and bidens lead will only increase as more california is counted and the pennsylvania tally
and bidens lead will only increase as more california is counted and the pennsylvania tally
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
There is no scenario in which that would occur. For Nancy Pelosi to be Acting President (she would NOT actually become President), we would have to have no president and no vice president after January 20th, which can't happen. Even if the Electoral College is a tie, the House would be sworn in first and then their first act would be to vote on the President and Vice President (and since they vote by state instead of individually, that would probably give it to Trump).
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/wh...-1f2dacdebded/
Recent polls showing voters do not understand Medicare for All have received a lot of attention. But activists who’ve been working to educate the public on this issue for years aren’t surprised by the findings — and a closer look makes it clear people shouldn’t write off Medicare for All just yet.
The Kaiser Family Foundation released a poll on Tuesday showing voters don’t know defining features of Medicare for All — including some of the plan’s very popular provisions like the elimination of out-of-pocket costs. Democratic voters know less about it than Republican voters, with only 31% of registered Democrats understanding premiums go away under Medicare for All, as compared to 45% of registered Republicans. The telephone poll tracks with other recent surveys, including one released Monday by Navigator Research.
Some in the media have described the findings as a clear sign that the policy-turned-mantra is “backfiring,” or that Democrats should “steer clear of Medicare-for-all.” But various organizers who’ve been active in the single-payer movement for years say the polls confirm what they’ve long suspected: voters want Medicare for All and can be persuaded into accepting its possible trade-offs — they just don’t know it yet.
That’s because the polls also illustrate that the cost of health care is a top priority for voters.
When asked to define in their own words what health care issues they want to hear about from 2020 candidates, respondents to the Kaiser Family Foundation poll most often mentioned affordability. The Navigator survey also found that voters care more about reducing the costs of premiums, deductibles, and prescription drugs than keeping their current health plan. This suggests voters could be open to some of the trade-offs that come with implementing Medicare for All, as the policy eliminates virtually all private insurance and moves everyone into a singular public health plan with zero out-of-pocket costs.
Generally speaking, activists told ThinkProgress they’re skeptical of surveys, noting that pollsters are sometimes biased in the way they frame questions. That said, recent polls do highlight one important thing: voters are confused. Activists suspect the public doesn’t always understand Medicare for All because there’s tons of misinformation out there, and a lot of it is being spread by influential parties that benefit from maintaining the status quo.
“It’s incumbent on us to explain how people’s lives would change under the proposal, but we’re up against some very powerful corporate interests,” said Ken Zinn, political director for National Nurses United.
The country’s largest union for nurses has hundreds of volunteers who have been knocking on doors to build grassroots support for single payer since the midterm elections ended in November. Across the nation, the group’s volunteers have knocked on 20,000 doors and collected 14,000 signatures since February, according to the New York Times.
The nurses aren’t alone in their efforts, but work with activists affiliated with other groups, including the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) which launched its single-payer campaign in 2017. Activists are concentrating on legislation recently introduced by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), a bill similar to one introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) two years ago.
“A big part of our campaign from the get-go was always to emphasize defining Medicare for All,” said Luke Thibault, a steering committee member with Democratic Socialists for Medicare for All. “Obviously there’s a large corporate campaign against Medicare for All and one of the key strategies has been muddling the meaning."“Propaganda works,” said Alex Lawson, the executive director of Social Security Works, another group campaigning for Medicare for All but focusing its outreach on seniors. “That’s why they wield it to protect their literal existence as an industry.”
There are likely a lot of other factors at work. Health policy is inherently confusing, for example. The last major overhaul to the health system made this clear. A poll from as recent as 2017 showed one-third of Americans thought Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act were different laws.
There are also other plans with similar sounding names, and activists, along with media outlets, often use the popular phrase to describe something else altogether. Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green, for example, is comfortable applying the term to proposals that would allow people to buy into the existing Medicare program.
Sometimes, Democratic politicians don’t correctly describe Medicare for All either, said Jennifer Epps-Addison, president and co-executive director of the Center for Popular Democracy. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) told a town hall in May that “you will be able to keep your doctor” under Medicare for All because “91% of the doctors in the United States are in the Medicare system.” This statement wrongfully implied people are buying into the existing program. After she was repeatedly asked about her support for Medicare for All, Harris eventually said she’d be willing to sign on to more incremental bills. South Bend Mayor, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D) told The New York Times he thinks “we need to move toward single-payer. And the way I’ve proposed to do it is a kind of ‘Medicare for all who want it.’” But single payer means moving everyone into one public plan.
How politicians describe a plan is important because, as Kaiser Family Foundation’s director of public opinion and survey research told HuffPost, voters will sometimes repeat what their favorite politician says when they don’t understand the details of a plan.
“There are far too many people in the party who are afraid of the insurance lobby and afraid of the pharmaceutical lobby and taking campaign contributions from those lobbies,” Epps-Addison told ThinkProgress, “So rather than standing up boldly and telling constituents what is in this bill and advocating for the health care system we deserve, they are playing the center, opting towards compromise.”
YEAH NO ONE IS TRYING TO WIN OVER REPUBLICANS GUYS ????No one is trying to win over Republicans. Not sure where you get that from, considering the increasingly widening partisan divide in this country.
Again:
Just wanna repeat that Trump won 93% of Republicans this year, up from 90% in 2016 but we can totally win over Republicans guys if we just keep not supporting single payer healthcare even though 80% of Democratic voters and 70% of Americans support it. Keep shooting ourselves in the foot to win over a non-existent voting group!!!Don't forget deluding themselves into thinking if they keep moving right they can somehow *magically* win over Republicans, even though that's way more of a fantasy than America ever getting single payer healthcare.
2014 Gamergate: "If you want games without hyper sexualized female characters and representation, then learn to code!"
2023: "What's with all these massively successful games with ugly (realistic) women? How could this have happened?!"
Feel free to quote that. I don't think I've ever given a timeline, but I have been consistent that I view it as a longer term goal that will require a stepping stone approach to ultimately achieve (the ACA being the first step).
Hey, I'm just as fuckin furious about Prop 22 appearing to pass. It's horse shit and I hate how gig companies flooded the state with money to get that bullshit through. Big reason why I support campaign finance reform, which would extend to ballot measures.
So a guy married to her sister? Why should Harris control what he does or how does his work with Uber harm her?
Given that California is pretty much the most progressive state in the US, I think that's a pretty clear signal that it's not all as cut and dry/black and white as progressives would like to believe.
Yeah, ok, I concede the point. It's a bad strategy and not really indicative of the overall party's though I don't think.
I don't really disagree with you in that I'd like to see more progressive candidates. I was disappointed when the South went for Biden, but I think it's hard to argue a candidate more divisive would have achieved better results here. Democrats did not underperform, Trump overperformed.