June 14, 2018 at 9:27 am #37473June 14, 2018 at 9:28 am #37474June 14, 2018 at 11:52 am #37476
That’s a complete dataset.June 14, 2018 at 1:10 pm #37477
Wow – only 37% of people “strongly support?” I wonder how many of them could explain how exactly it would help our health care situation.
By comparison, 51% of voters approve of Trump’s handling of North Korea:
Why do you suppose more people don’t strongly support “Medicare for All?”June 14, 2018 at 4:49 pm #37481radiogeekParticipant
Your’e reading this wrong.
Strongly plus somewhat support is 63%, with I don’t know at 11%. Somewhat support means I like the idea but tell me more. In other words … convince me, I’m open to the conversation.
Add to that the 11 percent that doesn’t express an opinion, and you’ve got quite a bit of motion towards acceptance.
It’s in play. Might take a while. Sounds like a campaign issue for enlightened politicians.June 14, 2018 at 4:51 pm #37482
As long as the GOP controls things, it’s not in play.June 14, 2018 at 8:01 pm #37485
Bullshit. That is exactly when to put it into play.
People want Trump and the GOP defeated? Do it solid.June 14, 2018 at 8:43 pm #37486
First off, let’s agree that you’d be a hell of a lot closer to “Medicare for All” if we didn’t have Trump as president. And we have Trump as president because of people like you who thought it would be a good idea to “take it to the convention” to cause as much damage to Hillary as possible. Fact. Deal with it, own it. Until you do, your respect level here is zip.
Now for a reality check. What happened after the ACA was passed? Democrats across the board got slaughtered. Why? Not because they didn’t seek something like a single payer option or a MFA type policy, but because the ACA was viewed as “socialized medicine, government controlled, blah blah blah.” Think about how milk toast the ACA was compared to single payer or MFA! Imagine the backlash on the two more consequential options.
And many years later, US voters chose Trump as president, and kept the GOP in the majority of both houses. There’s not one GOP Senator or Rep that would EVER support single payer or MFA.
You used to bitch about the 23 percenters way back when. You are now a 23 percenter on the left side. 23 percent never wins.June 14, 2018 at 9:52 pm #37488
Here’s a candidate who ran on Medicare for All in the California Senate primary – remember her?
Voters responded to her by giving her a whopping 2% of the vote, not even close to the top two.
It’s nice to claim voters are so eager for Medicare for All that they are just waiting for the Democratic party to embrace candidates who push for it. Only the actual voters don’t seem to be cooperating, apparently, when offered the choice to vote for such candidates.June 15, 2018 at 1:02 am #37490
Oh, I won’t agree we would be closer with the ACA.
The ACA does improve access, but does not control cost. The improved access, and very high cost makes the case for M4A. As progressives pointed out at the time. I did, and stick to that.
The end game on all this isn’t the ACA. Never was going to be. It is basically unworkable from a cost standpoint.
Re Alison. I linked a great rundown on that campaign. It was run well, but not at the scale to compete. Conversion rates, as in people who did know her, were as good as they get.
Platform was not at issue. Time and resources were.
I can link it again, if needed.
In the vote for frame, those numbers are awesome and improving rapidly. Easy sell to 60 some percent of us today.
In the current party frame, mostly voting against, the numbers are low enough to continue as an excuse for ignoring the issue.
Reason number one why party reform is needed.
Go look at the demographics, affiliation by percentage of respondents. That poll actually leans right and still delivers great numbers.
As an exercise, consider weighting by percentage affiliation to extrapolate a more balanced sample and it looks even better.June 15, 2018 at 9:26 am #37491
Well, as I’ve already said a few times, when these candidates who run on Medicare for All start winning, the Democratic Party will stand up and take notice. As long as they keep losing, don’t expect anyone to believe you that the voters are just clamoring for Medicare for All but for some reason not bothering to vote that way.June 15, 2018 at 10:45 am #37492
Some have. There will be more. It takes time and resources to organize competitive campaigns. Where that has happened, progressives have some wins on the board. Some of those will end up favorably too.
We take some seats. Good.
Then we do it again, and again.
The party won’t “take notice.” The money is in the way. It’s entirely obvious too. While there are good efforts to combat money in politics, the hard reality is that will take a long time, if ever to see a positive outcome.
While we wait, the next best thing is to get some seats, form a caucus and take the ideas to the people.
Already, the party is recognizing those things. Good! Damn tough way to do it, but one seat at a time, one event at a time, one person at a time, it’s gonna get done.
What the people are clamoring for is to see a doctor and not live in fear of having to make ugly choices, like trading homes for people they love, or getting a divorce vs filing for bankruptcy.
They are clamoring for health care as a basic human right.
Medicare for All is one of the strongest ideas. Should better be proposed, great! Trust me when I say the movement would immediately back them, and advance the cause of health care as basic human right.
If you believe the party is above the money, actually interested in better for the American people, think again. It’s leadership has demonstrated otherwise many times, repeatedly.
The party establishment is willing to lose to a Republican to deny Progressives.
Progressives are willing to lose to a Republican to take power, one seat at a time.
This won’t be pretty.
But it is necessary, and it’s necessary because the two parties do not currently present meaningful economic representation to the struggling majority long overdue.
And being here, experiencing this mess, is the cost of failing to represent people properly. Works, until it doesn’t, and it doesn’t once the numbers become such that people understand asking a majority to continue to suffer more so a much smaller minority can live well, see real progress is unacceptable.
In a very real way, the party itself has given progressive standing to take on the politics directly.
And so here we are.
And I don’t need you to believe me. It’s an open democracy, and the strong ideas are going to compete with the money. It may not end well.
Or, it could end well, things improve nicely too.
We are gonna all find out. So far, the results are very encouraging and energizing!
More plz.June 15, 2018 at 11:50 am #37496cbaravelliSpectator
too long did not readJune 15, 2018 at 11:54 am #37497
“The party establishment is willing to lose to a Republican to deny Progressives.”
Progressives denied themselves. How’s that working out?June 15, 2018 at 12:18 pm #37499
Again, I don’t need you to believe that. It’s just fine if you don’t.
Lots of good going on, like these progressive young people:
Run a challenger to every seat holder today.
Take the discussion to a place better aligned with the needs, issues important to the people there. Top issue = housing.
That will happen win or lose, and with some wins, they can multiply their efforts and build on them for future elections.
Progressives aren’t asking man. It’s an open democracy. Taking great ideas to the people is what real progress is about.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.