September 10, 2009
Did Obama Move the Meter?
John Hinderaker at Power Line helpfully reports that before President Barack H. Obama's grand address on ObamaCare, the Rasmussen tally stood at 44% of likely voters supporting, 53% opposing. John concludes:
Those numbers have been pretty much stable for a while; it will be interesting to see whether and how they move over the next week or two.
He makes no predictions, but I'm not gunshy; I say No, Obama's speech last night did not move the meter; we won't see any jump outside the statistical margin of error. Here's why I so predict:
Self-selected, partisan audience
First, as the enigmatic and mercurial "Karl" reports on Patterico's Pontifications and on Hot Air's rogues' gallery, nobody but diehard Obamaniacs and weed-dwelling political junkies was likely to watch the speech in the first place.
In today's followup, Karl notes how easy it was to predict the media response:
Sure enough, CNN did a flash poll showing that ObamaCare a 14-point gain among speech-watchers. Buried at the end of the story is the fact that the sample of speech-watchers in the poll was 45% Democratic and 18% Republican. For comparison, consider that the most recent Gallup survey of party ID among adults had 35% of Americans as Democrats and 28% as Republicans. A 14-point swing among a sample that skewed to the left is not surprising. Regular tracking polls are unlikely to show anything near it.
If the viewership was heavily skewed towards those who already support Obama, hence likely support ObamaCare as well, that dramatically limits any impact it can have on the real polling. It might increase the enthusiasm of ObamaCare supporters (though I doubt it, considering how little information, how few new arguments he offered); but it's difficult for a speech to Obama's own cheerleaders to increase the number of people who support him.
(Contrariwise, it is always possible to decrease the number who support you, by saying something stupid that alienates your base. I don't believe Obama did so, so don't look for the speech to turn more people against ObamaCare.)
A highly partisan speech
Despite repeated protestations by Obamic apologists that the One "reached out to Republicans," the tone was obvious early in the address:
But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.
Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. [As another famous leader was fond of remarking, "no more debate, we need action, action, action!" B.M. would be proud of B.O. --DaH]
Any guess who the Obamacle means by "some?" The partisan nature was set in quick-dry cement by the halfway point:
Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.
Obama did include a few feeble nods towards the right:
Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care....
Finally, many in this chamber -- particularly on the Republican side of the aisle -- have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.
But nothing definite, no actual promises, veto threats, or lines in the sand. And of course, again and again, when the TOTUS invites members of Congress to la Casa Blanca to hash out language, he invites only Democrats -- and "progressive" Democrats to boot.
Liberal Democrats might perceive the speech to be even handed; but they already support ObamaCare. Where Obama desperately needs help is among moderate to conservative Democrats and among Republicans; so it's their perceptions that count... and as House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA, 92%) demonstrates, the latter, at least, perceive the speech as entirely unilateral:
CANTOR: Well, listen, I mean, obviously, this was, for an Obama speech, something that I was taken aback by in the partisan nature of the speech. I mean, listen, we all know that the status quo is unacceptable, and the president says the status quo is unacceptable. But when he goes and starts pointing fingers and casting blame, I think it's just a smokescreen, Sean.
Listen, it's not just special interests or Republicans that stand in his way. The Democrats are firmly in control of both bodies in Congress. He's the president. They've just been unable to lead in terms of the type of reform that the American people want to see....
HANNITY: All right, at one point in the president's speech tonight, Congressman, he says, "Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics." And then later in the speech, he goes on to say -- and this is specifically -- "Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing, that the deficit will grow, families will go bankrupt, businesses will close, more Americans will lose their coverage when they need it most, and more will die as a result."
Is that a scare tactic by the president?
CANTOR: I mean, you know, again, I really sat there aghast with those kind of claims and the hyperbole that was used. I mean, we need some adult sense of responsibility here. We need to try and produce the reforms that we know that the American people want.
Republicans and probably non-liberal Democrats tend to tune out when they hear red-meat partisanship for the leftest of the Left.
Regardless of the two points above, it might be possible to gain support by such a speech if new arguments or data were presented that were tough to refute. "Facts are stubborn things," as John Adams insisted; and so are valid, compelling conclusions drawn from those stubborn facts.
But Obama presented no new data -- or at least no new accurate data; what data he did offer is ambiguous, to say the least... and a bushel of utter falsehoods, to more accurately characterize. And the arguments that went with the "facts" are disingenuous to the point of being loony. Several examples summed up by National Review Online:
Neither the government-heavy substance nor the dishonest and demagogic tactics have changed. The president denounced "scare tactics" -- in a speech that warned that failure to go along with his plans would cause people to die. He pretended that preventive care will "save money," even though this claim has been authoritatively and repeatedly debunked. He claimed, in defiance of every independent assessment, that the legislation before Congress will reduce costs. He denied that the legislation he supports will spend federal dollars on abortion, which can be true only if he has some private and novel definition of "federal dollars." He denied that it will cover illegal immigrants, even though Democratic congressmen have specifically voted not to require verification of legal residence.
Obama told people with insurance that "nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have." Note the careful formulation, which is technically true but deliberately misleading. The president knows full well that his plan will cause millions of people to lose their current coverage and that they are not going to catch the fact that his statement does not quite deny it. Obama said that "what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan" is "more security and stability." Many of them can, in fact, expect to lose their coverage while paying higher premiums and taxes. Many other Americans can expect to lose their jobs thanks to Obama’s "employer mandate."
It should be clear to all that you cannot persuade those who don't already agree with you if they consider your arguments ignorant, mendacious, and laughable. Ronald Reagan succeeded in bringing many people into his camp who had previously been ardent foes of Republicans and conservatives precisely because he was so good at making arguments that even many on the Left found unanswerable.
For example, with the Soviet Union installing thousands of new missiles in Europe, it's tough to argue that it's somehow "destabilizing" for the United States to follow suit. And with America's economy struggling under a Carter-induced malaise, it was hard for even liberals to resist Reagan's call for loosening restrictions, lowering taxes and interest rates, and allowing American ingenuity, creativity, and industry to lead us out of stagflation and recession.
Reagan's arguments compelled because they were (a) logical, and (b) based upon sound evidence that anyone could verify: Was the Soviet Union an evil empire? Was the economy in terrible trouble? Who could deny it, other than those ideologically committed to America's decline and fall?
But Barack Obama's "arguments" for more government control of health care -- and beyond that, for the "fierce urgency of now" (whatever Ted Kennedy meant by that endorsement of Obama last year) that requires Congress to pass ObamaCare so fast they haven't even time to read the bill -- is (a) paralogical, and (b) so dependent upon the fabrication of surreal factoids, invented for the sole purpose of foisting ObamaCare on the American people, that it will drive supporters away, if they have a lick of intelligence and honesty.
Of course, if they had a lick of intelligence and honesty, they wouldn't be ObamaCare supporters, would they?
The messenger is the massage
Finally, a truly charismatic speaker can lull people's good sense and lure them into supporting that which they would ordinarily recoil from in a heartbeat. A "rock star" can overcome all the previous obstacles and still make headway for his cause.
But as all polls show, the president's magical charm is already wearing thin after just eight months in office. He no longer has charisma to squander on a health-reform scheme that most Americans emphatically reject. He is no longer the rock star that some had supposed him... which means he never was one in the first place.
The main criterion for rock stardom is durability: No matter how many missteps, he can still command an audience and lead it into temptation. But when a supposed star flames out so quickly, it's clear he was actually just a one-hit wonder, yesterday's cold pizza: Some may still like it, but it just hasn't the sizzle it had when chef brought it fresh from the oven on a big metal plate.
Obama alone can no longer move mountains; he must rely on more quotidian paths to conversion... paths that are rapidly being reclaimed by the jungle of politics.
The people have awakened to the fact that there's no "there" there in ObamaCare, and there never was; the drums of August proved that. There are no new arguments or facts under the sun that will help push it; the more people learn about it, the more they hate it; and the president himself has flat run out of charisma-gas.
It's still possible the Democrats will manage a jam-down (though I increasingly think they never will); but if they do, it will not be due to popular demand.
Barack Obama's final, desperate, make-or-break play to stir a populist uprising in favor of ObamaCare has failed. The numbers will not move significantly towards ObamaCare because of this or any future speech.
Cross-posted on Hot Air's rogues' gallery...
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 10, 2009, at the time of 3:03 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3875
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Did Obama Move the Meter?:
» Barack H. Obama: Mr. Meter Mover? from Big Lizards
On Thursday last, September 10th, the day after President Barack H. Obama's grand ObamaCare speech to a session of joint congressmen -- or whatever that was -- I made a bold prediction: John Hinderaker at Power Line helpfully reports that... [Read More]
Tracked on September 16, 2009 4:10 PM
The following hissed in response by: Geoman
Here is what is so puzzling. If the president is honest, then....
1) Let's put in a definitive and comprehensive ban on illegal immigrants accessing Obamacare.
2) Let's add in medical tort reform now, instead of just farting around with it.
3) Let's detail all the ways we will cut waste and fraud from medicare, and put that in the bill, now.
4) Let's have a definitive exclusion in the bill for abortion.
5) Let's lift all restrictions on where insurance companies can sell their services, and what must be inside every plan. Let the market decide what services the consumer's want.
6) Let's make insurance portable so getting fired doesn't mean loosing insurance.
I mean, if it is urgent and all, why not agree to all this stuff, bake it in the cake, and co-opt at least some level of Republican support? Republicans will swallow a lot if they could get the provisions listed above.
And yes, some of these items might be a bit unpalatable to the left, but heck, if thousands of people are dying because they don't have health insurance, what's the big deal about leaving out a few items to get more support? Can't you always pass these more controversial provisions later on a straight line party vote?
Unless, of course, you are flat out lying about your support for these provisions. Or things like abortion and illegals are more important than the "crises" you have invented. Or insuring people isn't really the goal, control of the economy is.
Really, Obama is easily the worst president in generations. Both Clinton and Carter are proving to be better than this guy. All the worst aspects of every previous president rolled into one package.
The following hissed in response by: Bagehot99
The list of speeches that people remember is small; Gettysburg; Iron Curtain; Berlin Wall; &c. This speech was simply more of the same. The man's an empty, very left-wing suit. I hope against hope that this abomination fails, because he truly believes this is all a game with a winner and a loser, but he's wrong. The public option and its affiliates are economic hemlock. I come from the land of the NHS and I can assure you, it's a bad joke.
The following hissed in response by: Dick E
I don’t like the idea of illegal immigrants getting subsidized health care either. But let’s say we put the provision you propose into law. Who enforces it and how?
As for who, the only possibilities I can think of are insurance companies, medical service providers and employers. (Of course, if you crack down on employers for failing to police ObamaCare eligibility, that will be another reason to drop medical coverage.) Any other suggestions?
Method of enforcement could be via a national ID card -- but that’s a whole ’nother kettle of worms. Absent national ID cards, we could require insurers, providers and employers to inspect birth certificates, passports, nationalization certificates, green cards or …
And what is the standard complaint about how illegal immigrants (and other uninsured people) get medical care? They go to the emergency room for sniffles, cuts and bruises, as well as for real emergencies. So what will illegals do if ObamaCare passes (shudder) and they are excluded from it? They’ll still go to the ER for everything. And they will get care, for the same reasons hospitals serve them now.
Imagine the scene. “Good evening, sir, and welcome to St. Malicious’s ER. I see your arm is a bloody stump; you say a shark bit it off? OK, can see your insurance card? Oh, you don’t have one? Then I’ll need to see proof that you are a citizen or legal resident. Otherwise it’s cash on the barrelhead or hit the road.” Sure.
In terms of waste, fraud and abuse, I suppose there could be some issues that require new legislation. But, in general, if it really is as big a problem as our Dear Leader claims, and if the fruit hangs as low as he implies, what in the hell are we waiting for?
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved