Dems big favorites

[Grey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When in the voting booth, people think with the wallet

[/ QUOTE ]No, they do not and all research on the topic proves it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give us a reference?

[/ QUOTE ]http://www.cqpress.com/product/Controversies-in-Voting-Behavior-4th.html

Many of their source texts are cited on that page and you can probably google around to find all of their synopses.

Or you can just figure it out yourself. 45% of poor people vote against their economic best interests, and 45% of rich people vote against their economic best interest. I'm coming up with these numbers off the top of my head, but there's only about 10% of the population who "votes with the wallet" and they're probably all already accounted for in the polling a year out. There is no reason to believe they decide who to vote for any later than the other 90%.

[Mad Cow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When in the voting booth, people think with the wallet

[/ QUOTE ]No, they do not and all research on the topic proves it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give us a reference?

[/ QUOTE ]http://www.cqpress.com/product/Controversies-in-Voting-Behavior-4th.html

Many of their source texts are cited on that page and you can probably google around to find all of their synopses.

Or you can just figure it out yourself. 45% of poor people vote against their economic best interests, and 45% of rich people vote against their economic best interest. I'm coming up with these numbers off the top of my head, but there's only about 10% of the population who "votes with the wallet" and they're probably all already accounted for in the polling a year out. There is no reason to believe they decide who to vote for any later than the other 90%.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for the reference.

Who decides what the economic interest of poor / rich people is? I don't know of any measure that would let you say that 45% of whatever category of people vote against their interest, even “from the top of your head”. If we talk about taxes only, then maybe we can say that Buffet votes against his interests, or that the Republican single mom with 7 kids is shooting herself in the foot. But you will agree that economic interest goes way beyond taxes.

I still think that the general climate favors Democrats. It is too early to pay a lot of attention to polls, especially national ones. For the time being, it is more a matter of name recognition, sympathy, and vague impressions.

When it comes to Hillary, I agree with another poster: most true haters will not vote for a Democrat no matter what. And regarding those who do not like her personality for whatever reason, it still does not mean that they will not vote for her. Look at what happened in France earlier this year: Sarkozy won in a landslide while there is a wide consensus that he is a jerk. Hillary is running for president of the US, not for American Idol!

[Copernicus]

"3. Healthcare has the top spot among domestic issues. There is a sweet spot for a measured real reform, and the Republicans have no credibility in this domain."

And the Dems do? Billary failed miserably in her first attempt at universal health care and it had to be repealed. What makes you think she'll do any better this time?

[Mad Cow]

[ QUOTE ]
"3. Healthcare has the top spot among domestic issues. There is a sweet spot for a measured real reform, and the Republicans have no credibility in this domain."

And the Dems do? Billary failed miserably in her first attempt at universal health care and it had to be repealed. What makes you think she'll do any better this time?

[/ QUOTE ]

It was more than 12 years ago. The situation has changed and deteriorated since then. Premiums went up dramatically, putting more pressure on employers and often employees. The scandal of drugs cost has been widely publicized (e.g. folks going to Canada or elsewhere to refill their prescription). And Republicans have shown that they have no intent to fix the problem, in part because they depend on the healthcare lobby.

When I am hearing Republican candidates opposing the current situation to “socialized medicine”, I am thinking that they are leaving a very sweet spot for a real reform. Who would say that we have “socialized car insurance”, or “socialized home insurance”? Between the current situation and socialized medicine, there is a lot of room. For example, we could let employers out of this healthcare business, rely on private healthcare providers, and entirely or partly subsidize premiums of those who cannot afford it.

I find it embarrassing that the US trails other industrialized nations in health indicators (e.g. 29th in life expectancy, behind Jordan and Bosnia, although “acute lead poisoning” and other factors play a role).

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Who would say that we have “socialized car insurance”, or “socialized home insurance”?

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand that home and car insurance are regulated/controlled differently right? Auto insurance, in many states, *is* close to socialist. Home owner's insurance is not. Private entities require you to buy it as part of the condition of lending you hundreds of thousands of dollars. With auto insurance, corporations have lobbied the state legislature to force you to buy their services. Very different. And very socialist.

Not to mention that many of the health care "reform" plans being tosses around are outright socialist and include provisions such as outlawing the competition (another typical socialist plank in any platform)

natedogg

[natedogg]

If you believe the dems are 2 to 1 faves you should go to intrade.com and make a fortune.

I am shorting Obama and Romney myself. That is free money for the taking.

natedogg

[Mad Cow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who would say that we have “socialized car insurance”, or “socialized home insurance”?

[/ QUOTE ]

You understand that home and car insurance are regulated/controlled differently right? Auto insurance, in many states, *is* close to socialist. Home owner's insurance is not. Private entities require you to buy it as part of the condition of lending you hundreds of thousands of dollars. With auto insurance, corporations have lobbied the state legislature to force you to buy their services. Very different. And very socialist.

Not to mention that many of the health care "reform" plans being tosses around are outright socialist and include provisions such as outlawing the competition (another typical socialist plank in any platform)

natedogg

[/ QUOTE ]

In Florida where I live, drivers have to ensure themselves by law, and there are dozens of companies competing for their business. They differ in quality of service, premiums, deductibles, and so on. The government sets the rules, and lets competition reward or punish the players.

The same could be done for health insurance. Requiring individuals to be insured, like drivers are, is feasible. Other countries do it, and it works really well. It would be quite a change with what we have today, but it can hardly be called “socialist”.

[NapoleonDolemite]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that the Democrats are big favorites in the upcoming presidential elections. Here is why:


First, the claim that Republicans would “restore dignity in the White House” and manage the country efficiently turned out to be a disappointment:


1. They are no better than others when it comes to protect American institutions and the constitution (Libby, Gonzalez, Halliburton, torture, invasion of privacy, and so many others).

2. They are no better managers than others (Katrina, war in Iraq, growing deficit, and so on).


Secondly, there are profound trends that favor Democrats ideology:


1. International institutions, multilateral agreements and restrained foreign policy are not as ridiculed as they were 5 years ago.

2. People are afraid to have their jobs shipped overseas, and they worry for the future of their kids. It favors themes like education and government assistance to emerging industries (e.g. alternative energies).

3. Healthcare has the top spot among domestic issues. There is a sweet spot for a measured real reform, and the Republicans have no credibility in this domain.


Now, Democrats were already in a great position 7 years ago, and they still did not manage to win. Also, we only need one or two terrorist attacks to turn the tables. And it does not take into account the personality of the candidates. Therefore, this is far from a locked win, but at this point in time, I would still give them a 2 – 1 edge. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're offering 2-1 I will place a small wager in favor of the Republicans.