Are Republicans Handing the Obamacare Advantage to Dems?

Americans don’t like the program, but they like the GOP approach to killing it even less.

From left to right: Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT), Assistant House Minority Leader Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) and House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) listen during a news conference on Capitol Hill.
National Journal
Alex Roarty
Oct. 2, 2013, 9:57 a.m.

How can Demo­crats win next year’s elec­tion fight over Obama­care? Just lean back and let Re­pub­lic­ans work their ma­gic.

The GOP’s un­waver­ing de­mand that Pres­id­ent Obama delay and dis­mantle the Af­ford­able Care Act has been the hall­mark of Re­pub­lic­an op­pos­i­tion to the law since its pas­sage in 2010, an un­re­lent­ing fo­cus that has paved the way for the cur­rent gov­ern­ment shut­down. But the ap­proach has left little room for polit­ic­al nu­ance, mak­ing the party look in­flex­ible about im­prov­ing a law that is tak­ing ef­fect while they lament its ex­ist­ence.

Demo­crat­ic strategists think that ap­proach cre­ates an open­ing with voters who, while skep­tic­al of the Af­ford­able Care Act, are far less in­ter­ested in de­fund­ing it than mak­ing sure it works. So rather than fret about the polit­ic­al lumps they’re about to take, Demo­crat­ic op­er­at­ives see a chance for vic­tory.

“The old rhet­or­ic of ‘re­peal and re­place’ has been more and less ex­posed to be a sham,” said J.J. Bal­aban, a Phil­adelphia-based Demo­crat­ic strategist. “Now it’s ‘re­peal and re­peal.’

“The Re­pub­lic­ans have been so in­flex­ible that they’ve made it harder to press their ad­vant­age on the is­sue,” he ad­ded. “Demo­crats have clearly be­ne­fit­ted from that.”

Such op­tim­ism seems bold, even silly, for a law whose pop­ular­ity has sunk to new lows this sum­mer. In every re­cent sur­vey, more people are against it than for it, and in most cases the dif­fer­ence is sig­ni­fic­ant. An NBC/Wall Street Journ­al sur­vey last month re­por­ted only 31 per­cent of people favored the law ““ 44 per­cent didn’t. Throw in a de­luge of head­lines about busi­nesses cut­ting their health care and blam­ing Obama­care ““ evid­ence Re­pub­lic­ans say of the loom­ing im­ple­ment­a­tion dis­aster — and it’s easy to un­der­stand why GOP mem­bers say they’re giddy about re-lit­ig­at­ing the is­sue in 2014.

But those aren’t the num­bers or head­lines Demo­crats are pay­ing at­ten­tion to. Rather, with the law tak­ing ef­fect, they think the polit­ics have shif­ted from an ideo­lo­gic­al ar­gu­ment to one about which party is try­ing to make it work.

In ef­fect, while people don’t like Obama­care, they like the Re­pub­lic­an ap­proach to it now even less.

Polls bol­ster their point. A re­cent sur­vey from CBS News and the New York Times found 56 per­cent of Amer­ic­ans wanted Con­gress to up­hold the ACA and make it work as well as pos­sible, while only 38 per­cent wanted Con­gress to cut off fund­ing to it. An in­tern­al sur­vey from the Demo­crat­ic Con­gres­sion­al Cam­paign Com­mit­tee of 68 com­pet­it­ive House dis­tricts found sim­il­ar res­ults: 55 per­cent of voters there wanted to im­ple­ment Obama­care ef­fect­ively; only 40 per­cent want to re­peal it out­right. (The Demo­crat­ic polling firm Gar­in-Hart-Yang Re­search Group con­duc­ted the sur­vey in Ju­ly.)

The pub­lic’s de­sire to im­prove the law had led Demo­crat­ic lead­ers to urge their mem­bers to take a prag­mat­ic ap­proach with voters. What mat­ters is mak­ing sure the law works as well as pos­sible, they ar­gue, not wheth­er it should have been passed in the first place.

“If you go back home and re-lit­ig­ate the ideo­lo­gic­al war on the Af­ford­able Care Act, you lose,” Steve Is­rael, chair­man of the DCCC, said re­cently. “If you back home and set up an Af­ford­able Care Act im­ple­ment­a­tion task force and you put people in a room and you say, ‘OK, I want to solve these dif­fi­culties one by one, and I want to be a prob­lem solv­er and not an ideo­lo­gic­al war­ri­or,’ you win.”

Win­ning Obama­care polit­ics would be a first for Demo­crats. In 2010, the law gal­van­ized Re­pub­lic­ans as Demo­crats lost sev­en seats in the Sen­ate (one in a spe­cial elec­tion, six on Elec­tion Day) and their ma­jor­ity in the House. Its po­tency faded last year, but Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gue, con­vin­cingly, that high­light­ing the law’s Medi­care cuts helped them re­but Demo­crat­ic charges the GOP wanted to “end Medi­care as we know it.”

Some Demo­crats think Obama­care, after be­ing a sub­ject of in­tense de­bate the last two elec­tions, won’t re­main a top is­sue in 2014. Oth­ers fig­ure that, at the very least, it can’t get any worse for the party.

“We already hit rock bot­tom in 2010 and lost every­one we were go­ing to lose on health care, and now we’ll start win­ning people back,” said one Demo­crat­ic strategist.

And still oth­ers con­tend that the Holy Grail of Obama­care polit­ics might yet come to pass: After fi­nally see­ing the be­ne­fits of mil­lions re­ceiv­ing ac­cess to health in­sur­ance, the pub­lic could sud­denly sup­port the law.

“The more people ex­per­i­ence the Af­ford­able Care Act and the be­ne­fits of choice of af­ford­able health care cov­er­age, the bet­ter,” said John Lapp, a Demo­crat­ic strategist. “[It gets them] bey­ond the bo­gey­man scare tac­tics.”

Of course, there’s a flip side to that ar­gu­ment: The law’s im­ple­ment­a­tion turns in­to a night­mare. At that point, no amount of mes­saging might be enough to save the party from pun­ish­ment dur­ing the 2014 elec­tion. After Tues­day’s prob­lem-filled un­veil­ing the state-based ex­change Web sites — in which many of the mil­lions who re­portedly signed up were greeted with an er­ror mes­sage — Re­pub­lic­ans are con­fid­ent their long-held pre­dic­tions of Obama­care dooms­day are fi­nally com­ing to pass.

“The Demo­crats have con­sist­ently en­gaged in ma­gic­al think­ing about Obama­care,” said Rick Wilson, a Re­pub­lic­an strategist. “They ex­pec­ted polit­ic­al be­ne­fits from it since its pas­sage, and they keep ex­pect­ing some kind of mar­velous trans­form­at­ive mo­ment where people say, ‘Pay­ing more for crap­pi­er health care? Sign me up!’ “

He ad­ded, “No large gov­ern­ment so­cial en­gin­eer­ing pro­gram has ever been rolled out in the so­cial me­dia era, and the power of an­ec­dot­al hor­ror stor­ies — and there will be count­less screwups — will leave a lot more Demo­crats than you think hid­ing in the tall grass.”

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
10 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
10 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
11 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×