Nate’s “Common Sense” on ObamaCare

Nate Silver has a post purporting to show that it is “common sense” that SCOTUS overturning ObamaCare (Nate calls it the “health care bill,” which it is assuredly not) would not be good for Obama.

He argues his point by pointing to the very same data I did when arguing there are things Obama could do to make a SCOTUS loss work to his advantage. Nate notes that Obama doesn’t need ObamaCare one way or another to enthuse his base. Nate acknowledges that swing voters–the people who will decide the November election–don’t like ObamaCare. And then he notes that these same swing voters in general have a good opinion of SCOTUS. Nate summarizes the “common sense” he derives from this data this way:

However, the argument that the bill being struck down would actually help Mr. Obama seems to have little grounding in the evidence — nor, frankly, in common sense. Among the voters that are most critical to Mr. Obama’s re-election prospects, the Supreme Court is more popular than the health care bill. If the justices declare one of the president’s signature accomplishments to be unconstitutional, it would not be a boon to him.

The people who will decide the election don’t like ObamaCare and so–Nate’s common sense says–if law they don’t like goes away (in part or whole?), they will be less likely to vote for the guy who brought them that law they don’t like that has gone away. “Common sense”!

Let’s unpack the things Nate doesn’t talk about, in addition to his calling a health insurance law a health care bill.

First, he does what ObamaCare boosters tend to do in these discussions, not distinguish between a scenario where just the mandate is thrown out, and one in which the entire law is thrown out (due, largely, to the Administration’s own arguments about severability). Each scenario, it seems, would have different results. If SCOTUS threw out that part of the law people disliked most, it might make everyone–except the insurance companies and those arguing that a mandate is the only way to make this work–happy, particularly if the Administration promised to find a solution that would make the whole thing work (they won’t). Whereas if SCOTUS threw out the whole thing, it would lead people to become aware of the parts of the law people really do like, such as coverage for those with pre-existing conditions and kids under 26, and therefore develop a new appreciation for the law SCOTUS shot down. I think there are potential upsides and downsides for Obama in both those scenarios, but they are two different scenarios, and any “common sense’ ought to acknowledge that.

And then there’s the other assumption: that if SCOTUS threw out ObamaCare Obama would be utterly passive; that reactions to the SCOTUS decision would be entirely unaffected by Obama’s response because (presumably) there wouldn’t be one.

We already know that Obama will respond because he’s doing so already–by attacking the SCOTUS that, as Nate points out, is better liked by the people who will decide November’s election than ObamaCare is (in response, the 5th Circuit has gotten an order of magnitude more petty, threatening to let the whole thing devolve into an intra-branch squabble no one will like). I have already suggested that’s probably the least productive response; if that’s going to be Obama’s response, I agree, losing at SCOTUS will hurt him.

In any case, we know that if ObamaCare is shot down, Obama will respond. The question is whether he will respond in a way that helps his electoral chances or hurts them.

How voters will respond to a SCOTUS defeat is partly contingent on Obama’s actions. He can respond in a way that appeals to those swing voters–perhaps by offering alternatives that address the thing people like least about the law, the mandate–or he can respond in a way that exacerbates precisely the poll numbers Nate points to by doing what he is doing.

I’m not saying a SCOTUS defeat (of the mandate or the entire law) will help or hurt Obama. But I am saying that he can influence that response and–possibly–use a defeat to turn this thorn in his popularity around. I’m increasingly pessimistic he will do so, mind you, but he is not a passive actor in affecting the response.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

53 Responses to Nate’s “Common Sense” on ObamaCare

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel @JimWhiteGNV Dunno. But in 2012 Romney optimistically created record merging my mom's income w/my zip code & I still get pantyhose catalogs.
2mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel “Ian, the economy really has largely recovered. Are you on crack?” https://t.co/0zFvlO8iS2
3mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Years late, but let's hope real relief takes place. https://t.co/HwYpDQMd6K
4mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV How many hops away from Cruz are you? https://t.co/vtn1eZ4t8T
7mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @joanneleon: Temper tantrum chickenhwk warmongers cdn't overthrow, destablz anothr country, slice up spoils Poor u. So go fight. AQ's re…
10mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV Riker is a great hunter! Brought this corn snake in from the garage. We rescued it for release outside. https://t.co/ZnsGtxGxVF
14mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @Scout_Finch: The mugshot we’ve been waiting for since 2014. #Oregonstandoff https://t.co/OXp2ze5wVj
26mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @Cole_Figueroa: Congratulations to @ufphysics department and its contributions to @LIGO Extremely excited and proud of the department. #…
34mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @nwarikoo: Flint TV station reports that Flint water has damaged fire trucks and equipment, including "brand new $462,000 pump" https://…
35mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @repdonnaedwards: Republicans LOVE their privatization. First Flint, today it's our nation’s (the safest) Air Traffic Control system! #D
35mreplyretweetfavorite
JimWhiteGNV RT @LobeLog: Why is David Sanger of the @nytimes reporting a Hillary #Clinton attack against Bernie #Sanders as fact? https://t.co/iAKc3HzD
53mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @Tedards @anthony_farda @AdamSmith_USA @JoyAnnReid Clinton didn't so much back then, but has since. Both candidates should stop this junk.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
April 2012
S M T W T F S
« Mar   May »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930