thatsthejoke.jpg

Yeah, that 2013 redistricting sure changed things since the 2012 election.

I already have. McCain beat Obama by 5 points. Obama won in 2012 despite winning by less against the republicans. The district went from R+12 to R+3.

In my tireless effort to remind ikes that literally doing a single second of research before just spouting what he wishes was true would improve his accuracy by infinity percent:

From the FL 13 ballotipedia page:
What is now FL 13 used to be cover much of the territory that was FL 10. In 2008, FL 10 went for Obama 51%-47%.

There were more R's than D's before redistricting.

There are more R's than D's since redistricting.

DEM DID NOT WIN THE DISTRICT LOL OBAMACARE LOL

UNPOSSIBLE for R to win FL-13 if Obama won the district in 2012 UNLESS OBAMACARE

looooooooooooooooooooooooool ike

its like he does it on purpose

So does folks coming to post on his side make him right?

and the fact that he isn't is why it's so hilarious

The D's suffered from low turn out.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/20...out_fl_13.html

Only in imaginary world am I saying this. I'm not saying that FL-13 is a bellweather district that predicts the outcome of a massive win for Republicans in 2014 (there are plenty of other structural things that actually do make that case).

What is absolutely not true is that the Republicans won this district because it is a deep red district. The Democrats funneled resources into this election because it was winnable. They did not win. Simple as that.

Hahahaha oh wow this special election stuff, ikes just can't help himself

indeed

No one was saying it was a deep red district. Just that it was a red district and that the outcome of the election was neither the surprise nor the referendum on Obamacare that neg was saying it was. You were goin' hard on behalf of neg.

You might want to check with ashington on that, so you two can get on message.

Bellwether.

And yes it was winnable. But it wasnt won. It was really close and that Republicans barely won a Republican district is pretty lol.

If only there was a way to solve this problem.

And no, a doctor making a mistake should obviously be a tort. Its the textbook example of a tort.

Yeah, I read his post. Longtime red is not the same as the deep red strawman you created, and as everyone has been saying, the most telling datum from the 2012 election was the margin of victory for the republican, +16, not the margin of victory for Obama.

Right, not the same thing. Which is why he went bananas when that was my main contention. Try again.

Read the post phill. Damages to people from vaccines are all paid from a fund.
No it's not phill. Again, you're equating mistakes with negligence. They aren't the same ****ing thing. You are, otoh, doing a great job of illustrating why our current tort system is so ****ed, because it conflates the two.

Making a mistake doesnt stop it being tort. Unless America has crazy different tort laws to Britain (ie the correct law).

Professionals are held to a high standard, by design, and making mistakes* are and should be reflected with damages payouts to make the victim whole.

FTR I dont care if it is paid by doctors or a central fund. Just that victims are paid. But forcing doctors and hospitals to pay into a central fund instead of using an insurance system wont change the cost of doing so.

* unless the mistake is a specific exception such as being the industry standard or its a known complication like a brain surgery having a high risk of death on the table

Correct. However, it is not sufficient to make it a tort either.

This is probably a better idea, but we would inevitably get doctors complaining that they were paying too much because of other doctor's negligence and that's NOT FAIR, etc etc etc

But more importantly, as ikes reminded us above, if it comes to it they will literally reject the jury system. It's not ****ing principle with these people, it's grasping entitlement. There's no there there.

Oh horse**** fly. You dumped on the jury system what, one month ago? Juries make ****ing stupid decisions regarding if it's murder to fire a bunch of bullets into a car. You really think they are capable of making decisions about what constitutes negligence in any medical case? Really?!?!

Regardless, ikestoys system that he's copied from other people and other systems already in place in the united states.

1) Immunity for anyone reporting a medical mistake within a certain timeframe (short)
2) Cases are reviewed by a panel of experts
3) Victims are paid out fund paid for by the medical industry
4) Information gathered by the system is made public, allowing for better procedures to be made.

Rough outline obviously, but this is 1000000x better than the current system.

No, I dumped on a specific jury. That isn't a difficult distinction to grasp. Well, not difficult for people like me lol.

Yes. Obviously? It's the bedrock foundation of our entire justice system.

ikes, what other professions need special coddling from the legal system, including granting them BLANKET IMMUNITY FOR NEGLIGENCE and also EXEMPTION FROM TRIAL BY JURY?!?!?!

To phrase that a different way, can you name a SINGLE PROFESSION that you are not personally part of that should receive this extraordinary protection from the government?

You expect us to believe a man so staggeringly incurious that he apparently doesn't even understand that redistricting involves redrawing maps has just independently found this great new system that P.S. involves him personally getting favorable treatment? "Really?!?!?!"

There's always Door Number 2: grasping entitlement by a spoiled brat. Tough call.

By the way, this absolutely does tie into the Great Obamacare Debate. Just like ikes has no sincere principled policy views re: tort reform, he has no sincere principled policy views re: insurance of people with pre-existing conditions.

Ikes, your super moderate upbringing has permanently robbed you of the ability to meaningfully participate in the great American experiment of representative democracy. What a tragedy.

Let's go to the tape.

Yeah, I'd say Ashington is aware that that district had been redrawn ~4 times over the timeframe to which he was referring. Somehow, it's been red every single time it's been redrawn. Furthermore, we have more relevant recent data:

And then out of the blue you accuse him of intellectual dishonesty for citing the most recent congressional election in that district as evidence that FL-13 was not a surprise R victory and that redistricting, which was performed by Rs, was not done so to place that seat as a likely gain for Ds. We have an easy measurement of how easy that seat should be for a D congress candidate to win: R+16.

You want to cite Obama's numbers in that district while categorically ignoring the recent house data, and then accuse Ash of intellectual dishonesty? Ash didn't say a single thing that was untrue about the nature of the district, but you invent the notion that he's implying that the district is "harder red" than a R+16 victory and 40 continuous years of R occupancy would imply.