Mitt Romney wanted this election as a "Referendum on the incumbent", but SCOTUS changed the game and Romney has to attack Obamacare turning the election into a choice of two approaches. Romney's "Repeal and Replace" is a Fantasy

.

From the New Republic :

The decision of the Supreme Court upholding and validating Obamacare is not good for Mitt. Because now he has to explain why this law is bad and show his new excellent and wonderful proposal ( which Mitt Romney does not have ! ). In order to "Repeal and Replace" it is necessary to get 60 Republicans in the U. S. Senate. ( A Big Fantasy ! ).

The New Republic
No, This Was Not The Better Outcome For Mitt
June 29, 2012


By Alec McGillis

Senior editor at the New Republic, now serving as its correspondent for the 2012 campaign. Former Washington Post reporter.

No, This Was Not The Better Outcome For Mitt


Some excerpts :

As Nate Cohn points out, the court’s upholding of the law will probably now enhance the law’s legitimacy in the eyes of some voters. And, crucially, it will now fall to Romney himself to lead the argument against Obamacare, and to the extent that he takes up this charge, it will bring into focus, as never before, just how compromised he is on this front. Yes, there would have been talk of what to do about health care had the law been thrown out, and this, too, would have brought attention to Romney’s record on the issue, and to just how bare the cupboard of reforms is that he and other Republicans are now offering as a “replacement” for the law.

But I’m not sure the bareness of that cupboard would necessarily have been so damaging to the Republicans—the party’s lack of interest in doing anything to expand health coverage is hardly a new thing; in fact, it arguably helps define the modern GOP. Odds are, Romney and the Republicans would have simply avoided the subject as best they could, beyond ridiculing Obama for the law’s rejection. But if Romney now wants to rally voters against Obama, as the “this is good for Mitt” camp says he will be able to do, he will have to talk about the subject that is so very awkward for him.

And when he does so, when he makes the case for doing away with Obamacare, and Obama in turn makes the case for keeping it ("forward, not back"), Romney will be doing, as John Dickerson notes, exactly what he didn’t want to do this election: he will be turning it into a choice between two approaches, rather than a referendum on the incumbent who couldn’t even make sure his biggest achievement passed constitutional muster. No, this is not good for Mitt.

***********************