They say Missouri is a — perhaps the – bellwether state. If so, the Democrats had better start typing up résumés. At time of posting, support for the the measure stood at between 75 and 80 percent.
“Repeal ObamaCare” sounds like it could be a pretty potent campaign issue this fall. It really puts the Donkeys in a well-deserved bind.
We are at a crossroad here in the Show Me State. The Obama bumper sticker have all but disappeared and not because those that sported it are afraid of their racist fellow Missourians. Rather they are embarrassed. Especially the young who believed that a president only need speak and the nation would be healed. Their naiveté has made them look foolish.
My mother, an election judge, reports that more than a few voters only cared about the proposition and had no interest in the primary race.
It passed in every jurisdiction except the city of St. Louis, which is not part of any county, and the portion of Jackson County contained within Kansas City. In Boone County which is home to University of Missouri, Columbia the state’s largest university it received just over 60% as it did in two other counties. 3 counties passed it 65-70%, 39 counties passed it 70-75%, 36 counties passed it 75-80%, 28 counties passed it 80-85%, and 5 counties passed it with over 85%. Only 13 jurisdictions passed it by less than the statewide percentage showing the impact of the most populous counties on the overall vote.
It would be nice if we had about 50 democrats in the House after November.
This event provides wonderful proof as to the partisan hackery of politico.com and slate.com. They claim “journalism”, but they are really fronts for the Democratic Party.
How can you tell for certain that a website that claims objectivity is instead biased and a partisan force working for one side? When that website goes to great lengths to ignore the biggest story of the week which hurts the side it supports. I just checked and even though both websites have breaking stories about Proposition 8 being overturned, not one peep about the vote against Obamacare.
.
“It would be nice if we had about 50 democrats in the House after November.”
That many, huh, Dennis?
@Brad: “…not one peep about the vote against Obamacare.”
It’s probably because a response hasn’t been worked out yet on Journolist. When that debate is over, we’ll be told what to think on Politico and Slate.
Barbara,
the question should be,
“WHY that many Dennis?”
Let’s just hope it’s the beginning of the end, of the uber-left.
why 50 dems and not less? We need to keep a few around so people never forget who they are, and why they should never be allowed in power again.
We need a viable dem party or the crooks will just run as republicans. It’s up to the dems to purge the commies and race hustlers from their ranks.
Never happen. The career crooks running both parties will never purge the idiots. They’re too useful.
I disagree. The Republicans really were a minority party from 1932 to 1964. After Goldwater got trashed, they finally got fed up and purged the Birchers and racists, and started remaking themselves, at first as Democrat-lite except on foreign policy, which explains Nixon and Ford, but when Reagan came along they finally found their domestic voice in the free market and small entrepreneur, and it has carried them to substantial political victory ever since.
I have some hope for the Democrats, therefore. If they are utterly trounced in the next three elections, I can readily see them purging the liberal fascists before 2016 and returning to Truman/Clinton principles. (Don’t throw up, Rand, I meant Clintonian economic principles, and I mean those he adopted in fact, not necessarily those he would have advanced had he been able.)
What’s Obamacare? 😉
The biggest Federal power-grab in a generation. I’m surprised you haven’t kept up on current events.
“What’s Obamacare?”
Think of it as being akin to the Monorail in “The Simpsons,” which was adopted with about the same amount of rational argument and cool-headed deliberation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEZjzsnPhnw
In my dreams, Congress would be made up of 1/3 D, 1/3 R, and 1/3 members with no affiliation. Neither party would have the votes to pass their rubber stamped policy without convincing some of the unaffiliated members that it was a good idea.
Amen, Mr. Hill.
My dream for the next election would be that there were ZERO incumbents left in the House and that every senator that was up for re-election was defeated. I really think that term limits/general purge of congress would limit the effect of lobbyists and make folks really do what they were elected to do.
In my dreams, Congress is limited to a 4 to 6 month session a year (as it was for over a 100 years at the start of the Union). Any special sessions could focus on one topic only.
After that, I would be worried less about the actual make-up of the legislators other than any one trying to extend the regular sessions.
The elected officials are only the public face of government. In DC, the real power is with the tens of thousands of non-elected and unaccountable career bureaucrats who run the agencies. They enact thousands of regulations each year and with their civil service protections, there’s nothing we can do about it. The closest thing to control we can hope for would be to elect politicians who would cut the funding to the agencies and starve the beast.
My dream for congress would be that every bill must focus on only one issue at a time. A defense appropriations bill will have ONLY defense spending in it, no tacked on social spending or highway infrastructure spending. Likewise a highway infrastructure bill will have no defense spending or employment compensation spending to it. I’m tired of the underhanded ways congress sneaks in new and different ways to spend my money.
Or how about congress critter compensation packages based on economic growth? They work strictly on commission, they get X dollars for every point of increase in GDP, if GDP falls they get no money, if unemployment rise above a certain amount they get no money, if expenditures exceed revenue they get no money.
How about just strict product liability laws applied to the products of Congress, Cecil? If the preamble to the ‘Patient Care and Affordability Act” says it will lower prices and cure male pattern baldness, and it doesn’t, then citizens have the same recourse to the personal fortunes and potential for jail time of Senators and Congressmen as they would if the CEO of Enron lied to them as investors or customers. None of this sovereign immunity crap.
I’ve got no problem with a powerful Congress passing sweeping legislation, provided it actually works as advertised, and provided that, if it doesn’t, those individual lawmakers pay a penalty commensurate to the harm done.
Personal responsibility! There’s nothing better guaranteed to produce caution, good sense, and a genuine focus on the welfare of the customer. If it works that way for doctors and carmakers, I fail completely to see why it shouldn’t apply equally to those whose “products” (laws and policies) have at least as much capacity to do harm.