We started organizing for 2012 here locally so I’ll give you my initial thoughts. About a month ago, we met with the regional OFA coordinator, and he gave us the broad overview of what they’re planning in Ohio. About two weeks ago, an OFA organizer arrived at out house. We had agreed to host the local organizer, and this first young woman stayed about a week until she was reassigned to a county east of where I live. I think it’s safe to say she was promoted. Immediately after, another organizer arrived, and we’re working with her. We have not had much contact or conversation because I leave in the morning before she does, and she works much, much longer hours than I do, so she returns after I go to bed.
The young woman who is the organizer is staying upstairs in what was my daughter’s room, before my daughter grew up and moved away to Pittsburgh. Our house was built in the 1940’s by the small town version of a wealthy industrialist. The upstairs was designed as a suite for the original owner’s twin boys. It has a room with two built in desks along one wall and shelving and drawers lining two walls, a bathroom, and then there’s really large room down the hall for sleeping. There’s also an odd little room up there that houses a giant safe. The safe is about 3 feet high and heavy as hell. I cannot imagine how they got it up the narrow stairs. The wealthy industrialist was perhaps a little eccentric and paranoid, because this is one of several secret stashes in the house. There is an inner cabinet that opens with a key inside a corner kitchen cabinet and a storage area about the size of a bureau drawer dropped in one of the bedroom floors so the lid is flush with the floor. Staying with us,the organizer will have plenty of spots to hide her jewels or stacks of cash, you know, alongside mine.
Last week, she set up an event at the local Steelworkers hall. She had 25 “commits”, or people who said they would attend. Of those 25 commits, ten actually showed up. As a comparison, in 2008 we had about 40 reliable volunteers, so that’s not a bad start. Of the ten who came, I know two. That’s good I don’t know all but two because it means we have different “lists”. She’s not contacting the same people I know and might have called. When we combine our lists, she should be able to double her number. Tonight I will introduce her to the county Labor Council and she will add to her list at their meeting.
Obama For America (OFA) volunteers are making phone calls on health care in a county nearby so that’s the tentative plan here. CNN came out to cover the phone banks, so it’s not a big secret. The phone calls are to Democrats and independents, and they are intended to both inform people on the law and determine which parts of the law (if any) people are familiar with.
Here’s a CNN poll on overturning the health care law:
According to the poll, 43% of Americans approve of the law, up five points from last November, with 50% saying they disapprove, down six points from last autumn. Of those who currently disapprove of the measure, 37% say they oppose the law because it’s too liberal, with 10% saying the give the measure a thumbs down because it’s not liberal enough.
“The views of Republicans and Democrats on the health care law have barely budged since last year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “But support among independents grew from 32 percent to 41 percent since November.”
Steve
Kay, since you write a lot about the media’s coverage of the health care law and what’s actually in it, I wondered what your reaction might be to this post, and whether that reaction would be printable.
Enhanced Voting Techniques
This news that the majority thinks the laws aren’t enough?
The extra irony sauce is that 37% will bitch and whine how horrible health care cost are too.
Democratic Nihilist, Keeper Of Party Purity
Fifty percent of Americans are idiots. That sounds about right.
TaMara (BHF)
I’ve always wanted a house with secret spaces. It sounds lovely. We may need pictures. You know, to distract us from the stress of the election season and it being open season on women and all.
BTW, I am always so impressed by all you do and appreciate all the hard work. As Ohio goes…
Inkadu
Hooray for the use of “from… to.” hopefully it’s a trend. I hate “to… from, ” which I find tertibly confusing.
JWL
It would be helpful if you explained what the initials OFA stands for.
Kay
@TaMara (BHF):
The bolt is shot in the safe because we don’t know the combination, so could never open it if it were not stuck open. it’s impossible to close, thank God. The first thing I thought of when I saw it was “I would climb in there if I were a little kid, and the door would shut”.
rlrr
A more interesting pole would be one which shows what percentage of these people actually know what’s in the law.
Kay
@JWL:
Sure. I’ll edit.
Culture of Truth
General Stuck (Bravo Nope Zero)
I read that poll, and it was a perfect example of the disconnect of the American electorate between the meta politics of issues and GOP narrative, and their opinions of individual components of the big issues. Or, by solid majorities, they favor the different components of the ACA, but when they consider it as a political unit, they are still wary of it. It is like that on most of the other issues we have, where the public agrees with dems mostly, when policy is fed them in small chunks, — then but, but the republicans said this bad thing about the big picture , or bill, and we’re not so sure, so we are going to contradict ourselves and hedge our bets with pollsters. It is how the wingnuts stay in the game, keep the fog of uncertainty in place, with lies and negative campaigning, year around, and it is usually just enough for them to slip in under the wire. some of the time.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@rlrr: It would also be nice if they asked the people who think the law isn’t liberal enough if they would like the law repealed.
Kay
@Culture of Truth:
This was the conventional wisdom, but it doesn’t seem to be true. The health care law is most popular with people under 30. Go figure.
TaMara (BHF)
@Kay:
Oh, absolutely. You know it would be the first and best place a kid would pick during a rainy afternoon of hide ‘n seek.
I used to hide in my mom’s china hutch…because you know, we were too poor to have china. ;-)
jibeaux
FWIW, Jeff Toobin doesn’t think it’s going too well up at SCOTUS. Apparently there are political justices or something?
Veritas
ObamaCare is going down, down, dooooooooooooooown, baby.
Remember Bush v. Gore? Get ready to relive it, and then some.
Liberals will be hitting the roof over the decision when it comes down. Can’t wait to see all the morons on Kos really blow their stacks on this one.
Fwiffo
@jibeaux: Behold my complete lack of surprise.
jibeaux
@Kay: it presumably let a lot of people up to 26 stay covered with their parents.
jibeaux
@Fwiffo: Yes. I am blown out of the water. Hard to believe about someone who once said that a finding of actual innocence was not a bar to a criminal conviction, but I guess it must be true.
Kay
@Steve:
Thanks, I heard that cited somewhere.
I love newspapers. I buy three. But if they are just going to print competing political narratives on the health care law, I don’t need a newspaper for that. There’s too much coverage of the debate and not enough coverage of the law.
Just as a practical matter, can we have a debate if no one knows what’s in the law? What is that? It’s a debate about political narratives. It’s not a debate about the health care law. Why did so many old people (polled) accept such a preposterous idea, that Nancy Pelosi and Obama set up panels designed to kill them? I think that’s a failure on their part, and I don’t feel as if I’m setting this incredibly high bar.
middlewest
Well the online freak-out is well underway, Obamacare is DOOOMED because the justices asked tough questions, everyone give up, the new Lochner era is here, etc., etc.
High point of the day: Ginsburg has to explain to Alito what insurance is like he’s a five-year-old.
Veritas
@jibeaux:
HA-HA!
So, Obambi’s signature accomplishment, the one he spent 90% of his political capital on, the one that probably lost control of the House for him, is going to be struck down.
Ba-da ba ba baaaaaaah….I’m Lovin’ It!
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Veritas: Except a good portion of those DK would like the law to be struck down. They think it’s a give away to the insurance industry. They think the law is propping up the insurance industry and keeping it from collapsing faster.
rlrr
Elections have consequences…
jibeaux
Sometimes people wonder why there aren’t any conservative versions of Stewart or Colbert or even Maher, someone who can maximize the strength and power that humor and wit have when done skillfully, but use it for a right wing cause. I don’t know why they wonder that.
Bruce S
So what the CNN poll shows is that 53% of people support the ACA or a stronger version of universal health insurance and 37% oppose ACA on “conservative” grounds. That’s not bad. Frankly, my guess is that among that 53% there are more than 10% who would approve of a more effective version of universal insurance – something like “Medicare for all” – but answer the question in broader context than their hobby-horse preferences or splitting hairs. Given how complicated the law actually is, how much bitter demagogy has been launched against it, that it hasn’t entirely kicked in yet, how much of it is in outline and needs to be shaped up as states proceed on their part, etc., these poll numbers are pretty good.
Steve
@Kay: David Brooks, just today, said the IPAB has the power of life and death. The power of life and death! Like we’ve made Medicare supplemental insurance illegal or something.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
As someone points out at DK, Kennedy also suggested that with health insurance, it may require a special push – a mandate – to get everyone to participate.
Kay
@middlewest:
I
This is SCOTUSBLOG and they’re more measured than pundits, so I’d go with their take. I do think the Scalia-integrity-believers are going to have some splain’in to do if it’s 5-4 to uphold.
Kay
@Steve:
They’re all such absolute frauds on fiscal conservatism, so they have to hide behind these big Social Science themes. Brooks is loathsome. I much prefer honest, straightforward, unapologetic paid hacks. I’ll take a Beck over a Brooks any day.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@jibeaux:
How dare you suggest that SCOTUS won’t decide this based solely on legal precedent and logical arguments.
__
One is only allowed to discuss the court in terms of narrow scope, with the appropriate humility and grace. Preferably while dressed in sackcloth and ashes.
jncc
Unfortunately, it looks like the ACA, or at least the linchpin individual mandate is dead.
Kennedy said that the gov’t had a heavy burden and that that mandate would fundamentally change relationship between gov’t and people.
A shame.
Steve
@Kay: Brooks makes so much noise about how important it is for us to have an adult conversation, but at the end of the day he is never willing to actually have that conversation himself. Okay, health care costs are getting really high. Okay, the Medicare system is probably wasting money on some procedures that aren’t really justifiable. So what’s your solution, Mr. Brooks? “Gosh, I dunno, but it sure isn’t DEATH PANELS!!!” Bleh.
4tehlulz
@Veritas: Lose your job, then get cancer. Have fun.
Then again, given your track record, it will be upheld 8-1.
Steve
@jncc: All this jumping to conclusions is giving me a migraine.
JGabriel
Tom Goldstein @ SCOTUSBlog:
__
SCOTUS is proud to announce another new production of Wm. Shakespears’s Hamlet, starring Anthony Kennedy.
__
.
Valdivia
I love that everyone is already declaring the law dead and the people who were there who actually heard the argument have a bit of a more nuanced read of this. Though it does seem the Solicitor general was not very well prepared.
Martin
@jncc:
So did Medicare. That’s not lost on the justices. And yeah, they ask hard questions – that’s the point of the exercise. And it’s also not lost on the justices (most of whom are Medicare age) that the cost and effectiveness of programs like Medicare are inextricably tied to the ability of people to manage their healthcare prior to age 65, at least for those that live that long.
Yeah, there is a heavy burden, but who wasn’t aware of that? It’s taken 60 years to get here, after all.
Hill Dweller
@jncc:
Kennedy(and Roberts surprisingly) was also pretty skeptical of the challengers’ claims of unconstitutionality.
That said, striking down the law isn’t going to be a boon for the right wing, especially with Romney, who implemented the exact same plan while governor, as their candidate.
I suspect we’ll see a resulting push for single-payer(medicare for all) if it is struck down.
Kay
@JGabriel:
I think it will be a shame if we make this out to be that one lawyer lost this at oral argument, because I don’t think it’s true, but saying that will give the more partisan justices cover, so we can all be assured of their “impartiality” and adherence to precedent, and things go on as before.
I saw that’s where Toobin is going: the single lawyer lost it. I don’t know about that.
Valdivia
it should be noted that it seems that both Roberts and Kennedy had a hard time buying any of Clemente’s arguments
Kay
@Martin:
I’m not freaking out, Martin, but I do have to say I have never seen a single indication from any of the 5 we’re talking about that they have any idea how people live out here in the cheap seats. Not once. Trusting that they’re making some practical, common sense connection between themselves and the rest of the population does not seem to me to be a good bet.
Martin
@Hill Dweller:
Eventually that’s where we’re going to wind up no matter what happens in the court.
Citizen_X
@Veritas: Gosh, I would hate for the law to be shot down. But I would be happy for you! You would get to break out your little VICTORY! flag, and god knows you haven’t been able to do that in a long while
Valdivia
@Kay:
I agree Kay, also I think that the reactions from the pundits we are seeing that so hysterical are in part because they know the argument by the plaintiffs is bs. They can’t even believe there would be skepticism over the law so when the hard questions were asked it is read as the death of the law. I think the people who are real experts not just media people, saw a more calibrated situation.
Punchy
Where’s eemom to tell us this is an easy 8-1 vote in favor of upholding the law? What about Burns to run around and tell us how stupid we are for thinking the justices dont care about precedent and hypocrisy?
Hill Dweller
@Martin: But I fear no politician will want to go near health care for a long time if it does get struck down.
As an aside, I can’t believe Scalia actually used the silly winger ‘broccoli’ talking point during questioning.
JGabriel
@Kay:
__
I agree. This looks more like typical Kennedy dithering and back-and-forthing rather than the SG blowing it.
__
I know a lot of reporters and pundits are already following Toobin’s lead, but, like you, I’m more inclined to give SCOTUSBlog greater credence for the time being. I’m also awaiting and interested to see what Dahlia Lithwick’s take on today’s arguments will be over at Slate.
__
.
Kay
@Valdivia:
I can only speak from my experience, which is in a county court, but if the judge or magistrate starts parroting the other side, like Scalia did, I am not a happy person as to outcome. In a sense you say what you want them to write, and (hopefully) they repeat it back!
But I don’t know jack shit about supreme court practice so maybe it’s different there.
JenJen
Twitter is downright depressing today, with all the tweets from SCOTUS-watchers I actually respect.
Sam Stein does point out that conventional wisdom still points to ACA mandate being upheld, and that the reports from the Court today are far, far outside what many legal watchers and scholars still believe. Did the administration’s lawyers just really screw the pooch today, or what?
Linnaeus
I also think we shouldn’t be too quick to jump to conclusions based on the questioning by the justices so far. Toobin’s trying to generate news as much as he is trying to report it.
If the law is stuck down, or at least the crucial parts of it, then it’s time to go all-out on a better system.
Martin
@Hill Dweller:
I don’t think they have a choice. For all the GOPs bluster, they know they have to deal with it. They know the lack of a <65 health insurance system is killing Medicare. They know the free market cannot do this. They won't say that, of course, and they're happy to say the opposite so long as the Dems are willing to take the political hit on actually trying to solve the problem, but the GOP is just as aware that it's a problem that needs to solved.
It'll come down to 2 things, I think:
1) Will the rest of PPACA survive if the mandate is struck down?
2) Will the public's view of the law turn around as more of it goes into effect?
If the law otherwise holds, I think we're going to roll into 2014 with a law that the public increasingly supports – and then we're going to hit this point where the budget blows up because the mandate is missing. They're going to have to swap something in for it. Repealing the whole thing will simply be too unpopular.
Valdivia
@JenJen:
this is why twitter is evil, no room for nuance.
so on 140 characters pundits are declaring the law in trouble. but on ScotusBlog were actual expert are reporting it looks like it was a tough day all around, though tougher for our side.
Kay
@JGabriel:
I read him in the New Yorker and his SCOTUS commentary is much more pointed than it is on CNN. I feel like I’m watching some conflict in progress with him, where he’s both growing more cynical about that court, while fighting to believe in its legitimacy. It’s sort of interesting to watch it take place in public, although he sounds like two different people, so that’s a little disconcerting.
He may need therapy if this law goes down. I think his known world starts slipping :)
“Who can predict!?” Probably not a good place for someone like him.
Valdivia
@Kay:
oh I think that is right Kay. But to go from Alito and Scalia being outright skeptical to the law is doomed is quite another thing. I liked knowing that both Kennedy and Roberts were skeptical of both sides, so I really think there is an element of trying to make today the most dramatic it could be, by the pundits.
jncc
I know that the Justice from Elsinore poked at Clement as well, but I was stunned that he said that gov’t had a heavy burden in a commerce clause context. It just seems to me that if that is the test you are using, the gov’t is in trouble b/c gov’t commerce clause powers are seldom subject to any real scrutiny.
I previously thought that the plaintiff’s arguments were simply laughable, and so inconsistent with decades of precedent. The fact that Kennedy would say that just stunned me.
Yes, I am jumping to conclusions.
Kay
@Valdivia:
The most sympathetic view is that they’re shocked. A year ago this was considered a slam-dunk. A day ago they were predicting 7-2 or 6-3. Predictability is important for courts and lawyers. They like to have some idea what’s going to happen. These are probably the most-studied judges in the country. It’s not like a jury. One is supposed to be able to predict what they’ll do, based on what they’ve done in the past. Without that, we’re all sort of wandering around in the woods.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@jncc:
This puzzled me, too– how would the mandate be a ‘fundamental change’ to the relationship between government and the citizen? Of WTF use is a government that lacks the power to compel?
__
I’ve read the Constitution. The words “You ain’t the bossa me!” are nowhere to be found in that document.
Hill Dweller
@Martin: There is no severability clause in the law. I suppose they could just knock down the mandate, but that would lead to exploding costs and the ‘death spiral'(higher costs leading to less insured; less insured leading to even higher costs, etc.).
JGabriel
Adam Liptak @ NYT:
__
__
If that’s the level of questioning SG Verrilli was getting from Kennedy, I can see why he had a hard time answering it — you don’t usually expect Supreme Court Justices to ask something that idiotic, particularly since Thomas rarely asks anything.
__
I mean, seriously, how is a mandate to purchase insurance creating commerce in order to regulate it? It sounds more like a Fox News soundbite than a Supreme Court Justice.
__
Of course, if that’s indicative of Kennedy’s overall attitude, and it’s still not clear that it is, then one can kind of understand why Toobin is so alarmed.
__
.
Roger Moore
@Kay:
But you can predict what they’ll do: make decisions based on naked political calculations rather than law and precedent. The problem is that long-term Court watchers are in denial about what’s happened to the Court at least since Bush v. Gore. As much as it pains them, they’d rather live in the world of uncertainty than the one where the Court is just another political institution making political rulings.
Valdivia
@Kay:
I totally agree with this and it was actually the point I was trying to make albeit not very well, in a previous comment. I truly think Toobin had a conniption in there today and then came out and couldn’t help himself and made the worst case scenario the reality that got reported.
Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor
@Martin:
They do? I’ve seen no evidence of any of this.
Somehow I got it into my head that the administration has asked that if the mandate was struck down, then the whole law needs to be struck down (because the law was written that way). I don’t know if this is still true, though.
Kay
@Roger Moore:
I have to say, though, I’m sympathetic to them, if that indeed is what’s happening, because they love the institution. They’re not so much defending these 9 people as they are the idea, and the idea is certainly worth defending.
Martin
@Hill Dweller:
If they cared about exploding costs, they wouldn’t have heard this case. That’s not their problem.
Valdivia
I also want to note that Toobin is the one who has set the tone for how this got covered. Because against Toobins’ this is dead proclamation it now seems like it is down to Kennedy and if he says yes then Roberts goes with him. I hope SocGen takes his vitamins tonight and says something spectacular tomorrow during the severability argument.
Martin
@Judas Escargot, Your Postmodern Neighbor:
Hell, half of PPACA is GOP ideas – ideas that they backed as late as mid 2009, until the tea party went in and shit on everyones bed. They know full well that this is a huge problem that needs to get solved, they’re just such unbelievable cowards when it comes to facing that problem or actually doing anything about it.
At some point they’re going to have to grow a pair and deal with this mess, and that time is pretty damn soon here.
Martin
@Valdivia: Yeah, I don’t know what Toobin was thinking here. Even if he does feel that way, he’s set himself up to be the “even the liberal Jeffrey Toobin thought Obamacare should be struck down, but the activist judges thought otherwise” conspiracy for the next generation.
Kay
@Martin:
There’s no political capitol in reforming health care. None. The people who vote have employer-provided health insurance. It’s going to take a total breakdown before any politician, anywhere, dares to touch it again. Democrats tweaked Medicare, and they lost the House. The people who have good health insurance are terrified of losing it, and no gives a shit about the people who don’t have health insurance, because they’re invisible, politically.
In 1999, 68% of Ohio small business offered health insurance. It’s now 31%. It flipped. That’s still not a “crisis”.
What is the political upside of “dealing” with health care? For a politician, all that does is scare the shit out of old people and alienate and frighten people who have health insurance.
Roger Moore
@Kay:
In fairness, the Court has always had a political role. There’s always some spillover from politics into law, which means that the Court has always been forced to make political rulings. A huge part of wingnut anger is that the Warren and Berger Courts made a whole bunch of political rulings that didn’t go their way. But good courts are able to do some mix of making those political decisions on solid grounds and hiding their own leanings behind clever legal language, which lets people who want to believe that the Court isn’t political enough cover to do so. The recent decisions have been much less effective in doing so, so they’re forcing people to reconsider their beliefs.
Kay
@Roger Moore:
I thought at the time and I still think that Bush v Gore did lasting damage. It’s odd, because I am one of the few people who thinks Gore made the right call. I think you have to say “they took it to a court, that arena, and we lost in that arena”. Now that’s respecting the Rule Of Law! :)
I think people do a very natural and logical thing when they look at that decision. They see it as the first in a series of connected events, because it was a presidential election.
Some mistakes they can’t undo. That’s one of them. All they have is credibility. When they piss it away, I have no sympathy for them. They’re handed an enormous amount of respect and deference. If they lost some, well, who do I look at? Us? “We” behaved admirably. We respected the decision and the idea behind the institution and maintained an orderly and peaceful transfer of power. We were fucking model citizens. They were reckless. I don’t think that can happen w/out some real and lasting damage. If people “don’t believe”, well, why should they?
Kay
@Martin:
And I am going on vacation here shortly, so I will have to fret about this when I get back :)
rikyrah
Thanks Kay, for these informative posts
JenJen
@Valdivia: Well, to be fair, I was watching MSNBC at the same time I was on Twitter. First to the air with his breathless “ACR IS DOOOOOOOOOOMED ZOMG!!” report was Pete Williams. To her credit, Savannah Guthrie immediately told Pete and the audience that it’s not such a great idea to divine the intent of the Justices merely by examining the oral arguments.
Shortly after that, Twitter blew up and the Toobin report hit.
I appreciate the info and I’m going to go read SCOTUSBlog and maybe pour myself a tall drink. :-)