November 5, 2013

Semi-Live Virginia Gov Post: McAuliffe Wins (See Update)

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 8:21 pm

Drudge has 45% counted and Cuccinelli with a 7.4-point lead over McAuliffe.

The guess here is that Northern VA hasn’t been counted and that when it is, it will put McAuliffe over the top. Hope I’m wrong. That’s what happened with Obama-Romney last year, and there’s no reason outside of hope that things will be different this time.

8:30 p.m.: 56% counted, Cuccinelli up by 5.4%. Sadly, that’s easily reversible.

8:45 p.m.: 65% counted, Cuccinelli up by 3.9%. Not looking good. McAuliffe can easily take NoVa by 8% to make up the margin if that’s what hasn’t been counted.

9:00 p.m.: 77% counted, Cuccinelli up by 2.5%. McAuliffe still needs to win the rest by about 8%, and that’s doable.

9:05 p.m.: 81% counted, Cuccinelli up by 1.3%. Way too close. McAuliffe appears to be rounding third and headling for home.

9:07 p.m.: At the VA BOE site, Cuccinelli’s lead is 0.92%, and only 15,000 votes. It might as well as be over. This may be the link. If not go here. 517 of 2,541 precincts remain.

9:14 p.m.: A look at the results spreadsheet as of 9:10 p.m. has 150,000 votes in Fairfax County across from DC. That SEEMS like it might be the vast majority of Fairfax, and it MAY be that Fairfax has been almost all counted. MAYBE there’s hope for Cuccinelli.

9:17 p.m.: Cuccinelli up by 9,000 votes. 84.57% counted.

9:20 p.m.: If McAuliffe wins, it will NOT be with a majority (maybe 47%). This is Apollo Creed barely surviving (but yes, winning) in Rocky I.

9:23 p.m.: Drudge’s latest update is 83% counted, Cuccinelli up by 1.1%, i.e., Cucc’s lead lengthened a bit.

9:26 p.m.: Fox has called VA for McAuliffe, but I’m going to hang in until he really takes an insurmountable lead.

9:28 p.m.: Drudge’s latest update is 88% counted, Cuccinelli up by 0.03% (400 votes).

9:32 p.m. I haven’t found any evidence that the Associated Press has called the race yet.

9:38 p.m. Drudge has 91% counted and McAuliffe with a 0.4-point lead (7,500 votes) over Cuccinelli. Cucc needs to get 55% of the remaining votes. Not impossible, but extremely difficult.

9:45 p.m. 93% counted, MCAULIFFE 47.02%, CUCCINELLI 46.09%. Cucc has to win about 58% of the rest of the votes. Unless all the uncounted votes are from conservative areas, it’s over.

9:50 p.m.: Fox’s Brit Hume says that this result has to “scare the heck” out of Democrats.

9:55 p.m.: 95% counted with McAuliffe in front by 1.21%. Cucc would have to get about 65% of the remainder. It’s not happening. McAuliffe wins.


UPDATE, Nov. 6, 7:20 a.m.: Eric Erickson

The RNC spent $9 million in 2009 to win and spent $3 million this time, pulling money out of Virginia, to lose by a hair. The RNC truly screwed up in Virginia this time and no amount of spinning can distract from that screw up. It was Election Day itself when someone finally noticed the 3rd party candidate, Sarvis, had been funded by a major Obama donor. Election Day the GOP finally notices this!

Cuccinelli had all the insiders aligned against him. He was the outsider. The gays hated him, the Chamber of Commerce hated him, the kid killers hated him, the GOP establishment hated him — all the insiders hated Cuccinelli

The Republican Party would rather lose than fully support someone not in lockstep with the go-along, get-along mentality — even if it means losing to a man who is the most corrupt and ideologically bankrupt person imaginaible.

Ken Cuccinelli is also the guy who spearheaded the unsuccessful effort to overturn Obamacare at the Supreme Court. It’s obviously not his fault that Chief Justice John Roberts sold out his country and the Constitution. Cuccinelli should have had the aggressive backing of all Republicans and libertarians, especially considering the alternative. What a tragedy.

The fact that the Virginia House of Delegates is Republican-dominated (AP has confirmed this, though the exact split is not yet known; the Senate is evenly split, but effectively Democrat-controlled because the Lt. Governor is now a Dem) is no consolation when a corrupt man like Terry McAuliffe is in charge. For people like him, legislatures are annoyances. He’ll rule by fiat wherever possible.

Who Is Affected by Obamacare? EVERYONE

Filed under: Health Care,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:36 pm

From Heritage:

While the law’s supporters finally admit that some people will be worse off under the law, they now claim that those “losers” will be few and far between.

Rush: ‘The Biggest Presidential Lie in My Lifetime’

Filed under: Health Care,Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:20 pm

Transcript here.

Anyone want to take a shot at one that’s bigger?

(And by the way, Bush was not lying about weapons of mass discussion in Iraq. Bush’s statement was objectively and irrefutably correct.)

October ISM Non Manufacturing: Up to 55.4% from 54.4%

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:10 pm

From the Institute for Supply Management:

Economic activity in the non-manufacturing sector grew in October for the 46th consecutive month, say the nation’s purchasing and supply executives in the latest Non-Manufacturing ISM Report On Business®.

“The NMI® registered 55.4 percent in October, 1 percentage point higher than September’s reading of 54.4 percent. This indicates continued growth at a faster rate in the non-manufacturing sector. The Non-Manufacturing Business Activity Index increased to 59.7 percent, which is 4.6 percentage points higher than the 55.1 percent reported in September, reflecting growth for the 51st consecutive month. The New Orders Index decreased by 2.8 percentage points to 56.8 percent, and the Employment Index increased 3.5 percentage points to 56.2 percent, indicating growth in employment for the 15th consecutive month. The Prices Index decreased 1.1 percentage points to 56.1 percent, indicating prices increased at a slower rate in October when compared to September. According to the NMI®, 10 non-manufacturing industries reported growth in October. Respondents’ comments are mixed with the majority reflecting an uptick in business. A number of respondents indicate that they are negatively impacted by the government shutdown.”

As seen above, Business Activity was stronger. New Orders was very strong, even if not as strong as September. Backlog of Orders, not listed above, was a breakeven 50% — not good, but not disappointing enough to negate the fact that the report was very strong.

So according to the ISM surveys Manufacuring and Non Manufacturing, the economy was expanding faster across the board in October.

Too bad quite a bit of the hard data disagrees. For one thing, jobs growth has slowed. For another, retail sales have been unimpressive.

I’ll hold my fire for now, but I’m starting believe there’s reason to start doubting the legitimacy of the ISM reports. If there’s a reason, it may have to do with whether or not the survey respondents are representative of the universe of manufacturers and other companies, respectively.

National Journal’s Ron Fournier: Obama Is ‘Lying About Lies’ in an ‘Orchestrated Deceit’

If there is to be a tidal wave of defenders of President Barack Obama’s “it if it hasn’t changed” revision to his original guarantee — “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan” — Ron Fournier (NewsBusters history here), who toiled at the Associated Press for 20 years and joined the National Journal several years ago, will not be among them.

In 2008, Fournier advocated “accountability journalism.” When he took over as AP Washington bureau chief, he pushed for what was described as “a more hard-charging, opinion oriented style of writing” as a “new direction AP should take.” Both were, in my view, thinly veiled attempts to inject more left-leaning bias into what news consumers to this day still mostly believe are “objective” wire service reports. With that demonstrated pedigree, perhaps it’s a surprise that Fournier would be so vocal about Obama’s attempt to “reinvent history” (HT Instapundit; bolds are mine):


Obamacare Headline Pair of the Day

Lord, have mercy:

  • At NewsBusters“White House Granted Itself Waiver to Launch ObamaCare Website With High Security Risk” (the source story’s headline at CBS News, “ ducked final security requirements before launch,” obfuscates  and downplays the matter’s seriousness — deliberately, in my opinion)
  • At CNS News“White House Admits All Obamacare Signups Must Go Through” That’s paper or online.

So EVERYONE is vulnerable to whatever security shortcomings may exist — including the ones we already know of and ones yet to be found — regardless of how they apply.

If a private company did this, consumers and the government would put it out of business with litigation and court orders.

USAT: Obama ‘Tweaking’ His ‘You Can Keep Your Plan’ Guarantee, ‘Added Caveat’

This morning, in an apparent rush to get a jump on the rest of the excuse-making establishment press, Aamer Madhani at USA Today claimed that President Barack Obama’s shameless, lame Monday night attempt to explain away his serial guarantee, namely that “If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan, period” — made roughly two dozen times in 2009 and 2010, and repeated on the campaign trail in 2012 — represented a “tweaking of his claim” in which he “added a caveat.” So that makes it all okay. (/sarc)

Madhani also acted as if it’s only Republicans who have directed “an avalanche of criticism” at Obama. He also swallowed the false line that “only” 5 percent of Americans have been affected, ignoring a similar impact in the small group market and several well-known large-employer terminations of plans which had been offered to part-timers and retirees. Excerpts follow the jump (bolds are mine throughout this post; numbered tags are mine):


Obamacare Vs. ‘Scam Insurance’ Comparison of the Day (110513)

Filed under: Health Care,Scams,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:01 am

TeaPartyTweetObamacare defenders have taken to calling the individual insurance plans terminated because they couldn’t survive the strict rules for grandfathering “substandard” policies. One particularly fevered troll at one of my NewsBusters posts called them “scam insurance.”

Well, here’s a comparison of Obamacare and “scam insurance coverage” detailed at RedState from Charles in Alabama:

I have struggled to pay $735 per month to Blue Cross Blue Shield for health care insurance for my family, but I am a believer that it is important to guard against catastrophe, so I have paid that large amount, completely out of pocket, ever since going into business for myself. This means I write a personal check for the entire amount every month.

We received our Affordable Care Act letter from Blue Cross Blue Shield this week, and were informed that our new monthly premium starting January 1, for much reduced benefits, will rise from $735 to $1,114.61, with our yearly deductible tripling; this monthly premium is more than my house payment. Upon further investigation, we have found that for our benefits to stay the same as they are today, our premium would be about $1,600 per month. The cheapest alternative for us in an ACA compliant policy is $870 per month, with a yearly deductible of $12,700; in this plan, our family would have the ability to go to a doctor three times in a year (per family) and pay a co-pay; after that, all medical expenses would come 100% out of pocket until the deductible was met. Under that scenario, I don’t foresee any circumstance where any of us would ever again get health screenings, or participate in tests such as colonoscopies. Preventative medicine will no longer be an option for us.

I have struggled to understand how this law is fair. I am now compelled by federal law to pay for this enormously expensive product that I cannot afford.

So Charles will have to pay thousands more per year out of his own pocket before any insurance coverage kicks in (other than a couple of things like annual physicals, perhaps). And to be able to do even that, he’ll have to pay $4,560 more per year ($380 monthly difference times 12).

If he wants to match the benefits he has today — repeat, IF HE WANTS TO MATCH THE BENEFITS HE HAS TODAY — he would have to pay over $10,000 more per year ($865 difference times 12).

I think we all know who is providing the real “scam insurance.”


UPDATE: Wait til Charles learns that his “best” financial options are to work less and get divorced.

NewsBusted (110513)

Filed under: NewsBusted — Tom @ 7:28 am

Here we go:

– Vice President Biden
– Obamacare
– Obama Approval Ratings
– CNN’s Carol Costello
– Fake Obamacare Websites
– U.S. Constitution
– Mexican Women
– Pauly D of Jersey Shore

Best Line: “There are reportedly over 700 fake Obamacare websites that have been set up to rip people off by stealing their private information. So how does one tell which is the real Obamacare website? Easy. It’s the one that doesn’t work.”

Tuesday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (110513)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 6:05 am

This open thread will stay at or near the top today. Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow. Other topics are also fair game.


Obamacare is so unpopular, Barack Obama and Terry McAuliffe haven’t mentioned it on the campaign trail McAuliffe’s Virginia gubernatorial candidacy.

But if McAuliffe wins, after leading by double digits in three late-October polls, the left will say it’s because Obamacare is so popular.

Horse manure.


Brad Plumer at the ultra-liberal Washington Post acknowledges that “Almost anything would have been better stimulus than ‘Cash for Clunkers.’” More here and here.


At American Thinker (also here): “Will Democrats Force Doctors to Accept Medicare Patients?” In a lot of cases, the tactic won’t work, because a lot of doctors won’t continue to be doctors.


Par for course any more: “White House smears cancer survivor who lost her insurance plan due to Obamacare.” Related: “How Low Can They Go?” I think we’re hardly near the bottom.


Ken Blackwell asks a question for which the answer is “no”: “Time For Conservatives To Lighten Up On GM?” Hopefully, I’ll get a chance to show why shortly.


President Barack Obama is criticized every day for the problems and difficulties associated with the Affordable Care Act. But in the long term, it’s likely history will scrutinize the CIA’s use of drone strikes during his administration with a far more critical eye.”

I hope so, given that they involve barbaric practices which cannot be traced back to Bush 43, like “signature strikes,” striking funerals, and “double taps” which kill first responders.


“Meet the new Soccer Mom: Obamacare losers.” Much more accurate term: Obamacare VICTIMS.

Positivity: Pro-life advocates urge abortion transparency in health care

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 6:00 am

From Washington:

Nov 2, 2013 / 04:18 pm

Pro-life leaders are calling for transparency in the health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, asking that they include an open acknowledgement of whether each individual plan funds abortion.

“Abortions are covered” under the health care law, and “taxpayers are going to be funding it,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, at an Oct. 31 rally in front of the U.S. Capitol.

“But what’s really interesting is the secretary (of Health and Human Services) herself wrote a memo this April demanding that all insurance providers cover Planned Parenthood and their services in the health insurance exchanges,” she continued.

Participants in the demonstration, hosted by Students for Life of America and the Christian Defense Coalition, protested against new regulations governing health care plans, including those offered on the health care exchanges.

Established under the Affordable Care Act, the health care exchanges opened Oct. 1 and allow individuals to compare and purchase different health care plans, even across state lines.

However, although the Obama administration had assured citizens during deliberations over the health care law that the Affordable Care Act would not fund abortions, some of the federally-funded exchange plans include a mandatory monthly abortion surcharge.

This inclusion has been controversial and drawn criticism from pro-life groups. The U.S. bishops, although they had long advocated for health care reform, ultimately declined to support the Affordable Care Act, due to concerns over abortion funding and conscience rights.

Pro-life advocates have also criticized the exchanges for the lack of information available to consumers about exactly which plans include the abortion-funding charge. …

Go here for the rest of the story.