Health-Care Politics

Philip Klein has an interesting piece about the dynamic for the repeal/overturning of the new health-care law:

Though the public wasn't exactly rallying to support the law when Democrats were confidently defending it, by running away from it, Democrats virtually ensure that it will remain unpopular because the public will continue to be exposed more to the criticisms of the legislation than arguments in favor of it. As always, the possibility of GOP lawmakers becoming weak-kneed is the biggest obstacle to getting anything accomplished. But as long as ObamaCare remains unpopular and opposition is politically advantageous, it makes it more likely that Republicans will have the backbone to see through the repeal process.

On top of repeal, the continued unpopularity of the health care law could bolster legal challenges to the law's constitutionality. This was a point that Geoergetown Law Professor Randy Barnett emphasized to me when I spoke to him for a magazine piece.

"As public opposition to the mandate builds, this gives judges the fortitude they normally lack to enforce the Constitution against the will of Congress, which they deem to be the popular will," he said. "If it's not the popular will, they're a lot more willing to strike down laws that they otherwise would uphold."

These are good points. However, it should not be forgotten that what may be a major political strategy for many Democrats will be to talk down the law while at the same time working (behind the scenes if possible) to prevent any real changes to Obamacare.

These continued attacks upon Obamacare may continually fuel public opposition to the law, but "progressives" may be hoping that they can use the federal government's legislative structural bias against new legislation in order to prevent any authentic reform.

This strategy is one reason why people who are skeptical about Obamacare might be skeptical about supporting a Democrat who has suddenly "seen the light" and now opposes the law. Take West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin. Sure, Manchin now says that he supports the partial repeal of the law, but he stood proudly for it in the heat of the battle in early 2010. When push comes to shove, and a Democratic president or Democratic Senate leader asks Manchin to work against repeal, is it likely that he'll really refuse? At least, that is, if there's not an election right around the corner?

Two Approaches to Unemployment

Hot Air has up video of Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller saying on Fox News Sunday that unemployment benefits provided by the federal government are unconstitutional. In various forms, this video has been circulating the web, and lefty bloggers are eagerly pouncing upon it.

Chris Wallace presses Miller on this point---asking him multiple times why Miller believes these benefits to be unconstitutional---in part because Miller doesn't really want to answer this question. He looks somewhat uncomfortable and first tries to evade this topic entirely by talking in general terms about the size of the federal government. It's understandable why Miller doesn't want to focus on this matter: in the current economic climate, federal unemployment benefits are distinctly more popular than, say, Obamacare. (A disclaimer: the popularity of something does not reflect on its Constitutionality.)

Republican John Raese is running to replace Robert Byrd in West Virginia. He's walking a very different line about unemployment benefits. He's quoted in the National Review, saying,

“Government has to have a little soul to it. There’s nothing worse than to lay people off, and I’ve had that experience. . . . As long as you have unemployment insurance that is revenue-neutral, I don’t have a problem with that. I just don’t like it when they start printing money.”

A couple points arise in this contrast. The first is that it gives insight into the ambition of some so-called "Tea Party" candidates, who critique not only the excesses of the past few years or of the post-1960s welfare state but the whole of the New Deal's legacy.

The second is a hunch that many more Republican candidates will be following the example of Raese in talking about unemployment benefits than taking Miller's stance.

Options?

This Rasmussen poll of the West Virginia Senate race from last week shows one race where Tea Partiers and the right as a whole might find that a little attention gets big results.

In the first Rasmussen Reports post-primary survey of West Virginia’s U.S. Senate race, Democratic Governor Joe Manchin attracts 48% of the vote while Republican businessman John Raese earns 42%.

How did the race stand a few weeks ago? 51 Manchin/ 35 Raese. Raese is gaining on Manchin.

While West Virginia hasn't elected a Republican to the Senate in over 50 years, it is a state that has begun to move toward the Republicans. Even though Manchin is trying to portray himself as a moderate or even conservative Democrat, Republicans could successfully tie him to the national Democratic party (including his backing of Obamacare).

In short, this race could be an uphill battle, but it is definitely winnable for the GOP. Raese is very wealthy, so he might not need that much help in fund-raising, but I bet he could make use of more supporters on the ground and online. After all, West Virginia could be a place where the GOP could get a Reagan-endorsed Republican in the US Senate (yes, Raese was endorsed by the Gipper when he ran for the Senate in 1984).

Still Winnable

A new Rasmussen poll has been released about the West Virginia Senate race. The results are the same as earlier polling: the anointed Democratic frontrunner, Gov. Joe Manchin, is beatable. Yeah, he leads the newly announced Republican candidate, businessman John Raese, by 16 points (51-25). But a massively popular governor who only gets 51% against a state businessman who has just announced his candidacy isn't exactly in the strongest position. (Raese did have statewide races in 1984 and 2006, but his profile isn't exactly that high in voters' minds.)

Digging into the poll numbers a little more reveals that the Republican candidate does indeed have a path to victory. As Ed Morrissey notes, Raese only racks up 56% of the support of Republicans right now; Manchin has 29%. If Raese can win bring those Republicans back home (probably not the hardest task), he can take a big bite out of Manchin's lead. Raese already leads among independent voters by twelve points. And there could be much more potential for growth here. As Morrissey suggests:

And actually, the partisan splits are telling. Raese actually beats Manchin among independents, 42/30, even though 35% of unaffiliated voters don’t know Raese well enough to have an opinion of him. Only 7% of independents don’t have an opinion of Manchin, which means a lot of independents who do have an opinion don’t want to vote for him.

Currently, 43% of West Virginia voters view Manchin as a moderate, and 65% view him to be in the mainstream (only 40% believe Raese to be in the mainstream). Flipping some of those numbers could shake the foundation of Manchin's campaign.

Health-care could be a key wedge to pry Republicans and independents away from Manchin. Obamacare is wildly unpopular. 64% of voters want it repealed. Where does Manchin stand on Obamacare? He endorsed it.

With an approval rating of 32%, Obama himself isn't very popular in West Virginia. And many WV voters view the economy to be in rough shape and getting worse: 64% rate it as poor, and 63% say economic conditions are deteriorating.

If Republicans can connect Manchin to the national Democratic party, they can win over moderates, independents, and Republicans in West Virginia. Health-care reform, Obama's unpopularity, and the economy could prove keys to a Raese victory.

WV Sen: Capito Out

GOP Rep. Shelley Moore Capito bowed out of the race for Robert Byrd's West Virginia Senate seat. The Charleston Daily Mail has a roundup of some of the legal and strategic reasons behind Capito's exit from the race.

Capito's decision opens up the Republican nomination to a variety of possible contenders. A candidate must file by Friday. As I've written before, this is one race that Republicans should not give up. West Virginia is favorable territory for 2010, and a little money could go a long way.

The key thing to remember: likely Democratic nominee Manchin is vulnerable. He supported Obamacare (imagine all the ads that could be put together from this video of Manchin endorsing the health-care "reform"). Manchin may enjoy high numbers now, but an assertive Republican campaign could easily make voters think twice about sending him to Capitol Hill.

Not a Lock

There seems to be a slightly growing underground sentiment that it is not worth running a serious Republican candidate against likely Democratic candidate Gov. Joe Manchin in the likely special election to fill the Senate seat of the late Robert Byrd. A Rasmussen poll showing Manchin leading Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) 53-39 would seem, according to this sentiment, to be proof of the folly against running against Manchin.

It seems to me that it would be a considerable strategic blunder for Republicans not to contest this seat. West Virginia is hugely favorable territory for a Republican pick-up. Republican presidential candidates have won the state for the last three presidential elections; Bush and McCain each won it by about 13 points in 2004 and 2008, respectively. Though West Virginia has a long tradition of supporting Democrats, and Democrats still dominate in many state and local offices, the state is deeply dissatisfied with the current status quo in Washington, DC. Obama's approval rating? 35%, according to multiple polling outfits.

It's true that Manchin is hugely popular in West Virginia, but he can still be tied to the national Democratic party. While his approval rating sits at the sky-high value of 80%, he at the moment seems only able to muster 53% against Capito. This number suggests that voters are capable of approving of him as governor without backing him for Senate. A Republican candidate for Senate could build on that sentiment.

And health-care is definitely an electoral albatross that Republicans can hang around his neck. 67% of West Virginia voters want health-care "reform" repealed. In March of 2010, Manchin indicated that he supported passing Obamacare. He will no doubt try to run away from that position now by emphasizing his various objections to the health-care bill, but the fact of the matter is that, at the end of the day, he supported passing a bill that 67% of WV voters now want repealed. He is also on record as being very open to a "public option."

Let's look again at the 53-39 match-up of Manchin and Capito. First of all, that's only a 14-point deficit for the Republican. Manchin's lead is hardly insurmountable; consider how much races in California, Florida, Massachusetts, etc. have swung around in the polling. Secondly, he's pulling this lead against a member of Congress whose district only encompasses about a third of the state's voters. Manchin starts off with a much higher public profile, but he's not exactly running away with this race. Capito has plenty of space for her candidacy to grow. She has a 59% approval rating, with 8% of voters being unsure about her. Opinion about Capito does not seem fixed on a statewide level. Only 11% of voters view her very unfavorably; 23% view her somewhat unfavorably, so she could probably push some of those voters over into the favorable column.

In the probable election to come, Manchin will try to dance away from the Obama agenda (citing his objections to cap-and-trade, etc.). But Republicans can tie him to this agenda. The passage of the health-care bill was just one instance of supposedly "independent" Democrats marching to the White House's tune; every single Democrat in the Senate voted for Obamacare.

If the GOP is serious about retaking the Senate, it needs to put serious effort into every single seat that has even the remotest potential of flipping. West Virginia is no place to surrender before the fight begins.