patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome_0 says

The exit polls on Election day indicated that economy was the number one issue among the voters in 2012. Health care came a distant second.

Thanks, those are good points.

An issue with exit polls though is they poll the people who voted, not the people who didn't. The turnout difference between 2008 and 2012 (-3%) was less than I had expected, but still amounts to at least 4 million people. President Obama's total in 2012 was likewise at least 4 million fewer than what would be expected for re-election: he got nearly 70 million in 2008, then 66 million in 2012. Democratic voters tended to be younger, so operation of time should have increased his total further, but instead it fell.

Also, commercial media say almost always that "the economy" was the number one issue. They seldom specify which candidate was for "the economy," and which candidate was against "the economy."

Personally, I can't help wondering about voting rights. Democrats got control in 2009 for the first time since the 2000 election debacle, and I expected they would ensure nothing like that could ever happen again. Instead, to the contrary, they allowed the same system to continue, including paperless ballots in Ohio (established by Republicans at Diebold). In fact, they may have worsened matters by promoting the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" at the state level, where only "blue states" (Democrats) have approved it. If that compact becomes law, then Ohio's 10 trilliion paperless ballots could award the Presidency to whoever those Diebold machines say. Democrats tend also to support absentee voting, where ballots can more easily be sold to the highest bidder, who might perhaps more likely be a Republican financed by a Super PAC. Ironically, Republicans then took the initiative regarding electoral reform, talking about voter fraud, which they attributed (surprisingly) to illegal aliens. The Chicago Democrats denied voter fraud ever happened, even though President Carter had written about proving his opponents had engaged in it decades before. Instead of seizing the opportunity of electoral reform, Democrats thus became the defenders of the entrenched electoral players, in addition to defending the entrenched players in the other two sectors you mentioned.

jazz music says

: The Republicans have been authoritarian since forever now. Republicans passionate and authoritarian style has proven an effective sales tool for the small comforts they have to sell, which are all things that cost nothing to businesses. Republicans gain traction by manufacturing a scandal, touting law-and-order, if they can manage a spectacular boogie-man to defeat. --like a former CIA agent leading a country that competes with the Saudis in OPEC, or debts which Republicans create but attribute to the poor, or a ghost-enemy like WMD, terror, drugs, crime. Just any fabrication to cause never-ending vainglorious speeches and to get the electorate to feel obliged to prove themselves by cooperating in self-denial.

That seems accurate to me. Add to that a recent habit of blaming obama for driving us apart. Due to changing norms, currently 1/3 of whites see the regressive wing of the Republican party as racist and backwards. They blame this trend on Obama, when it has nothing to do with him.

jazz music says

I do not connect 2012 with ACA, especially since Obama won, and because of ACA electorate....

By "ACA electorate," I assume you mean people who turned out to vote primarily on Obamneycare, but exit polls cited above by uomo_senza_nome_0 showed most of them voted against it. That is consistent with polls showing most people have always opposed it.

The points that uomo_senza_nome_0 made were other factors in 2012 counted for more: exit polling showed Obamneycare cost 5% of 18%, i.e. 1% net. Exit polling showed 60% of turnout voted primarily on "the economy," and while the policy implications of that term may be amorphous, I can believe that Romnesia's record of offshoring jobs counted heavily against him. There aren't polls of non-voters, i.e. people who stayed home rather than turn out to vote for either of the two people in the history of the world who had ever signed Obamneycare, so I can't prove whether they would have changed the outcome. I can believe though that other factors counted for more, at least among voters who turned out to vote.

IOW, Obama won in spite of the Obamneycare electorate (most of whom opposed it), not because of them. Also, I do think its enactment reduced turnout, though I cannot prove how much. He became the first POTUS re-elected with fewer votes than he got the first time, and that was particularly ironic because his voters tended to be younger and thus were more likely still around the second time. Turnout definitely fell, but I can't prove exactly why non-voters didn't vote. Likewise, I can't prove how it affected the President's coattails, and the prospect of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi regaining the Speakership, though the numbers suggest a net negative effect.

jazz music says

Many of these hospitals STILL have these elevated fee provisions in place

because they can, and because Obamneycare created even more opportunities for that. Insurance companies bought hospitals and raised prices in order to shift profit from the insurance side of the business to the hospital side, while capturing overcharges from competitors, and overcharging everyone. The higher they raise the price, the further customers fall, even if they have Obamneycare. Only a partisan or a hostage with Stockholm Syndrome could side with the hospital corporations on this issue. ALL hospitals can opt out of EMTALA if they find it's unprofitable; most CHOOSE to stay in because they want to profit from the ridiculous Medicare overpayments, and EMTALA is a condition of Medicare. Total Emergency Department costs (paid plus unpaid) are less than 10% of hospital budgets, often less than advertising and marketing and lobbying, and besides the ER is ultimately a profitable vector for fraudulent admissions, boosting profits still further.