If it was sold as "Medicare for everyone" the Republicans would have to convince millions of satisfied Medicare recipients to hate what they already know and like.
Actually Econo, it's
the Democrats who would have to convince millions of Americans who
aren't on Medicare, that they would be better off on Medicare than with their current plan...(or whatever plan the ACA ultimately leaves them with.)
Additionally they would have to convince millions of Americans that the federal government is capable administering effectively a huge new federal program, (or vast expansion of an existing program, if you prefer that language) that would involve the direct government take over of 1/6th of the economy....(And that the new proposal was being presented honestly, which the last one certainly wasn't, and to a certain extent still isn't)
I submit to you that in the present environment, in the wake of the current fiasco involving government's attempt to take on the far more modest tasks created by Obamacare, that would be a very,
very tough sell....
On top of all of that, they'd also have to come up with some scheme to pay for this huge new entitlement, or they'd leave themselves open to getting slapped around on that aspect of it as well....
Look, I'm not going to pretend that I know how this whole Obamacare thing is ultimately going to shake out; only
rubato a fool would do that. There are simply too many moving parts and unknowns at this point to speak with certainty about how this thing will look three or four years from now...
However, based on what has happened so far, and the shoes left to drop; like the huge impact this is going to have on employer-based insurance, and the consequences for rates in the individual markets if the March 31st enrollment targets aren't met. (and a new shoe we didn't even know about till recently...the fact that a sizable number of folks who signed up for Obamacare didn't actually have their info forwarded to the insurance companies on the back end...Meaning that after Jan.1st there'll be a bunch of news stories about people who thought they had coverage contacting their doctors and finding out that they don't...Happy New Year, Mr. President...) it's a pretty safe bet that Obamacare is going to be a net negative for any Democrat running for any Congressional seat that isn't gerrymandered in their favor, or any Senate seat that isn't in a state that is deep, deep blue...
Dave is right about this point; for the short term at least, politically Obamacare is likely to be "the gift that keeps on giving". Even under the most rosy scenarios that can be realistically conceived, (not absurdly fanciful scenarios, but positive ones that at least aren't on Fantasy Island) it is reasonable to assume that when November of next year rolls around, this transition is will have created millions of angry, unhappy people...
And angry, unhappy people are
precisely the sorts who show up to vote in disproportionate numbers in midterm elections...
So, for all these reasons, Obamacare is going to be a political monkey on the back of Democrats running for the House and Senate all over the country next fall, that's simply a political fact of life. Their party owns this thing. (Maybe four years from now the Dems will all be able to crow about it and say "I told you" so but that isn't going to help anybody facing a tough re-election in 2014.)
The best thing they can do is to try and minimize the damage (What Landrieu and others are doing is actually the
smart move; no matter what the guy who wrote the article in the OP thinks) and put some distance between themselves and the law in it's current form and basically run on an "I want to fix it so it
will work" platform....
But the Democrats
real secret weapon for staving off a disaster in the midterms, (something like a 20 seat loss in the House and losing control of the Senate ) is....
You guessed; the Grand Old Party...
As I've expressed before, I have
every confidence that my party can still piss this away...
Maybe we can shut the government down a couple of more times, and maybe our primary voters can nominate a new flock of cuckoo bird candidates who express their belief in things like "voluntary rape"...(Though there are some hopeful signs on that last part; in two recent Congressional special elections, the nut house candidate was defeated by a mainstream Conservative.)
The Democrats are sure not going to win any elections by letting the Republicans define the playing field and invent the rules of the game.
Yes, but the way they get out of that box isn't with a bunch of Happy Talk about Obamacare, or let alone trying to sell "Medicare for all"
...none of that will work in the time frame we're looking at...
No, the way they change the playing field is by getting
off of Obamacare and trying to make the election about
something else...
If I were advising a Democratic candidate in a tough re-election battle for the House or Senate, here's what I would tell them to do (in addition to hoping the Republicans fuck up.):
1.Put some distance between yourself and the current ACA law as well as this increasingly unpopular administration. Make some proposals to improve the law; point out the popular features, and make the case that what's good about it makes it worth fixing rather than chucking it.
2. Don't spend all day talking about Obamacare. Say and do the kinds of things in point one, but then move on to other issues and hammer at them relentlessly. A lot of the stuff that the GOP in the House will be proposing as part of a budget deal are likely to be budget cuts that will be very unpopular and even frightening to lots of people. Talk about those things, and when necessary embellish them. Talk about their unpopular social issue positions. (This will help you particularly with women) Get the Hispanic community in your state or district frightened and angered by the Republican foot dragging on Immigration Reform, and the minorities frightened by their social welfare spending proposals, (like slashing food stamps by 40 billion.)
Look at each of the groups in your constituency and find
something either in your opponent's position or in some position taken by other Republicans that you can tie your opponent to, to scare that voter segment with. (That shouldn't be too tough; the GOP have plenty of unpopular positions.)
In summary, the core of your strategy is to create as many frightened people as possible. This is because frightened people are the other big demographic, (besides angry and unhappy people) that vote disproportionately in midterm elections. For every voter your opponent is able to turn out who is angry and/or unhappy with Obamacare,
you must turn out a voter who is frightened of your opponent and/or the policies of their party. Your path to victory lies in having the frightened people who show up to vote out number the angry/unhappy people who turn out.
Now that strategy may look Machiavellian, (and not very inspiring or uplifting, and yes, even a tad depressing... but there's a reason Machiavelli has endured for so many centuries...) but that strategy reflects the contemporary political reality.
David Brooke had what I think was a very poignant observation last week on Meet The Press. He said that the party that will come out the loser in the mitderm elections is the one "that commits suicide last."
There are plenty of reasons to think, and arguments that can be made, for why
neither one of the parties should do well in 2014, but
somebody has to win.
This sounds like it could be a winning strategy for the Dems (for a change):
