Worksheet for the 2018 Midterms (More Democrat Biographies and #MedicareForAll Support)

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

Lambert here: I’ve updated the post by adding an additional comment under Figure 2, and added Figure 3.

This is the third in a continuing series of worksheets, in which I seek to understand and document the institutional structure of the Democratic Party, so-called, by looking carefully at the challengers in a sample of key races that are must-wins for the Democrats if they are to take back the House (part one; part two). I should emphasize that this is not a horse-race approach, although with more data we may converge on some conclusions about the consequences of a Democrat victory, if not about the likelihood of victory itself. In my previous approach, I looked at two questions: Whether militarized candidates — not merely former (?) intelligence types, but law enforcement types as well law enforcement having become militarized — were a significant presence in my sample, and whether outside groups — Emily’s List, Our Revolution, etc. — were. In each case the answer was yes.

This post builds on that previous effort. To the coding for militarized (“MILO”) candidates and party faction (whether Democrat “regulars” or outside groups) I have added coding for occupations in sciences, health, and education (“SHE”)[1] and support for #MedicareForAll (coded with “➕”)[2]. By intersecting MILO, SHE, party faction, and #MedicareForAll support, I hope to understand divisions in the party better. The coding is documented in the Legend beneath the Table.

My approach was the same as before: I went through each state, district, and read each candidate’s bio (updating as I went; PA-05 was especially colorful, even for Pennsylvania). Based on the bios, or if necessary Google search, I coded the candidates for “SHE” status and #MedicareForAll support.[3] I present the results in Table 1, and then provide interpretations in Figures 1 and 2. So you can skip right over the table if you want! (I’ve got to say, though, that I find this material fascinating. “What is government itself,” asks Madison, “but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”)

Table 1: Worksheet on House Races, Election 2018 (2018-04-02).

State District Party Status Incumbent Status Dem Challengers Notes
AZ 01 D   O’Halleran Tilt D Miguel Olivas [DP]  
AZ 02 R Open McSally Tilt D William Foster, Matt Heinz [DP; h], Ann Kirkpatrick (more) [EL; DCCC; DP] [M], Billy Kovacs, Mary Matiella (more)[JD; m] [➕], Barbara Sherry(more), BruceWheeler(more)[DP] [➕], Yahya Yuksel [DP] [➕] New: Yahya Yuksel.Kirkpatrick co-sponsored HR676. Heinz is Medicare buy-in.
CA 07 D   Bera Likely D
CA 39(more) R Open Royce Toss-Up Gil Cisneros (more; more)[m], Sam Jammal (more)[DP] [➕], Suzi Park Leggett [DP], Ted Rusk, Cybil Steed [e], Andy Thorburn(more)[OR; e] [➕], Mai Khanh Tran (more)[EL; h] New: Legget. Gone: Janowicz. Local Indivisible not in favor of endorsing. SEIU says Cisneros is forMedicare for All, but his site says Medicare buy-in.
CA 49 R Open Issa Toss-Up Douglas Applegate (more) [JD; m] [➕], Sara Jacobs (more)[EL; DP] [➕], Paul Kerr (more)[m] [➕], Mike Levin (more)[DP] [➕]
Indivisible and PACorganize forum; onlyLevin atttends. Applegate is endorsed by NNU.
FL 07 D   Murphy Lean D Chardo Richardson[BN JD; m] [➕]
Murphy is aBlue Dog.
FL 13 D   Crist Likely D  
FL 27 R Open Ros-Lehtinen Lean D Mary Barzee Flores [EL], Kristen Rosen Gonzalez (more)[DP; e], Matt Haggman, MichaelHepburn (more)[JD; e] [➕], Mark Anthony Person, David Richardson (more)[➕], Jose Javier Rodriguez(more)[DP], Ken Russell[DP], Donna Shalala (more; more)[DP] New: Dunn, Shahala, the front-runner,still doesn’t have a website. Richardson’s Florida House site is broken.
MN 01(more) D Open Walz Toss-Up Johnny Akzam [S] [➕], Dan Feehan (more; more; more) [DP; m], Vicki Jensen [DP], Bob Ries (more)[m], Joe Sullivan, Rich Wright (more)[DP; lm] [➕]
Jensen’s site is down.
MN 02 R   Lewis Toss-Up Angie Craig (more)[DCCC], Jeff Erdmann (more)[e] [➕]
Minnesota toss-ups.
MN 07 D   Peterson Lean D  
MN 08
D Open Nolan Toss-Up Kirsten Hagen Kennedy [DP], MichelleLee [➕], Jason Metsa (more)[DP], Leah Phifer (more)[i] [➕], Joe Radinovich (more)[DP]  
NH 01 D Open Shea-Porter Tilt D Mark S. Mackenzie (more; more)[DP; S], Deaglan McEachern (more)[DP], Mindi Messmer (more)[S; s][➕], Terence O’Rourke [lm], Chris Pappas (more)[DP], Levi Sanders (more; more)[➕], Lincoln Soldati [l], Maura Sullivan (more)[EL; DP; m]  
NJ 02 R Open LoBiondo Toss-Up Will Cunningham (more)[DP], Sean Thom (more) [e] [➕], Jeff Van Drew(more)[DP; DCCC], Tanzie Youngblood (more) [e]
NJ 05 D   Gottheimer Tilt D  
NJ 11(more) R Open Frelinghuysen Toss-Up Mitchell Cobert [l], Jack Gebbia (more)[m], Tamara Harris (more), Alison Heslin, Mikie Sherrill (more)[EL; DCCC; lm], Mark Washburne [e] [➕] Sherrill is Medicare buy-in. Gebbia’s site is broken.
NV 03 D Open Rosen Tilt D Richard Hart, Susie Lee (more; more)[EL; DCCC; e], Jack Love[➕], Guy Pinjuv (more)[s], Steve Schiffman, Eric Stoltz, Michael Weiss (more)[S] [➕]
Biden backed Lee; her site is broken. Lee’s site is fixed.
NV 04(more) D Open Kihuen Likely D John Anzalone (more)[e], Steven Horsford (more)[DP], Patricia Spearman (more)[DP; m] [➕], Allison Stephens (more)[DP; e], Amy Vilela (more)[JD] [➕], Sid Zeller [mi]
New: Eric Stoltz, Zeller, a former Republican. His website is broken.
PA 05(more; more; more) R Open Meehan Likely D Larry Arata [e], George Badey (more)[DP], Shelly Chauncey (more)[i] [➕], Margo Davidson [DP], Thaddeus Kirkland [DP], Richard Lazer (more)[DP] [➕], Lindy Li (more), Ashley Lunkenheimer (more)[l], Dan Muroff (more; more)[DP], Mary Gay Scanlon, Molly Sheehan (more)[s] [➕], Greg Vitali (more)[DP], David Wertime, Theresa Wright After PA’s wild redistricting, new: Arata, Davidson, Vitali (from 07), Wright. Gone: Balchunis. Chauncey: “I fully support a single payer healthcare system,but recognize that such a program likely is still many years away.”Lunkenheimer is Medicare buy-in. Muroff’s site is broken.I think Sheehan supports [➕] Wertime laudably supports addressing “social determinants of health.”
PA 06 R   Costello Tilt D Chrissy Houlahan (more) [EL; DCCC; m] After redistricting, gone: Dettore. Moro. Biden endorsed Houlahan.
PA 07 (more) R Open Dent Tilt D David Clark, Rick Daugherty[DP], Greg Edwards [JD] [➕], John Morganelli [DP; l], Roger Ruggles (more) [e], Susan Wild (more; more) [EL; l] After redistricing, new: Clark, Ruggles. Daugherty is Medicaid buy-in. Steyer involved.
PA 08 R Fitzpatrick Likely D No official list of candidates available.
TX 23 R Hurd Toss-Up Gina Ortiz Jones [EL; DP; lm] [➕], Rick Trevino [S JD OR; DP; e] [➕] Runoff.
VA 10 (more) R Comstock Toss-Up Shadi Ayyas [DP; h], Julia Biggins (more) [s], Alison Kiehl Friedman (more)[DP; i], Daniel Helmer (more)[m] [➕], Julien Modica, Paul Pelletier (more)[l], Michael Pomerleano (more), Lindsey Davis Stover (more)[DP], Jennifer Wexton (more)[DP; l] Modica is a perennial candidate.
WA 08 (more) R Open Reichert Toss-Up Poga Ahn, Thomas Cramer [➕], Shannon Hader (more) [h], Robert Hunziker (more) [➕], Brian Kostenko [➕], Jason Rittereiser (more) [IN; l], Kim Schrier (more) [EL IN; h] New: Poga Ahn. Gone: Braydon Olson. Kostenko: “In regards to health insurance, Brian will push for Single-Payer health care, but knows that progress can be made with a Public Option and the expansion of Medicaid in all states.” Schrier is Medicare buy-in. Dual Indivisible endorsement.

Biography: m, i, l, o (“MILO”) Military,Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Other); s,h, e (“SHE”) Science, Health, Education

Backers: BN, EL, IN, JD, OR; DCCC; DP; S: Brand New Congress,Emily’s List, Indivisible, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution; DCCC; Democrat Party, whether elected, staffer, official, etc.; inspired by Sanders.

Policy: [➕]; Medicare for ALl.

First, the the totals (and readers know my arithmetic is not always of the best, so do check me). From the “Dem Challengers” column, we have 113 total candidates. However, we are intersecting MILO, SHE, party faction, and #MedicareForAll support, and 20 candidates (!!) have left so little trace of themselves in BallotPedia or the Intertubes that they cannot be coded for using of those four factors. So we throw them out — they’re ineffectual anyhow — and are left with 93.

Now let’s look at #MedicareForAll support and opposition by party faction. To create Figure 1, I threw those candidates coded “➕” into one bucket and those not so coded into the other. Then I removed their names, and all the fancy formatting. Candidates who were only coded for “➕” became “?”. (“Michael Hepburn [JD; e] [➕]” becomes JD;e]. It’s occurred to me that if this project gets too much bigger, I might need to dust off my SQL skills). Then I arranged the results by party faction with the largest faction sorted first.

Figure 1: Division within Democrats on #MedicareForAll by Candidates

8 [DP][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP;lm][DP;m]
5 [JD;e][JD;m][JD;m][JD][JD]
3 [S;s][S][S]
1 [S JD OR;DP;e]
1 [BN JD;m]
1 [OR;e]
14 [e][e][e][i][i][s][?][?][?][?][?][?][?][?]
TOTAL 36 supporters

30 [DP;DCCC][DP;S][DP;e][DP;e][DP;h][DP;h][DP;i][DP;l][DP;l][DP;m][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP][DP]...
8 [ELIN;h][EL;DCCC;e][EL;DCCC;lm][EL;DCCC;m][EL;DP;m][EL;h][EL;l][EL]
1 [IN;l]
1 [DCCC]
17 [e][e][e][e][e][h][l][l][l][l][lm][mi][s][s]
TOTAL 57 opponents

Some comments:

1) 36 of the 93 (31%) support #MedicareForAll; this is considerably less then the general population (depending, of course, on how the question is asked).

2) By far the largest number of #MedicareForAll supporters (14) are “average Joes or Janes,” unsupported by any faction.

3) The second largest number of #MedicareForAll opponents (17) are “average Joes or Janes,” unsupported by any faction.

4) By far the largest number of #MedicareForAll opponents (30) are Democratic apparatchiks, whether elected or otherwise (30), although there is some Democrat support for #MedicareForAll is well. (See especially TX-23, where both candidates in the runoff support it, and the colorful PA-05, where RIchard Lazer, who is (dare I say it) a machine pol, not that there’s anything wrong with that, support it.

5) Emily’s List is agnostic, although it supports #MedicareForAll candidates only when they are also party-affiliated (3).

6) DP and the BN/JD/OR//S (Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats, Our Revolution, Sanders-inspired) have only one case overlap.

Now, let’s look at #MedicareForAll support by occupation. I began with the same buckets as before (36 and 57), threw out the party factions, and resorted by occupation. (Where a candidate’s only affiliation was party, I replaced DP/DCCC/DNC etc. with “p,” occupation politician. I represented an unknown occupation by “?”) To review the Legend for Table 1, MILO is “military, intelligence, law enforcement, other,” and SHE is “science, health, and education.” Hence, of #MedicareForAll supporters, 10 have unknown occupations (first line), 8 are politicians (second line), 6 are “education” (third line), 6 are “military” (fourth line) and so forth.

Figure 2: Division within Democrats on #MedicareForAll by Occupation

10 ??????????
8 pppppppp
6 eeeeee
6 mmmmmm
2 ii
2 lm,lm
2 ss
TOTAL 36 supporters

22 pppppppppppppppppppppp
8 llllllll
8 eeeeeeee
6 mmmmmm
5 hhhhh
2 lm,lm
2 mi
2 ss
1 i
1 ?
TOTAL 57 opponents

Some comments:

1) Because (a) MILO is evenly split (6 “military” supporters, and 6 opponents), and (b) SHE is almost evenly split (for education, 6 vs. 8, and science, 2 and 2) we can infer that occupation does not correlate with a candidate’s support or opposition to #MedicareForAll, with one significant expection: All the “h” (health) candidates oppose it.[4]

2) The political class opposes #MedicareForAll; 8 of 30 (26%) support it, a smaller proportion than all the candidates, which is in turn smaller than the general population.

NEW 3) By contrast, the 10 challengers without known occupations all support #MedicareForAll, and necessarily from outside the political class; this is an impressive degree of entry and engagement, and an indication that conventional wisdom outside the political class diverges from that within it.

NEW Now let’s sort our data by state[5], from greatest proportion of support to least. Candidates who do not support #Medicare for all are coded with “X”; those who do, with “➕.”

Figure 3: Division within Democrats on #MedicareForAll by State

TX ➕➕ 2/2 (100%)
AZ XX➕➕➕➕ 6/8 (75%)
CA XXXX➕➕➕➕➕➕ 6/10 (60%)
WA XXX➕➕➕ (50%) 3/6
MN XXXXXX➕X➕➕➕➕ 5/12 (41%)
NV XXXXXX➕➕➕➕ 4/10 (40%)
FL XXXXX➕➕➕ 3/8 (37.5%)
NH XXXXXX➕➕ 2/8 (25%)
PA XXXXXXXXXXXXX➕➕➕➕ 4/17 (23.5%)
NJ XXXXXXX➕➕ 2/9 (22%)
VA XXXXXX➕ 1/8 (12.5%)

Some comments:

1) TX: It’s amusing to see the establishment-backed leader try to steal the left’s clothes on policy, and encouraging to see that they didn’t try the “universal health care” or “Medicare Extra” scams. Next, they’ll pass it and take credit!

2) CA: I can see why support would be so strong; a campaign by National Nurses United; a single payer bill introduced, though sidetracked by the dominant Democrat faction; experience with Covered California, which shows if it shows nothing else that government can actually deliver services, even using a Rube Goldberg device like the ObamaCare marketplace.

3) AZ: This surprised me; what’s going on in Arizona? Readers?


Assuming this sample is at all representative, it seems clear that the key barrier to support for #MedicareForAll in the Democrat Party is, well, Democrats. That is, the Democrat nomenklatura, those whose primary identity is as an elected, a staffer, or an official. Their support (26% in Figure 1) is disproportionately small, whether contrasted to liberal Democrats (64% for “single payer,”[6] says Pew), to the general population (52%), or to the 31% for all challengers. One might almost imagine that some mysterious, unseen body — perhaps one of Thomas Ferguson’s “industrial sectors”? — was exerting an unseen, almost gravitational pull on the party. The views of the “h” candidates — physicians being themselves an industrial sector — give credence to that view. On the other hand, #MedicareForAll is moving ahead strongly in California, even Texas, and surprisingly in California. It’s also clear that support for #MedicareForAll really is coming from the grassroots.


[1] I should have been more exhaustive and added coding for small business people and corporate executives. Perhaps next time.

[2] The cross denoting a hospital or medical care; the best I could do with Unicode, unfortunately.

[3] I did not update for Outside Group support unless it was mentioned in the candidate’s bio; time pressed.

[4] I did not code for this, but in all cases the “h” candidates are physicians, and not nurses.

[5] The totals for Figure 3 differ slightly from the totals in Figures 1 and 2 because they are based on a hand count when I proofread the post again today. There are two more #MedicareForAll supporters, and five more candidates (I threw out too many). The discrepancy is not material with respect to the comments. Fiddling with bits of text is error prone, sadly.

[6] “Medicare for All” polls better.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post, Health care, Politics on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. UserFriendly

    I’ve said it before, but I’ll suggest it again. MN-7 is a safe D seat and MN-3 is just as likely, if not more likely to flip than MN-2. Especially since the Dems winning back the suburbs narrative appears to be not as solid as previously thought.

  2. dcblogger

    wow, thank you thank you thank you thank you

    this clearly lays out the struggle within the Democratic party. The party establishment does not want M4A and the cards are stacked against supporters. On the other hand, the wind is clearly at the backs of the supporters.

    I would be so interested in hearing from NC readers about the congressional races in their areas.

    Briannu Wu (who supports HR 676) is challenging Stephen Lynch. Anyone live in that district?

    1. johnnygl

      I used to live in his district. Lynch is a decent guy. He knows his district and has a solid base of support. He’s more centrist than i’d like, but he’s not flagrantly money-grubbing and pro-corporate. Disloding him would be a big ask. I’m not even sure it would be a good idea, without knowing much about his challenger.

      For example, i can recall lynch being against TPA and TPP. He’s usually pretty anti-war, too. A lot of this is probably driven by his base of support in the unions. Unions which don’t really want medicare for all.

      Of course, lynch’s district is changing a bit. It’s not poor by any stretch, but it’s still gentrifying with rising house prices and good transport links attracting a more affluent crowd.

      1. Swamp Yankee

        I’ve had my problems with Lynch in the past, but Wu has come off so far herself as a gentrifying carpetbagger with little actual interest in the district, despite her laudable stand on Medicare For All. I think this lack of knowledge of the district will (rightly) hurt her candidacy, all other things being equal. Especially if the Lynch people can show up her total Boston-centric approach in places like East Bridgewater and Raynham, old Swamp Yankee Towns. And finally, the whole raison d’etre of her campaign is to turn Boston into San Francisco East. That is the last thing we want around here! Jiminy Christmas! This would be one thing if she were born and raised in Braintree or Hull; but she wasn’t, and it comes off as what it is — more colonialism by the top 10% class, this time in the “near-provinces”, the borderlands between the metropole and the hinterlands in eastern MA. The level of tone-deafness from her so far has been off the charts. When you factor in Lynch’s built up years of political capital in Southie and Quincy, sure, it’s a race, but it’s Lynch’s to lose.

  3. Craig H.

    I hate to be picky but if you are taking requests instead of just “I” for intelligence it might help if you used at least “intel” (& sim. for the other milo’s) which is a searchable string. You can’t really search on “I”. :)

    But it looks great! This ain’t a complaint.

    1. Lambert Strether Post author

      Because of the way I’ve been manipulating text strings to do the sorting and create the reports, single characters are better (and they take up less space in the table). If and when I shift to a database, I may revisit that, and use cute little icons, or something).

  4. Carey

    My first-term congresscritter in CA-24, Salud Carbajal, does not support single-payer or Medicare for All,
    and my attempts to break through his office’s forcefield (that’s*just* what it feels like), have been futile.

  5. edmondo

    Live in AZ-02. I would rate it a toss-up, not tilt D.

    If McSally wins the Republican nomination for senate, she will bring a lot of locals out to support her and maybe enough to carry the local latina GOP congressional candidate over the finish line. It’s a weird district, lots of high income, defense contractor types and two huge military installations in Davis Monthan AFB and Fort Huchacha Army base. The Dems running here are not the exciting type, think carpetbagger blue doggies, like Jon Ossoff. This one will be very close – probably 1000-2000 votes either way.

      1. DonCoyote

        Arizona Slim had previously called our attention to Billy Kovacs in the AZ-02 race. Here’s an interview with Billy, done by Cenk Uygur, one of the founders of the Justice Democrats (who endorsed a different candidate in this race), in which Billy lays out his progressive bona fides (no corporate PAC money, #MedicareForAll, $15 minimum wage). IMO he didn’t do a good job on Syria at the end (Assad and Russia “accountable”).

        Also, his web page is still a slow to no loader in Chrome.

        We now return you to threads that are less than week old :-)

  6. Knifecatcher

    Picking nits, to be sure, but shouldn’t Levi Sanders of all people get an “S” by his name?

    Great work, as always.

  7. The Rev Kev

    I see that you have the field MILO for “military, intelligence, law enforcement, other,”. I sometimes wonder if you should for all the candidates have a field for NEOCON for people like Mitch McConnell and John McCain. Tulsi Gabbard is a MILO but otherwise has little in common with the first two people. McConnell and McCain are both ex-military so may count for MILO.
    If you were wondering about McConnell being a MILO, he was at Fort Knox back in ’67 but was let go because of his eyesight after only five weeks.

  8. jefemt

    Informative article and chart- Thank you!

    Sorry to see Montana- a flyover state with its single congressional seat,with a pretty hot primary, not included.

    The battle is for the seat presently occupied by the notorious pugilist–richest guy in either chamber — Greg ‘punch-the journalist’ Gianforte. Gianforte, you may recall, won an off-time election for the seat vacated by Ryan “Seal Team assault on the natural world’ Zinke.

  9. DonCoyote

    Nice work.

    You commented on the h bias against #MedicareForAll. Am I the only one noticing the l (law-enforcement) bias? The lm’s are split, two on each side, but the eight “pure” l’s are all against. I am not in law enforcement, but this surprises me, as I would think there would be some support, for purely personal reasons (higher on the job injury rate) if nothing else.

    1. Alternate Delegate

      I also noticed those eight law enforcement L’s opposed to Medicate4All. All I have is a caught-at-second-hand whiff of a professional atmosphere that “all of the ills of society are due to someone getting something for free”. If they really feel that way, why aren’t they running for the nomination of a conservative party? I have a sinking feeling that I know the answer to that one. They are.

      1. Elizabeth Burton

        The current incarnation of the Democrats is a “conservative party.” The former conservative party is now libertarian. Just sayin’.

    2. Lambert Strether Post author

      > The lm’s are split, two on each side, but the eight “pure” l’s are all against.

      That’s an excellent perception, and that is exactly why I went through the exercise of doing the coding.

      It may be that the Ms in the LMs who support #MedicareForAll have experienced single payer in the service?

      Hold that thought, and if and when I can expand the table further into the red, we’ll see if it holds up!

      Adding, the more people who look at this data and find patterns, the happier I will be! That’s what it’s there for!

  10. oaf

    This is exactly the kind of information *We, the People* need…and which *We* so often find presented for our consideration by N.C.
    One little bite like this is WAY BETTER than oodles of Fake News from MSM.
    Thanks; Lambert, and all!

  11. edmondo

    1) TX: It’s amusing to see the establishment-backed leader try to steal the left’s clothes on policy, and encouraging to see that they didn’t try the “universal health care” or “Medicare Extra” scams. Next, they’ll pass it and take credit!

    I am somewhat confused by your assertion that Gina Ortiz Jones supports Medicare for all because I read her website and if it’s there she’s hiding it well.

    From her website:
    In Congress, Gina will work to:

    •Make much-needed fixes to the Affordable Care Act, creating a fair and affordable health care system that covers every American.

    •Reduce the costs and red tape to small businesses – making it easier and more affordable for them to provide health care coverage for their employees.

    Neither of these is Medicare for all, in fact, employer-sponsored health coverage is the opposite.

    1. DonCoyote

      Yes, Gina seems to have focused-grouped her healthcare message too much. But she does have “Gina supports a single payer system”, which can only be #MedicareForAll. OTOH, maybe “supports” is the classic Democrat “fight for”, i.e. rhetorical/token efforts seemingly designed to lose.

      Her opponent in the runoff, Rick Trevino, seems to be a straightforward #MedicareForAll supporter, so the Texas runoff elections, scheduled for May 22, should yield a little more data.

      There is also this wrinkle: “Voters who cast their ballots in the primaries Tuesday can also vote in the primary runoff of the same party in May. Voters who did not vote in the primary at all can cast their ballot in the runoff elections of either party in May.”

  12. Mrsyk

    The AZ row in figure 3 needs to be edited. And how about those health (insurance?) professionals!!!(sarc)

  13. Big River Bandido

    Looks like there was a redundancy or errant split in the Nevada races…Eric Stoltz is listed in both NV-03 and NV-04.

  14. DonCoyote

    Here’s a video on how to further crapify the ACA from the AZ-08 special election (April 24th) D candidate (she already beat a #MedicareForAll Justice Democrat in the primary), Dr. Hiral Tipirneni. It’s a pretty solidly red district, but this plan seems to dovetail nicely with the Amazon/Berkshire/JPM healthcare “innovation” borg .

    Some of the lowlights:
    1) Medicare For All…who want to buy in (“in other words, a public option”). Government plan competes with other plans, but who decides how much to buy in?
    2) Employers provide a “stipend” instead of insurance. So *everyone* can go shopping (including Medicaid patients, who presumably get a “stipend” from Uncle Sam/their states). And no doubt it’s up to the employer as to the size of the stipend. 10% of current insurance costs? Do I hear 8%?
    3) Reduce regulations…because that always works (to increase profits).
    4) (ad nauseum) Free market forces work to drive down costs (because this has worked so well up to now). Or “More Choices and More Competition = Lower Costs and Quality Care” .

    So one more ‘h’ against #MedicareForAll. “Dr. Tipirneni, the Blue Dogs are on the white courtesy phone for you…”

  15. bluegirlredstate

    I wanted to post a screen shot, but I don’t know how on here. My sister is running for school board as a Bernie style progressive candidate and got invited to the Bold Progressives (AKA Progressive Change Campaign Committee)/ Our Revolution training. I was reading the email and Bold Progressives/ Our Revolution has also partnered with Indivisible, AFLCIO, Planned Parenthood, and more (they don’t list more, they just say “and more”). I thought the Indivisible partnership was an interesting one that Lambert might find curious, since they aren’t a progressive movement.
    My sister had to go through a pretty grueling interview process, where they grilled her about her progressive bona fides, and is the only candidate from our state who is attending.
    I kind of feel like their strategy here might actually be building a movement from the bottom up. They are training 400ish local, state and federal candidates. That river comment Lambert made in water cooler might apply here. The wave is coming, no matter what. I would be particularly interested to hear Lambert’s take on Bold Progressives. They might be a little more center, for example “everyone should be able to buy into medicare.” But that is a better position than “expand and protect ACA.”
    I can’t link the email, but I can link their about page for those interested.

Comments are closed.