Me vs. Michelle Fields and Eric Bolling on ACA/Obamacare's effect on the 2014 elections

[stevenleser]

20. I think that is the key in any situation where you are a bit of an underdog in a debate.

You get those one or two factual talking points in that simply can't be refuted. I think I introduced one that is semi-new regarding the election. Why should we give more seats to a party that refuses to work to fix something?

That along with talking up the economy should be the two points the Democrats use this election. Draft bills fixing whatever issues come up with the ACA and then dare the Republicans to sign or not sign them and/or come up with other versions/ideas.

If they do vote to fix the ACA, then their entire rationale for why they should be voted in dies with the passage of the bills.

If they don't work with Democrats to fix whatever comes up with the ACA, why should they be rewarded with more seats? The situation will be the same after the election. They cannot repeal ACA. They are not going to get 67 senate seats that they would need to overcome a veto.