Do you know what the best predictor of election success is?
Sure you do. We all do. It’s money.
File this under “Things you already know, but it’s nice to have a reality check to be certain,” we have incontrovertible proof it’s money.
“There is strong, direct link between what the major political parties spend and the percentage of votes they win – far stronger than all the airy dismissals of the role of money in elections would ever lead you to think, and certainly stronger than anything you read in your political science class.
They show the strength of this relationship through a simple graph.”
“At the bottom left, Democrats spend almost no money and get virtually no votes; at the top right, they spend nearly all the money and garner virtually all the ballots, calculated as proportions of totals for the major parties.
If money and voting outcomes were unrelated, then the dots representing individual House races in 2012 would be scattered all over the square. If they were perfectly related, the dots would all cluster tightly on a line.
Not only in 2012, but in every election for which the data exist (from 1980 to 2012), the graphs came out with neat, straight lines, with minimal scattering of dots. The link is clear: when Democrats spend more than Republicans, their candidates win. When Republicans spend more than Democrats, they win.”
Of course, this trend works both ways. The party typically isn’t going to spend gobs of money in an election it doesn’t believe it has a prayer of winning in the first place, due to its location. So the party in essence, “gives up on” elections in those “wrongly colored, blue/ red states,” and dumps the good ship lollipop in places it believes it can.
The Democratic party knows this. Their strategy is simple: Make more money than anyone else. Even if a Democrat somehow loses an election, we’ve still made everyone a boatload of money. Can’t lose with this strategy! Even losing is WINNING!!!
Except the people lose. We, the People, lose with this strategy.
Here’s an excellent example of this from Moon of Alabama:
“Q: Why did the Democrats lose the Senate, House, and presidency as well as more than a thousand state government positions?
A: They listened to their ‘strategists,’ not to their voters.
Here is what the strategists currently say:
Staying out of the single-payer debate, party strategists say, could help Democrats in the general election, when they’ll have to appeal to moderates skeptical of government-run health care. Earlier this year, the DCCC warned candidates about embracing single payer, hoping to avoid Republican attacks on “socialized” medicine.
Why is “socialized” medicine supposed to be a bad thing? Why not defend it?
It is what the voters want:
Reuters/Ipsos poll – June/July 2018
The ‘strategists’ say the voters cannot have the nice stuff they want. Their arguments lost the elections. If the Democrats want to win again, they must tell their voters to demand more nice stuff.
Some people get it:
Progressive insurgents believe Clinton’s defeat, on top of losing control of Congress and most state governments, proved them right. They aspire to overthrow conventional wisdom Democrats must stay safely in the middle to compete.
“Democrats have been fixated for 20 years on this elusive, independent, mythical middle of the road voter that did not exist,” said Crystal Rhoades, head of the Democratic Party in Nebraska’s Douglas County, where a progressive candidate, Kara Eastman, is trying to wrest a competitive congressional district from a Republican.
“We’re going to try bold ideas.”
Most social-democratic parties in Europe have the same problem the U.S. Democrats have. The party establishments angle for the ever-elusive ‘liberal’ center. They move the parties further to the right and lose their natural constituencies, the working class. This gives rise to (sometimes fascist) so-called ‘populists’ (see Trump), and to an ever growing share of people who reject the established system and do not vote at all.
This phenomenon is the micro version of a much larger trend. Liberal globalization, as promoted by the party ‘elites’, promises but does not deliver what the real people need and want. Liberal globalization turned out to be a class war in which only the rich can win. A revolt, locally on the level of voters, and globally on the level of nations, is underway to regain a different view.
Alastair Crooke recently outlined the larger trend within a global, ‘metaphysical’ perspective.
Progressives pushing for single payer healthcare still miss out on other issues. For example, supporting higher wages, while at the same time, being against restrictions on immigration. Wages rise when companies have to compete for workers. Immigration increases the available work force. A political program that supports both does not compute.
Working people understand this, and in 2016 many of them voted for Trump. Neither LGBTXYZ identity policies nor other aloof ‘liberal values’ will increase the income of regular people. To win back the necessary masses, Democrats and social-democrats in Europe will have to shun, or at least de-emphasize, such parts of their program.
It’s a class war. The rich are winning. Fight.”
We also know the single-payer healthcare plan would save money. Intuitively, this makes sense. After all there would be one giant all-inclusive risk pool instead of multiple smaller pools.
Supposedly “smart” politicians such as Paul Ryan, continue to lie about our American healthcare situation. Why? Because his campaign funders pay him to lie about it.
Thanks to the Koch Brothers, We Have More Proof Single Payer HealthcareSaves Money and Cares for All of Us
A study intended to make the case against Medicare for All reveals instead the reform could save Americans trillions of dollars.
“It was immediately embraced by right-wing politicians who are close to the Kochs, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan, who tweeted an article on the study with the message:
“$32.6 trillion dollars. That’s how much Washington Democrats’ single-payer healthcare proposal would cost over 10 years. Even doubling all federal individual and corporate income taxes wouldn’t cover this cost. It is just absurd.”
Ryan is supposed to be the GOP’s “numbers guy.” But he missed the most important numbers in the study. While the speaker fixated on a prediction by the author of the working paper, the Sanders plan would raise federal health-care spending by roughly $32.6 trillion between 2022 and 2031, economists who actually read the report focused on a far more salient detail:
On page 18 of the paper, in a section titled “Effects on National Health Expenditures and the Federal Budget,” came mention that under the Sanders plan “national personal health care costs decrease by less than 2 percent, while total health expenditures decrease by only 4 percent, even after assuming substantial administrative cost savings.”
That’s right. A report that was supposed to discredit the single-payer solution found, even after the benefits of a Medicare for All program are realized—”additional healthcare demand arises from eliminating copayments, providing additional categories of benefits, and covering the currently uninsured”—the potential cost of the plan would still be less than “potential savings associated with cutting provider payments and achieving lower drug costs.”
What that translates to is what Medicare for All advocates have been saying all along: Under a single-payer system, Americans would get more quality care for more people at less cost.”
“Organized medicine, and previous generations of doctors, had for the most part staunchly opposed to any such plan. The AMA has thwarted public health insurance proposals since the 1930s and long been considered one of the policy’s most powerful opponents.
But increasingly physicians seem to be switching sides in the debate, and young physicians want to be part of the discussion.
There’s tremendous potential … to be at the table if single-payer becomes a significant part of the political discourse, and create a system that is more equitable,”
(Editor’s note: this is the first in a series of several forthcoming essays on money in politics, how it works, and how it has failed the American people.)