If you have "no place to go," come here!

ObamaCare Clusterfuck: Moderate and Conservative Democrats defecting

Which is pretty amazing, when you think about; ObamaCare, after all, is a Heritage Foundation plan. WaPo:

Just after the law was passed in 2010, fully 74 percent of moderate and conservative Democrats supported the federal law making changes to the health-care system. But just 46 percent express support in the new poll, down 11 points in the past year. Liberal Democrats, by contrast, have continued to support the law at very high levels – 78 percent in the latest survey. Among the public at large, 42 percent support and 49 percent oppose the law, retreating from an even split at 47 percent apiece last July.

With "Liberal," of course, being a synonym for Obot, since Obama, even if he isn't a Kenyan Socialist, is surely a Liberal. Oh gawd. Anyhow:

I don't see how this makes a dime's worth of difference to the rollout, since that population isn't the target demographic for Obama's campaign to sell health insurance. It might make a difference in the mid-terms, though.

The Obama administration is planning to exert enormous education efforts* in the next 12 months to persuade uninsured Americans to sign up for new health insurance exchanges, and it’s unclear how much political opposition will discourage people from participating.

On the other hand, launching health insurance exchanges for those who are uninsured offers an opportunity for the Obama administration to win over detractors through action rather than political argument, which has not been very effective. It may be the last best chance for Obama to win support for a law that has been stubbornly unpopular from the start.

That's true, and perhaps that's their strategy. So the user experience of those exchanges had better be pretty good for black and Hispanic youth using cellphones, is all I can say. Will it be?

NOTE * You can't "exert" an "education effort," enormous or not, unless you've confused education with propaganda. You might say "exert enormous political pressure" or "deploy an intense marketing campaign." Or "catapult the propaganda.

No votes yet


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

a "corporatist, conservative Dem."

Let's not forget that The Washington Postt is the official mouthpiece of the One Percent--please, don't trust their definition of a liberal--that is, if you can tell what it is--I can't, from this article.

I sincerely believe that a fair portion of the Dem Party base today "confuses liberalism with corporatism." And I'm guessing that this is the WaPo's definition of "liberal."

Seriously, at many blogging communities, many on the left (like moi) argue against Obamacare, since it will make it harder, not easier, to get to MFA.

Now, maybe many of those who support Obamacare are "Obots," but that would make a case from them being conservative Dems--since he clearly is one.

I read Joan McCarter's diaries on health care at DKos.

And clearly (over there) the most ardent supporters of Obamacare are conservative Dems.

My guess is that they may be "small business owners," who indeed have, and will, greatly benefit from this bill. They are who this bill was written for (and, to get the responsibility off "government" through the "individual mandate.")

Of maybe they are the so-called "liberals" as defined by WaPo--corporatist Dems. Who knows?

Personally, I not only hope the moderates and conservatives stay home during the midterm elections--I'd love to see them all take a permanent hike from the Democratic Party. ;-)

IMO, they are one reason the party "is in near shambles."

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Hey, Lambert, I can't start a new post know (in hours we start a VERY long road trip), but this post of yours regarding various ideological "categories" of Democrats, made me start wondering yesterday:

WHAT is a "progressive?"

WHAT is a "liberal?"

Obviously, Corrente has been around much longer than I've been blogging.

I'm rather curious--has this community ever attempted to define (or had a discussion of) these terms?

I truly think that it would be helpful.

I say this, because it causes great "confusion" for me, when polls are cited, and even when general references are made to "progressives" and "liberals."

Maybe even "conservatives" should be thrown into the mix, LOL!

Anyway, just a thought. I know that I would feel more comfortable using these descriptive terms, if I thought that I knew (at least generally) what these terms "mean to" the rest of this Community.

Certainly there are times that discussion necessitates the use of these descriptors.

BTW, if Correntians have already "hashed this out," please refer me to the diaries.

Thanks. ;-)

Neil in Chicago's picture
Submitted by Neil in Chicago on

Since the MSM convention is to refer the the most right-wing Democrats as the "moderates", I can't figure out who this is talking about. The "conservative" Democrats all relabeled themselves Republican when Lyndon Johnson attacked Jim Crow.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

my problem with the poll--what the heck are the "definitions" of these categories, these days.

Certainly, the MSM is WAY OFF when they describe the Dem Party's so-called "Moderate" or "Centrist" politicians.

So, I figure that their definition for everyday folks is just as convoluted and inaccurate. ;-)