I grow increasingly amused at how some people carefully avoid saying that ObamaCare is unpopular.
When Pollster.com aggregates all the various polls on ObamaCare's popularity, it reveals that a plurality or majority of the public has consistently opposed the law since before the angry town-hall meetings of August 2009:
It's no surprise when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius avoids the U-word by saying stuff like, "We have a lot of reeducation to do." (To be clear, she's talking about reeducating you, not herself.)
But it's odd when a Washington Post news item describes the public as "profoundly ambivalent" toward the law. (According to Merriam-Webster, ambivalence means holding "simultaneous and contradictory attitudes or feelings," "continual fluctuation," or "uncertainty as to which approach to follow.") Or when Kaiser Family Foundation president and CEO Drew Altman tells NPR: "The public is split, has been split, and continues to be split."
I guess those descriptions are true (though "continual fluctuation" and "uncertainty" seem like a stretch). But they're not very informative. "Ambivalent" doesn't tell you if one side dominates. "Split" could accurately describe anything shy of unanimity. "Opposed" or "unpopular" or "consensus" would convey so much more information. Why convey less?