Friday, November 11, 2016

You're going to love it, plebes

Neo-Neocon: "Election 2016: It all started with Obamacare."  And our superiors who knew what's what.


Anonymous said...

I say that it was Obamacare that was the turning point, although it took a while to play out.

My, it certainly did. Though at least one peculiar data point happened during that "while"...

If not for the 22nd Amendment's pesky term limit rule, that "turning point" would STILL be taking its sweet time to play out. Too bad for Hillary that campaign finance laws didn't let Obama funnel his current approval rating to her.

Eric said...

Here's a video for you:

Anonymous said...

And here's a video for anyone who thinks that Obamacare was the fulcrum of angry voter retaliation, except inexplicably not for Obama:

That six-year-old "turning point" must be what's keeping Obama's approval rating under 60%.

Eric said...

Right: the epic midterm losses in 2010 and 2014, Hillary's loss a week after premiums rose 22%, the consistent low polling of the law itself - these are ancillary markers to Obama's popularity.

Anonymous said...

The same epic midterm losses that sandwiched Mr. Obamacare's breezy reelection?

The low polling of the law itself that has supposedly swung three of four elections, yet weirdly had no effect on Mr. Obamacare himself?

A consistent expression of voter anger aimed straight at the ballot box... but then not, for some reason... but then bitterly re-aimed? The thing's called "Obamacare." That's pretty shaky aim.

This revenge against Obama that's just been served ice, ice, ice cold - it's completely compatible with Barack Obama simultaneously topping Ronald Reagan's farewell approval. That's the operating theory you and Neo-Neocon are committed to?

Eric said...

Yeah, I heard you the first five times: you view Obamacare's popularity through the prism of Obama's popularity. Thanks for the three additional re-wordings.

I, on the other hand, think Obamacare's popularity should be measured by...Obamacare's popularity.

Going into election, Obama was campaigning furiously and warning Americans that his policies would be reversed. America responded: "Sounds good."

Anonymous said...

You misheard. I share the view of basic math: that Obamacare's popularity is very separate from Obama's popularity. Their variance undermines the belated claim that Obamacare had THE key impact upon the public mood. "Dear Obama, the #1 thing you did was a disaster, but we love the way you do things!" It don't add up.

And in turn, both of those opinion ratings are widely separate from Hillary Clinton's standing, as the election result starkly showed; Obama certainly would have won a third term even as Hillary could not win "Obama's third term."

You and I have better political memory than a goldfish does, yes? Obamacare was a central, paramount issue in the 2012 campaign, and Obama won bigly. In 2016, Obamacare was a muted talking point, underadvertised and underemphasized by GOP candidates... yet SURPRISE, it's now the secret crucial reason Trump won!

Eric said...

Obamacare as an issue was muted in 2012 for two reasons: one, the Republicans nominated the one person who couldn't raise it as an issue (Romneycare) and two, because most of the program was still in the early stages. Mostly, we laughed at the horrible web site.

Now that the full effect of lost doctors, cancelled policies, skyrocketing premiums, bankrupt co-opts, and insurance companies pulling out of the exchanges has come to reality - well, you have your last two election cycles.

Let me add a point of subtext: maybe Americans voted for Trump not because they hated Obamacare but because Obamacare represented a kind of condescension that Obama injected into every one of his policies. That is: we're going to jam this through Congress, even though Americans don't support it, because we know better.

Anonymous said...

So maybe this election wasn't about Obamacare per se, but it's still entirely about Obamacare if you take it as an example of Obama's perpetual condescension in all things - an attitude which somehow didn't sway voters three years after he'd jammed Obamacare through Congress and down their throats, although it swayed the hell out of them two years before and two years after. And that's why Trump won.

If you have to strain that hard to save Neo-Neocon's original premise, maybe it's time to get a different premise.

Many Republicans love their party, but were profoundly unhappy with their nominee. You might know one of those guys.

This week, they’re all ending their #NeverTrump rumspringa, and falling into line like worker ants. Nothing odd about that. In politics, there’s no greater tranquilizer than victory.

It’s just as unsurprising that “come home” Republicans badly want to normalize and distinguish the red uniforms’ win from the comedy movie “Idiocracy.” And so, retroactively, Trump’s election needs to have been the sensible expression of thoughtful policy-based concerns, and the methodical end result of good, principled oppositional work done these past eight years.

In this re-imagining, President Trump can’t merely be tolerable, or preferable, or fortuitous. It turns out that he is a worthy and true conduit for conservative values.

Eric2 said...

I believe I addressed your first point but, hey, if you want to have a go at another snarky re-wording of your much-repeated premise, have at it.

If only I could find an article about America's antipathy towards Obama's namesake program, maybe something from a deeply left-wing source for added credibility. Something like "Americans hate Obamacare."

Anonymous said...

Gee golly gosh, if only I could find deeply right-wing links saying that tObamacare was not getting much attention in 2016.

Maybe such links could even specifically contrast this year's reduced amount of Obamacare discussion with past GOP election campaigns.

But never mind what actually happened. If you want to keep insisting Obamacare decided the election, because it retroactively paints Trump's win as something you can stomach, who am I to contradict a