With Obama's job approval ratings trending below 50%, and health care looking like it may settle into the 30's, Democrats are rallying moderates to health care reform with the following narrative: sure, passing this may be unpopular, but failing to pass it will be even more unpopular! The only problem is, Brendan Nyhan suggests that
this isn't, like, true.
Things not "being true" has never stopped the reality-based community before.
Democrat Congressman are about the stupidest people in Washington, D.C. They'll fall for this line of logic. Just wait and watch.
Great question, and obviously there is no easy answer (which is why it's a great question... LOL)
At this point I think the damage is done. The HC Bill is a dog's dinner, and the majority of Americans view it as such. They recognize, at this point, that a "signature achievement" is really more of a "beach-head..." That's not necessarily a good thing, given the palpable economic fear that most sane people are having.
Now is simply not the time. If Obama only had the common sense to say that, he could convert his presidency from the catastrophe it is fast becoming, to one of brilliant leadership.
You don't have to be a brilliant chess-master to see this. Any kid who can play Risk could tell you "Focus on the economy this year, tell everyone that Health Care is a 2011 issue," and suddenly you are considered sage and wise - particularly if you actually can do something for the economy.
I have said, and sincerely believe, that Barack Obama is not a particularly intelligent individual. Disciplined? Amazingly so, and that is a facet of intelligence I suppose. Photogenic? Absolutely.
But in terms of global economics, finance, policy, and realpolitik he is demonstrably below average. Notably worse than GW Bush, which takes some doing.
His perseverating on this loser of a bill only underscores it.
"But in terms of global economics, finance, policy, and realpolitik he is demonstrably below average. Notably worse than GW Bush, which takes some doing."
Yea, Bush at least knew when to abandon a policy that was not working (such as when he dumped Rumsfeld and switched strategies to the winning "surge" strategy in Iraq).
Obama is not mature enough to realize that his intransigence and single-mindedness makes him look weak to even his friends (see der Spiegel and even Howard Fineman in Newsweek).
Obama is surrounded by people much younger even than he is ... which makes the problem worse. There are no wise sage types surrounding this President to counsel him. Just a bunch of punk hipster douches who think they know everything.
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
"Obama is surrounded by people much younger even than he is"
He's surrounded by people from the Chicago political machine.
This is another explanation:
http://blog.american.com/?p=7572
Inexperience.
Rick
Inexperience is a huge part of it. An adoring MSM isn't helping, either. Obama's people are eating the positive-press coverage up, and might well not really understand just how strong their opposition is. They, and he, might even be ignorant to it - choosing to actually believe that the grassroots opposition really is "nut-roots."
A very disturbing Gallup fact came out today: Caucasians are abandoning support for Obama rapidly, while African Americans have barely budged from their election-day euphoric levels of support. Translation: instead of bringing the races together, Obama is becoming the wedge that divides them.
This is not the kind of issue that someone of his inexperience, ignorance, and (in my opinion) lack of intelligence will handle well.
I don't like it one bit.
Eh, the blacks have been voting for Democrats like the inhabitants of Communist countries for the Communist party for a long time. And the whites have shifted around a lot more.
Though I will concede the perfid screams of racism probably have a short term bad effect. (Might have a good one in the long term by making it clear that the screams are politics and not principle.)
The obvious parallel is to the Iraq war. IIRC it was controversial, then suddenly more popular right after it started, and then became unpopular again as the true costs became evident.
With health care, the debate engenders a lot of unpopularity, but if it passes, polls will reflect momentary crowing by people hopping on the bandwagon and hoping for the best (or being too busy being in the fetal position to take part in polls) on the part of opponents. As the true costs become evident over time, the momentary popularity would fade and everyone will still think the health care system is messed up, except now only moreso.
"As the true costs become evident over time, the momentary popularity would fade and everyone will still think the health care system is messed up, except now only moreso."
When the young people who pushed Obama over the top get that health insurance bill for $13,000 large a year, they'll rethink things.
And at that moment ... the opposition will hopefully be able to say that not a single Republican voted for this monstrosity.
And the Republicans still won't be able to repeal it.
Um, why not? About the only thing happening before 2013 is collecting a pot of money. Lots of things can be carved off this turkey in the meantime. We could even get meaningful reform along with killing CongressCare, assuming the Rs can retake Congress.
Because the Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Have Republicans ever successfully repealed a middle class entitlement?
Re: ? About the only thing happening before 2013 is collecting a pot of money
Not true. A number of things take effect well before 2013. Some of the insurance reforms for example. And quite importantly, the establishment of a high risk pool for the insurance of chronically ill individuals. Do you see the GOP voting to bring back recissions or deprive seriously ill people of their insurance coverage? They'd be pilloried from coast to coast on such votes. So the GOP could vote to get rid of the individual mandates (but the insurers will have a cow on that one, and it will drive up everyone's premiums), or they could get rid of the insurance exchanges (and they probably could undo that one, though with unintended consequences they may not like) or they could drop the insurance subsidies and the expansion of Medicaid-- in which case how would the mandates work?
The problem they will have is that the reform will have to be repealed in total, since repealing the unpopular parts but leaving intact the popular aspects won't work in the real world. At best the GOP will be able to nibble around the edges. Or else propose a second major overhaul that doesn't upset any of the interests and individuals vested in this plan. For sure they will be no return to the status quo ante.
Johnv2, once this thing is in place, any attempt to touch it can immediately be demagogued, "They're trying to take away your health care!!!!"
This is an old technique, so effective it has a name, 'Mediscare'. Bill Clinton used it to utterly derail the GOP after their 1994 success.
Furthermore, there will be large and powerful vested interests who can see how reversing the bill would hurt them and who will fight fanatically to defend it, with more energy than the opponents are likely to be able to muster (acute pain vs. unfocused pain).
It might be possible to repeal it if the GOP gained veto-proof majorities in 2010...but while I wouldn't be shocked to see them regain control, I have a hard time imagining them gaining veto-proof majorities in both Houses. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it doesn't look very probable, and lacking such supermajorities Obama can just veto repeal attempts.
then suddenly more popular right after it started
Because it achieved its initial objective very quickly and succesfully. I doubt the healthcare plan will be similar in that respect.
In practical terms I agree. However, I think a lot of the benefits for most supporters of the healthcare "plan" are psychological and simply consist of feeling good about doing "something" even if what they're doing sucks eggs.
At best the GOP will be able to nibble around the edges. Or else propose a second major overhaul that doesn't upset any of the interests and individuals vested in this plan.
Actually, that's well beyond the best the GOP will be able to do if HCR passes, at least until 2013. And that's because even if they were to manage taking back a House majority, they're not going to do the same in the Senate, nor are they going to be able to override Obama's veto.
I think if it doesn't pass, there's some hope polls will recover for Dems.
The Democrat problem is that their base requires some bill to pass but everyone else is opposed. It is much like the Republican problem with the religious right's cultural assaults.
I have to say I cannot fathom how any politician fails to see that a bill that hikes taxes in 2010 and delivers benefits in 2014 is a political disaster but sometimes a cult mentality will deprive people of basic common sense.
"Focus on the economy this year, tell everyone that Health Care is a 2011 issue"
And if he truly believed his own claims, Obama could set about now reducing waste and fraud, so that next year or the year after, he could point to the vast cost savings as evidence that we can afford the whole package.
But of course, if the claims about massive, easy-to-achieve cost-savings turned out to be exaggerated (to put it nicely), this wouldn't work so well.
Only the most delusional liberal Democrats and/or those in very safe seats believe large swaths of the country will cheer passage of this bill and will congratulate the party. It is much more likely to have the opposite effect.
The POTUS and others realize this has to be done in time for people to forget before they get beat over the head with it in next year's elections. It has been the driver behind the president's insistence that every liberal priority with less than broad support be passed immediately. Democrats know they cannot be this far left of center by election time and still hold the current amount of power. Of course, they might not have been able to anyway given the economy.
Well, no. Nyhan was wasting his time rebutting a straw-man argument dressed up as a New York Times article. Democratic strategists (at least those who know what they're talking about) aren't focusing their hopes with respect to the political benefits of passing HCR on how HCR itself polls, nor on something as broad-based and as difficult to massage as the president's poll numbers (which, as Nyhan points out, is pretty much a prisoner to the economic big picture). Savvy Democratic strategists are quite rightly focusing on turnout. Mid-term elections tend to be tough for the party of the White House incumbent, because enthusiasm wains in comparison to the previous election, because their guy has already won.
The point is, what you don't want is demoralization in your own ranks...
http://www.freshjive.com/propagandist/31/hope-is-fading-fast
...because you can't afford any more of a drop-off in the turnout of your base than you're almost certainly going to experience in the best of circumstances. I can't think of a better way to lose seats in the many marginal districts currently held by Democrats (or the several vulnerable Democratic Senate seats) than by having young people, minorities and liberals stay home next November. If they think it makes no difference which party is in control, because nothing ever changes, millions of them will stay home.
But thanks, Megan, for your deep concern that passing HCR won't help the Dems. I'm sure Reid and Pelosi are now fixing to withdraw the bills as soon as they return from the holiday.
"..because you can't afford any more of a drop-off in the turnout of your base than you're almost certainly going to experience in the best of circumstances. I can't think of a better way to lose seats in the many marginal districts currently held by Democrats (or the several vulnerable Democratic Senate seats) than by having young people, minorities and liberals stay home next November."
I can think of a way - alienating independents and moderates you need to supplement your base and win. Ask Republicans what happens when you pander too much to your base, have unpopular policies/decisions hanging over your head, and much of the center abandons you.
If unpopular legislation is the only way for Democrats to get enough of the party to show up to vote, they are in deep trouble.
Agree with kkjamess's response. The Democratic base is not big enough except in a few major cities to overcome the loss of every one else. The "voting because I'm angry" factor will turn around against the Dems in 2010 after being behind them in 2008, and the "hey, I'm voting for something historic" impetus that brought out many young people and normally apathetic voters in 08 will be missing as well. In my suburban town, where registration is Democratic / Independent / Republican on the rolls, the local mayoral election this month came in: Republican / Libertarian / Democrat. So I think that 2010 is going to be horrible for Democrats. Now, I do have a relative who is historically pretty astute about this kind of thing and he tells me that, while he agrees about 2010, 2012 will be a Democratic landslide of LBJish proportions because the economy will be back by then and the Republican nominee will be unable to measure up to Obama in stature. So I guess I will have to keep buying gold just in case he is right...
The Democratic base is not big enough except in a few major cities to overcome the loss of every one else.
They're not going to need to overcome such a loss. In the first place, the vast number of Democratically-held House seats aren't remotely competitive. At most we're talking about fifty or so competitive seats. And secondly, it's the economy, stupid. That's what's going to decide the midterms. If people are feeling better about the economy in general twelve months from now, Democrats should hold their own among moderate voters in purple states. If the economy is still on life support, Democrats will lose a bunch of House seats no matter what. The fact that their base stays home (if they fail to pass HCR) just means those losses will widen. I mean, it's obvious to anybody with a lick of political common sense that Republicans are desperate to stop HCR. Which makes no sense if its passage were such a political gift to Republicans. The rational strategy would be to ease up a bit on procedural impediments, while making a noisy, very public show of opposing the bill. In other words, let the sucker pass -- as long as the public blames the Democrats and not you -- and then reap the huge political rewards in November 2010. Curiously, the Republicans don't seem to be taking this strategy. Which is all you have to know about the concern trolling about how passing a bill is supposedly going to be a political disaster for the Obama and the Democrats.
I read something about this yesterday, can't remember where, but the logic went like this:
The health care bill is already a net loser for the Democrats. They've already lost many of the wavering independents and moderate Republicans they gained during the last election due to the structural deficits they've created by pushing hard for this bill. And it looks like this loss is permanent, meaning that a failure to pass healthcare reform won't bring those people back to the Dem side. The Dems were the lesser of two evils for those voters the last time around, and the way the Dems have spent during the last year means those voters are unlikely to trust them a second time. So the Dems have lost them for good.
But failing to pass healthcare would mean that in addition to losing the voters described above, Dems would also lose their base, the true liberals. Because if you can't pass a decades-old progressive priority like universal healthcare with super-majorities in both houses and the presidency, then what's the point of electing Democrats? Maybe they'll vote for them, but they certainly won't give them money, volunteer to canvass and caucus for them, etc.
So, as the logic went, passing healthcare will make things tough on the Dems. NOT passing healthcare will be a disaster.
I think maybe they lose the base anyway. All indications are he's not leaving Afghanistan or getting a public option.
Even if the entire base shows up, it is not enough to counter a backlash.
Democrats hate Karl Rove, but he provided the example for two election cycles for how to cheat the complete pandering/base dilemma - get pet causes that inspire the base on state ballots on election days. It's the reason he could get Bush reelected, but Obama might go down in flames after one term.
Technically speaking the Dems lack super majorities in Congress. But I get the point you're making.
According to James Carville's latest poll around 45% of Americans self-identify as conservatives, while under 20% self-identify as liberals.
That's not much of a base to lose...
That's overrated. Democrat positions on the issues always poll really well. So how do you reconcile the two? Besides, there is no national Conservative party(Not of any substance anyway).
That's generally because they're helpfully phrased without unpopular details.
E.g., the public option polls really well, the actual bill doesn't.
Re: So the Dems have lost them for good.
The same way the GOP lost a lot of voters for good in 2006 and 2008? Come on, never underestimate the fickleness of the American voter.
The thing is that both major parties are offering agendas that leave huge swaths of the electorate debating which one they hate worse. It shifts back and forth.
How many of Obama's self-imposed deadlines passed before a bill finally got out of the House? And the most recent vote was only to begin debate in the Senate. The Democrats are going to lose their stomach for this fight over the Thanksgiving break. They've already put a couple of votes on paper to reassure the base that they'll take on health care reform 'as soon as they get a solid majority'. If unemployment stays over 10% they'll have an excuse for punting and working on Porkulus 2.0 instead.
Megan - "With Obama's job approval ratings trending below 50%..."
intr.v., trend·ed, trend·ing, trends.
1. To extend, incline, or veer in a specified direction
The poll of polls that you referenced (Pollster.com) shows President Obama's approval rating at 48.4% and still falling at a significant rate.
Might I suggest that you could change this post's lede to read "President Obama's approval rating is trending below the 68% approval rating that he had on January 20, 2009" with absolutely no loss of accuracy or bias?
I would like everyone here to reflect on the larger implications in this matter. What you are saying is that any reform that does not have very solid public support must either be defeated or if passed must become a vehicle for the paty that pushed it to be defeated later. Recall too that the public was in favor of HCR until late in this summer, and that nothing be proposed here should come as a surprise to the public as the reform is based largely on proposals the Democrats made very openly last year while campaigning.
Do you really want a country where major (or even sub-major) reform and change are impossible? Where the status quo must always and everywhere prevail?
Meagan has fretted a number of times over how we will make reforms to solve our budgetary problems. Will those reforms be popular and impervious to the efforts of clever demagogues to gin up opposition?
You ought rather pray that this passes and that the Dems pay no serious price next year. That will bode well for the future in the larger picture. The deification of an unchangeable status quo absolutely will not.
Are you saying that all "reforms" must become unpopular as this one?
What you are saying is that any reform that does not have very solid public support must either be defeated or if passed must become a vehicle for the paty that pushed it to be defeated later.
Welcome to democracy. It sucks sometimes, but the alternatives are worse.
But the reason why the polls have fallen is that the bills actually have to deal with reality rather than the fluff of campaign rhetoric. Besides, President Obama did not campaign on an individual mandate, and now younger voters learn that they face fines and possible jail time if they do not purchase the government-approved health insurance that is required. Hence, younger voters are increasingly turning away from the bills in Congress. President Obama used to talk about lowering the costs of health insurance to the tune of $2,500 a year for Americans. Notice they are not mentioning that anymore, as everyone understands the bills in Congress will increase costs for most Americans. The various liberal health packages passed in states throughout the Union have all failed to rein in costs, and Massachusetts--even with its individual mandate--now has the highest premiums in the country and are facing double-digit increases next year. The status quo is unacceptable, but many Americans are beginning to realize that what might pass may be worse.
"Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities." -- Thomas Jefferson.
That's good advice, for several reasons. Sometimes there might be circumstances to justify it, sometimes a situation might be so weird or dire or freaky that it's the least bad option, but it's always risky on several levels.
It's even moreso when there isn't just a lack of support, but extensive active hostility in the electorate.
MM: Will Passing a "Signature Achievement"
Help Democrats in the Polls?
In the Polls, maybe. At the Polls, no way;
By 2010 the economy will be the only issue.
It is like a thermocline in the waters of opinion;
the MSM beaming on the surface, variable warm/cool
currents just below (where you swim), and cold fear
among the deep water dwellers, with little data flow
across the interface.
Does a placebo help a terminal patient ? In a way,
for a while. Do doctors still tell patients:
"Don't worry too much; It is just an ulcer, not
stomach cancer." Seems so.
I think the answer is that it depends on the economy.
If the economy is even worse off a year from now. People are going to look at health care reform and are going to wonder why Obama, Pelosi et al were taking their eye off the economy to pass health care reform. Lets face it, even if health care reform turns out well (a big if), in the short term, it probably won't result in much of a perceived difference.