Bernie Sanders, Not Joe Biden, Sets the Democratic Party Line

[Uncle Joe]

(snip)

Castro then ridiculed Biden’s attempt to deflect questions from the Univision anchor, Jorge Ramos, about 3 million deportations—“the most ever in U.S. history,” Castro stressed—recorded under the Obama administration. “Every time something good about Barack Obama comes up, he says, ‘oh, I was there, I was there, I was there, that’s me, too,’ and then every time somebody questions part of the administration that we were both part of, he says, ‘well, that was the president,’” Castro said. “He wants to take credit for Obama’s work but not have to answer to any questions.”

Biden didn’t quite lose to Castro, whose remarks verged on arrogance and cruelty. But Castro’s pointed attacks on Biden’s record as vice president underscored a persistent riddle in these debates. Obama remains highly popular among Democratic voters, and Biden wastes little opportunity to tout that administration’s record. How might the party’s major presidential contenders glamorize Obama’s legacy even as they jockey to supersede the signature achievement of his presidency? On Thursday, the 10 Democrats on stage acknowledged only two partisan forebears: Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders.

Biden’s rivals paid homage to Obama’s efforts to overhaul the healthcare system. They asserted Obama’s singular responsibility for Obama’s legacy, for better or worse. They denied Biden credit for, well, anything. Meanwhile, they regarded Sanders with measures of deference that elude Biden. “I want to give credit, first, to Barack Obama for really bringing us this far. We would not be here if he hadn’t the courage, the talent, or the will to see us this far,” California Senator Kamala Harris said. At the end of July, Harris withdrew her support for “Medicare for All,” if only to launch her own proposal which would permit private insurance. “I want to give credit to Bernie. Take credit, Bernie! You brought us this far on ‘Medicare for All,’” Harris continued. In these debates, “Medicare for All” has proved as influential in theory as Obamacare has proved in practice. Sanders has proved more vital than Biden in determining what the candidates even bother to discuss. Biden has proved inessential in most policy discussions, though he remains indispensable, in purely practical terms, as a bulwark against Sanders at the polls.

(snip)

Biden may be popular among Democratic voters, but he becomes a marginal figure in the company of his Democratic rivals. In a quaint moment for an otherwise slick participant, South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg fretted about Castro’s hostility toward Biden. “This is why presidential debates are becoming unwatchable,” Buttigieg interjected. “This reminds everybody of what they cannot stand about Washington: scoring points against each other, poking at each other.” Castro relished the irony in Buttigieg’s seizing a debate stage to rail against the very existence of disagreement: “It’s an election,” Castro responded. Viewers might have struggled to discern which candidate’s example proved more Obama-esque: Buttigieg’s post-partisan posturing or Castro’s irreverent challenge to a front-runner on the defensive. They might struggle to accept Sanders’s vision for U.S. health care. But Biden offered viewers little reason to believe he might dominate the Democratic imagination as Obama once did—and how Sanders now does.

(snip)

https://www.theringer.com/2019/9/13/20863859/democractic-presidential-debate-bernie-sanders-joe-biden

[NYMinute]

1. bwaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I love the smell of hyperbole in the morning .. makes me laugh

[efhmc]

45. Thanks.

[ehrnst]

2. Wishful thinking at best that Sanders sets any party line. He's a staunch Independent.

And the false dillema that it's one of these two (any one person) "sets the Democratic party line" is absurd.

[Mike 03]

7. Agree

This entire run-up to the primaries is a wonderful process of finding out what our party line will be, and everyone is contributing.

[Me.]

3. Boy Is This Ever A Ringer

[we can do it]

4. What are you smoking?

[BlueIdaho]

5. Who the hell is The Ringer? nt.

[sheshe2]

55. Here.

The Ringer (website) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ringer_(website)

OverviewHistoryContent
The Ringer is a sports and pop culture website and podcast network, founded by sportswriter Bill Simmons in 2016.

[BlueIdaho]

58. Thanks...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. "Biden may be popular among Democratic voters."

Yes, he is; and isn't that what gets a candidate elected? And how can Sanders "dominate the Democratic imagination," as the writer claims, when it's Biden who's popular among Democratic voters? The article is both oxymoronic and just plain moronic.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Being popular and dominating the Democratic or for that matter any imagination

are two different things.

The OP is about the deference (credit) or lack of given by the other candidates on the stage.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. If Bernie really did dominate the Democratic imagination,

wouldn't he be the most popular among voters? But he doesn't, and he isn't.

[Uncle Joe]

19. Both of them are popular, but for different reasons.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/260801/biden-sanders-best-images-among-democrats.aspx

Biden is popular primarily because he was Vice-President under President Obama, that's why he plays that card at every chance he gets.

Bernie is popular because of his authenticity, vision and policy proposals, etc.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

24. Well, he sure doesn't dominate *my* Democratic imagination.

But maybe that's because I'm actually a Democrat.

[Uncle Joe]

26. Did you read the poll on the post that you just responded too?

Are you suggesting they're not actually Democrats?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. I speak for myself.

[empedocles]

77. Good work VO. Especially 'oxymoronic' and 'moronic'

[Thekaspervote]

76. You nailed that one... when bernie becomes a dem, supports Dems then I might take a look

[redstateblues]

79. Why are Bernie's numbers so weak with POC? He is not popular with that important segment of our part

[BlueWI]

87. He's actually 2nd to Biden

who was Obama's VP. So relative to the field, he's doing better than others.

[ehrnst]

22. Indeed. (nt)

[highplainsdem]

8. LOL!

[George II]

9. No he doesn't. That's just plain insulting to the 99% - 99% of Democrats.

[Uncle Joe]

12. 99%? n/t

[awesomerwb1]

11. If Toe Nail Fungus Lovers Monthly

ran a positive article of St. Bernie, it would be posted by their fans here.

[ehrnst]

13. ....

[peggysue2]

21. LOL!!

Okay, that was my first laugh of the morning.

[question everything]

15. Which party?

Why do we even consider someone who is not a Democrat, who actually mocks us by refusing to change affiliation and still run in our primaries, as relevant to tell us about our party?

[Rebl2]

18. Agree with you!

[KPN]

78. Perhaps because we are not all just clones.

[ArcticFox]

81. Maybe because a ton of Democrats would prefer Sanders

over all those who would oh, I don't know, vote in lockstep to let Bush invade Iraq . . . .

He runs in "your primaries" because he's a Democrat for all intents and purposes. And why do you suppose you're more a Democrat than he: because you checked a little box on a voter form?

He doesn't eschew his democratic socialist label because he has principles. He doesn't run third party because we have a rigged system that blames the third party contender whenever the Democratic nominee can't beat the Republican.

The Democratic party needs his supporters, or it would change the rules to exclude him. And unless something's changed, decline to state voters are still supposedly welcome. But when his supporters hear arguments like yours, all they hear is a big F$%# YOU.

[question everything]

82. Then he, and his supporterd can form their own party

We all know the games that he plays in Vermont - he is a Democrat in the Democratic primaries and then is back an independent.

If he really wants to be a Democrat he should join and work on changing - whatever it is - from within. But he prefers to spit into the tent from the outside.

And his supporters are conditional ones. As reported before, many of them voted for Trump because, oh, they were so offended that he was not the nominee. And, after all, why he did not use the word "carnage" the messages of both were similar. Message, not behavior, of course.

There are so many real Democrats, working on the getting out the vote, grass roots, telephone banking, working for real Democratic candidates. So if his supporters are conditional ones, then, yes, "a big F$%# YOU"

[ArcticFox]

83. And people wonder why Democrats lose elections

😖

[question everything]

86. No, they wonder why we let the fringe leftists define the party

Why, all of a sudden, they are the liberal while our leaders: the Clintons, Klobuchar, Pelosi, Biden, Obama, Bullock, Kerry, Schumer, Hickenlooper, Bennet - are the "moderates." The fringe left is willing to lose elections as long as we stand on "purity" - whatever that means.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1016239208

The seats that were flipped in 2018 were not "moderates." They were true and true liberals.

The "Squad" members came from secure Democratic districts.

[IronLionZion]

16. As long as it's not Republicans who set the Democratic Party Line

[ehrnst]

17. I wasn't aware that was going on. Can you clarify?

Of course there have been people here on DU that stated that Rep. Pelosi was a bad choice for House Speaker because Republicans hated her so much, which essentially was making a case that we should let the GOP set the criteria for who should be the Head of Democrat in Congress.

Is that the kind of thing you're referring to?

Or something else?

[ehrnst]

62. No answer?

Not surprised....

[bluedigger]

20. This article appears to have hit some nerves.

The "no true Scotsman" and ad hominem attack brigades are rallying to the barricades.

[greatauntoftriplets]

31. The funny bone.

[sheshe2]

56. +1000

[ehrnst]

42. It's the absurd false dilemma in the headline...

that's so ridiculous.

Much mocking of it is understandable.

[betsuni]

23. Medicare for All wasn't Bernie's idea.

[ehrnst]

39. Yes, Ted Kennedy first introduced it in a bill in 1970...

Some years later, I decided the time was right to renew the quest for universal and affordable coverage. When I first introduced the bill in 1970, I didn't expect an easy victory (although I never suspected that it would take this long). I eventually came to believe that we'd have to give up on the ideal of a government-run, single-payer system if we wanted to get universal care. Some of my allies called me a sellout because I was willing to compromise. Even so, we almost had a plan that President Richard Nixon was willing to sign in 1974—but that chance was lost as the Watergate storm swept Washington and the country, and swept Nixon out of the White House. I tried to negotiate an agreement with President Carter but became frustrated when he decided that he'd rather take a piecemeal approach. I ran against Carter, a sitting president from my own party, in large part because of this disagreement. Health reform became central to my 1980 presidential campaign: I argued then that the issue wasn't just coverage but also out-of-control costs that would ultimately break both family and federal budgets, and increasingly burden the national economy. I even predicted, optimistically, that the business community, largely opposed to reform, would come around to supporting it.

https://www.newsweek.com/ted-kennedy-and-health-care-reform-82011

[betsuni]

66. I think Bernie should talk about the single payer program that was tried in Vermont.

Green Mountain Care. Why it failed and what can be done to make it work on a national level. There must be some lessons to learn there.

[aidbo]

25. Medicare for all, tax the rich, end citizens united, preserve & strengthen social security,

raise the minimum wage, and green new deal to help with the climate crisis.

These are all (now) mainstream democratic policies that are popular with democrats (and others!) that Bernie foregrounded in his run from 2016.

Bernie is leading, most other candidates are just following.

[Uncle Joe]

28. I agree aidbo, I also believe the entire package of Bernie's proposals

are even greater than the sum of the parts, they reinforce and strengthen each other.

[TwilightZone]

37. Except for the Green New Deal, all of those items pre-date 2016 and have been Dem ideas for decades.

Time did not start with Bernie's run in 2016.

It's rather odd how many people insist otherwise. I can only surmise that they're new to politics.

[betsuni]

40. And the Green New Deal was Thomas Friedman's idea (2007)

Only people new to politics who refuse to look things up think these were "radical" ideas that nobody talked about before Bernie did, because he told them so. Even Republicans know these are usual Democratic ideas.

[ehrnst]

41. Actually, no... Ted Kennedy introduced a single payer bill in 1970.

And Democrats in Congress were raising the minumum wage since before Bernie ran for the Liberty Union Party:




https://www.politifact.com/facebook-fact-checks/statements/2019/feb/14/facebook-posts/yes-democrats-held-majority-almost-every-time-cong/

The green new deal is a semi-finished piece of legislation (not having gone through markup), however, and reflects recent advances in fuel alternatives and technology. It's hardly the first piece of environmental legislation that combined jobs in with the mix...

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) announced that the Senate has approved a green job training proposal she introduced with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT). The measure authorizes new programs to train workers for "green collar jobs" that involve the design, manufacturing, installation, operation, and maintenance of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. The amendment is now part of the comprehensive energy bill currently being debated by the Senate.
.........................................................................................................

The Sanders-Clinton Amendment would establish an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Workforce Training Program to be administered by the Department of Labor in coordination with the Department of Energy. The amendment addresses emerging workforce shortages that could stymie growth of the renewable energy and efficiency industries. A 2006 study from the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) identified the shortage of skills and training as a leading non-technical barrier to renewable energy and energy efficiency growth. In particular, the NREL study identified a number of critical unmet training needs, including lack of reliable installation, maintenance, and inspection services, the shortage of key technical and manufacturing skills, and failure of the educational system to provide adequate training in new technologies. The program established by the Sanders-Clinton amendment would target individuals including veterans, workers displaced by economic globalization, workers seeking pathways out of poverty and into economic self-sufficiency, and individuals in need of updated training. Industries eligible for training services under the program include: energy-efficient building, construction, and retrofits; renewable electric power; advanced automotive drive trains; bio-fuels; and the deconstruction and materials use industries.

The Sanders-Clinton amendment would authorize up to $40 million per year in grants on a competitive basis under a National Training Partnerships program and up to $40 million per year in grants to states to implement labor exchange and training programs. Preference would be given to states that show leadership in promoting renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Eligible entities would include non-profit organizations that are composed of partnerships between industry and labor, taking advantage of established programs in order to ensure the highest-quality training possible. The funding would be sufficient to train between 20,000 and 30,000 workers per year. The Sanders-Clinton amendment also provides up to $20 million per year for national and state industry-wide research, labor market information, and labor exchange programs.

https://votesmart.org/public-statement/268586/clinton-applauds-passage-of-green-jobs-energy-amendment

Before that, Senator Al Gore was and advocate for the environment, in a far, far more effective way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_activism_of_Al_Gore

Taxing the rich - You seem to forget that taxes were indeed higher for the wealthy until the Reagan era -which was extended through to 1990 by GHWB. There were 2 years of Dem control of the House and WH during the Clinton administration, then a takeover of the House by the GOP that held on through 2007.

Senator Paul Wellstone was more effective at moving the conversation towards raising taxes on the rich than Sanders:

https://truthout.org/articles/paul-wellstones-legacy/

And Obama was far more instrumental in actually raising taxes on the wealthy after years of GOP domination of the House - at the urging of Speaker Pelosi:

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/9/11894794/obama-tax-increase-rich-one-percent

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/01/pelosi-urges-obama-to-raise-ta.html

Senator Sanders has talked about doing many things over the years, but Democrats were doing most of those things you mentioned long before Bernie started his career on Capitol Hill in the early 90's.

[George II]

43. A form of "Medicare for All", not under that name, was first introduced in the House way back...

...in 1943 by Representative John Dingell. He introduced similar legislation every year since then until he left office. That practice was continued by his son, who replaced him, every single year and then, when he left office John Dingell Jr.'s wife, Debbie, filled the seat and SHE has introduced it every year. Many Representatives signed on and co-sponsored those bills over the years.

Hillary Clinton ran her 2016 general election campaign on ending Citizen's United among many other issues.

The climate crisis? Remember Al Gore?

The rest are not revolutionary, they've been supported by Democrats for decades. They were all "foregrounded" long before 2016.

[betsuni]

48. Also the Fight for $15 movement began in 2012.

It's like some sort of mass amnesia.

[betsuni]

73. All Democrats want to end Citizens United. President Obama said in 2010:

"It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give candidates for federal office. Last week this Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that's why I'm urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps right this wrong."

Our last presidential nominee ran on a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and proposed new measures to boost disclosure and transparency and to match small donor contributions based on New York City's system.

[dalton99a]

27. Bernie invented the Democratic Party.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

30. Too bad he doesn't want to actually join it.

[ReformedGOPer]

74. +1000

[Uncle Joe]

34. No but as of 1997 he voted with the Democratic Party 95% of the time while

the average Democrat in Congress voted with the party only 80% of the time.

[George II]

44. Where do you get those statistics? On major bills or minor procedural votes?

He voted five times against the Brady Bill - a MAJOR bill
He voted against both the Russia Sanctions and the Magnitzky Act, the only Senator of either part to vote against both
He ducked out of a vote for extended sanctions against companies linked to Oleg Deripaska, the ONLY Senator to miss that vote

So, do you have those voting statistics?

[Uncle Joe]

46. From here

(snip)

A month before he was re-elected to a third term in 1994, House Democrats blessed his claim for a leadership role on one of his committees. Sanders had no Democratic challenger that year, and a spokesperson for his Republican opponent called Sanders "an adjunct to the Democratic Party" according to the Washington Post.

The party backed Sanders’ 1996 re-election bid over one of their own. Burlington lawyer and Democrat Jack Long, after being informed that the party was committed to Sanders, told the Washington Post that he felt like he was "caught in a Kafka play." Sanders wouldn’t have another Democratic opponent until 2004.

By 1997, Sanders was still not a member of the House Democratic Caucus nor a Democrat. But he voted with the party more often than the average Democrat (95 percent of the time opposed to 80 percent). Keeping good to their promise, Democratic leadership gave Sanders a subcommittee chairmanship over a freshman Democrat.

When he ran for the Senate a decade later in 2006, still as an independent, the party worked to stop Democratic candidates from running against him, and he was endorsed by numerous state and national Democrats.

(snip)

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/

[George II]

49. That was as of 1997, nine years before he became a Senator and 22 years ago.....

Plus that "truth-o-meter" article is not exactly accurate itself (saying "In his home state of Vermont, there is no party registration" jumped off the screen! That's false - there IS party registration for candidates)

But there are some interesting things in that article, thanks for providing it:

"I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat"

Sanders penned an op-ed in the New York Times calling the two parties "tweedle-dee" and "tweedle-dum."

....calling it (the Democratic Party) "ideologically bankrupt"

There are others in the article, too. But one better source is progressive punch, which ranks Members of Congress' "progressive score".

https://progressivepunch.org/scores.htm?x=43&y=11&house=senate&party=&sort=overall-lifetime&order=down

Lifetime crucial votes: He's 8th behind Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker (and Gillibrand, too)

Current session crucial votes: He's 12th behind Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker

Lifetime overall votes: He's 7th behind Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Cory Booker (and Gillibrand, too)

Current session overall votes: He's 4th behind Elizabeth Warren

[ehrnst]

51. Yes, there's that. (nt)

[ehrnst]

57. And there's his voting record on immigration

Voted against Democrats when he voted no on the 2007 Immigration Reform act.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Immigration_Reform_Act_of_2007

Sanders has “pitted immigrants as an obstacle to tackling unemployment on a number of occasions,” said Alida Garcia, director of coalitions and policy at the pro-immigrant group FWD.us. “He’s evolved on this issue since his campaign launched, but where his prior statements have been troublesome is within his economic framework of welcoming new immigrants to our country.”

https://time.com/4170591/bernie-sanders-immigration-conservatives/

I guess Hillary pulled him to the left on this issue as well.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/

[ehrnst]

50. 22 years ago.

Still can't find anything more recent since we last discussed this, when I had to point out that the stat wasn't from 2016, it was from 1997, in an article dated 2016? That was when he was trying to get on the Democratic caucus, then he got the seat in 1997.

Here is a partial list of his votes since 1997, after he got that caucus seat, when still in congress, where he hasn't voted with Democrats.


Opposed Democratic attempts to increase funding for legal immigrants and child care http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll329.xml

Opposed federal funding to help the homeless http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed funding for assisting prospective homeowners with AIDS http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed allowing breastfeeding on federal grounds http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll426.xml

Opposed legiation requiring federal agencies to create and enforce anti-sex discrimination policies http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation banning imports from forced child labor http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1997/roll474.xml

Opposed funding going towards investigations of unfair trade practices http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased education funding http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increases funding for poor students http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed legislation increasing financial aid http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

Opposed increased food safety and inspection http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll032.xml

[Skidmore]

61. It's really hard

to understand what makes this man as good progressive. We already know he's not a Democrat and doesn't identity as one. I can't envision what a future would look like with these positions underlying his stump speech. Warren better represents a future if.her path is chosen.

[kstewart33]

32. Medicare for all seems to be the wrong approach.

Eliminating the option to remain with your private insurance provider, is an election killer. This is reflected in the polling. A goodly number of people are satisfied with what they have (yes, it's hard to believe) and depriving them of that option is asking for big trouble.

Bernie is a great advocate and Harris was right to thank him. However, Bernie looked his age last night. He seemed frustrated and grumpy, and he did little to dispel the notion that perhaps his best days are past.

[Uncle Joe]

35. The only thing reflected in the polls is how the questions were phrased.

I do believe Bernie's voice was strained possibly because of a bout of laryngitis, he has kept an exceptionally busy schedule.

[ehrnst]

60. These polls are pretty reliable

It seems that many who support M4A are not clear on what is being proposed.









https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer-national-health-plans-and-expanding-access-to-medicare-coverage/

[Uncle Joe]

64. Your post makes my point, questions that weren't asked.

1. Do you support Medicare For All if you could use any doctor or hospital in the nation?

2. Do you support Medicare For All if you could be guaranteed to never lose your health coverage even if you quit, were fired or laid off from you job?

3. Do you support Medicare For All if it reformed and strengthened the current Medicare System, ie; 100% coverage for all medical reasons including dental, vision and hearing?

4. Do your support a public option if it meant being limited to the medical facilities and doctors that you could use?

5. Do you support a public option if it meant millions of Americans would still not be covered?

Just to name a few.

[ehrnst]

65. Actually, no. Questions were asked, clear ones.

Just not ones that were leading.

Professional researchers don't try to lead people to an opinion, they try to find out what people think currently.

Your questions contain marketingesque language like "if you could be guaranteed to never lose your health coverage even if you quit, were fired or laid off from you job?"

You seem to disregard any polling that doesn't promote or support your bias, which is the goal of actual reasearchers. It's not their job to push, but to listen to responses to questions carefully selected not to lead.

I hope that clarifies things.

Did you read the full slide set?

Here's another poll with other questions:

https://www.kff.org/health-reform/poll-finding/kff-health-tracking-poll-september-2019/

and another one:

https://www.kff.org/interactive/tracking-public-opinion-on-national-health-plan/

Take your time.... I know you're attempting to find a nefarious "coporo-pharma-big-medicine" link to discredit Kaiser Family Foundation as having it in for Senator Sanders.

Good luck.

[Uncle Joe]

67. Just not ones that were leading,

like "Threaten" the current Medicare program.

More like misleading.

[ehrnst]

68. Did you have a chance to look at all the slides in that poll, and those other polls I linked to?

I added some for your convenience.

But you are predictable... I see you're unfamiliiar with unbiased research and polling on health policy, so it seems jarring and right wing- especially after consuming quantities of the Intercept, TYT, Jacobin, CommonDreams.

It's OK.

[Uncle Joe]

69. Not all of them, I just got home from work.

Is there any thing different in those polls' questions that you wish to point out or highlight?

[ehrnst]

71. They aren't very difficult to digest, or very long.

They are on the topic of public opinion on health care plans, so all of it is relevant.

One's interactive.

Don't be scared....

[Uncle Joe]

72. Democrats and Independents favor Medicare for All, Republicans don't

from the interactive link.

The total favors Medicare for All.

Favor-ability drops if a national health plan ie: used by FOX does not include Medicare for All.

For many years, Kaiser Family Foundation has been tracking public opinion on the general idea of a national health plan as well as more incremental changes to public programs like Medicare and Medicaid (Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage). This interactive tracks the public’s view of a national health plan, sometimes called Medicare-for-all, since 2016. By collecting data from various public surveys of adults in the U.S. conducted by KFF and others, we show how the public’s support for the idea of a national health plan has changed since the 2016 presidential primary, when Sen. Bernie Sanders’ made Medicare-for-all a prominent feature of his campaign for the Democratic nomination. The interactive nature of this tool allows users to explore how views vary by party identification as well as changes to question wording. Click here to access a downloadable table of the poll results.

Throughout 2019, KFF polling has found little change in public support for the idea of a national Medicare-for-all plan. The most recent KFF Health Tracking poll shows about half (53%) favoring such a plan. A majority of Democrats (77%) continue to favor such a plan while most Republicans oppose it (79%). A slightly larger share of independents favor a national health plan (53%) than oppose it (45%). While KFF has included Medicare-for-all in the question wording for the past year, other organizations do not and these polls find a more divided public. For example, in July 2019, a Fox News poll found attitudes more closely divided when not calling the national health plan a “Medicare-for-all” plan and including the fact that such a plan would eliminate private health insurance. In that poll, 43% favor such a plan and 48% oppose it.

(snip)

https://www.kff.org/interactive/tracking-public-opinion-on-national-health-plan/

My post #64 still stands in regards to the questions asked.

[ehrnst]

75. Yes, that's a poll that tracks reaction to the name used in the question wording when polling...

Last edited Sat Sep 14, 2019, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

While KFF has included Medicare-for-all in the question wording for the past year, other organizations do not and these polls find a more divided public.

This shows the marketing power of using the term "Medicare" in something, no matter how different it actually is from Medicare. If the parts of the plan are presented for approval without the name of the bill, then the opinions are more divided. If one really wants to know what people think of what's in it, rather than their assumptions of what might be in it, then one doesn't use the term. The title of the bill creates certain assumptions about what is in the bill(s).
Poll: Most Americans Don’t Realize How Dramatically the Medicare-for-all Proposals Would Revamp the Nation’s Health Care System


As you put it yourself... Favor-ability drops if a "national health plan" is used. That's exactly what M4A is, and it not the only national health plan, or single payer plan.

You just made my point about leading questions. "National health plan" is generic, whereas "Medicare for All" is a brand, and intended to promote support for a particular piece of legislation, no matter how different it is from Medicare.

However - the interactive tool allows you to sort results:




With the ACA, the more people learned about the individual parts in it, without using the name, it was less divisive, and the more people liked it. It appears to be the opposite with Medicare for All.

The point of the first KFF polls I shared is to guage what people think is in the bill, so they used the name of bill in the questions. And clearly there are widespread misconceptions about what is in Medicare for All.

Much like the polling that asked people about the ACA - if the questions didn't use the term "Obamacare" in asking about the parts of the bill, the answers weren't influenced by the marketing against it.

The point of the interactive poll is to show the effect of the assumptions about M4A on their opinion of particular pieces of a national health plan. Your bias leads you to want the results of the bias of an association with aspecific bill name (Medicare) to be the baseline of public opinion, just as FoxNews wanted bias against Obama (Obamacare) to be the baseline of public opinion for the ACA.

What the I polls I shared showed is that a large portion of the population is misinformed about what is in the actual Medicare for All bill(s)- for instance, they think that like actual Medicare, it would be optional for people who didn't want it, and they could keep private insurance. Apparently they think it's going to be way more like Medicare than it is. And maybe because that works to Sander's political advantage, he's doing anything to correct it.

However, creating unrealistic expectations with promises can come back hard on those who make promises that aren't really accurate. Remember "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor?"




But I think that Senator Sanders doesn't actually ever expect to be in a position where he's responsible for actually following through on these grand promises - now in TWO years. And if he is, there will always be the "estabilshment" and "big Pharma" to blame for it not happening. He won't even discuss any lessons learned from the demise of efforts to get Green Mountain Care into existence. This says to me that he doesn't feel a need to actually examine the process in that kind of detail. Or doesn't understand that kind of detail, and doesn't wish to reveal it.

Poll: Most Americans Don’t Realize How Dramatically the Medicare-for-all Proposals Would Revamp the Nation’s Health Care System

However, if you want to talk Democrats:



https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212334283

[LanternWaste]

33. So now he's The Anointed One. How... very last season.

"Not a very good look. This is concerning."

[Kahuna7]

36. Oh Really? That'll change...

[Progressive dog]

38. Bernie may set a party line

but it's not the Democratic party which he sets it for. (I've heard a rumor that Bernie usually belongs to a Vermont party that only runs one candidate)

[George II]

52. I think they were hearkening back to his days in the 1950s in Brooklyn, when we ALL....

....had party lines, before the dial phone was invented.

[calguy]

47. Joe Biden, NOT Bernie Sanders, will be the nominee

[floppyboo]

80. no he won't

[stonecutter357]

53. no thanks !

[LongtimeAZDem]

54. That sounds like BS to me

[Amimnoch]

70. Nope. Disagree. -nt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

84. .....

[Uncle Joe]

85. .....