Presenting facts about even popular aspects of the health-care law had a side effect: increasing support for Mitt Romney.
Just a few days ago, the conventional wisdom about the presidential campaign was beginning to take hold: Mitt Romney's candidacy had failed to catch fire, and Barack Obama's re-election was almost certain. Wednesday's debate upended that notion. While there is still plenty of time for more twists in the campaign, it is clear that many voters who thought they had enough information about the candidates are now considering them in a new light.
One of the debate's major topics was health care, about which it is assumed the public has also largely made up its mind, either for or against ObamaCare. New research suggests that this assumption is wrong, and that a little education can prompt people to re-evaluate their positions.
Those who support the president's health law and those who oppose it have argued past one another. Supporters focus on what public-opinion surveys show to be the "popular" parts of ObamaCare (e.g. all the coverage provisions for those who might have difficulty obtaining insurance), while opponents focus on what public-opinion surveys have shown to be the least-popular aspects of the legislation (the individual mandate, Medicare cuts, "death panels," and a bureaucracy that will stand between doctors and patients).
Neither side conducted significant messaging programs to take on the opposition's arguments. Consequently, voters tended to accept both sets of arguments as true and chose whether to support or oppose ObamaCare based on their own preferences. Those most motivated by "fairness" lined up in favor of the law, while those most motivated by "liberty" or "quality of care" ended up against it...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
