The Obama administration’s decision to delay implementation on a key plank of ObamaCare is a double-edged sword for Democrats up for reelection in 2014, say strategists in both parties.
But it also gives Republicans fodder to argue that the law is unworkable, expensive and that Democrats decided to put off implementing the employer mandate to avoid the political blowback from carrying out what they passed into law.
Democrats are split about the impact.
“It's probably better to try to fix the concerns that business, especially, were voicing about this rather than implement it poorly,” said Democratic strategist Penny Lee, a former top adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidHarry ReidHillary's ObamaCare problem Sanders tests Wasserman Schultz Nearly 400 House bills stuck in Senate limbo MORE (D-Nev.).
“It's a double-edged sword, though. Pick your poison. There's no easy answer.”
Lee said she doubts the change will have an outsized impact on 2014, arguing that voters long ago formed their opinions about the Democratic healthcare law, for better or worse.
But she said that the delay would be a marginal benefit for Democrats facing tough reelections — especially for red-state senators who haven’t faced voters since the law passed, like Sens. Mark BegichMark BegichEx-Sen. Kay Hagan joins lobby firm Unable to ban Internet gambling, lawmakers try for moratorium Dem ex-lawmakers defend Schumer on Iran MORE (Alaska), Mark PryorMark PryorEx-Sen. Kay Hagan joins lobby firm Top Democrats are no advocates for DC statehood Ex-Sen. Landrieu joins law and lobby firm MORE (Ark.), Mary LandrieuMary Landrieu oil is changing the world and Washington Ex-Sen. Kay Hagan joins lobby firm Republican announces bid for Vitter’s seat MORE (La.) and Kay HaganKay Hagan10 Senate seats most likely to flip in 2016 Senate Republicans are feeling the 'Trump effect' Washington's lobby firms riding high MORE (D-N.C.).
“By delaying it a year, people will see there hasn't been an entire disruption of the healthcare system,” she said. “Going into the 2014 elections, it will be beneficial to Democrats to have less disruptions to individuals' lives.”
Other Democrats agreed neither option was ideal but disagreed that the move was the best one for their party’s chances at the polls.
“On balance, I think this is bad news for Democrats, not good news. The best way forward is to plow through it all and get this thing implemented,” said one top Democratic strategist who requested anonymity so he could criticize the administration.
“Obviously the employer mandate has huge opposition with the business community, so [the decision] certainly helps there. On the other hand, it raises a lot of questions about ObamaCare and validates Republican criticism. It is not good that the administration cannot implement ObamaCare as scheduled.”
Republicans are similarly split on whether the move will help or hurt their chances.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the head of the conservative think tank American Action Forum and a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, called the move “deviously brilliant.” He believes the move will help Democrats avoid some pain at the ballot box.
“Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land,” he wrote in a Wednesday op-ed.
“Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better.”
But many more argued the move is the latest sign that as ObamaCare comes online this year and next it will prove to be unworkable, triggering a voter backlash against the party that authored it.
“It reignites the debate again. For folks like Landrieu and Pryor, even Begich, it's a serious political problem,” said GOP strategist Brian Walsh, the former communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
“There are real-world consequences now that weren't there in 2012. People are going to reevaluate their views on the bill. Now they have to actually grapple with the real-world aspects of the bill rather than a hypothetical debate in the newspapers. This is an early example of that.”