Dan McLaughlin looks at several factors that will make the 2012 race different from the 1996 race. The one I think is most important is this:
...
3: Obamacare passed; Hillarycare didn’t: As unpopular as the Clinton Administration’s health care plan was, it wasn’t a major issue in the 1996 campaign because it had failed and, with Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress, it wasn’t coming back. (Ditto Clinton’s destructive BTU tax). Not so Obamacare, which remains very much a live issue. There’s clearly a decisive majority supporting repeal right now in the House, and possibly a majority could be mustered in the Senate (certainly if the GOP gains more seats in 2012), but obviously not enough votes to override Obama’s veto. Unless Mitt Romney wins the nomination, the GOP will almost certainly run a presidential candidate who can and will mount a full-throated campaign in favor of repealing the bill. The same will be broadly true of a number of Obama’s big-spending, big-regulating initiatives.
...
During the run up to the passage of Obamacare, I made the point that the only thing worse for the
Democrats than not passing it was passing it. They now have the worst of all possible worlds having passed it and decisively lost the house and precariously hung onto the Senate. This means they can't escape responsibility for it, and they can't blame Republicans for everything that goes wrong with it. It will remain a festering sore on the Democrat brand through at least the 2012 election.
Image via Wikipedia
Comments
Post a Comment