You might be interested in this analysis from Larry Sabato’s Crystal Ball of the effect of support for “Medicare for All” on House elections. Here’s the conclusion:
An analysis of the impact of Medicare for All on the 2018 House elections indicates that Democratic challengers and open seat candidates in competitive districts who endorsed a version of Medicare for All similar to that proposed by Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren did significantly worse than those who did not. This negative effect, close to five points of margin after controlling for a variety of other factors, was clearly large enough to affect the outcomes of some House contests.
Yet more evidence for my hypothesis that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, about 10% of the electorate, cares more about their ideology than do for the party.
In the primary, yes. In the general, no.
Look, we all want to be nice, or think we do, we want everyone to have CARE. How we pay for that is the issue.
It’s hard to argue seriously that M4A is a winning issue considering the Obamacare experience. With M4A most people aren’t dumb enough to believe it will be all upside and no downside.
With M4A most people aren’t dumb enough to believe it will be all upside and no downside once it has been explained to them. It’s a great slogan that doesn’t stand up to close analysis.
There was a man on the street expose recently where a majority of interviewees changed their view after having some of the realities pointed out
Free beer has a tendency to be popular.
M4A as envisioned by Sanders or Warren is not viable. Just expanding existing Medicare would be possible. Would need to be gradual. Public option would kind of do the same thing with less hassle I think.
Steve