Minnesota GOP gubernatorial candidate Scott Jensen has one huge advantage over DFL Governor Tim Walz – rural voters. If Jensen wins in November, and he might because of frustration over crime and inflation, it will be because he successfully energized rural Minnesota. Rural areas have gotten reliably Republican, so yesterday’s FarmFest debate was the Twin Cities resident’s big opportunity to close the deal by stressing his rural development ideas.
Photo credit: Dana Ferguson, Forum News Service
But instead of using all of his time to make that case, Jensen apparently spent quite a lot of time emphasizing what he always seems to emphasize — COVID-related cray-cray.
I just don’t understand why Jensen is convinced that this is such a winning political issue for him. Early on, when little information was available, Jensen became a star on conservative news outlets like Fox News recklessly speculating about how the pandemic might turn out. But now that actual research has emerged, it’s clear that Jensen’s early guesses have turned out to be spectacularly, embarrassingly wrong.
Still, Jensen just can’t stop himself from going there:
Quite incredibly, Jensen, a physician by training, still remains unvaccinated. Keep in mind, over 95 percent of physicians are vaccinated, putting Jensen in a very small minority of extremists in his profession. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of Minnesotans made a different decision. Seven out of ten (3.946 million) of them have gotten them fully vaccinated. Among the states, Minnesota has the second best rate of residents that have been boosted.
Jensen also still expresses skepticism about vaccine effectiveness. But the facts are now in. They show that the vaccine has been highly effective in reducing hospitalizations and deaths, and have enabled Minnesota’s society and economy to return to normal. Despite all of this, Doc Jensen apparently still thinks preaching anti-vax myths to the small group of holdouts is wise political strategy.
Beyond Jensen’s incessant vaccination nonsense, he somehow continues to recommend Minnesotans use the antiparasitic drug ivermectin. The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved ivermectin, because a number of medical studies have proven it to be ineffective and dangerous. But apparently Team Jensen is convinced that pushing this discredited quackery is going to get him elected.
And then there is public health. Jensen maintains that Walz’s public health measures to limit COVID spread were unnecessary and ineffective. But the facts are now in, and Minnesota under Walz had one of the region’s best rates of COVID deaths per capita. If Walz had adopted the conservative hands-off public health approach used in neighboring South Dakota, 5,000 more people would have died, according to an analysis done by Dane Smith. That’s roughly equivalent to the population of Minnesota towns like Circle Pines, Luverne, Redwood Falls, Lindstrom, and Morris. Still, Jensen apparently is convinced that championing the demonstrably deadly South Dakota model is the best path to victory in November.
Finally, Jensen claims that Walz protecting Minnesotans during the deadliest pandemic in a century destroyed the Minnesota economy. Again, the facts now tell us a very different tale. Minnesota currently has the lowest unemployment of any state in the nation (1.8 percent), a historic low. Minnesota’s state budget outlook is strong enough that it also recently had its bond rating upgraded to AAA for the first time in nearly 20 years. But Jensen remains convinced that Minnesotans will buy his contention that Walz’s pandemic response made the state into a dystopian economic hellscape.
Stop, Doc, just stop! Take it from fellow Republican Bill Brock: “Let me tell you about the law of holes: If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”
The next time Jensen gets in front of a group of farmers and rural residents, he should abandon his stale, disproven COVID kookiness. Instead, he should try focusing on things that actually impact his audience’s lives, such as drought relief, broadband expansion, education investment, paid family and medical leave, health coverage affordability, and road and bridge improvements.
We’re all thinking it, but are afraid to say it out loud. If Trump loses the Electoral College in a close race and refuses to leave the White House on January 20, 2021, claiming he actually won but was cheated, what will the guys in and around the White House with the guns do?
It feels paranoid to even discuss this. This is what people living under dictatorships in Moldova, Sri Lanka, the Congo, and Gambia discuss, not citizens of the self-described “greatest democracy on earth.” America has long have been admired for its ability to follow-up bitter political campaigns with the peaceful transition of power. Our ability to consistently do this is arguably our single greatest achievement as a nation.
But with Trump, we can no longer be sure that the peaceful transition of power will be a given. Keep in mind what Trump’s former right hand man Michael Cohen said: “Given my experience working for Mr. Trump, I fear that if he loses the election in 2020, there will never be a peaceful transition of power.”
Trump himself, has more than said as much, as documented by The Atlantic:
“In December (2019), Trump told a crowd at a Pennsylvania rally that he will leave office in ‘five years, nine years, 13 years, 17 years, 21 years, 25 years, 29 years …’ He added that he was joking to drive the media ‘totally crazy.’
Just a few days earlier, Trump had alluded to his critics in a speech, ‘A lot of them say, ‘You know he’s not leaving’ … So now we have to start thinking about that because it’s not a bad idea.’
This is how propaganda works. Say something outrageous often enough and soon it no longer sounds shocking.”
One thing is almost certain: Even if Trump suffers a clear defeat in the Electoral College, he will still claim mass cheating. Remember, this is the guy who made the false assertion that “millions” voted illegally in California, and that was after he won the Electoral College.
If he loses the Electoral College, and subsequently faces the prospect of multiple criminal prosecutions as a civilian, his claims of fraud will get even more desperate, expansive, and outrageous. The question is, will armed authorities in and around the White House listen?
(By the way, I’m being vague here, because I’m not sure who would ultimately be responsible for removing the President. Secret Service? U.S. Marshals? The military? We don’t have historical precedence to guide us here. )
Trusted Third Parties Needed
By January 20, 2021 at noon, the Secret Service, U.S. Marshal Service, and U.S. military no longer would be under Trump’s control, unless they decided that Trump’s claims of cheating were correct, and that Trump therefore was reelected and is still their boss.
Will those armed authorities agree with Trump’s claims of election cheating? I’m not sure. “Was Trump cheated in the election or not” is not something that will be easy for armed authorities to judge. After all, they’re not experts in election law or in a position to investigate claims of election fraud.
In trying to sort out the Trump claims of election cheating, I would hope that the guys with the guns will look to third parties who they find credible. The courts obviously will be in play, but that will take quite a bit of time to reach a final decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition to the courts, we need third parties that can act more quickly than the courts, and be credible with the American people and the armed officials who may need to remove Trump on January 20th.
Bipartisan Presidents Weigh In Jointly
Here’s my hope: We need a bipartisan group of former Presidents from the past three decades to unanimously weigh in on this by mid-November.
Specifically, I propose that Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Dan Quayle (the second in command under George H.W. Bush, because he passed away), and Jimmy Carter privately pledge to each other right now that they will stand together to counter any false claims of mass fraud and publicly affirm the presidential election outcome as soon as it becomes apparent.
I understand that it could be that the election outcome won’t be clear enough for the quintet to make a unanimous declaration, and their decision has to be unanimous for it to carry the necessary weight. In that case, all of this is mute. (I also definitely understand that Trump could easily win reelection, and that it might not even be close enough to be contested.)
But if the bipartisan group can agree on the outcome, they should commit to jointly and publicly announcing the outcome in November, before Trump has a chance to send several weeks to sell his conspiracy claims unrebutted.
Why ex-presidents, and a vice president proxy? First, their political careers are effectively over, so they can’t credibly be accused of wanting to further their political careers. Second, they’re bipartisan, so it will be more difficult for Trump and his cult to marginalize them as a “partisan group.” Third, they have knowledge and credibility on the issue of fair elections, because they’ve worked in that world up close for decades. Fourth, ex-Presidents have extra gravitas, so their announcement will feel weighty, newsworthy, and historic. Finally and perhaps most importantly, the Secret Service and Generals are used to following these former Commanders-in-Chief, and likely have residual respect for at least some of them.
If the nightmare scenario I describe here plays out, an early bipartisan declaration of the past three decades’ ex-Presidents won’t guarantee that the guys with the guns will do the right thing and remove Trump. But it’s the best thing I can come up with to try to avoid an event that could mark the end of democracy in America. For something that historically consequential, we need a plan.
I’ve come to realize that I’ve been partially wrong about Governor Tim Walz. Based on what I had seen pre-pandemic, I had him pegged as a politically cautious guy who inevitably gravitated towards a relatively modest “split-the-difference” caretaker agenda. From a progressive’s standpoint, he seemed like a competent Governor, but far from a bold one.
Often Cautious
After all, prior to the coronavirus pandemic, Walz had exhibited an abundance of caution that wasn’t comforting to progressives. For instance, Walz came into office proposing an exciting MinnesotaCare Buy-In Option for Minnesotans who can’t get health coverage from employers or the government. Progressives cheered. But Walz didn’t seem to fight particularly visibly or hard for it.
Likewise, Walz has expressed support for legalization of marijuana for adults. Again, progressives cheered. But Walz rarely uses anything close to the full measure of his powerful “bully pulpit” and political influence to move public opinion on that key social justice issue.
In the 2019 session, Walz wanted to raise much more revenue to deliver improved services. Instead, he ended up with lower overall revenue. He caved relatively quickly to Republican demands and walked away without one penny of the gas tax increase he sought, while giving Republicans an income tax cut and a 10% cut in the provider tax, which is needed to fund health care programs.
At a time when DFLers controlled the House and the Governor’s office, the GOP-controlled Senate somehow was given a”no new taxes” outcome that would make Tim Pawlenty proud, and Governor Walz declared victory.
Why has Walz been so cautious? My theory is that he is so infatuated with his “One Minnesota” sloganeering from his 2018 campaign that he has been afraid to challenge conservatives and moderates in rural areas of the state.
Bold On Pandemic Response
However, lately Walz has been under heavy fire from those rural Minnesotans about his wise decision to close bars and restaurants statewide. Since most Minnesota counties still have few or no coronavirus cases, the bar and restaurant closures strike short-sighted rural Minnesotans as overkill, and Republican politicians are always all too happy to encourage rural victimhood and resentment.
“While we understand the necessity of Governor Walz to lead in this time of crisis, that leadership should not be unilateral and unchecked,” (Republican Senate Majority Leader Paul) Gazelka said in a statement.
Several lawmakers, all Republicans, have expressed concerns about the impact of Walz’s orders on small businesses in their towns in Greater Minnesota.
“The governor’s order puts these small businesses in an impossible position,” state Sen. Scott Newman, R-Hutchinson, said in a statement addressing the closings in the hospitality industry. “These small businesses, and their many hourly wage earners, will undoubtedly suffer because of this order. I urge the governor to reconsider the financial impact of his order on small business owners that concurrently has the potential to make them criminals for simply trying to earn a living.”
To his credit, on pandemic response issues Walz has consistently put public health above politics. He understood that ordering closures on a partial county-by-county basis would be unfair and ineffective. After all, irresponsible citizens in counties were restaurants and bars were closed would simply travel across county borders to eat and drink out, which would create new pandemic hot-spots in previously uncontaminated Minnesota counties.
Thanks to Walz’s leadership, on March 24 Minnesota ranked in the top ten of states with the most aggressive policies for limiting the rapid spread of coronavirus. A lot has changed since these rankings came out, but Walz seems very likely to issue a shelter-in-place order sometime this week, which should keep Minnesota relatively high in the rankings.
It would be tempting for Walz to view restaurant and bar closing through a short-term political lens, as the Governors in red states such as Wyoming, Mississippi, Texas, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Missouri seem to be doing. It would be easier to keep some or all of Minnesota’s bars and restaurants open, and let other states leaders do the heavy lifting when it comes to pandemic management.
But Walz isn’t taking that politically expedient approach, and the economic and political fallout from all of this could potentially cost him his political career.
I certainly hope that doesn’t happen, but if it does, it’s a relatively small price to pay to prevent Minnesota hospital patients from suffering the kind of horrific meltdowns being seen in Italy, where physicians are reportedly forced to deny care to suffocating people over 60 because of lack of medical capacity.
Trying to avoid scenes like that are well worth whatever political price Walz pays. Here’s hoping that the newly self-quarantined Governor stays healthy, and that a plurality of Minnesotans will eventually appreciate his impressive display of political courage at this crucial moment in Minnesota history.
Throughout her career, Senator Amy Klobuchar has always stuck to political “small ball,” refusing to use her carefully hoarded political capital to fight for the proposals that will take patience to enact, but will make the biggest difference for struggling Americans. The Star Tribune explains:
But as Klobuchar pursues the pragmatic politics of constituent service and bipartisan dealmaking, she faces some frustration on the left, particularly among gay activists and environmentalists who see her playing it safe in the middle of the road.
“There are big, fundamental system change issues we have to address,” said Steve Morse of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, which has battled Klobuchar over climate change legislation and her support for a new Stillwater bridge over the St. Croix River. “Dealing with swimming pools is good and important to families, but it doesn’t change the big drivers of our society.”
So, last night it was hardly surprising to see Klobuchar taking cheap shots at Senator Elizabeth Warren over Warren’s championing of for Medicare for All, which will obviously be challenging to pass in the near term.
“The difference between a plan and a pipe dream is whether it can actually get done.”
Bam! Klobuchar is likely high-fiving her (ducking) staffers this morning. She’s in the news! She’s finally relevant!
But from a progressive standpoint, here’s the fatal flaw with Klobuchar’s lifelong approach to leadership. Once upon a time, the following things were all considered by moderates like Klobuchar to be “pipe dreams not plans,” or things that Klobuchar would not deem worthy of a fight because, in their day, they didn’t immediately have the votes to pass: Medicare, civil rights, voting rights, minimum wage increases, and marriage equality, to name just a few.
Those things just happen to be some of the crowning policy achievements of the modern Democratic Party, and they never would have been enacted if progressives with political courage hadn’t fought for them at a stage when the votes weren’t there.
Senator Klobuchar’s biggest problem isn’t that she has a sordid record of being immature and cruel to staff, as disturbing as that is to those of us who believe that character is revealed by how you act when no one is watching. Klobuchar’s even bigger problem is that she will never be the kind of courageous leader who fights the most consequential fights for ordinary families, when the fight is not yet politically advantageous to her in the short-term.
As for Medicare-for-All, 247 independent economists recently are on the record countering Klobuchar’s criticism that Senator Warren’s approach will cost too much. Those economists find that Medicare-for-All will cost Americans less than the current corporate-driven system protected by Klobuchar, not more.
In the letter, the economists underline the savings of the multi-payer insurance system in the United States, especially compared to other countries. “Public financing for health is not a matter of raising new money for health care,” the letter states, “but of reducing total health care outlays and distributing payments more equitably and efficiently.”
Economic analyses by the Mercatus Center and the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, for example, have projected the Medicare for All would reduce total national health care costs by hundreds of billions of dollars each year while simultaneously guaranteeing safe, therapeutic health care for every person in the United States.
Senator Klobuchar is smart and does her homework, so she understands this truth. She also understands that if the votes aren’t immediately there for Medicare-for-All, Democrats will adjust, and try to enact Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It or Obamacare improvements until the votes for Medicare-for-All do exist. She knows that’s how legislative strategy works.
But Klobuchar, hovering at just 2% in an average of national polls, is obviously desperate. So last evening, she went with a self-serving cheap shot over the truth, and advocated the easy policy path over the more impactful policy path. To Minnesota progressives, that sure sounds familiar, which may explain why she is running in fourth place in her home state.
Among political reporters and pundits, the fashionable take on Democratic presidential candidates is that they’re recklessly veering too far to the left, consequently putting their chances of defeating Donald Trump at risk. That critique is all the rage.
“But the Democrats are in danger of marching so far left that they go over a cliff. That’s not just my view. Mainstream reporters, who tend to be less sensitive to liberal positions that match their personal views, are openly acknowledging and debating the dramatic shift. It was even on the front page of The New York Times.”
“The Democratic debates this past week provided the clearest evidence yet that many of the leading presidential candidates are breaking with the incremental politics of the Clinton and Obama eras, and are embracing sweeping liberal policy changes on some of the most charged public issues in American life, even at the risk of political backlash. But with moderate Democrats repeatedly drowned out or on the defensive in the debates, the sprint to the left has deeply unnerved establishment Democrats, who have largely picked the party nominees in recent decades.”
“That sound you heard in Miami on Wednesday evening? El partido demócrata dando un fuerte giro a la izquierda. The screech of a Democratic Party swerving hard to the left. As the first 2020 Democratic debate wrapped here, there was a palpable sense that the 10 contenders on stage were reflecting the sentiments of the most liberal corners of the party.”
Yes, Democrats are more liberal than they have been in my lifetime. Yes, it’s possible that they could eventually go too far. But I disagree with the punditosphere that Democrats have hit that point.
Why Moving Left?
The explanation of aghast pundits has been that Democrats are supporting progressive policies for two primary reasons:
Echo Chamber Parrots. First, they argue that Democrats are more liberal because they spend too much time in self-reinforcing “echo chambers” — social media and cable news channels where like-minded ideologues radicalize each other and get isolated from opposing viewpoints. Pundits say candidates spend too little time in the habitat of “real people,” which they usually identify as Mayberry-esque Main Street cafes.
Liberal Bidding War. Also, pundits explain that Democrats are now more liberal because they’re desperately trying to out-liberal each other to court ultra-liberal primary and caucus voters.
These are both very real occupational hazards for politicians, and valid contributory factors for the shift to the left. I don’t disagree with them, but they’re not the only explanations.
Democrats Are Listening To Americans
Many reporters and pundits are missing or under-emphasizing another explanation that is at least as important,:
Listening To Americans. Democrats are moving left because they are actually listening to Americans.
Democrats are not just marching in lockstep with Rachel Maddow, Moveon.org, Daily Kos, Paul Krugman, and Bernie Sanders. They’re not just trying to one-up each other. They’re also reading the survey research.
The American Prospect recently compiled a long list of recent survey polls showing overwhelming majorities of Americans embracing a broad range of progressive attitudes and policies, excerpted below. Remember, the following is dozens of independent statistically significant surveys speaking, not the liberal American Prospect magazine speaking:
The Economy
82 percent of Americans think wealthy people have too much power and influence in Washington.
78 percent of likely voters support stronger rules and enforcement on the financial industry.
Inequality
82 percent of Americans think economic inequality is a “very big” (48 percent) or “moderately big” (34 percent) problem. Even 69 percent of Republicans share this view.
66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.
72 percent of Americans say it is “extremely” or “very” important, and 23 percent say it is “somewhat important,” to reduce poverty.
59 percent of registered voters—and 51 percent of Republicans—favor raising the maximum amount that low-wage workers can make and still be eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit, from $14,820 to $18,000.
Taxes
76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.
60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.
87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.
67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.
Minimum Wage
54 percent of registered voters favored a $15 minimum wage.
63 percent of registered voters think the minimum wage should be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.
Workers’ Rights
74 percent of registered voters—including 71 percent of Republicans—support requiring employers to offer paid parental and medical leave.
78 percent of likely voters favor establishing a national fund that offers all workers 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave.
Health Care
60 percent of Americans believe “it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.”
60 percent of registered voters favor “expanding Medicare to provide health insurance to every American.”
64 percent of registered voters favor their state accepting the Obamacare plan for expanding Medicaid in their state.
Education
63 percent of registered voters—including 47 percent of Republicans—of Americans favor making four-year public colleges and universities tuition-free.
59 percent of Americans favor free early-childhood education.
Climate Change and the Environment
76 percent of voters are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about climate change.
68 percent of voters think it is possible to protect the environment and protect jobs.
59 percent of voters say more needs to be done to address climate change.
Gun Safety
84 percent of Americans support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
77 percent of gun owners support requiring background checks for all gun buyers.
Criminal Justice
60 percent of Americans believe the recent killings of black men by police are part of a broader pattern of how police treat black Americans (compared with 39 percent who believe they are isolated incidents).
Immigration
68 percent of Americans—including 48 percent of Republicans—believe the country’s openness to people from around the world “is essential to who we are as a nation.” Just 29 percent say that “if America is too open to people from all over the world, we risk losing our identity as a nation.”
65 percent of Americans—including 42 percent of Republicans—say immigrants strengthen the country “because of their hard work and talents.” Just 26 percent say immigrants are a burden “because they take our jobs, housing and health care.”
64 percent of Americans think an increasing number of people from different races, ethnic groups, and nationalities makes the country a better place to live. Only 5 percent say it makes the United States a worse place to live, and 29 percent say it makes no difference.
76 percent of registered voters—including 69 percent of Republicans—support allowing undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children (Dreamers) to stay in the country. Only 15 percent think they should be removed or deported from the country.
Abortion and Women’s Health
58 percent of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases.
68 percent of Americans—including 54 percent of Republicans—support the requirement for private health insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control.
Same-Sex Marriage
62 percent of Americans—including 70 percent of independents and 40 percent of Republicans—support same-sex marriage.
For people who suffered through eras when the NRA, the Catholic Church, the health insurance lobby, the Moral Majority, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Americans for Tax Reform, and trickle downers like Reagan, Gingrich and Bush dominated politics and policymaking, these findings are pretty stunning.
Make no mistake, America has changed. A solid majority of Americans now are supportive of left-leaning policies, whether or not they self-identify as “liberal.” In a representative democracy, public opinion is supposed to have a powerful impact on candidates and policymakers, and it is.
“Scaring the Independents”
“Harumph,” say the grizzled veteran pundits and reporters. Hubris-laden Democrats are going to scare away the Independent voters and be responsible for four more years of Trump.
That’s certainly a danger, and an important thing to monitor in coming months. But remember, all of those polls listed above have a representative number of Independent voters in their samples, and breakouts show that on most issues a solid majority of Independents also are backing very progressive policy positions.
In addition, when you look at how Independent voters are currently leaning, they are leaning in the Democrat’s direction by a net nine-point margin.
Obviously, these polls are just a snapshot in time, so Democrats could still lose Independent voters after they are exposed to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of attacks. However, it’s worth noting that, after watching Democrats being lambasted for embracing progressive positions in recent years, Independents are still leaning fairly decisively blue.
Expanding the Electorate
Finally, let’s not forget that it will be easier for Democratic candidates to win if they can expand the electorate. That is, Democrats need to make the overall size of their electorate larger than it has been in past presidential election by motivating and activating the parts of their coalition that have traditionally voted in relatively low numbers, such as low-income people, people of color and young people. Even just a few percentage points improvement with those groups could impact the outcome of the 2020 elections up and down the ballot.
Positions in the “mushy middle” — ACA stabilization tweaks, incremental tax reform, inflation adjustments only to the minimum wage, semi-punitive immigration law changes, Pell Grant adjustments, etc. — probably won’t particularly motivate and activate these important voters.
Bolder progressive policies — Medicare-for All, Medicare buy-in option, repealing Bush and Trump tax cuts for the wealthy to fund help for struggling families, increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour, family medical leave benefits, bold immigration law changes, higher education loan forgiveness — might.
Short-term Needs. So even if supporting progressive policies were causing Democrats to lose amongst Independent voters — and remember, so far the data seems to indicate that they aren’t — there is an argument for Democratic candidates to take those progressive stands anyway, in order to keep young people, poor people, and people of color from sitting out election day in large numbers, or backing a left-leaning third party candidate.
Long-term Needs. Appealing to those lightly voting groups with progressive policies is also important for the long-term future of the Democratic Party, not just the 2020 election. That’s because people of color are the fastest growing portions of the population, and today’s young people obviously will be voting for many years. Making those groups into committed members of the Democratic coalition would pay long-term dividends.
More Room To Grow. Still, some maintain that voter turnout is going to be so large in 2020, due to the polarizing nature of President Trump, that the size of the electorate will be maxed out without having to motivate lightly voting groups with progressive policies.
But when you look at the dramatically lower than average turnout figures for loyal Democratic constituencies in 2018, when their turnout levels were actually very high compared to 2014, it’s clear there is still much room for growth with these groups. For instance, 36% of young people voted in 2018, compared to 53% of the total population. Again, even an increase of a point or two in some of these categories could be decisive.
Who’s Out of Touch?
So yes, Democrats have indeed moved left in recent years. That much is obvious. But given this consistent stream of survey research from a wide variety of sources, I can’t agree with those who conclude that Democratic candidates are the ones who are “out of touch” with the pulse of the American people.
Democratic presidential candidates are lining up in support of Medicare-for-All, and I’m glad they’re making that case to Americans. Around the world, single payer systems like Medicare-for-All are delivering better and cheaper health care than Americans are getting, and we need to adopt such a system as soon as possible. As William Hsiao, Ph.D., professor of economics at the Harvard School of Public Health puts it:
“You can have universal coverage and good quality health care, while still managing to control costs. But you have to have a single-payer system to do it.”
But for reasons I’ll explain below, I don’t believe Medicare-for-All can pass in 2020, even if Democrats control Congress and the White House. So, we need to extend a meaningful bridge to Medicare-for-All.
So what could Democrats pass to make Medicare-for-All possible in the relatively near future?
The 74-Year Battle
Before we get to that, let’s back up to reflect on how we got here. In 1945, Harry Truman wanted what we today would call Medicare-for-All. For 20 years, it went nowhere. What was dubbed “socialized medicine” by Ronald Reagan and other Republicans just didn’t prove to be politically feasible.
In 1965, Lyndon Johnson had a partial breakthrough. He passed Medicare for 65 and older, but it wasn’t as comprehensive as today’s Medicare. As support for Medicare grew, improvements were made. In 1972, Republican Richard Nixon agreed to expand coverage. In the Reagan years, home health care, hospice services, and a limited prescription drug benefit were added. In the George H.W. Bush era, the prescription drug benefit was expanded.
The historical lesson: Health care reform in a nation dominated by powerful private health insurance companies has been supremely arduous, and therefore incremental. This is true even though Medicare has proven popular and efficient.
Medicare-for-All Next?
Unfortunately, three-quarters of a century after Truman started advocating for Medicare for All, the debate still is treacherous. In 2019, the Medicare expansion debate boils down to essentially this: Should progressives push for 1) publicly financed, mandated Medicare-for-All; 2) voluntary, consumer-financed Medicare buy-in option; or 3) a publicly financed, mandated “Medicare at 50.”
Many progressives, myself included, point to the polls showing strong support for Medicare-for-All, and say now is the time to push for it.
Indeed, progressives should continue to make the case for making Medicare-for-All the goal. At the same time, we have to recognize that in the current political environment, Medicare-for-All has much less popular support than a Medicare buy-in option. A January 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) poll finds that 56% of Americans support Medicare-for-All, while 77% support a Medicare buy-in option. So when conservatives and insurance companies start attacking, the buy-in option would be much more politically bullet-proof than Medicare-for-All.
Moreover, as the debate heats up Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will be vulnerable to two of the most deadly attacks in all of American politics. First, opponents will say they’re “massively expensive.” Second, they will say consumers would be “forced to give up your current coverage.”
We shouldn’t discount the political power of those two critiques. When it comes to taxpayer expense and mandated change, American voters have historically been very easily spooked. Those two attacks, which would be greatly amplified via hundreds of millions of dollars worth of the most intensive political and special interest propaganda the nation has ever seen, will be very effective at eroding support.
Therefore, today’s poll numbers for Medicare-for-All and Medicare-at-50 will not hold up, and when they shrink, congressional votes will disappear.
Advantages Of A Medicare Buy-In Bridge
A Medicare buy-in option, however, is much more politically durable, and not just because it has 21 points more support in the KFF survey than Medicare-for-All.
Not Expensive. First, a Medicare buy-in option wouldn’t have a big taxpayer price tag like Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, because consumers under age 65 would be paying premiums, not taxpayers.
Not A Mandate. Second, a buy-in option wouldn’t force any consumer to give up their current coverage, which they would need to do with either Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50. Under the buy-in option, consumers who want to continue to pay more to keep their private coverage could still choose to do so.
The fact that a Medicare buy-in option is voluntary and self-financing would largely disarm the most potent political attacks that have been working since 1945.
A Bridge To Medicare-for-All. But make no mistake, passing a Medicare buy-in option would constitute dramatic progress that would make Medicare for All much more likely in the future. Let me count the ways:
More Affordable for Millions. Because Medicare has much lower overhead than private health insurance, it would give millions of Americans more affordable coverage than they have today. By the way, if private insurance somehow turns out to be cheaper and/or better than the Medicare option, as conservatives have long claimed, consumers obviously will choose it. If that happens, Republicans will be proven correct. So let patients decide, not politicians. Conservatives should have nothing to fear from giving this option to consumers.
Aid Cost Control. A Medicare buy-in option would give Medicare a bigger pool of consumers, which would give Medicare officials much more leverage to negotiate cost control with hospitals, doctors, device makers and pharmaceutical companies. “Medicare-for-more” would not be as effective at leveraging lower costs as “Medicare-for-All” will be, but it will bring important progress.
Deepen Medicare Support. As more Americans voluntarily switch from private insurance to the cheaper Medicare buy-in option without experiencing worse service and coverage, it will show Americans that this “government-run health care” is not the horrific bogeyman Republicans have made it out to be.
Broaden Generational Support. Finally, while Medicare currently mostly only has senior citizen champions, newly converted believers in Medicare would be in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and early 60s. This would dramatically strengthen the Medicare-for-All base of support.
So, a Medicare buy-in option would be much more politically feasible than Medicare-for-All or Medicare-at-50, and it is the next logical span of the bridge to Medicare-for-All to add. Progressives shouldn’t be hesitant to build it.
One of the problems with running against a historically bizarre opponent like Donald Trump is that there are so many different juicy ways to run against him. Most activists and pundits think of that as an opportunity, but it also poses a very real problem – focus.
Because Trump is such an outrageous cartoon character of a candidate, Secretary Clinton could be tempted to use her campaign platform and resources to frame up Mr. Trump in a myriad of different ways. But that would be the biggest mistake she could make.
Trump the bigot. Trump the philanderer. Trump the misogynist. Trump the bully. Trump the trigger happy. Trump the uncouth. Trump the simpleton. Trump the liar. Trump the inciter. Trump the right winger. Trump the failure. Trump the blunderer. Trump the neo-facist. Trump the war criminal. Trump the con artist. Trump the demagogue. Trump the hypocrite. Trump the rejected. Trump the authoritarian. Trump the unstable. Trump the novice. Trump the flip-flopper. Trump the all-of-the-above.
It’s dizzying. One of the worst possible strategies is the last one — to throw everything at Trump in roughly equal measure, which is de facto what is happening at the moment. And that is what happens when you don’t have a disciplined communications strategy.
Singular Key Message Needed
The essence of communications strategy is sacrifice. You have to walk past some tempting messages in order to have a focused strategy. If you say everything you possibly could say about an opponent, you effectively are saying nothing. All of those very valid Trump critiques piled one upon the other becomes a cacophony to voters. Subsequently, eyes roll and ears shut.
So communications strategists typically identify a small number of messages or themes that they strive to repeat and stress above all the others. They’re often called “key messages,” or “frames.”
The key message is the one idea that you need to stick in your target audience’s mind in order to achieve your goal, which in this case is persuading swing voters to reject Trump and get more comfortable with Clinton.
Therefore, the Clinton campaign needs to stick to a small number of lines of attack, even as the Trump vaudeville act continually tosses out new bait to lead the Clinton campaign down dozens of different messaging paths. Trump is clearly incapable of message discipline, but Clinton can’t allow his lack of discipline to destrory hers.
Trump The Economy Rigger
So which crystallizing key message should Clinton stress?
Swing voters are disgusted by establishment figures like Hillary and Congress, because they see them as part of a corrupt Washington culture that has rigged the economy for the wealthy few to the exclusion of the non-wealthy many. That is the central concern of many Trumpeters and Bern Feelers, and so that issue is the most important messaging ground for Clinton.
Therefore, Secretary Clinton should align a disciplined campaign messaging machine – ads, speech soundbites, policy announcements, surrogate messaging, etc. — around framing Mr. Trump as:
Trump the self-serving economy rigger.
As Clintonista James Carville might say, “it’s the economy rigging, stupid.” That is, Trump the privileged billionaire selfishly seeking to win control the Washington levers of power in order further rig the economy to benefit himself and his privileged class at the expense of everyone else. If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s precisely the strategy that Team Obama used to defeat billionaire Mitt Romney in 2012.
Why choose this framing over all of the other delicious options? First, it was proven effective against a billionaire candidate in 2016. There is message equity there. Why reinvent the wheel? Second, it goes to the core of what is bugging swing voters the most in 2016.
With this kind of framing, the Clinton-Warren or Clinton-Sherrod Brown team would focus like a laser on Trump’s tax giveaways to the rich. It would highlight his proposals to weaken Wall Street protections. It would stress Trump’s opposition to Clinton proposals to increase the minimum wage hikes and taxes on the wealthy. It would hammer relentlessly on Trump’s refusal to reveal his taxes, and stress that he doesn’t want ordinary Americans to know that the billionaire pays a much smaller percentage of his taxes than they do. It would focus on his history of lobbying to create and perpetuate the wealth-protection measures to rig the economy in his favor, while harming the rest of us.
Executing that kind of messaging strategy would require the Clinton campaign to largely take a pass on the other juicy lines of attack against Trump, all of which will be magnified during daily news coverage, but are unhelpful diversions of public mind space compared to this framing. It would require her to be saying things like this:
“You know, I care much less about today’s latest sideshow than the fact that Mr. Trump’s plan to cut taxes for the rich and oppose a minimum wage hike will further rig the economy for the ultra-wealthy. His outrageous giveaway to his fellow billionaires is much more offensive to me than his latest round of crudeness.”
Focusing on “Trump the self-serving economy rigger” would make Clinton look a bit more like a change-agent, and less like a defender of the despised Washington status quo. It also would help erode the silly notion of among some swing voters that Trump is somehow the champion of the common man.
This won’t come naturally for Secretary Clinton. Her establishment instincts will continually tempt her to focus her critique of Trump through a Washington lens. She’ll instinctively want to crow about the fact that she knows more about policy details, and that the smarty pants Washingtonian centrists, and even some conservatives, are embracing her and rejecting Trump. She’ll want to scold Trump about saying things that, well, refined Washingtonians simply do not say.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. When Clinton does that, many swing voters hear her as “Washington insider looking down her nose at Washington outsider,” and in the current political climate the instincts of many will be to side with the outsider. Hillary needs to fight her instincts and frame Trump as the ultimate nest-feathering insider masquerading as an outsider. She doesn’t need to feel her inner Bubba and triangulate the center right, or jump on each of Trump’s outrage du jour. As much as she may want to resist it, Hillary needs to feel the Bern.
Note: This post also was published as part of MinnPost’s weekly Blog Cabin feature.
Governor Dayton has been very clear that early education investment is his Administration’s top priority. But you’d never know it by looking at the budget proposals coming out of the Minnesota Legislature so far this year.
This Governor sounds very serious about making early education his legacy. Early in his term, the Dayton Administration brought two proven early education programs statewide — Early Learning Scholarships and the Parent Aware program. Last year, he continually demanded larger investments in early education, and expressed bitter disappointment when the investment wasn’t as large as he had wanted.
Since then, he has repeatedly made it very clear that more early education investment is needed. Last summer, just a few weeks after the special session ended, the Governor told reporters:
“We’re going to keep making that the priority of my administration, and anything else is going to have to take second place and not precede it.”
He then went on to make a pledge that caught the attention of a lot of reporters and legislators who would like to spend their summer away from the Capitol this year.
“I will not sign a tax bill that does not have an equitable amount in it overall for early childhood and for continuing the progress that we’re made here.”
This winter, the Governor hasn’t let up. On February 28th, the Pioneer Press reported:
In a news conference last week, Dayton said that when it comes to closing student achievement gaps, addressing early learning “is the most important thing we can do.”
There’s compelling evidence to back up the Governor’s prioritization of early education. Research by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis found that helping low-income children access high quality early education programs can yield up to $16 in societal returns for every $1 spent. The returns mostly comes in the form of a lifetime of taxpayer expenses foregone, such as future taxpayer bills for remedial education, social services, income supports, health care, law enforcement and prisons.
The part that many miss about this oft-cited research is that the investment must meet two important criteria in order for the returns to materialize. First, the investment has to be directed at low-income children. Second, it has to be in providing access to high quality programs, the types of places that actually get kids ready for school. Investing in children whose family can already afford good programs, or in lower quality programs, doesn’t yield the big returns.
In other words, how lawmakers invest matters, not just what amount they invest.
How Much Is An “Equitable Amount?”
Still, with 89% of low-income pre-schoolers unable to obtain Early Learning Scholarships due to insufficient funding, and Minnesota having some of the worst achievement gaps in the nation, the size of the investment definitely matters. And with just a few days left in the session, the DFL Governor doesn’t seem to be getting much DFL legislative support for his top priority.
The DFL-controlled Senate is proposing to invest only 3.9% of the $900 million surplus on their Governor’s number one priority. That is less than half what the Governor recommends. Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled Minnesota House is proposing to spend just 0.5% of the surplus on early education, less than one-twentieth of what the Governor proposes.
In his budget recommendations, the Governor proposed spending 10.9% of the budget surplus ($98.4 million) on early care and education. Even that amount is not a particularly large sum for something the Governor has identified as “the priority of my administration,” but it is by far the most robust investment that has been proposed this year.
Somewhere in the vast gap between the House’s proposed 0.2% of the surplus and the Administration’s proposed 10.9% of the surplus is what the man in possession of the veto will consider an “equitable amount” for early education programs. If the Governor fights for his number one priority the way he did last year, reporters and legislators may not want to make their summer vacation plans quite yet.
– Loveland
Disclosure: I’m a communications consultant who contracts with a nonprofit organization that agrees with some but not all of Governor Dayton’s early education proposals, and some but not all of the bipartisan Legislature’s early education proposals. This post reflects my personal views, not necessarily that organization’s views.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has already given much to the Democratic Party. But even though his chances of being nominated remain slim, he still has a bit more he could give to his adopted party.
Largely because of Clinton’s dominance when it comes to establishment-oriented super delegates, we’re being told by elite analysts like FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver that Hillary will likely be nominated, even after a likely Sanders win in Wisconsin today and a possible win in Clinton’s home state of New York. Sanders’ exit from the stage couldn’t come soon enough for frustrated supporters of Hillary Clinton, who see Sanders as an annoying speed bump on her trip down Inevitability Lane.
Bernie’s Gifts To Democrats
But the fact is, Sanders’ questioning of Clinton has helped her improve as a candidate. Though still too cautious and programmed, Clinton is a better candidate now than she was before Sanders joined her on stage.
Beyond changing candidate Clinton for the better, Sanders has also changed the Democratic party for the better. This longtime political independent has reminded Democratic partisans that it’s okay to dream of progressive policies that go beyond the cautious incrementalism ushered in during the 1990s by the Clintons and their center-right Democratic Leadership Council (DLC).
With every major western nation operating universal health care systems that are more fair, effective and efficient than today’s complex Rube Goldberg-style Affordable Care Act (ACA) machinery, Sanders reminded Democrats that it’s reasonable to both appreciate the progress being made under the ACA, while continuing to fight for the superior single payer models.
Sanders also reminded Democrats that a college degree is as vital today as a high school degree was at the time the American public education system was created, so we need to keep fighting to update our public education system by offering tuition-free public higher education.
Sanders reminded Democrats that even Republican presidents such as Bush, Reagan, Nixon and Eisenhower all required wealthy Americans to pay more to support their country than we do today, so it’s reasonable to ask more of the wealthy again to help rebuild the American dream for the lower- and middle-class.
Sanders reminded Democrats that the party that created a wide array of popular socialist programs that built the great American middle class — New Deal job programs, Social Security, the GI Bill, the Rural Electric Administration, Medicare — doesn’t need to cower in fear every time conservatives label their proposals as “socialism.”
Finally, Sanders shined a light on the corrupting influence that big money has had on America’s corporatized Congress.
Democrats owe the Independent Senator a debt of gratitude. The fact that many to most of Sanders’ proposals could not have passed in the short-term with a Republican-controlled Congress does not mean that progressives shouldn’t advocate for those policies, to improve their viability over the long-term. It’s self-defeating to allow do-nothing congressional conservatives to limit how Democrats use the bullypulpit.
Bernie’s Parting Gift
But where does Sanders go from here? If delegate geeks like Nate Silver are correct that it’s impossible for Sanders to come from behind to win the nomination, should he just pull out of the race, as indignant Clinton supporters have been demanding?
Before Sanders leaves the stage, I’d ask one more favor of him: Expose Trumponomics for what it is. To limit the number of Sanders refugees who are tempted to support Trump over Clinton in November, Sanders should spend the next few weeks exposing the fraud Mr. Trump is attempting to perpetrate on Americans.
For instance, Sanders should explain that billionaire Trump may claim that his partial self-financing makes him independent from the uber-wealthy interests, but Trump’s tax plan exposes the truth. According to a Tax Policy Center (TPC) analysis, Trump’s tax plan would give an average tax cut of $1.3 million per year to the richest one-tenth of one percent. Sanders should make sure his audience understands that billionaire Trump plans to further enrich his fellow billionaires.
Sanders should also explain how the businessman’s proposals will destroy the American economy, rather than make America “win so much will be sick of winning.” For instance, look at what Mr. Trump’s plan to lavish the mega-rich with tax breaks would do to the national debt:
“The Tax Policy Center estimates the proposal would reduce federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over its first decade and an additional $15.0 trillion over the subsequent 10 years, before accounting for added interest costs or considering macroeconomic feedback effects.”
Some have suggested that Sanders and Trump compete for the same type of voters, those most frustrated with the status quo. Therefore, before Sanders leaves the stage, he should conduct a seminar for “open to Trump” voters about the fraud Mr. Trump is attempting to perpetrate on them. Doing so could constitute Bernie’s greatest gift of all to the Democratic Party.
Democratic presidential candidates are lining up in support of Medicare-for-All, and I’m glad they’re making that case to Americans. Around the 
Before we get to that, let’s back up to reflect on how we 
So communications strategists typically identify a small number of messages or themes that they strive to repeat and stress above all the others. They’re often called “key messages,” or “frames.”
Governor Dayton has been very clear that early education investment is his Administration’s top priority. But you’d never know it by looking at the budget proposals coming out of the Minnesota Legislature so far this year.
Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has already given much to the Democratic Party. But even though his chances of being nominated remain slim, he still has a bit more he could give to his adopted party.