What Is The Republican Path To Victory?

[Gauthier]

He also thinks the Tea Party will ignore the Obama Hug especially when implications of being an Obama Buddy is cancer for a Republican primary.

Yes and no. I doubt that he thinks the TP will ignore it (I don't think anyone's silly enough to think that) - but I suspect he believe the TP will "clown-car" 2016 like they did 2012, dividing the nutjob vote three or four ways and leaving the establishment candidate to cruise by on 40% plurality wins in the winner-take-all primaries.

Which will paint Christie as Romney 2.0 by default if he does win that way.

Assuming of course that the nutjob favorites are going to repeat 2012 and go for the jugular instead of consolidating their resources into something that will unite the nuts like a can of Planter's. Ted Cruz is an opportunistic enough bastard he would be the one most likely to try something in that regards.

[Nigerian Kenya]

See, this is the part where you are - frankly - overoptimistic as regards Christie. Saying that he'll "definitely" get FL and/or NH (given the reservations you express elsewhere before liking to say that Democrats will "definitely" win a given election) is wildly over-optimistic.

To start with, Florida will almost certainly elect Charlie Crist (D/R/Whatever) back into the Governor's mansion next year, and Crist has a long track record of using his power as Governor to make damn sure that everyone gets a chance to vote in reality, as well as in theory. Which will drive the turnout rates up, especially among the minority communities....and that's always (as in, "without exception for the past 40+ years") beneficial for Democrats.

Christie may be favoured to win Florida in 2016 - I don't think so, but it's possible. To say that he'll "Definitely" win it is a wild flight of optimism on your part.

He also thinks the Tea Party will ignore the Obama Hug especially when implications of being an Obama Buddy is cancer for a Republican primary.

The tea party won't want to ignore it - but that attack can be deflected fairly easily, so they'll have to give up and try some other avenue.

My guess is that the main attacks he'll get from Paul, Cruz, and the rest will be quite similar to the sort of stuff Romney got. The old "you're a moderate!" sort of thing. Also, I just happened to remember that Christie does support Obama's medicaid expansion - that's going to be a tough one to get past the tea party.

As far as Florida goes, let's realize this fact: If it wasn't for Romney's embrace of the Paul Ryan Budget, Romney would have won Florida. Christie doesn't embrace that budget and is a far better candidate than Romney in general. As long as Christie isn't a total moron as a campaigner, he should be able to get Florida. Not saying there's a 100% chance of him getting florida - but under all reasonable circumstances, he'll take it. It'll be close, and don't expect it to be called until 2-3 hours after the polls close - but it should go to Christie.

And as far as what happened in 2012 goes, Missouri went to McCaskill because of Todd Akin's comments about legitimate rape. enough said. As far as the others go, Richard Mourdock (IN) was a tea party candidate, Jon Tester (MT) had the advantage of incumbency and the weakness of his opponent Denny Rehberg, and as far as Heidi Heitkamp goes, that was more or less a stroke of pure luck. If you're looking for a place where there may have been divine intervention on election night, it would be the north dakota senate race.

I credit Romney's loss to several things:
1. Romney being a bad candidate with a bad GOTV operation
2. Paul Ryan being a rather poor VP pick
3. Obama's foreign policy accomplishments, along with his brilliant, often negative campaign
4. Romney's push to the right during his close primary contest with Rick Santorum
5. Unemployment falling below 8%
6. Romney's flip-flops and question dodging
7. The lack of a convention bounce for Romney.
8. The 47% Statement

All those combined overwhelmed any advantage republicans had from the bad economy and current political situation.

[Alien Space Bats]

Yes and no. I doubt that he thinks the TP will ignore it (I don't think anyone's silly enough to think that) - but I suspect he believe the TP will "clown-car" 2016 like they did 2012, dividing the nutjob vote three or four ways and leaving the establishment candidate to cruise by on 40% plurality wins in the winner-take-all primaries.

... Which I don't expect at all. Rather, I think that the establishment will split THEIR vote 2-4 ways in 2016 (between, say, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, and Marco Rubio), while hardcore conservatives will likely find someone to unite behind early (like either Rand Paul, [a back medication-free] Rick Perry, or Ted Cruz).

[Alien Space Bats]

As far as Florida goes, let's realize this fact: If it wasn't for Romney's embrace of the Paul Ryan Budget, Romney would have won Florida.

I disagree. Romney lost Florida (and Ohio) because Republican efforts to cut back on early voting provoked a massive backlash on the part of minority voters.

Of course, you're free to argue otherwise: All you have to do is show me the exit polling data from Florida that indicates that Romney underperformed among seniors, relative to his National totals (or data indicating that he underperformed National expectations, and that doing so cost him Florida). Good luck with that, though; I don't think you'll find that the numbers bear out your analysis.

Christie doesn't embrace that budget and is a far better candidate than Romney in general. As long as Christie isn't a total moron as a campaigner, he should be able to get Florida.

The thing is, Florida is a moving target (as are all other States, for that matter). Florida in 2016 will be even more black and Latino than it was in 2012, and if 2013's results in Virginia are any guide, minority turnout will not drop off much (if at all) from where it was in 2008 and 2012. Indeed, extrapolating from 2008 minority turnout levels (which are relevant because Charlie Christ was governor back then and supported early voting, as he will again should he win in 2014) and substituting 2016 State demographics, it's unlikely that any Republican (save perhaps for "favorite son" Marco Rubio) can carry the Sunshine State without a big National popular vote advantage behind him.

IOW, in a 50-50 race, Christie (and pretty much every other GOP nominee) LOSES Florida.

I credit Romney's loss to several things:
1. Romney being a bad candidate with a bad GOTV operation....

The GOP has been horrible at GOTV since 2008, and I see no sign of them improving. They have an air game, but no ground game to match.

2. Paul Ryan being a rather poor VP pick

Ryan was not a bad pick. VP candidates seldom have any effect on the National race; the best you can hope for is a +2% bump in the candidate's home State. Ryan made Wisconsin competitive, which is really all that Romney could expect of the choice. Interestingly enough, no other possible VP candidate appeared likely to make a similar difference in their home State, with the possible exception of Ayotte in NH.

3. Obama's foreign policy accomplishments, along with his brilliant, often negative campaign

Obama effectively "Swift Boated" Romney on the tax issue, yes. That made a significant difference, though I'm not sure that Obama wouldn't have won without that move.

4. Romney's push to the right during his close primary contest with Rick Santorum

Actually, it was Romney's push to the right on immigration to outflank Rick Perry that did the most harm. The thing is, that pressure will likely still be there in 2016.

5. Unemployment falling below 8%

That's a massively low bar for reelection, don't you think?

And if applied to 2016, it suggests that the Democratic nominee will be even better off three years from now.

6. Romney's flip-flops and question dodging

Actually, I don't think that hurt him at all; in fact, it was what WON him the first debate, in which he completely reinvented himself and got away with it.

7. The lack of a convention bounce for Romney.

Convention bounces are becoming less and less crucial. That said, the lateness of the convention probably hurt more.

8. The 47% Statement

That was a killer, yes. But the funny thing is that the Electoral College balance changed very, VERY little from April to November. I interpret that to mean that more and more of the electorate is "locked in" behind one candidate or the other very early on — a fact which is VERY bad for the GOP, given the demographic trends.

[Ashmoria]

Abandon the Tea Party. They'll be weaker on the regional scale, but far stronger on the national scale.

Okay, but here's the question that nobody's been able to answer to my satisfaction:

What do they do to replace the ground game? Who's going to do the local organizing, the phone banks, the driving disabled people to the polls, the door-to-door stuff, the organization of mailing lists (and the gathering of contact information for said lists), and the million billion other things that they've been relying on Tea Party volunteers for?

that's the problem, eh? until those tea partiers die off so they cant perform those functions any more they are the key to republican success.

[Ashmoria]

nominate christie and you definitely get FL and NH, and have a much better chance at PA, OH, VA, CO, IA, and (with some luck) NJ then you would have with any other candidate, with the possible exceptions of Rubio (provided he actually does have 37%+ hispanic support, which is defintely not a sure thing) and Jeb Bush (if he can get people to ignore his last name) for some of those.

Two Words:

Obama Hugger

that might not be a big factor in '16 since the Kenyan pretender will be on his way out.

[Ashmoria]

The easiest way for them to gain much needed support is too push for drug legalization. They might lose votes from some of the "moral" voters but the Tea Party can't bitch as going against drug legalization is going against capitalism that they claim to love even though they don't actually know how it works, they can push to keep it "safe"(i.e. regulate and tax it without using the word tax or regulate), and then claim they want to reduce the prison population and other things to draw voters away from the Democrats unless the Democrats move towards the centre or even centre-left territory.

yeah

but

their problem is that they have gone so far to the lunatic right that any rational proposal they make is immediately accepted by the democrats so they have no way to differentiate themselves from the opposition like they could back when they were a mostly rational party.

I don't see any reason why the democrats would refuse to reform drug laws.

[Kavadevo]

Abandon the Tea Party. They'll be weaker on the regional scale, but far stronger on the national scale.

Okay, but here's the question that nobody's been able to answer to my satisfaction:

What do they do to replace the ground game? Who's going to do the local organizing, the phone banks, the driving disabled people to the polls, the door-to-door stuff, the organization of mailing lists (and the gathering of contact information for said lists), and the million billion other things that they've been relying on Tea Party volunteers for?

Not only that, but I'm baffled on how exactly the RNC is supposed to "kick out" the Tea Party. Parties aren't corporations. They don't have hierarchical power structures where the "bosses" can fire their "employees." Parties are democratic institutions, where the grassroots untimely decide what decisions are made. Tea Partiers run the state legislators. Tea Partiers run the house. Large chunks of the Republican leadership are Tea Partiers. At this point, the Republican Party is the Tea Party. And telling people that they need to kick themselves out is not a reasonable solution.

Now, that's not to say that the establishment is completely at the mercy of the grassroots. Party leadership has the ability to choose party direction to an extent. And the extent to which they can do that is what generally determines the success of a party. 40 years ago, the Democratic Party faced an issue with power structure eerily similar to what the GOP faces today.

The 1968 Democratic National Convention was, in all metrics, a failure. The assassination of Robert Knenedy, the DNC "favorite," left most of the grassroots in turmoil. (Many of the pledged delegates decided to vote for the dead Kennedy rather than the similarly anti-war McCarthy, who came in second. Some voted for the dark horse McGovern.) What resulted was the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, a conservative Democrat who held views similar to the pro-war Johnson. (Not to mention, who held only 2.21% of the popular vote at the time of Kennedy's assassination.) This infuriated the grassroots. Humphrey didn't campaign in any primaries, and received most of his delegates from party bosses in non-competitive states. Humphrey went on to lose to Richard Nixon in the general election.

The mess left over from the 1968 election left the DNC wanting to democratize the primary system. To do so, the formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The commission proposed a number of rules that resulted in the near obliteration of party leadership power, and the transfer of nomination control over to the grassroots. This ushered in the "New Left" as a major political power over the next decade. Under this new power structure, George McGovern was nominated for president in the 1972 election. This was the result.

McGovern lost 49 states. He lost 49 states to Richard. Nixon. McGovern campaigned on immediately pulling out of Vietnam and instituting a minimum income. This was widely unpopular among the American people and considered a far-left platform. Jimmy Carter was nominated under similar rules, and eked through the general election against Ford, who had the baggage of the Watergate scandal. He lost the election to Ronald Reagan in 1980 by a sizable margin.

Party leaders had decided that the grassroots were too powerful, and established the Hunt Commission. In 1982, the Hunt Commission introduced what we now know as "superdelegates," or delegates appointed by party leaders. At the time, all state party chairs and vice-chairs were made superdelegates. Congressmen could also appoint a number. Eventually, all Democratic congressmen became superdelegates themselves. In the 1984 election, superdelegates made up 14% of all delegates. This was steadily increased to 20% today. And now, Democrats are winning elections. The only presidential candidates who have had a defeat as humiliating as McGovern or Carter since the reform were Mondale, running against Reagan, (Who, for all his flaws, as the epitome of a good politician.) and Dukakis, running against Bush. (A year with an awful primary choice and a Republican riding on the coattails of Reagan.) And that was when the party had the least power over nomination.

What we see here is that the grassroots are incredibly awful at nominating someone who can win a general election. They may be the bread of the base, but putting power in the hands of a group of people who are passionate about politics is not the way to choose a candidate who can appeal to all Americans. And this is the crux of the problem: the Republican establishment is not in control of their party.

In 2012, the GOP only had 126 delegates out of 2283 that voted. This, if my math is correct, is 5.5% of delegates. As stated above, 20% of Democratic delegates are superdelegates. What this means is that the GOP has a minuscule influence on who their own officials are. Ironically, the one attempt the RNC has made to centralize power, a rule binding delegates to vote for their state's popular choice, could wind up biting them in the ass. The rule was passed in order to stop a potential coup by Ron Paul, who's supporters were abusing the delegate election process in order to get potential votes. However, this also binds the delegates to vote for the grassroots choice in that state, ensuring that the establishment can't steer the primary election.

And this ignores the influence that outside forces have over the GOP. In the Democratic party, Barack Obama is a spokesperson. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell are also spokespersons. Democrats take orders from their party leaders. This is the biggest advantage, control wise, that the Democrats have. This isn't true in the GOP. John Boehner isn't in control of his party. In fact, his party seems to have a disdain for Boehner. No, Fox News is a Republican spokesperson. Ted Cruz is a Republican spokesperson. Rush Limbaugh is a Republican spokesperson. This is a problem, because this means that the Republican establishment has no control over their base, through rules or influence.

The Democratic establishment, on the other hand, have excellent control over their party. Democrats don't get elected on the national level without party support. In fact, the Democrats biggest issue is neglecting their grassroots, which can sometimes have disastrous results. However, it allows them to decide what policy positions are adopted and what candidates to run. This, in the end, is why Democrats have their stuff together. The establishment, which has experience in winning elections, knows what it takes to get people in office, and make decisions on who to run based on that, even if the base is unhappy.

So the most important thing for the establishment to do is to try and centralize their power. I don't know if its even possible at this point, given the extent to which the Tea Party has entrenched itself in the Republican ranks, but if the establishment wants to continue to be more than a figurehead for Ted Cruz, they need to find someway to control their party.

I do think its quite funny, though. The GOP supported a group of anti-authoritarian radicals back in 2010, and then were surprised when it turned out that they wouldn't follow the orders of the establishment.

[Ashmoria]

Okay, but here's the question that nobody's been able to answer to my satisfaction:

What do they do to replace the ground game? Who's going to do the local organizing, the phone banks, the driving disabled people to the polls, the door-to-door stuff, the organization of mailing lists (and the gathering of contact information for said lists), and the million billion other things that they've been relying on Tea Party volunteers for?

Not only that, but I'm baffled on how exactly the RNC is supposed to "kick out" the Tea Party. Parties aren't corporations. They don't have hierarchical power structures where the "bosses" can fire their "employees." Parties are democratic institutions, where the grassroots untimely decide what decisions are made. Tea Partiers run the state legislators. Tea Partiers run the house. Large chunks of the Republican leadership are Tea Partiers. At this point, the Republican Party is the Tea Party. And telling people that they need to kick themselves out is not a reasonable solution.

Now, that's not to say that the establishment is completely at the mercy of the grassroots. Party leadership has the ability to choose party direction to an extent. And the extent to which they can do that is what generally determines the success of a party. 40 years ago, the Democratic Party faced an issue with power structure eerily similar to what the GOP faces today.

The 1968 Democratic National Convention was, in all metrics, a failure. The assassination of Robert Knenedy, the DNC "favorite," left most of the grassroots in turmoil. (Many of the pledged delegates decided to vote for the dead Kennedy rather than the similarly anti-war McCarthy, who came in second. Some voted for the dark horse McGovern.) What resulted was the nomination of Hubert Humphrey, a conservative Democrat who held views similar to the pro-war Johnson. (Not to mention, who held only 2.21% of the popular vote at the time of Kennedy's assassination.) This infuriated the grassroots. Humphrey didn't campaign in any primaries, and received most of his delegates from party bosses in non-competitive states. Humphrey went on to lose to Richard Nixon in the general election.

The mess left over from the 1968 election left the DNC wanting to democratize the primary system. To do so, the formed the McGovern-Fraser Commission. The commission proposed a number of rules that resulted in the near obliteration of party leadership power, and the transfer of nomination control over to the grassroots. This ushered in the "New Left" as a major political power over the next decade. Under this new power structure, George McGovern was nominated for president in the 1972 election. This was the result.

McGovern lost 49 states. He lost 49 states to Richard. Nixon. McGovern campaigned on immediately pulling out of Vietnam and instituting a minimum income. This was widely unpopular among the American people and considered a far-left platform. Jimmy Carter was nominated under similar rules, and eked through the general election against Ford, who had the baggage of the Watergate scandal. He lost the election to Ronald Reagan in 1980 by a sizable margin.

Party leaders had decided that the grassroots were too powerful, and established the Hunt Commission. In 1982, the Hunt Commission introduced what we now know as "superdelegates," or delegates appointed by party leaders. At the time, all state party chairs and vice-chairs were made superdelegates. Congressmen could also appoint a number. Eventually, all Democratic congressmen became superdelegates themselves. In the 1984 election, superdelegates made up 14% of all delegates. This was steadily increased to 20% today. And now, Democrats are winning elections. The only presidential candidates who have had a defeat as humiliating as McGovern or Carter since the reform were Mondale, running against Reagan, (Who, for all his flaws, as the epitome of a good politician.) and Dukakis, running against Bush. (A year with an awful primary choice and a Republican riding on the coattails of Reagan.) And that was when the party had the least power over nomination.

What we see here is that the grassroots are incredibly awful at nominating someone who can win a general election. They may be the bread of the base, but putting power in the hands of a group of people who are passionate about politics is not the way to choose a candidate who can appeal to all Americans. And this is the crux of the problem: the Republican establishment is not in control of their party.

In 2012, the GOP only has 126 delegates out of 2283 that voted. This, if my math is correct, is 5.5% of delegates. As stated above, 20% of Democratic delegates are superdelegates. What this means is that the GOP has a minuscule influence on who their own officials are. Ironically, the one attempt the RNC has made to centralize power, a rule binding delegates to vote for their state's popular choice, could wind up biting them in the ass. The rule was passed in order to stop a potential coup by Ron Paul, who's supporters were abusing the delegate election process in order to get potential votes. However, this also binds the delegates to vote for the grassroots choice in that state, ensuring that the establishment can't steer the primary election.

And this ignores the influence that outside forces have over the GOP. In the Democratic party, Barack Obama is a spokesperson. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell are also spokespersons. Democrats take orders from their party leaders. This is the biggest advantage, control wise, that the Democrats have. This isn't true in the GOP. John Boehner isn't in control of his party. In fact, his party seems to have a disdain for Boehner. No, Fox News is a Republican spokesperson. Ted Cruz is a Republican spokesperson. Rush Limbaugh is a Republican spokesperson. This is a problem, because this means that the Republican establishment has no control over their base, through rules or influence.

The Democratic establishment, on the other hand, have excellent control over their party. Democrats don't get elected on the national level without party support. In fact, the Democrats biggest issue is neglecting their grassroots, which can sometimes have disastrous results. However, it allows them to decide what policy positions are adopted and what candidates to run. This, in the end, is why Democrats have their stuff together. The establishment, which has experience in winning elections, knows what it takes to get people in office, and make decisions on who to run based on that, even if the base is unhappy.

So the most important thing for the establishment to do is to try and centralize their power. I don't know if its even possible at this point, given the extent to which the Tea Party has entrenched itself in the Republican ranks, but if the establishment wants to continue to be more than a figurehead for Ted Cruz, they need to find someway to control their party.

I don't think its quite funny, though. The GOP supported a group of anti-authoritarian radicals back in 2010, and then were surprised when it turned out that they wouldn't follow the orders of the establishment.

excellent post! it gave me a lot to think about.

[Salandriagado]

8. The 47% Statement

That was a killer, yes. But the funny thing is that the Electoral College balance changed very, VERY little from April to November. I interpret that to mean that more and more of the electorate is "locked in" behind one candidate or the other very early on — a fact which is VERY bad for the GOP, given the demographic trends.

By way of example of this point, I did my election prediction based entirely on polling from April or earlier, and it was right in 49 of 50 states. (The other was Florida). That is: essentially nothing changed in that entire half year. All of that campaigning, all of that mess, basically amounted to nothing.

[Roski]

The Republican Path to victory is really at this point a waiting game for a democratic failure so large they cannot recover in time for the 2014 elections, while keeping their internecine squabbling to a minimum. It's really going to be a question of how awful their primaries are.

HEALTHCARE.GOV

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The Republican Path to victory is really at this point a waiting game for a democratic failure so large they cannot recover in time for the 2014 elections, while keeping their internecine squabbling to a minimum. It's really going to be a question of how awful their primaries are.

HEALTHCARE.GOV

What, the website that seems to be running rather smoothly as of today's deadline?

[Nigerian Kenya]

HEALTHCARE.GOV

What, the website that seems to be running rather smoothly as of today's deadline?

The user side of things is apparently working much better:

Prior to the turnaround effort, Zients said, management of the enrollment site had been plagued by slow decision-making and a lack of accountability. These issues were addressed by creating a new management structure led by general contractor QSSI, which was tapped to oversee the site's operations, and the creation of a 24-hour, rapid response team that constantly monitors the site and the experience users are having on it.

These management changes were intended, Zients said, to give the government-run website "the velocity and discipline of a high-performance private sector company."

On the hardware front, Zients said improvements have been made to the registration database, which plays a part in the front-end experience consumers have using the site; new servers and upgraded memory have been added; additional "application environments" are now online; and the system's firewall has been upgraded.

These changes have made "the underlying infrastructure of HealthCare.gov much stronger today," Zients said, adding that some of the critical upgrades were completed as late as Friday evening, when the site was down for 11 hours for maintenance as this weekend's deadline approached.
Zients likened the effect of the hardware upgrades to widening a highway's on-ramp, effectively taking the site from two lanes to four.
On the software front, Zients said 50 of the bug fixes completed during the turnaround effort had been done "just last night" during another period of maintenance. Going forward, Zients anticipates there will still be other bugs and software fixes for the rapid response to handle.
All these changes have made a noticeable difference in HealthCare.gov's operating metrics, Zients said.

The site's average response time -- the average time it takes for the system to respond to an action by a user -- is down from eight seconds to under one second in the past three weeks, said Zients. The site's average error rate is also down, according to Zients, with the system hitting a rate of 0.75% on Friday. And the system's "uptime," a measure of system stability, is consistently surpassing 90%.

Zients said the creation of the rapid response team means necessary fixes can now usually be made within an hour instead of the hours it used to take.

"We've doubled the system's capacity and the site can now handle its intended capacity," explained Zients, summing up the net effect of the turnaround effort he has led.

This means that two months after it originally launched, HealthCare.gov can now handle 50,000 concurrent users and 800,000 consumer visits a day.

If more than 50,000 people attempt to use the site at any one time, the site now has a queueing feature that will e-mail users with tips about when to return to the site at a less congested time and a link that will take them to the front of the line. "Nothing like this (was) in place" in October, Zients said Sunday.

but the insurer side of things appears to still have some problems:

With all the recent improvements, administration officials conceded Sunday that there is still work to be done.

"As with any website, the team will continue to address bugs and glitches," Zients said.

In addition, work on the back end of the site, which is of critical importance to insurance companies issuing policies to consumers, still needs to be completed.

The administration is still working with insurers on the "834" transaction forms generated by the system, said Bataille. "We're working with issuers on a daily basis and will continue those conversations," she said, adding that the site's management team would have more information about this issue with the data generated by the system on upcoming weekdays.

"There are still a number of problems with the back-end systems," Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for health insurance industry trade association group America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement to CNN. "Insurers are still getting enrollment files that are duplicative and have missing or inaccurate information. In some cases they are not getting the enrollments at all."

So, definitely working better, but not working perfectly.

Unfortunately, Republicans aren't backing down. From a spokesman for house majority leader Eric Cantor:

"Millions of Americans being informed that the health care plans they liked are being canceled -- despite the President's repeated assurances otherwise -- and being forced to pay higher premiums, deductibles, or both, are a much greater priority than a broken website,"

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What, the website that seems to be running rather smoothly as of today's deadline?

The user side of things is apparently working much better:

Prior to the turnaround effort, Zients said, management of the enrollment site had been plagued by slow decision-making and a lack of accountability. These issues were addressed by creating a new management structure led by general contractor QSSI, which was tapped to oversee the site's operations, and the creation of a 24-hour, rapid response team that constantly monitors the site and the experience users are having on it.

These management changes were intended, Zients said, to give the government-run website "the velocity and discipline of a high-performance private sector company."

On the hardware front, Zients said improvements have been made to the registration database, which plays a part in the front-end experience consumers have using the site; new servers and upgraded memory have been added; additional "application environments" are now online; and the system's firewall has been upgraded.

These changes have made "the underlying infrastructure of HealthCare.gov much stronger today," Zients said, adding that some of the critical upgrades were completed as late as Friday evening, when the site was down for 11 hours for maintenance as this weekend's deadline approached.
Zients likened the effect of the hardware upgrades to widening a highway's on-ramp, effectively taking the site from two lanes to four.
On the software front, Zients said 50 of the bug fixes completed during the turnaround effort had been done "just last night" during another period of maintenance. Going forward, Zients anticipates there will still be other bugs and software fixes for the rapid response to handle.
All these changes have made a noticeable difference in HealthCare.gov's operating metrics, Zients said.

The site's average response time -- the average time it takes for the system to respond to an action by a user -- is down from eight seconds to under one second in the past three weeks, said Zients. The site's average error rate is also down, according to Zients, with the system hitting a rate of 0.75% on Friday. And the system's "uptime," a measure of system stability, is consistently surpassing 90%.

Zients said the creation of the rapid response team means necessary fixes can now usually be made within an hour instead of the hours it used to take.

"We've doubled the system's capacity and the site can now handle its intended capacity," explained Zients, summing up the net effect of the turnaround effort he has led.

This means that two months after it originally launched, HealthCare.gov can now handle 50,000 concurrent users and 800,000 consumer visits a day.

If more than 50,000 people attempt to use the site at any one time, the site now has a queueing feature that will e-mail users with tips about when to return to the site at a less congested time and a link that will take them to the front of the line. "Nothing like this (was) in place" in October, Zients said Sunday.

but the insurer side of things appears to still have some problems:

With all the recent improvements, administration officials conceded Sunday that there is still work to be done.

"As with any website, the team will continue to address bugs and glitches," Zients said.

In addition, work on the back end of the site, which is of critical importance to insurance companies issuing policies to consumers, still needs to be completed.

The administration is still working with insurers on the "834" transaction forms generated by the system, said Bataille. "We're working with issuers on a daily basis and will continue those conversations," she said, adding that the site's management team would have more information about this issue with the data generated by the system on upcoming weekdays.

"There are still a number of problems with the back-end systems," Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for health insurance industry trade association group America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement to CNN. "Insurers are still getting enrollment files that are duplicative and have missing or inaccurate information. In some cases they are not getting the enrollments at all."

So, definitely working better, but not working perfectly.

Unfortunately, Republicans aren't backing down. From a spokesman for house majority leader Eric Cantor:

"Millions of Americans being informed that the health care plans they liked are being canceled -- despite the President's repeated assurances otherwise -- and being forced to pay higher premiums, deductibles, or both, are a much greater priority than a broken website,"

Well, "Rather smoothly" isn't "perfectly", to be sure, but the bugs on the back end are being worked out, and the insurance cancellations, while hideous, will likely be out of the news by midterms.

[Minnysota]

2. Please don't be serious...regardless, it is a privilege-you have to be a citizen to vote.

too many stupid citizens for voting to be a right granted to all people... should have to pass a universal test that examines knowledge of how govt operates

also people who watch msnbc or fox shouldn't be allowed to vote

EDIT: Phone keyboard keeps on putting squigglies at the end of each line.

[Blakk Metal]

HEALTHCARE.GOV

What, the website that seems to be running rather smoothly as of today's deadline?

I think he wants the Republican Party to hire hackers.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

What, the website that seems to be running rather smoothly as of today's deadline?

I think he wants the Republican Party to hire hackers.

Bad idea. They'll end up accidentally hiring plumbers. And not the sneaky Nixon kind, either.

[Fashiontopia]

Marco Rubio

He appeals to minorities.

[Nigerian Kenya]

2. Please don't be serious...regardless, it is a privilege-you have to be a citizen to vote.

too many stupid citizens for voting to be a right granted to all people... should have to pass a universal test that examines knowledge of how govt operates~

also people who watch msnbc or fox shouldn't be allowed to vote~

Universal tests are a nice idea, but unfortunately, they can easily be skewed to discriminate against minorties or women, just like voter id laws.

And as far as your second request goes, watching msnbc or fox isn't a crime - it shouldn't take away your voting rights. For it to do that would be pure discrimination. I mean, can you just imagine it:

Prospective Voter: I'd like to register to vote.
Official: Hmmm......well, since you watch about two hours of fox news in a given month, you can't vote.
Prospective Voter: What!!!!
*Voter walks away, growling*

That just wouldn't make sense, would have immense public opposition, and would be quite unfair.

[Vetalia]

Well, "Rather smoothly" isn't "perfectly", to be sure, but the bugs on the back end are being worked out, and the insurance cancellations, while hideous, will likely be out of the news by midterms.

Well, except for those voters who were victims of Obama's bald-faced lie.

[Nigerian Kenya]

Marco Rubio

He appeals to minorities.

It's an open question as to whether Marco Rubio really will have good latino support (40-45%) in 2016 or not. So far, he's not enjoying huge approval ratings from latinos, but hey, nothing's set in stone three years out. If immigration reform ever gets through the house, hispanic support for Rubio may increase.

[Geilinor]

Marco Rubio

He appeals to minorities.

Source? Immigration reform is just one thing, but what about the other issues? What makes his policies different from Romney's?

[Minnysota]

Universal tests are a nice idea, but unfortunately, they can easily be skewed to discriminate against minorties or women, just like voter id laws.

the country is pretty liberal in that regard now i think that's unlikely.. and that kind of scandal in today's world would surely end many "careers"

And as far as your second request goes, watching msnbc or fox isn't a crime - it shouldn't take away your voting rights. For it to do that would be pure discrimination. I mean, can you just imagine it:

Prospective Voter: I'd like to register to vote.
Official: Hmmm......well, since you watch about two hours of fox news in a given month, you can't vote.
Prospective Voter: What!!!!
*Voter walks away, growling*

That just wouldn't make sense, would have immense public opposition, and would be quite unfair.

it was a humorous comment made because i think those two "news" corporations are two of the biggest reasons we have idiotic voters

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Universal tests are a nice idea, but unfortunately, they can easily be skewed to discriminate against minorties or women, just like voter id laws.

the country is pretty liberal in that regard now i think that's unlikely.. and any scandal from that arising would be powerful enough to end careers

And as far as your second request goes, watching msnbc or fox isn't a crime - it shouldn't take away your voting rights. For it to do that would be pure discrimination. I mean, can you just imagine it:

Prospective Voter: I'd like to register to vote.
Official: Hmmm......well, since you watch about two hours of fox news in a given month, you can't vote.
Prospective Voter: What!!!!
*Voter walks away, growling*

That just wouldn't make sense, would have immense public opposition, and would be quite unfair.

it was a humorous comment made because i think those two "news" corporations are two of the biggest reasons we have idiotic voters

Have you ever watched MSNBC? Because it does the opposite of what you say it does.

[Minnysota]

It does the exact same thing as FOX, except it is liberal. Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz are strong counters of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.