The US healthcare paradox: we like the Affordable Care Act but fear Obamacare | Harry J Enten

No wonder Republicans can campaign against the ACA when a plurality of Americans still believes it includes ‘death panels’

President Obama’s healthcare law is hated and loved by some so much that they are willing to shut down the government over it. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen so much passion over an issue about which so few (myself included) know as much as we should.

I wrote about this divide when Obamacare was in front of the US supreme court. Americans were opposed to “Obamacare”, or the Affordable Care Act, yet they were in favor of many of its provisions. Not surprisingly, Americans lacked knowledge of what exactly the law did.

So, as the political fight has intensified, on the eve of implementation of one of the ACA’s key provisions, the creation of new health insurance pools, how much has changed? Does the noisy debate on the ACA mean Americans are better-informed than before about Obamacare? Here are five ways Americans’ opinions about Obamacare have and have not evolved over the past year.

1. Americans have grown more negative in their views

The HuffPollster chart tells the story fairly well. It includes polls that ask about Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Last June, the split was about 47% opposed to, and 40% in favor of, Obamacare. That gap narrowed, after the supreme court upheld the law’s constitutionality. The difference between those for and against the law dropped to only 2pt by the election.

Since the election, however, US public opinion has changed drastically: 52% of Americans now oppose Obamacare – that’s tied at the record high. A little less than 38% are in favor of it, according to the HuffPollster aggregate.

2. The Obamacare v the Affordable Care Act difference still exists, though may be overblown

A few weeks ago, a CNBC poll purported to show major differences when asked about the law in different manners: 46% were against Obamacare, while only 37% were opposed to the ACA. Importantly, support for the healthcare law also dropped from 29% to 22%. What’s happening is that Americans have heard a lot about “Obamacare”, but not much about the ACA. The key is the difference between those who favor and those who oppose for each question, which is about 15pt.

Most of the polls that show the best numbers for Obamacare (that is, the margin of opposition at 10pt or less) don’t mention Obama’s name. These include the Kaiser and ABC/Washington Post surveys. A Fox News poll found the gap was slightly wider, with the margin between favorable and unfavorable towards Obamacare at 26pt, and just 16pt for the ACA. Some, such as the UConn/Hartford Courant poll, use similar wording and find the largest gaps.

The bottom line is that many Americans oppose Obamacare no matter the wording. But Obama’s name probably makes them even less likely to like it.

3. There is a percentage of Americans who oppose the law for not going far enough, though this, too, is likely overblown

Democrats like to point out that even as a majority opposes Obamacare, a certain percentage of Americans think it’s because the law is “not liberal enough”. A new CNN poll puts that percentage at 11%. When you add those who favor Obamacare to those who regard it as “not liberal enough”, you have a near-majority.

The problem with this finding is that I don’t believe that Americans necessarily know what “too liberal” means in this context. My evidence for that is that the group with the highest percentage of those who say they are against the law because it is “too liberal” are, in fact, Republicans.

The actual percentage who don’t like Obamacare because it’s not liberal enough is probably closer to 7%, if not lower. That’s the percentage Kaiser found when they asked if Obamacare went “far enough” in changing the healthcare system. I caution, however, that some of that may be those who want radical conservative change – such as yearning for government to get completely out of healthcare.

4. Americans continue to like the individual provisions, except for the individual mandate

While only 37% of Americans viewed the ACA favorably in a March 2013 Kaiser poll, most liked what the healthcare bill is scheduled to do. Over 55%, and up to 88%, of Americans regard the following facets of Obamacare at least somewhat favorably: tax credits to small businesses to buy insurance, closing the Medicare “doughnut hole”, creating insurance exchanges, giving rebates to customers of insurance customers that spend too much on administrative costs, and the employer mandate. Even Republicans like all of them except the Medicaid expansion, increase in Medicare tax, employer mandate, and individual mandate.

Indeed, the only requirement of Obamacare most people didn’t like was the mandate for all people to join it.

5. Americans still don’t seem to know what Obamacare means for them

Given the discordance between Americans’ feelings on the individual parts of Obamacare and the law as a whole, it’s not that surprising that a striking 41% of Americans don’t feel they have enough information about the ACA, per the UConn/Hartford survey. Only 19% say they are very familiar with the law.

The individual provision questions strike the same chord. More than a third of people are unaware of the health insurance exchanges, subsidy assistance to individuals, or the Medicaid expansion. The latter two provisions of the law have actually seen a decrease in the percentage of people who knew these policies were in the bill, since it first passed. The only part of Obamacare that Americans seem to know really well is the individual mandate, which has also seen the largest percentage-point increase in awareness.

More worryingly, more people than not thought that Obamacare includes a public option, undocumented immigrant insurance, “death panels”, and cuts to Medicare. The Affordable Care Act contains none of these.

The fact is most of Obamacare is liked by the public. The issue is that the provision that is not liked is the best-known.

Conclusion: Americans are confused on Obamacare

There are lots of confused and confusing data here, and it’s difficult to say anything definitive about how Americans feel about the healthcare law signed by President Obama in 2010. As I found more than a year ago, they don’t like the law overall, even while they approve many of its measures.

Some Democrats may say that this points in their favor, but the same dynamic of a differential between the backing people will give for a broad proposition as opposed to their support for individual policies could be said to operate in the case of gun control. Thus two Colorado state senators were recently recalled over a gun control law whose individual provisions many said they liked.

Overall, Americans clearly don’t know enough about Obamacare. Of course, they know just as little about the Affordable Care Act – but to the extent that they are less hostile to a law that doesn’t bear President Obama’s name, it does appear that the embrace of the term “Obamacare” by Democrats and the White House was a tactic that has not worked out.

Harry J Enten

Same-sex marriage and the south | Harry J Enten

Without a further supreme court ruling or federal intervention, Republican state legislatures will block gay marriage for decades

America loves to talk about its democracy – except for when we don’t like its outcomes. The overturning of California’s Proposition 8 is a perfect example.

Five years ago, the people of California went to the polls and decided to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage via a ballot initiative known as Prop 8. This was after a California supreme court ruling that a previously voted-upon statute (Proposition 22) was unconstitutional under state law. People upset with Prop 8 then decided to sue to overturn it. The state government refused to defend it after it was overturned in federal district court. Eventually, the district court’s decision that Prop 8 was not in compliance with the US constitution became the law that went into effect.

Gay marriage, arguably, should never have been voted upon in the way that it was, but it must nevertheless be acknowledged that the court’s decision overturned “the will of the people”. In effect, what happened was that we said “the people can vote on it, and if we don’t like the outcome, then screw the result”. This point was made in part by Seth Masket last week, and it is one that will define the gay marriage debate going forward.

The US supreme court has, for now, left it up to states to determine whether or not marriage should be legal. While legalising gay marriage is becoming the majority opinion across the US, state polling indicates that marriage equality is far from becoming the law in every state. Surveys conducted over the past few years in a number of southern states have found that these states were not only less likely to support gay marriage than the rest of the country, but their rate of change was slower as well.

A number of southern states, from Alabama to West Virginia, could be waiting multiple decades until a majority of residents is willing to support same-sex marriage. I’d expect most, if not all, of the south to be in favor by 2030-2040. Before this point, however, any legalization of same-sex marriage in these states is going to have to come from federal intervention. Almost certainly, that will need to come from another supreme court decision dictating that marriage equality must become the law of the land nationwide. That decision, if and when it comes, will arrive despite “the will of the people” in much of the south.

But the situation is more complicated still. All the southern states except for West Virginia have in place a constitutional ban against same-sex marriage. All the southern states – except for Arkansas and Mississippi, where support for gay marriage is somewhere between 20% and 30% – require state legislative action before overturning a state constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

The fact that state legislatures will be required to act changes the entire equation for the south. All the southern legislatures with a constitutional ban against gay marriage also feature Republican control of at least one house of the state legislature. In most cases, Republicans control both houses with plenty of room to spare and no sign that control is going to switch anytime soon. All of the states that require going to the legislature demand super-majorities (60%+) and/or at least two consecutively elected legislatures to approve an amendment for it to reach the popular ballot.

What this basically means is the same-sex marriage debate is not even about what the majority of the people thinks in most of these states. Republican legislators control the action. That’s the whole game.

Throughout most of the south, Republican support for gay marriage is in the low teens. That has little changed in the past decade. Even if the rate of Republicans favoring gay marriage picked up by 1pt per year, it would still take until at least 2050 in most of the south before a pro-gay marriage position became the norm among Republican voters. That creates a huge difference between 2030 (or 2020, in the case of Virginia) as the likely date when a majority of southerners will approve of gay marriage and 2050 (or later) when a majority of Republicans in those states approve of it.

So, we’re probably faced with a same-sex marriage debate that will be decided and closed without people in the south having their voices heard. These are the two scenarios: either the supreme court will rule it legal in every southern state; or Republicans in those legislatures are going to hold it up long past the point that most people in these states accept it as the law of the land.

Until the point when polling in southern states shows a majority in favor, I’m sure those against it will claim to represent the popular will to support their position. At the point the polls turn in the other direction, those against same-sex marriage will quietly drop any mention of “the will of the people”. Even so, Republicans in state legislatures will be able to hold up legal change probably for years, despite being charged as “obstructionist”.

Harry J Enten

Same-sex marriage and the south | Harry J Enten

Without a further supreme court ruling or federal intervention, Republican state legislatures will block gay marriage for decades

America loves to talk about its democracy – except for when we don’t like its outcomes. The overturning of California’s Proposition 8 is a perfect example.

Harry J Enten

NSA surveillance fears give Republicans a great in with young Americans | Harry J Enten

Young people are more Democratic and pro-Obama – but they’re even more pro-liberty. The GOP should seize this chance

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know that the Republican party has a problem with the millennial generation. Americans born after 1980 voted by some 25pt for President Obama over Mitt Romney, while the rest of the electorate narrowly supported the Republican candidate. It’s my view that Republicans can do little to attract most Millennials – but privacy may be the exception.

Our Guardian poll conducted by Public Policy Polling indicated that Democrats were more supportive of President Obama’s position on the National Security Agency (NSA) leaks than other parts of the electorate:

• 58% of Democrats were OK with the government collecting data on internet or phone data, compared with 44% of voters overall

• By a 4pt margin, Democrats were more fearful of putting national security at risk than of infringing civil liberties. That compares with a 22pt margin going the other way among the overall sample

• Only 28% of Democrats said that the information learned made them less likely to support President Obama against 48% of the electorate overall

These results aren’t too surprising given that a political base usually support its leader. That’s why you saw far more Democrats supporting Obama’s actions on collection and access of phone and internet records than for a somewhat similar policy under President Bush, while Republicans were far more receptive of the policies under Bush than under Obama.

You’d expect, therefore, that young voters – who are the bedrock of the Democratic base – to be receptive to President Obama’s actions. You’d be wrong. Young voters are overwhelmingly against the NSA’s access to internet and phone records.

• A meager 27% said the government should be accessing internet or phone records – 31pt lower than Democrats overall

• 73% were more fearful of an infringement of their civil liberties, compared to 15% who were more afraid of putting national security at risk. This 58pt margin is a reversal of the 4pt margin of Democrats who were more scared of a terrorist attack than abridgement of civil liberties

• 69% of young voters said that what they learned from the NSA leaks made them less likely to support President Obama – 41pt greater than Democrats. Exactly zero young voters in our sample said what they learned made them more likely to support Obama

To me, this indicates a tremendous opening for Republicans: 69% of young voters think that this country needs a fresh conversation about privacy versus security – and they are not with President Obama or the Democrats on this issue. If Republicans don’t at least discuss it, it will be an opportunity lost.

Harry J Enten

If the US held a referendum today, gay marriage would win | Harry J Enten

Even allowing for polling overestimating support for same-sex marriage, a majority of Americans would now vote for equality

Much hangs on how the nine US supreme court justices rule later this year on the two same-sex marriage cases they’ve heard this week, but if given the chance would Americans vote in favor of marriage equality?

Would they have done so last year, or, more importantly, today? I think the answer to all those questions is likely yes – but that differs from Nate Silver’s more equivocal judgment and what Chris Stirewalt believes.

Let’s start with the fact that the aggregate of all the same-sex marriage polling had support from about 50% of the population and opposition from 43% in 2012. Since then, we’ve seen about 1-2pt increase in the percentage favoring marriage. So, in order to believe that gay marriage wouldn’t pass a nationwide referendum, you’d have to think that this polling data is unrepresentative of an election’s results.

One reason you might believe that is because actual voters tend to be more conservative than adults at large. That’s why Obama was winning handily among all adults, but was in a tight race with Romney among likely voters. Is this gap apparent with regard to same-sex marriage? As it turns out, not really.

On the eve of the 2012 election, Pew saw a minimal difference between how adults as a whole and likely voters viewed same-sex marriage. All adults were in favor of same-sex marriage, 49% to 40%, while likely voters were in favor by 49% to 42%.

The other argument against these national polls posits some sort of “gay Bradley effect“. That is, polls for same-sex marriage state ballot measures have had a tendency to underestimate voters who wanted to ban same-sex marriage. Some, like Stirewalt, argue that a social desirability bias makes people not want to admit voting against perceived civil rights.

Either way, Patrick Egan found that the anti-gay marriage side (pdf) did 7pt better than polls suggested, while the pro-gay marriage side did about as well. California’s Prop 8, for instance, trailed in the polls before passing.

When I ran my own data back in 2009, however, it was fairly clear that the “gay Bradley effect” was lessening over time. Polls taken closer to 2009 were more accurate than ones taken further back.

Since 2009, there have been five same-sex marriage ballots with polling conducted within 10 days of the election. The 10 days are key because ballot wording can be very confusing, and voters only really tune into campaigns in the final weeks. Gregory Lewis and Charles Gossett showed that confusing ballot wording is a likely part of the reason why polling on Prop 8 was inaccurate.

When we look at the ballot measures polls taken within 10 days of the elections, from 2009 onward, the pro same-sex marriage side didn’t suffer anywhere close to the 7pt penalty that Egan had discovered. Maine’s 2009 Question 1 had one poll taken within 10 days of the election. Public Policy Polling (pdf) (PPP) had voters “vetoing” same-sex marriage by a 4pt margin, and it was vetoed by a 6pt margin. That’s only a difference of 2pt, not 7pt.

North Carolina’s May 2012 Amendment 1 had two polls taken within 10 days of the election. An average of PPP’s and SurveyUSA’s polls, with undecideds allocated proportionally to decided voters, had North Carolinians banning gay marriage by a 19pt margin. They ended up banning it by a 22pt margin, a difference of 3pt.

Maine’s November 2012 Question 1 had three polls taken within 10 days of the election. The median result of the polls from Critical Insights, Maine’s People Resource Center and PPP had voters approving of same-sex marriage by 7.2pt. It passed by 5.4pt. A difference of a little less than 2pt.

Minnesota’s Amendment 1 had three polls taken within 10 days of the election. The median result of two SurveyUSA polls and PPP’s survey, which allocated undecideds, had the amendment to ban same-sex marriage failing by 1pt. The actual voters were against the amendment by 3.8pt. In this case, the polls overstated those favoring the ban by about 3pt.

Finally, Washington’s Referendum 74 had two relevant polls. The average result of the PPP and SurveyUSA, with undecideds allocated, had same-sex marriage passing by 10pt. It passed by 7.4pt, for a difference of 2.6pt.

In four of the five instances, the opposition to the same-sex marriage side did better than polling predicted – but that difference was not particularly significant; certainly not of the order of 7pt, as previously found. The largest difference was just 3pt, and the median error in margin was only 2pt.

Applying this 2pt penalty to the 7pt edge that the pro-same-sex marriage crowd had over the opposition in 2012 national polling still gives the pro side a 5pt edge. If we apply an additional 2pt penalty (see Pew above), because most national polls question adults, and not likely voters, the pro same-sex marriage side still had a 3pt edge going into the 2012 election. Already, now, that lead would be closer to 4-5pt.

We can check my work by looking at the 2012 national exit polls. These polls are weighted to the actual results of the November elections. Voters cast their ballots anonymously, away from any interviewers, and drop their ballots in a box. There’s no reason to think voters would fear giving an “undesirable” answer, as nobody’s around to judge.

The exit poll asked: “Should your state legally recognize same-sex marriage?” “Yes” beat “no” by the exact 3pt that our adjustment of national surveys would suggest. The fact that the exit polls and national polls matched up makes me even more confident in the finding.

So, yes, I think Americans would have voted in favor of same-sex marriage, had they been given the opportunity in 2012-13. The national polls may be overstating support right now, but any error is not enough to erase the majority in favor of gay marriage.

In the end, though, I don’t think there’s much disagreement about the road going forward. Same-sex marriage support is increasing every day. A national same-sex marriage ballot measure would likely win by a huge margin in 2016. The tide has turned. It’s tough to imagine it receding.

Harry J Enten

Americans want gun control, but not badly enough | Harry J Enten

Gun rights advocates know that, despite Newtown, the US public is only lukewarm about gun laws – and is cooling all the time

After a month of reported congressional movement on gun control, negotiations have apparently hit a snag. Democratic senators have decided to break up proposals into different packages – such as Senator Dianne Feinstein’s push for an assault weapons ban – instead of presenting one “Obama gun package”. And, unsurprisingly, Republicans and Democrats can’t seem to agree on what parts should make up a background check bill.

On the surface, this seems like Washington dysfunction at its worst, especially since the percentage of Americans who want tougher gun control has stayed at its post-Newtown high: a majority still wants a ban on assault weapons, although legislation on that has pretty nearly no chance of passing through Congress. Over 80% of Americans do agree on universal background checks, including a majority of Republicans.

But a deeper look at the numbers suggests that gun rights advocates may be playing a stronger hand than at first glance.

1. Most Americans don’t see gun control as the most significant way to prevent mass shootings

Per a Public Religion Research Institute poll, only 25% of Americans believe that stricter gun control laws and enforcement would be the key to preventing massacres. That was second to mental health screenings, at 30%, and just ahead of moral and religious teaching, at 20%.

Even when we expand the issue out to allow for multiple answers, as CBS News did, only 21% think that stricter gun control would prevent gun violence by much. Almost half, 46%, think mental health screening would help a lot, while 36% think armed guards in public places would be most useful.

2. Guns as a whole are not at the forefront of issues for most Americans

Only 4% of Americans listed guns as the most important problem facing the country in the latest CBS News poll. Instead, over 50% chose the economy, jobs or the budget deficit. That matches other recent polling, and the recent focus on the sequestration illustrates this data.

You might say, “Of course, the economy is the No 1 issue for Americans – how could gun control come close?” And I’d agree: if gun control were really at the top of the heap, I’d expect it to be polling higher. During the healthcare debate of 2009-10, for instance, healthcare regularly broke the 20% barrier in polls on the most important issue in the US.

Now, it’s possible for Americans to care about more than one issue at once, but it’s fairly clear that gun control can get lost in our current mess of unemployment, budget cuts, and a stalling legislature. But gun control tends to be tied with healthcare and immigration as the most important issue, at all of 5%. Right now, healthcare isn’t even a national issue so much as a state one, in parts of the country.

3. Most Americans don’t feel gun legislation needs to be passed this year

This doesn’t come as a shocker given my last point, yet gun rights advocates have to like this number: only 46% of Americans in the latest Pew Research poll believe it is essential to pass gun legislation this year. That number includes only 42% of independents, and in fact, only 71% of Democrats who think that gun safety legislation is essential this year.

This is a key point because Republicans might fear being seen, once again, as “too rigid” and the “party of no”, as many Americans feel they are. But they can rest a little easier when it comes to guns. The American public seems to be saying that there’s nothing wrong with a delay.

4. Public opinion on gun control will eventually run out

If new gun laws aren’t passed this year, then they likely won’t be passed at all. Past history indicates that the current tide of opinion in favor of gun control will ebb over the course of the year. After Columbine, the only event in recent history with a comparable increase in favor of gun control, the high-water mark dropped after a year.

The reasons are twofold. First, the movement in favor of gun control has been driven mostly by media coverage. The media has yet to abandon stories about gun control, but time and a business imperative will eventually take their toll. Newer and more compelling news stories will fill the headlines, and most people will follow where the news coverage leads.

Second, the general movement over the past two decades has been against greater gun control. Take a look at the image above and take away the Sandy Hook spike. Prior to the Newtown shooting, the percentage of Americans in favor of stricter gun control had dropped below 50% – the first time that had ever happened.

Thus, from a game theory standpoint, I’m not exactly sure congressional members who want minimal gun control should rush into any deal. They have the numbers to stop any gun control measures in the Senate by filibuster, and they have a majority in the House. As importantly, if they look at the polling, they’ll know that they won’t face much of a penalty from the public: America isn’t exactly clamoring for tighter gun control and believes that other steps would do more to curb gun violence.

This is not to say a bill on background checks won’t pass through Congress. It’s just that the current hold-up should surprise no one; and despite the weight of current opinion, the pressure to make a law on guns probably won’t increase.

Harry J Enten

How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control? | Harry J Enten

Since any gun safety law would face opposition in a Republican-controlled Congress, the president must weigh public opinion

Vice-President Joe Biden’s gun panel is set to report to President Barack Obama next Tuesday. The common view is that any legislation that is at all controversial would have a difficult time getting passed by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Now, Biden has raised the possibility of getting gun control measures by executive order.

My advice for the president as someone who reads polls: go for it, if it’s what you want to do. There is much discussion that acting by executive order would be seen as a “totalitarian” action and provoke a backlash. Nonsense, so long as the order is supporting a measure the public favors.

Consider that in June 2012 Obama took executive action on a “mini-Dream Act” that provided a path to avoid deportation for some undocumented immigrants who came to the country before the age of 16, had a high school education (or were attending school) or had served in the military, and had no criminal background. He did so administratively because he couldn’t get a law passed by Congress.

There was heavy public support before the order was signed. Back in late 2010, Gallup found that 54% of Americans would vote for a bill that would allow for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country in their youth to have a pathway to citizenship. A late 2011, a Fox Poll put support for such a law at 63%.

After Obama made the new policy instruction, the public held to its position. Five polls taken between the June announcement and now found that anywhere from 54% to 64% of Americans still believe that young undocumented immigrants should not be sent packing. This includes three questions that specifically mentioned Obama’s name, and that his administration had “announced” the policy change (in other words, the measure specifically didn’t pass through Congress).

You might argue that the gun debate is different because the powerful gun rights lobby would be able to convince the public otherwise. The flaw in that statement is that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is just not that popular these days: only 42% of Americans have a favorable view of the NRA per Public Policy Polling, which is down from 48% just a few weeks ago.

The president is also dealing with a public that’s seen its support for gun control climb higher since the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. I count five pollsters (ABC/Washington Post, CBS News, Gallup, CNN/ORC, and YouGov) that asked a question about whether gun control should be stricter before and after Newtown. Before the massacre, the weaker “stay the same” position on gun control beat the stricter position by an average of 3.8 percentage points. Afterward, stricter led by 11.4pt – a 15.2pt turn-around.

Past history suggests that the president can’t wait around until he gets a Congress that is willing to cooperate. After the Columbine shooting in 1999, Americans’ support for stricter gun laws jumped by 5-10pt. After a year or two, the spike had abated and appetite for stricter gun laws continued its slow decline to the minority position it held just before Newtown.

So what policies should the president consider, as long as he thinks courts will uphold his orders?

• He should end the “gun show loophole” to force people who buy guns at a gun show or through private sales and online shopping to have a background check: 92% of Americans favor this position per Gallup, while PPP puts support at 76%.

• Obama should seek to ban high-capacity ammunition clips that contain more than 10 bullets: CNN/ORC, Gallup, Pew, PPP, and YouGov all show at least 53% of Americans in favor of this policy.

• He should seek ways to ensure that people with poor mental health records do not get a gun: CNN/ORC found that 92% Americans did not want Americans with mental health problems to be in possession of a gun; PPP took it one step farther and discovered that 63% of Americans want people to be required to take a health exam before buying a gun.

• Obama should obviously prevent felons convicted of a violent crime from owning a gun: 94% and 92% approve of that measure, per PPP and CNN/ORC respectively.

• He should try to make sure that guns, even if not recently purchased, would be registered with a government or law enforcement agency: CNN/ORC finds 78% agree with that policy.

• Obama should look to ban outright bullets that explode or are designed to break through a bullet-proof vest: Pew found that 56% favor this position.

• Obama should try to make it more difficult to buy ammunition and/or guns over the internet: 69% of Americans wanted to ban these practices, according to PPP.

You’ll note I don’t include an assault weapons ban. The reason is that pollsters are split: Gallup and Pew signal that a majority is opposed to banning assault or semi-automatic weapons, while ABC/Washington Post, CNN/ORC, PPP, and YouGov show the reverse. It seems to me that, politically speaking, an executive order would be the wrong course on an issue that apparently splits the country down the middle.

Further, the president would almost certainly be better-off passing any law through Congress. It not only looks better, but it lessens the chance of any political blowback I may be underestimating. The danger, of course, is that if a bill fails to get through Congress, it would look like awfully sour grapes then to obtain gun control measures through executive orders. It’s quite possible that the public would see that as executive over-reach.

Also, I am by no means a constitutional scholar: while there are plenty of people arguing in favor of executive action, others argue that some of these proposals, if put into action by executive order, would be unconstitutional and would be ruled so.

That said, if the president is sensitive to public opinion and reading the polls, there are a number of gun control policies he can obtain by executive order without fear of a backlash. But the lesson of Columbine is that he has a narrow window of opportunity, in the wake of Newtown, in which to act.

Harry J Enten

Margin of Σrror

Category Archives: Law

The US healthcare paradox: we like the Affordable Care Act but fear Obamacare | Harry J Enten

Same-sex marriage and the south | Harry J Enten

Same-sex marriage and the south | Harry J Enten

NSA surveillance fears give Republicans a great in with young Americans | Harry J Enten

If the US held a referendum today, gay marriage would win | Harry J Enten

Americans want gun control, but not badly enough | Harry J Enten

How far can President Obama go with an executive order on gun control? | Harry J Enten