The Trump Card...

[Turtle]

How can anyone know that it is or is not a referendum on Trump?

If the winner of that election wins in a landslide, like a 30, 40 point margin, then you can begin to consider that it might be a referendum on Trump. But a single election not involving Trump as a candidate does not a trend nor a referendum make.

It's not a journalist's job (or in this case the headline editor) to make such an assessment.

A good reporter can faithfully and accurately report a story without using any adjectives or adverbs. And a good editor will go through this piece and strike them all. Because adjectives and adverbs are opinion that draws a conclusion.

 

[muttly]

Just Google - Ossoff referendum. The search results show that a lot of the fake news media are framing the election that way.

 

[Turtle]

Just Google - Ossoff referendum. The search results show that a lot of the fake news media are framing the election that way.

"Nevermind guys, ignore our previous week's coverage, this wasn't actually a referendum on Trump." - The News Media

Democrats spent their Ossoff and still lost.

I'm laughing my Ossoff.

GOP wins...
Kansas 4
GA 06
SC 5
Montana (statewide)

Anyone tired of winning yet?

From left to right, Flounder from Animal House, Cliffordette Claven from Cheers, Principal Richard Belding from Saved by the Bell, and of course, Dana "Bambi in Headlights" Bash.

 

[muttly]

Dang, Turtle. You beat me to it.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

...had to snicker at Fox....the fair and balanced network....they are all swooning and falling over themselves in the love fest over the GA win....that the Dems spent a record amount $30 million approx to try and win
a traditional GOP stronghold...that they won only by a mere 3-4 points BUT what Fox doesn't tell you, the GOP spent almost 24$ Million defending what should have been a walk thru for them...?

 

[Turtle]

If you take a close look at that district you'll see why it's shouldn't have been a Republican walk-through at all. In fact, Ossoff (if Ossoff was someone other than an unmarried, 30 year old filmmaker who didn't live in the district) should have won in a landslide. That district has morphed over the last several years from staunch right to majority left. It is the most well-educated district in the country, a demographic that Trump has not done well with at all. Hillary lost last that district by 1 percentage point. If she'd had a message, other than "Trump's evil," she would have won that district, and likely the election, by the margin she and the media thought she would.

People point to the fact that the new Health and Human Services secretary, Tom Price, won that seat by 20, ostensibly to imply that the district is heavily Republican and a Democrat is a way long shot to begin with. But what people fail to take into account is that Tom Price didn't run against anybody. Some Democrat got their name on the ballot and didn't campaign, didn't raise any money to campaign, didn't even try. You'd be hard pressed to even find a picture of Tom Price's opponent in that race. The story from that one isn't that Tom Price won in a 20 point landslide, but rather that Tom Price ran against nobody and only managed to win by 20 points. That's only marginally better than eeking out a win over the dead guy. If Price had had a viable opponent, he'd have lost yooge.

Democrats wanted GA06 bad, bad, bad, and they went all in to get it. And they should have won it. But they put forth the wrong candidate, and hitched him to the same "not trump" narrative that doomed Hillary, and SC, Kansas and Montana, and as we've seen time and time again will only get you 46-48% at the polls. You need a message.

It also didn't help that Ossoff ran as a liberal Democrat and then in the last 3 weeks or so of the campaign he changed his stance to that of more of a fiscal conservative, and people saw that as him saying whatever it takes to get elected, a la Hillary, rather than being true to his principles.

But that's what the Dems spent their money on. And they made it 100% a referendum in Trump. Except, of course, the instant Ossoff lost, it suddenly had nothing to do with Trump.

 

[ATeam]

I do not accept as fact that this race is a referendum on Trump.

How can anyone know that it is or is not a referendum on Trump? If it is, how do you know? If it is not, how do you know?

Opinions are legion about what the GA-6 election results mean or don't mean. I'm reluctant to draw any conclusions beyond the obvious about who won. It would be nice to see some thorough exit poll results but I don't know if any were done

 

[Turtle]

Opinions are legion about what the GA-6 election results mean or don't mean.

And here's mine. The GA06 special election means exactly the same thing that every other special House seat election has meant - absolutely nothing beyond that particular seat.

 

[ATeam]

No wall. No repeal and replace. No GDP increase. No Muslim ban. No NAFTA renegotiation (except a couple minor items). No funding cut to sanctuary cities. No change in business tax rate. No declaration of China of currency manipulator. No reduction in the number of tax brackets. No drain the swamp. No locked up Hillary. No payments from Mexico to fund the wall. No allowing purchase of health insurance across state lines. No infrastructure plan. No 35% tax cut to middle class family with 2 children. No proposed constitutional amendment for term limits.

Where did the fire-breathing deal maker from the campaign trail go? What happened to the business man who gets things done?

 

[muttly]

No wall. No repeal and replace. No GDP increase. No Muslim ban. No NAFTA renegotiation (except a couple minor items). No funding cut to sanctuary cities. No change in business tax rate. No declaration of China of currency manipulator. No reduction in the number of tax brackets. No drain the swamp. No locked up Hillary. No payments from Mexico to fund the wall. No allowing purchase of health insurance across state lines. No infrastructure plan. No 35% tax cut to middle class family with 2 children. No proposed constitutional amendment for term limits.

Where did the fire-breathing deal maker from the campaign trail go? What happened to the business man who gets things done?

At least some of that stuff you listed...I mean Trump is not a dictator. There is a legislative process that has to be followed.

 

[ATeam]

At least some of that stuff you listed...I mean Trump is not a dictator. There is a legislative process that has to be followed.

In the case of healthcare, Trump is following the legislative process but what he is doing is unrecognizable when compared to what he promised he would do. Did he not know the legislative process existed when he made these promises?

"The president promised the American public, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody…. Everybody’s going to be taken care of.” He vowed his health care policy would offer “lower premiums” with “much lower deductibles.” And perhaps most importantly, Trump swore, over and over again, in writing and in public remarks, that he would never cut Medicaid.

"And yet, there was the Republican president yesterday, throwing his support behind a Senate GOP bill that won’t cover everybody, would increase consumer costs, and cuts Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars."

 

[Turtle]

You're still taking him literally. What he said was, 'We're going to have better and cheaper health insurance, less waste, and a revamped health care cost system that will reduce the cost of health care and health insurance.'

True, he hasn't done all that yet, and he certainly didn't do it on Day One, so you got him on that one.

 

[Worn Out Manager]

You're still taking him literally. What he said was, 'We're going to have better and cheaper health insurance, less waste, and a revamped health care cost system that will reduce the cost of health care and health insurance.'

True, he hasn't done all that yet, and he certainly didn't do it on Day One, so you got him on that one.

OMG, did Kelly Ann write this?

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[Worn Out Manager]

Sent from my XT1635-01 using EO Forums mobile app

 

[muttly]

At least some of that stuff you listed...I mean Trump is not a dictator. There is a legislative process that has to be followed.

In the case of healthcare, Trump is following the legislative process but what he is doing is unrecognizable when compared to what he promised he would do. Did he not know the legislative process existed when he made these promises?

"The president promised the American public, “We’re going to have insurance for everybody…. Everybody’s going to be taken care of.” He vowed his health care policy would offer “lower premiums” with “much lower deductibles.” And perhaps most importantly, Trump swore, over and over again, in writing and in public remarks, that he would never cut Medicaid.

"And yet, there was the Republican president yesterday, throwing his support behind a Senate GOP bill that won’t cover everybody, would increase consumer costs, and cuts Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars."

I heard that the lower premiums and much lower deductibles will come, just not in the very short term.
But I said this before, Trump might not be conservative enough on the healthcare issue. But neither is congress, so this is what we'll get. Not a true solution, but it will be much better than it is now.

 

[davekc]

Think it will be better but they have to address the cost. Eliminate the income redistribution mantra and start selling across state lines. Just that will do wonders.

 

[ATeam]

You're still taking him literally. What he said was, 'We're going to have better and cheaper health insurance, less waste, and a revamped health care cost system that will reduce the cost of health care and health insurance.'

Trump has said many things about healthcare, including:

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said in press conference Jan. 11. “We’re going to have a healthcare that is far less expensive and far better.”

Or, as he said in a September 2015 “60 Minutes” interview, “I am going to take care of everybody. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

Whether you take him literally or seriously, he has yet to deliver anything close to what he said.

 

[ATeam]

... start selling across state lines. Just that will do wonders.

I think I understand people's point when they say allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. It has something to do with competition and free markets, right?

But if that was true, would insurance not differ now between big and small states? In Florida, we have a population of 20 million, which is a big market and big risk pool. Wyoming has a population of 1/2 million. Are insurance prices and quality substantially different in these two states?

Also, suppose we passed a law right now that allowed all insurance companies to sell across state lines? How exactly would that result in lower prices and better insurance? What would prevent the big companies from crushing the little companies with unfair competition and than cashing in with their big-company powers?

I'm not opposed to allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines. I just don't see it making much difference.

 

[coalminer]

Insurance companies already sell policies over state lines they just have to be approved by each state as insurance regulation is mostly handled by the states.

Now people complain about the federal government being too powerful and that the states need more power, but then they want to take insurance regulation away from the states and make it a federal thing.

Actually I am all for that I believe in a stronger federal government, now the question is, knowing that do you still think they should be able to sell over state lines?


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[Turtle]

You're still taking him literally. What he said was, 'We're going to have better and cheaper health insurance, less waste, and a revamped health care cost system that will reduce the cost of health care and health insurance.'

Trump has said many things about healthcare, including:

“We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said in press conference Jan. 11. “We’re going to have a healthcare that is far less expensive and far better.”

Or, as he said in a September 2015 “60 Minutes” interview, “I am going to take care of everybody. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.”

Whether you take him literally or seriously, he has yet to deliver anything close to what he said.

He's only the president, not both the president and the congress. If everything was solely up to him it would be done already. If you're going to take him literally, you still, nevertheless, have to do so with reasonable expectations.

Unless, of course, the goal is to track his failures and point them out, even before they are failures. If so, then carry on.