Magox Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Is it possible? If so, it would be one of the largest political upsets in a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Is it possible? If so, it would be one of the largest political upsets in a very long time. Googlebot say 0% chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I remember conservative talking heads recently discussing Coakley being an absolute lock for the seat, and that there was absolutely no chance in hell of her losing. Next thing you know, she's "measuring for drapes" (as someone wrote this weekend) and it's not only a dead heat, but the Dems are now discussing holding up Brown's certification while they push through health care, which wouldn't surprise me. I still can't imagine him winning, but if he does, you'd think it would have the Dems crapping purple Twinkies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 I remember conservative talking heads recently discussing Coakley being an absolute lock for the seat, and that there was absolutely no chance in hell of her losing. Next thing you know, she's "measuring for drapes" (as someone wrote this weekend) and it's not only a dead heat, but the Dems are now discussing holding up Brown's certification while they push through health care, which wouldn't surprise me. I still can't imagine him winning, but if he does, you'd think it would have the Dems crapping purple Twinkies. If Brown won, I'd be surprised if the Mass legislature didn't vote to just not have a second Senator. As it is, it kills them to even need to go through the motions of having an election when there are plenty of Kennedys laying around that could have been anointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 If Brown won, I'd be surprised if the Mass legislature didn't vote to just not have a second Senator. As it is, it kills them to even need to go through the motions of having an election when there are plenty of Kennedys laying around that could have been anointed. Very good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 If Brown won, I'd be surprised if the Mass legislature didn't vote to just not have a second Senator. As it is, it kills them to even need to go through the motions of having an election when there are plenty of Kennedys laying around that could have been anointed. Seriously tho in the off chance that Brown wins, I wouldn't be surprised if Mass takes their sweet time certifying the election results until after the Health Care bill passes with a Yes vote by the interim Senator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Seriously tho in the off chance that Brown wins, I wouldn't be surprised if Mass takes their sweet time certifying the election results until after the Health Care bill passes with a Yes vote by the interim Senator They've already said they'd do as much, and inasmuch as they're allowed to do that, it's fine. While I doubt he wins, the reality is, if he's close, it'll be interesting to see how the left spins it. Meanwhile, as the WH tries to calm down the unions about to be taxed on their Cadillac plans while permitting taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions, all while raising taxes on people earning less than $200K/year-- all because they think they're on "the right side of history" -- Americans will watch the left force this useless gimp of a bill across the finish line like a Lindsay Wagoner character in a 1970s made-for-TV movie, and November simply won't be a long enough time for them to forget what they witnessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 They've already said they'd do as much, and inasmuch as they're allowed to do that, it's fine. While I doubt he wins, the reality is, if he's close, it'll be interesting to see how the left spins it. Meanwhile, as the WH tries to calm down the unions about to be taxed on their Cadillac plans while permitting taxpayers to foot the bill for abortions, all while raising taxes on people earning less than $200K/year-- all because they think they're on "the right side of history" -- Americans will watch the left force this useless gimp of a bill across the finish line like a Lindsay Wagoner character in a 1970s made-for-TV movie, and November simply won't be a long enough time for them to forget what they witnessed. There really isn't alot of leeway here for negotiations regarding the Cadillac tax plan, unless of course they bailout on their original plans, which they probably will to a certain extent. My guess is that they will raise the threshold of where the taxes will begin, right now it is at $23,000 for a family of four, they may raise it to $27,000. The Unions say that at $23,000 it would effect 25% of their members, which I doubt, but none the less that is what they are claiming, by moving it up to $27,000 I believe they claim that it would effect less than 10%. Of course this means that the government will be collecting less taxes and the idea of pushing down overall average health care premiums would be less effective than originally intended. Or they may make special concessions to union members, but that in my view would make alot of people angry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 The Unions say that at $23,000 it would effect 25% of their members, which I doubt, but none the less that is what they are claiming, by moving it up to $27,000 I believe they claim that it would effect less than 10%. Is that based on $23k worth of benefits? That sounds more like a Lamborghini plan. Who the hell pays $2,000 a month for benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Who the hell pays $2,000 a month for benefits? Employers of union workers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 12, 2010 Author Share Posted January 12, 2010 Is that based on $23k worth of benefits? That sounds more like a Lamborghini plan. Who the hell pays $2,000 a month for benefits? I agree, but Trumka says it is unfair to call it a "Cadillac" plan because he says that it insinuates that it is a high end health insurance plan. It is a high end health insurance plan ya dumbass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Employers of union workers. That's outrageous. You'd think heavily unionized industries would be going bankrupt left and right. Oh...wait...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 I agree, but Trumka says it is unfair to call it a "Cadillac" plan because he says that it insinuates that it is a high end health insurance plan. It is a high end health insurance plan ya dumbass! By comparison, I provide full health care for my employees and their families, and it averages $10,000/year per employee and their family. And it's pretty decent coverage, as well. So I have to wonder what kind of coverage you get for more than twice that amount per family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Is that based on $23k worth of benefits? That sounds more like a Lamborghini plan. Who the hell pays $2,000 a month for benefits? Depends on how the plans are priced. I'm guessing that insurance companies charge a higher premium for older workers, so that's how you can get up to $24k/yr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Speeling is so overrated. Massachusettes Reminds me of potatoe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 12, 2010 Share Posted January 12, 2010 Speeling is so overrated. Massachusettes Reminds me of potatoe! I think Massachusettes is the feminine version of Massachusetts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 I think Massachusettes is the feminine version of Massachusetts. Are you trying to imply there's a masculine version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 13, 2010 Share Posted January 13, 2010 How desperate is the left? None other than Chuckie Shumer calling Brown "a far right tea-bagger!" Nice work, Chuckie. That'll really help your cause! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted January 14, 2010 Share Posted January 14, 2010 This is going to get VERY interesting on Tuesday: New Rasmussen Poll Voter turnout is going to be the key here, folks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 14, 2010 Author Share Posted January 14, 2010 This is going to get VERY interesting on Tuesday: New Rasmussen Poll Voter turnout is going to be the key here, folks.... An off year election coupled with the lack of enthusiasm from the left and the vigorous disdain for the health care bill, rising taxes and out of control government spending could make this a much closer race than it would normally be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts