Support NeoGAF

[ShadowSwordmaster]

All we need is like 2 years of full implementation for people to see how effective it can be. Once you go Single Payer there is no going back. You'd basically be trying to sell people on "remember back when you had to jump through hoops for health care? wasn't that great!?"

The GOP did this once and will do it again. I just have zero hope that single payer will actually work in the US. It's a dream that is dead.

 

[thefro]

Single payer seems like a good idea for the Dems to work on, but it will ultimately fail because the Republicans are still a thing.

Medicaid/Medicare buy-in as a public option is the way to go there.

 

[sangreal]

The GOP did this once and will do it again. I just have zero hope that single payer will actually work in the US. It's a dream that is dead.

Kill employer-sponsored healthcare and single-payer will come easily

 

[Abinash117]

ISIS apparently blew up the Al-Nouri mosque.

 

[Macho Madness]

Single payer seems like a good idea for the Dems to work on, but it will ultimately fail because the Republicans are still a thing.

Might as well do nothing forever and just always let the Republicans do whatever they want then.

 

[Cybit]

Basically, we need a 2008 scenario in 2020 if we want Single Payer. Need Republicans to do so poorly in 2018 and 2020, that we end up with a Democratic majority in the House, and 60+ Democrats in the Senate. And I mean 60+ actual Democrats, none of this swing voting Independents shit.

Yea, because the Midwest loves minority women. She might do great in Minnesota, and maybe Michigan, but she won't get anywhere in Iowa.

And if you win Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania...you are president. Ta-Da!

Authenticity (or at least appearing authentic) is pretty important in the Midwest, and I don't think people get that.

 

[ShadowSwordmaster]

Kill employer-sponsored healthcare and single-payer will come easily

Again, the GOP is still a thing.

Might as well do nothing forever and just always let the Republicans do whatever they want then.

I mean, look at what the GOP is doing right now.

 

[TestOfTide]

Keep in mind that when we had a huge majority in the house in 2009 and 2010, it was with a lot of seats being held by anti-abortion Democrats.

Although when we actually needed those blue dogs to vote with us, Pelosi could always get them to vote for what was needed.

 

[Crocodile]

I'm still skeptical about how easy it will be to sell Single-Payer once tax hikes comes into play. "You save money in the long run!" and other benefits are going to be hard to sell in America I feel? We don't see especially forward thinking as a nation (maybe this would be an issue in any other country that didn't start with Single-Payer)

To win back the voters who like the fact that Trump "tells it like it is", you don't need democrats to start being racist. You just need democrats to start being more politically incorrect in their language. Gillibrand understands this well. Democrats need to stop being so goddamn timid when it comes to talking about stuff they believe in.

And the whole problem with democrats in general is that we don't have any real ground game network whatsoever. Our fucked up idea of a ground game is to make races into "high profile" races and then convince people to focus on giving all their money to those high profile races. It's not only a waste of money, but looking at last night it clearly is counterproductive to nationalize every single race.

Instead we need to discourage all this "high profile" bullshit and instead encourage democrats to help democrats nearby. Jon Ossof should have spent less time trying to nationalize his race and more time trying to boost other Georgia democrats. Same with Quist. Same with every democrat that has run a state or local race, because the voters are there, but we can't be announcing to the rooftops that we are putting all our eggs into these few baskets or the GOP will just respond by making sure to focus on those few races as well.

Also, liberals and progressives need to be willing to play more dirty tactics at this point. I don't necessarily mean violence, but we can't be playing by a ruleset that the GOP refuses to follow.

Strongly agree with the bolded. Also building ground up and helping fellow, neighboring democrats would help.

As an aside, when are Holder and Obama going to start their redistricting initiative?

 

[neurosisxeno]

And if you win Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania...you are president. Ta-Da!

Authenticity (or at least appearing authentic) is pretty important in the Midwest, and I don't think people get that.

You're assuming she could win all the necessary states outside of that. I'm not certain she would win PA and WI, which means you'd have to hope she can pull off NC and FL or something.

EDIT: Actually she would need all 4 assuming FL and NC stay Red, and I really think Wisconsin would be an issue.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Might as well do nothing forever and just always let the Republicans do whatever they want then.

Lot of people have no problem saying that about gun control. Admittedly I've gone back and forth on this.

 

[Diablos]

I'm very confused by McConnell's gameplan

Me too

Maybe this is hard left in his mind and he knows the House will water it down so he's intentionally making it this way

 

[Macho Madness]

Lot of people have no problem saying that about gun control. Admittedly I've gone back and forth on this.

I mean, fuck. Can you imagine some shitty ass Republican in a suit last October campaigning on "Well we'd like to repeal Obamacare but the Democrats will make it hard so I don't know if we will!"

No, you can't. Because they don't exist. Conviction is a strong ass drug.

 

[Suikoguy]

Lot of people have no problem saying that about gun control. Admittedly I've gone back and forth on this.

The only way a Dem shift on Gun Issues to a more moderate position would work, is if it is delivered in a genuine Kander like manner.
By moderate I mean shift away from issues that sound good to the left, but really won't do anything like the AWB.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Is it possible that they dont want to repeal obamacare because then they wouldnt be able to campaign on repealing obamacare anymore?

 

[Macho Madness]

REPUBLICAN: "We're going to stop these people from killing babies by any means necessary."

DEMOCRAT: "oh jeez oh gosh I'd like single payer but oh man I don't know if we can do it"

 

[Autodidact]

The only way a Dem shift on Gun Issues to a more moderate position would work, is if it is delivered in a genuine Kander like manner.

I agree. Gun control shouldn't be abandoned but rather addressed more selectively. A New York liberal such as Schumer, for example, has no credibility when talking about guns - at least with the voters to whom guns matter. Kander, conversely, has the midwestern background and actual experience with guns. The messenger matters, too, even though it ultimately shouldn't.

 

[neurosisxeno]

REPUBLICAN: "We're going to stop these people from killing babies by any means necessary."

DEMOCRAT: "oh jeez oh gosh I'd like single payer but oh man I don't know if we can do it"

After watching the Senate hearings for Comey and the one the day before, it's impressive how poorly spoken a lot of Senators are, so I could see that being the way many prospective Democratic candidates would talk...

 

[Trumplestiltskin]

All we need is like 2 years of full implementation for people to see how effective it can be. Once you go Single Payer there is no going back. You'd basically be trying to sell people on "remember back when you had to jump through hoops for health care? wasn't that great!?" Also at that point it's not "Republican Plan will leave 24m people without insurance" it's "Republican Plan to cost 80m+ insurance".

You underestimate the scale of the challenge.

1) Don't kid yourself, single payer is better for under/uninsured people but there will be plenty of folks with plans who will see quality of service decline. It takes months to get an MRI in Ontario, you can get one in 24 hours just a few hours away in Buffalo. There is a sizeable number of people who will prefer the old system and they are the most powerful people.

2) Single payer is cheaper but it was also implemented in those places decades ago. Price levels in the US will need to be cut for services, drugs, etc. This isn't "efficiencies", this is straight cutting what insurance will pay service providers (and banning any other payment than that insurance). The doctors, hospitals, diagnostic firms, pharma will be screaming bloody murder and threatening the apocalypse if you try to bring US pricing down to global benchmark levels. If you maintain current pricing and then extend quality coverage to tens of millions of new people you will blow the budget.

This isn't passing a piece of paper and then forgetting about it. It's the transformation of 1/5 of the economy, going against some incredibly powerful special interests, with a lot of resistance to change. The chance to screw up is enormous, and the level of care and attention that would be needed to implement cannot be understated.

 

[tuxfool]

REPUBLICAN: "We're going to stop these people from killing babies by any means necessary."

DEMOCRAT: "oh jeez oh gosh I'd like single payer but oh man I don't know if we can do it"

The difference is that Democratic voters are more likely to crucify their candidates for blatant lies. Republican voters don't give a shit that their candidates just lie to them.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Me too

Maybe this is hard left in his mind and he knows the House will water it down so he's intentionally making it this way

This is a bill made specifically to appeal to moderates and soften the awful CBO report that will hit

But in doing so, he made the exact bill the FC said they wouldn't support at all. It's Obamacare-lite, at least in the FC's eyes.

The thing is, moderates have demonstrated they'll vote for anything. The FC have clearly demonstrated when they say they aren't voting for it, they aren't going to vote for it.

He seems to be appealing to the entirely wrong crowd here.

 

[Dominican Power]

Democrats needs to stop giving a fuck about what the right says about them, Jesus.

 

[Autodidact]

Democrats needs to stop giving a fuck about what the right says about them, Jesus.

But the Republicans might not let us sit with them at lunch.

 

[Suikoguy]

This is a bill made specifically to appeal to moderates and soften the awful CBO report that will hit

But in doing so, he made the exact bill the FC said they wouldn't support at all. It's Obamacare-lite, at least in the FC's eyes.

The thing is, moderates have demonstrated they'll vote for anything. The FC have clearly demonstrated when they say they aren't voting for it, they aren't going to vote for it.

He seems to be appealing to the entirely wrong crowd here.

I wonder if this is a result of the makeup of the Senate, with less extreme candidates compared to the House? I hope it shows that the earlier speculation that the Senate and reconciliation between the Senate and House makes this virtually impossible.

You underestimate the scale of the challenge.

1) Don't kid yourself, single payer is better for under/uninsured people but there will be plenty of folks with plans who will see quality of service decline. It takes months to get an MRI in Ontario, you can get one in 24 hours just a few hours away in Buffalo. There is a sizeable number of people who will prefer the old system and they are the most powerful people.

2) Single payer is cheaper but it was also implemented in those places decades ago. Price levels in the US will need to be cut for services, drugs, etc. This isn't "efficiencies", this is straight cutting what insurance will pay service providers (and banning any other payment than that insurance). The doctors, hospitals, diagnostic firms, pharma will be screaming bloody murder and threatening the apocalypse if you try to bring US pricing down to global benchmark levels. If you maintain current pricing and then extend quality coverage to tens of millions of new people you will blow the budget.

This isn't passing a piece of paper and then forgetting about it. It's the transformation of 1/5 of the economy, going against some incredibly powerful special interests, with a lot of resistance to change. The chance to screw up is enormous, and the level of care and attention that would be needed to implement cannot be understated.

I'm curious, does Canada have supplemental policies that would reduce wait time?
I'm also assuming that if your doctor deems it critical, that you jump to the head of the line?
Edit: It's a waste of fixed costs to have MRI machines sitting unused.

Democrats needs to stop giving a fuck about what the right says about them, Jesus.

That and the far-left penchant to bring up how Black voter turnout was down is really pissing me off. It totally ignores that voter turnout returned to 2004 levels and amounts to diet-racism. It's not at all surprising given that Obama was the first Black president and therefor boosted AA turnout. Subsequent elections would therefor not reach record turnout, and a reduction to 2004 levels would be expected. Especially with continued push for and enactment of voter suppression laws.

 

[tuxfool]

This is a bill made specifically to appeal to moderates and soften the awful CBO report that will hit

But in doing so, he made the exact bill the FC said they wouldn't support at all. It's Obamacare-lite, at least in the FC's eyes.

The thing is, moderates have demonstrated they'll vote for anything. The FC have clearly demonstrated when they say they aren't voting for it, they aren't going to vote for it.

He seems to be appealing to the entirely wrong crowd here.

I think people overstate the rigidity of the FC. They have stated all of this, but it is mostly bluster. They absolutely would compromise in the end if it provides them a talking point.

These people aren't as principled as they pretend to be.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I wonder if this is a result of the makeup of the Senate, with less extreme candidates compared to the House? I hope it shows that the earlier speculation that the Senate and reconciliation between the Senate and House makes this virtually impossible

I have a hard time seeing this pass in this state. It's a non starter for Rand Paul and Cruz, and that doesn't leave the GOP any room for error

And then it hits the House again, and I just don't know what happens there.

Seems like Mitch was laser focused on destroying Medicaid and kind of just forgot about everything else? Or he's banking on the FC caving? They don't cave, and he has to know this...

I think people overstate the rigidity of the FC. They have stated all of this, but it is mostly bluster. They absolutely would compromise in the end if it provides them a talking point.

These people aren't as principled as they pretend to be.

They've almost shut down the entire government multiple times over trivial funding tweaks.

They've already killed this bill once before. They don't really care if they're blamed for the repeal failing.

 

[Autodidact]

Judging by the OT, we really need civics education in this country. Like, really, really, really badly. I teach English and have resolved to look at ways of incorporating civics in the coming year - essays, writing prompts, anything to make these kids think before they actually start voting (or posting on NeoGAF).

 

[Trumplestiltskin]

I'm curious, does Canada have supplemental policies that would reduce wait time?
I'm also assuming that if your doctor deems it critical, that you jump to the head of the line?

In some services a market is allowed to exist, but for most no. Hence why MRI clinics in Buffalo are a booming business. The logic against these plans is that they would pull supply away from the public system creating a two tier system that has private plans working well and public as an understaffed dump.

If you are in critical condition you do get bumped up. But in health matters it's not easily defined. The lowest MRI wait times in Canada (I think) are at the Hospital for Sick Children, if you're an adult it takes at least 4x as long. Fair - everyone wants to help kids, but are they more deserving than an adult who is the breadwinner for a family? Does a 70 year old woman with stage 3 cancer deserve faster surgery than my stage 2 58 year old mom?

In the US you can shop around on pricing and wait times. You don't get that here. By no means does that mean it's worse, or that Canadians want changes, but there will be plenty of people who would not enjoy the transition.

I dont want to claim Canada is better or worse. But as someone who lives on both sides of the border, there are trade offs. There are other models, but the level of choice and flexibility (if you have money) in the US is hard to top. Either way healthcare is the most expensive part of government, has the most dire consequences and quite frankly is one of the oddest products on sale. As Trump says, "it's hard". Anyone looking to fundamentally change it has to go in with both eyes open and certainly not expect a homerun.

 

[VendettaRed07]

I wouldn't be shocked if Cruz votes no just so he can run on repealing Obamacare "the right way"

 

[Autodidact]

They've almost shut down the entire government multiple times over trivial funding tweaks.

They've already killed this bill once before. They don't really care if they're blamed for the repeal failing.

They know their far-right gerrymandered districts won't let them down.

It might be fun to see the moderates like McSally, Comstock et al. sweat again.

 

[VendettaRed07]

REPUBLICAN: "We're going to stop these people from killing babies by any means necessary."

DEMOCRAT: "oh jeez oh gosh I'd like single payer but oh man I don't know if we can do it"

"it's too hard" was probably the worst rally cry of all time.

Defend a position because you think it's the right one to have. Not because you think it's the best you can do.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I wouldn't be shocked if Cruz votes no just so he can run on repealing Obamacare "the right way"

Rand Paul + Ted Cruz means 0 senators can vote no, and Pence must break the tie

Which is why I'm kind of confused why this isn't a 100% FC designed bill, since moderates will vote for anything.

 

[Ogodei]

This is a bill made specifically to appeal to moderates and soften the awful CBO report that will hit

But in doing so, he made the exact bill the FC said they wouldn't support at all. It's Obamacare-lite, at least in the FC's eyes.

The thing is, moderates have demonstrated they'll vote for anything. The FC have clearly demonstrated when they say they aren't voting for it, they aren't going to vote for it.

He seems to be appealing to the entirely wrong crowd here.

The better idea would've been to just force a vote on the House Bill as-is (less anything that doesn't fit Reconciliation). The moderates would have caved on that eventually.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I'm still skeptical about how easy it will be to sell Single-Payer once tax hikes comes into play. "You save money in the long run!" and other benefits are going to be hard to sell in America I feel? We don't see especially forward thinking as a nation (maybe this would be an issue in any other country that didn't start with Single-Payer)

It's not even a long run saving though, for some / many it would be an immediate net benefit. But it's murica, so 1) people who have their employer cover replaced by this would perceive their government healthcare provision as inferior, 2) people who have their private coverage replaced will consider it inferior despite or because it's cheaper, and 3) people don't want to pay for other people to have things, especially if they think they're paying for people of colour.

 

[VendettaRed07]

Rand Paul + Ted Cruz means 0 senators can vote no, and Pence must break the tie

Which is why I'm kind of confused why this isn't a 100% FC designed bill, since moderates will vote for anything.

I have a hard time seeing McConnell allowing them to be the two no voters. It's a total waste. My feeling is that if Cruz is a no it likely doesn't happen.

 

[Suikoguy]

Democrats needs to stop giving a fuck about what the right says about them, Jesus.

In some services a market is allowed to exist, but for most no. Hence why MRI clinics in Buffalo are a booming business. The logic against these plans is that they would pull supply away from the public system creating a two tier system that has private plans working well and public as an understaffed dump.

If you are in critical condition you do get bumped up. But in health matters it's not easily defined. The lowest MRI wait times in Canada (I think) are at the Hospital for Sick Children, if you're an adult it takes at least 4x as long. Fair - everyone wants to help kids, but are they more deserving than an adult who is the breadwinner for a family? Does a 70 year old woman with stage 3 cancer deserve service faster surgery than my stage 2 58 year old mom?

In the US you can shop around on pricing and wait times. You don't get that here. By no means does that mean it's worse, or that Canadians want changes, but there will be plenty of people who would not enjoy the transition.

I dont want to claim Canada is the best. There are other models, but the level of choice and flexibility (if you have money) in the US is hard to top.

Hmm, I get the "two tier" argument.
The biggest risk for that happening is if the NHC plan does not pay enough for an MRI.
Basically, a supplemental plan should cover the fixed costs of having a machine sit empty.

And yes, determining what is critical is subjective and difficult, so I certainly understand the argument.

Ultimately, it's a matter of determining what are the important procedures that have benefits with reduced wait times. In some cases, finding something is wrong a few weeks earlier could result in cost savings. So, you try to estimate and have the NHC plan pay more for those procedures to encourage more to offer the service, while paying enough that the MRI machines, for example, can sit unused some of the time. If providers don't want to play ball, then the government either run the service in addition to the private sector, or help a non-profit form.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

I think in general a lot of people in the OT don't understand (or care) that politics is local. They want a "50 state strategy" while simultaneously demanding every candidate be Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders doesn't play in every district of America. Nor does "generally left politics" play in every district. Nobody gives a fuck about global warming, gun control, and a host of other issues outside of liberals...so randomly propping up "generic liberal guy/gal" in the district with x amount of outside-state $$$ doesn't work.

Right now people care about jobs, healthcare, and Trump. Funnily enough, these are the same things people cared about in 2009/2010, just switch Trump for Obama. If anything the party needs some new things to talk about. We get it, you guys like solar jobs. Nice talking points. What else. I know Bernie fans would be outraged (and I don't care) but I'd love to see the party talk about some of Hillary's economic and education ideas, as a platform. Some might argue we lost that election so don't do it...but Hillary didn't lose because of her adult/continuing education idea+community colleges. It's a good idea, let's talk about it. Let's talk about stuff people who vote actually care about.

 

[Blader]

This is a bill made specifically to appeal to moderates and soften the awful CBO report that will hit

But in doing so, he made the exact bill the FC said they wouldn't support at all. It's Obamacare-lite, at least in the FC's eyes.

The thing is, moderates have demonstrated they'll vote for anything. The FC have clearly demonstrated when they say they aren't voting for it, they aren't going to vote for it.

He seems to be appealing to the entirely wrong crowd here.

I'm not convinced the HFC would kill this bill again. They clearly did not like the amount of heat they took for killing it the first time. They are more rigid and principled, in their own demented way, than the "moderates," but they're not going to be the ones to take the blame for killing the GOP's best chance of repealing Obamacare. Not again, anyway.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Right now people care about jobs, healthcare, and Trump. Funnily enough, these are the same things people cared about in 2009/2010, just switch Trump for Obama. If anything the party needs some new things to talk about. We get it, you guys like solar jobs. Nice talking points. What else. I know Bernie fans would be outraged (and I don't care) but I'd love to see the party talk about some of Hillary's economic and education ideas, as a platform. Some might argue we lost that election so don't do it...but Hillary didn't lose because of her adult/continuing education idea+community colleges. It's a good idea, let's talk about it. Let's talk about stuff people who vote actually care about.

they would???

 

[whyamihere]

This is interesting (I'm not posting the graphs):

@Nate_Cohn
Election Day turnout was weaker in Democratic areas than we expected (not sure whether that's a bad job on my end or weak D turnout tbh)

@Nate_Cohn
OTOH, Ossoff tended to beat our eday estimates by the most in the precincts where turnout was highest--even tho those were R leaning areas

Don't know what that means. Maybe there legitimately was a weather issue.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I'm not convinced the HFC would kill this bill again. They clearly did not like the amount of heat they took for killing it the first time. They are more rigid and principled, in their own demented way, than the "moderates," but they're not going to be the ones to take the blame for killing the GOP's best chance of repealing Obamacare. Not again, anyway.

Funding for abortion is a non-starter for the FC. They will not want to have that on their record that they voted for funding abortions. Repealing the ACA isn't as important as abortion for them and their districts.

We should have noticed something was up a couple days ago when Cruz suddenly appeared on the no list.

 

[Greigor The Fellhand]

My theory on AHCA, they've altered it, so none of the effects of the bill activate until 2020.

imho they know they will lose 2020 election cycle, delaying the ahca effects until 2020 will then give the appearance of Oh dem in office, and everything goes to shit. see thats why you need to vote R. rinse and repeat

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Then we should go out and find a couple dozen more Barack Obamas. How hard could that be?

Beyond his skills as a politician Obama also had the auto industry bailout to lean on. That was a huge part of the 2012 election and something modern Dems can't replicate. Also, the GOP has at least superficially become more populist on issues like trade that makes it harder for Dems to appeal to those folks. It seems to me, we have to either give ground on social issues to make up for this or wait for Trump to really screw up health care or the economy which is going to cause massive pain for millions.

Obama probably won because Mitt Romney was a bad candidate and Republican obstruction kept the government from being any more of a drag on the economy than it otherwise would have been at that time.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

they would???

I doubt it'd be many, but I know a few people who think policies about trade school or community college is actually a way to avoid getting people bachelor's degrees. To these few people, trade/associates is to bachelor's as a public option is to single payer; they see it as a compromise.

Again, it's only a few people I know (and I live in a college town) so I doubt it's a widely held opinion.

 

[kess]

The GOP did this once and will do it again. I just have zero hope that single payer will actually work in the US. It's a dream that is dead.

Liberal conviction, y'all.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

This is interesting (I'm not posting the graphs):





Don't know what that means. Maybe there legitimately was a weather issue.

maybe Ossoff lost because running on shitty centrist platforms is a bad way to turn out your base???

Spoiler

just kidding, kind of. who knows but it could be a reason

I doubt it'd be many, but I know a few people who think policies about trade school or community college is actually a way to avoid getting people bachelor's degrees. To these few people, trade/associates is to bachelor's as a public option is to single payer; they see it as a compromise.

Again, it's only a few people I know (and I live in a college town) so I doubt it's a widely held opinion.

I think most people would recognize universal free trade school/community college as a real step in the right direction towards universal free university and it's a more achievable goal for poorer states that would be nervous about the budgetary costs of free university.

In the circles I know, even the people who would say that single payer is the clear and obvious way forward were very happy with the Nevada public option (RIP), but they also view that as a stepping stone towards nationalized healthcare.

 

[kirblar]

Public Option is quite obviously the way to try and naturally backdoor single payer.

If insurers pull out of areas, leaving the Government as a de facto monopoly, you're achieving it without even trying.

The tricky part is killing employer-based health care.

 

[Suikoguy]

I doubt it'd be many, but I know a few people who think policies about trade school or community college is actually a way to avoid getting people bachelor's degrees. To these few people, trade/associates is to bachelor's as a public option is to single payer; they see it as a compromise.

Again, it's only a few people I know (and I live in a college town) so I doubt it's a widely held opinion.

Dealing with the effects of widespread automation seems like a more pressing issue in addition to being heavily linked.

With a UBI, we may see a resurgence in creative schools and related apprenticeships. Also additional interest in fields that have higher employee demand relative to the consumer demand like Archaeology, Research Fields, and fields related to what people "do for fun". Meanwhile, some of those fields will still require training. The more I think about it, the upcoming automation changes will uproot the current K-12 education system, basically necessitating multiple tracks for students.

I don't see the whole College apparatus looking the same in a few decades. It may very well be unrecognizable.

maybe Ossoff lost because running on shitty centrist platforms is a bad way to turn out your base???

Spoiler

just kidding, kind of. who knows but it could be a reason

We need actual research into it, which costs a considerable sum for anything of value. All the while, it may only be tangentially useful in other races.

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Speaking of statewide public options, Wisconsin has a couple Democrats proposing a Medicaid buy-in for the state. Obviously won't pass but it's something good to run on for 2018 and it'll be good to see if other 2018 state Democrats run on it.

 

[Ogodei]

Actually an in-depth evaluation of all four special elections could be worthwhile, as you have four different regions, four different demographic layouts, and four very different Democrats running different strategies. Between them you could get a good picture of what works and what doesn't as a generalized playbook.