the way I see it Republicans will probably retain control of the house, why you ask? Gerrymandering, mid election cycle usually has lower turnout, and its over a year away and American voters forget quick... Democrats have a better shot of gaining the house if they can drum up anger at Republicans next October... this October is far too soon and anything can happen in the meantime to change peoples opinion. I frankly think anyone who is calling the election this far out is crazy too many unknowns for logic to win.

 

I am not making an argument for higher turnout, I think as adults if one wants to vote or not it is their right. I just don't like people pretending because their guy got 30% of eligible voters that somehow America wants what hes selling. Frankly thats a stupid argument to make.

Also I am not Republican right wing, I voted Gary Johnson in 2012 and didn't chose a single D or R in any of the other races. If the race didn't have a third party option I didn't vote in it. I also didn't vote in 2008 as I didn't like either candidate then either. I decided from now on though that I am going out and voting third party because nothing will change until more people voice their disgust with Republicans and Democrats in the voting booth.

Don't get me wrong though if you want to continue with the Status Quo pony show, gladly do so... but please refrain from lumping me in with your perceived "political enemy".

Obama is the same as Bush.... you will realize that someday

 

I don't think it matters that much. Republicans will be voting a lot more like Dems anyway after getting busted in the chops like they just did. And the Dems are up against gerrymandered districts.

 

At best the OP is highly speculative and bases its findings on immediate, most recent events, which are the most unreliable in polling. From the shape of the data it appears also this was a "push" poll, designed to actually sway opinion, which is often the objective of both "progressive" and "conservative" think tanks like the one cited here.

There has to also be some doubts as to the accuracy of the poll based on this wiki observation:

...not exactloy weighty stuff, but also suggestive of "push polling"...

So, where a "noted" "progressive" poll company may find these results, an unbiased poll company would have others, and still others from a "conservative" think tank at this moment in time.

Americans seem to approach politics like a football game, only focused on the last touch down. Where the future of congress and who will have the majority will be determined in the next 18 months. Democrats appear to want to forget that Obama has a very specific and bold legislative agenda; he must pass immigration reform and at least find some modicum of amnesty as promised, he is adamant over the Farm Bill and he has yet to find a way to negotiate a lasting budget agreement, something that has eluded him for five long, divisive years.

How he fairs with that, how that progressive agenda fairs is what will determine the structure of the 2015 house. Like many leaders who builds walls to keep his "enemies" at bay, Obama may find that he has only prevented himself from reaching out for help where and when he needs it most. Unlike with Reagan and Clinton where presidents learned to work with adversarial stands, Obama's tactics have alienated even moderate Republicans, and some Democrats. And there is Ted Cruz over there in Texas and his growing following.

 

Are all posts in disagreement from "right wing" people? Or is it perhaps, slightly possible that some "progressives" might think Obamacare was a dog's breakfast, poorly conceived by an incompetent president?

If so, there are about 5 million Canadian socialists who have to be "right wing" in your world.

Try for accuracy from now on, then the feigned outrage will at least seem sincere.