Lightning Knight posted:

Kilroy posted:

Can you give an example of a hypothetical which would prompt you to actually support a shift to the left by the Democrats? Can be as far-out and unrealistic as you want. I just want an idea of what it would take, since "a lot of people seem to support it" apparently isn't cutting it.

Main Paineframe posted:

But the idea that the electorate has a large number of dedicated socialists who never say anything and don't ever vote (perhaps we could even call it a "silent majority") doesn't really hold up

Main Paineframe posted:

I do support a shift to the left by Democrats. I've wanted to see leftist policies in America for a long time. But the idea that the electorate has a large number of dedicated socialists who never say anything and don't ever vote (perhaps we could even call it a "silent majority") doesn't really hold up, and I'm tired of seeing leftists proclaim that they don't have to do anything because their victory is assured due to demographic trends/silent majorities and they just have to wait for the corrupt centrist politicians to realize it.

Condiv posted:

conservatives really hate ellison so we should pick him as DNC chair to stick it to them

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

they really hate perez too

WampaLord posted:

They wouldn't call themselves as such, but they're the same people who are saying "yes" to things like public option for healthcare in polls where it gets 70%+ support.

The people have a lot of leftist beliefs, they just don't identify it as being leftist.

WampaLord posted:

They wouldn't call themselves as such, but they're the same people who are saying "yes" to things like public option for healthcare in polls where it gets 70%+ support.

The people have a lot of leftist beliefs, they just don't identify it as being leftist.

quote:

In recent weeks, polls kept showing solid support for a public insurance option, seeming to breathe new life into its viability as a provision of the health care legislation under way in Congress. In fact, advocates of a public option, from left-leaning groups to pundits to lawmakers, seized on each new number and trumpeted the news across the 24/7 news spectrum of Twitter, TV ads, blogs and headlines.

And while those polls may have bolstered Senator Harry Reid’s decision to include the public option in the merged Senate bill this week, a closer examination shows once again that public opinion on this issue shifts and shimmies depending on how you phrase the question and what you strip away from (or add to) a compound sentence.

In nearly all recent surveys, a majority of Americans simply approve of providing coverage for the uninsured, suggesting that on an altruistic level at least, they believe people deserve health care.

But differences emerge in the details. For example, support for a public health insurance depends on the order of questions, the language and the arguments posed in favor or in opposition.

For example, in a poll that NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released on Tuesday, half the respondents were asked one question about the public option, and half were asked a different one.

Just under 50 percent favored a health care plan administered by the federal government to compete with private insurance companies, while 4 in 10 opposed. But, almost three-fourths said it was important to have a choice between a public plan and a private plan.

Last week, a CNN poll included a question very similar to the NBC News-Wall Street Journal’s:

“Now thinking specifically about the health insurance plans available to most Americans, would you favor or oppose creating a public health insurance option administered by the federal government that would compete with plans offered by private health insurance companies?”

In the CNN survey, 61 percent said they favored a public option.

The difference in the public’s response may be due to the debate going on in Washington, or possibly by the order of questions in this case. The NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll has asked the same questions about the public option over the last few months and has gotten pretty much the same results.

But the October CNN poll found a slight increase in support for the public option compared with their August poll: up from 55 percent to 61 percent.

Last week, the Washington Post and ABC News found more support for a new health insurance plan to compete with private companies, reaching 57 percent.

But note how the question differs from the NBC News-Wall Street Journal’s. It doesn’t characterize the government as federal nor does it describe the government’s participation as “administering.”

And watch how it shifts: Those who did not support the proposal were then asked about a government-sponsored plan that would be administered by state governments and available only to those who couldn’t afford private insurance. Support rose by 19 percentage points to 76 percent.

Invoking Congress’s involvement in a health care bill doesn’t change the support for a public option, at least not according to a recent survey by USA Today and Gallup.

Half of its respondents wanted a bill with a public government-run option, and almost as many, 46 percent, did not want it when they were asked: “If Congress passes a health care bill, do you think it should or should not include a public, government-run insurance plan to compete with plans offered by private insurance companies?”

The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found more support for the public option, even though it used a question similar to the NBC News-Wall Street Journal query. On this topic, Kaiser introduced the question with a lead-in sentence saying that public health insurance option was a means to increasing the number of Americans with insurance.

Kaiser asked about a government-administered plan that would compete with private health insurance and 57 percent supported it.

When those in favor of a public option, however, were asked about how that might put private companies at a disadvantage — charges made by opponents — almost a quarter then changed their minds and opposed the proposal. A third continued to favor the plan.

The respondents who originally opposed the public option were also given a chance to change their minds. What if public health insurance would only take effect if not enough people had private affordable health plans, along the lines of what many call a trigger option. Then 9 percent changed their minds and favored the plan. Twenty-eight percent still opposed the public plan.

All these nationwide telephone polls were conducted within the last two weeks more than 1,000 adults, and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

quote:

Overall, polling points toward the public option being at least mildly popular and indeed perhaps quite popular. But more polling is required on this question, particularly by the news organizations and other unaffiliated groups like Pew and Gallup, and more care should be taken to frame both questions and answers in a neutral and informative way.

SKULL.GIF posted:

Exactly this. And I think a big part contributing to this sort of perspective is media reporting on "the polls indicate" and "the Democrats' strategy is" and whatnot. It only serves to reinforce the sort of Very Serious Person who eats that up and concludes that they need to share their politicians' positions for maximum success. It's self-undermining.

Push for full socialism now. If your representatives don't do a good enough job of fulfilling your expectations, replace them. Don't pre-emptively own yourself by going "Well, maybe not, we can settle for less," that just leads to a feedback loop where you end up running shrieking towards the center while President Trump institutes labor camps.

Main Paineframe posted:

I have two problems with those polls, though. First of all, just polling someone's approval of a general concept isn't necessarily useful unless you can be assured that a) they'll feel the same way about specific solid proposals, and b) it's a strongly held belief that won't swing thirty points in the other direction once it becomes a realistic enough prospect for the super PACs and interest groups to start buying ads about it. Having seen the way opinions sway on issues as they enter the sphere of serious public debate leaves me dubious about the whole idea of general issue polling.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

I don't think anyone disagrees that millions of dollars of PAC money can change people's minds, and I don't understand how that's a good reason to ignore polls. Democrats being crappy at fighting off PAC propaganda is a thing that needs to be improved, not a reason to ignore your constituency. If you want to cement the belief in left wing policy that's clearly starting to take hold, start debunking the counterclaims now.

I think it's fairly telling that when confronted with polling data that conflicts with your narrative, your response is to invalidate the very concept of polling rather than present data that supports your beliefs.

Ytlaya posted:

My feeling about that particular poll is that, while it doesn't prove that Democrats/Americans will necessarily support these policies, it at least shows that they aren't necessarily completely un-viable (which is an argument made by a lot of more centrist Democrats). So while I don't think that poll is saying "people definitely support this stuff!", I do think it indicates that they aren't strongly against it either and that there's a good chance the public could be persuaded to support such policy.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I think Americans, in general, would be reluctant to see a big, seismic change in the way in which healthcare is delivered. I think you're seeing that now with how the Republicans are suddenly getting cold feet on their plans that would dramatically change the way we get healthcare.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I think you're being a little too naive about polling data and what it really means and by doing so, you undermine the strength of your argument.

Like I think people like the idea of universal healthcare, but when you actually present them a proposal with costs attached they tend to go "oh, well, uh..."

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I think Americans, in general, would be reluctant to see a big, seismic change in the way in which healthcare is delivered. I think you're seeing that now with how the Republicans are suddenly getting cold feet on their plans that would dramatically change the way we get healthcare.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

I don't think anyone disagrees that millions of dollars of PAC money can change people's minds, and I don't understand how that's a good reason to ignore polls. Democrats being crappy at fighting off PAC propaganda is a thing that needs to be improved, not a reason to ignore your constituency. If you want to cement the belief in left wing policy that's clearly starting to take hold, start debunking the counterclaims now.

I think it's fairly telling that when confronted with polling data that conflicts with your narrative, your response is to invalidate the very concept of polling rather than present data that supports your beliefs.

quote:

The Kaiser Health Tracking Poll found more support for the public option, even though it used a question similar to the NBC News-Wall Street Journal query. On this topic, Kaiser introduced the question with a lead-in sentence saying that public health insurance option was a means to increasing the number of Americans with insurance.

Kaiser asked about a government-administered plan that would compete with private health insurance and 57 percent supported it.

When those in favor of a public option, however, were asked about how that might put private companies at a disadvantage — charges made by opponents — almost a quarter then changed their minds and opposed the proposal. A third continued to favor the plan.

Main Paineframe posted:

Did you read the articles I posted? They give a lot of telling examples of why the polling data can be unreliable. For example...


So in this poll, 20% of public option supporters change their minds and go against the public option when they think about it in the context of what it might do to the private insurance market. That is not what I'd call a reliable base of support for a realistic public option. And, as Nate notes, that poll doesn't explicitly say that the "public health insurance option" refers to a government-run program (you might think that would be obvious, but no, it does make a difference in the numbers). Now, how many of the people who still support it even after that actually care enough to go out and vote based on that?

Despite the general lack of good, in-depth polling, I think that Americans are generally favorable to ideas like "more people should have health insurance" and "there should be a plan for people who can't get health insurance", but the favorability rating quickly drops when you get into specifics like "how much should we spend on it" and "how easy should it be to get" and "what will it do to the private insurance marketplace". That goes even for general things. For example, one poll says that 50% of Americans favor single-payer...but that only 30% would still support single-payer if they heard opponents say that it would cause their taxes to go up.

Obamacare is a good example of the dangers of relying too heavily on polling and focus groups. Even now, many of the provisions of the law poll extremely positively - except for the mandates and the various taxes included (like the medical device tax and cadillac tax, both of which are quite unpopular). But when packaged into an actual program, 41% of Americans say it "gives government too big a role in the health care system" and 35% say it leads to government spending too much on healthcare.

Ytlaya posted:

What is fundamentally different about Americans now from Americans back when other broad social programs were passed? I can understand thinking that there might be strong resistance to flat-out nationalizing healthcare, but I think that something like a single-payer system would definitely be viable as long as industry resistance could be dealt with. The problem would be more with the very powerful business interests who wouldn't want such a thing to happen than it would be with voters. And even if we assume you're correct, it's not like things will ever change unless individual voters start to support this stuff. There is no benefit to saying "well, I'm against it because I think most Americans aren't willing to support it yet."

I mean, what exactly are you gaining from being against this stuff on the basis of believing most Americans wouldn't be okay with it? Like, what harm is caused by supporting it if you think it is actually a good idea that would help people? If most Americans really don't want it, then politicians aren't going to support it regardless, so it's not like your individual support is going to somehow lead politicians to propose unpopular legislation or something. You can just act as one data point in favor of such change, and maybe at some point in the future enough people will be in favor that it will be plausible.

If you're genuinely against changing the way healthcare is delivered, that's one thing, but to be against it on the basis of "I don't think most Americans would be willing to accept such change" is just stupid and accomplishes nothing.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

The only thing undermining the strength of my argument is you specifically undermining the strength of my argument. If you'd like to make a counterargument, feel free. I'm sure you feel very strongly that people believe the same things you do, but I don't agree, and I don't think you can back up your claim.

If you'd like to discuss my sources and what the data means, and come to a different conclusion than me, that's fine too. But you're claiming that using any polling data at all undermines political discussion, which is a real convenient idea to trot out when you don't want to do the work to source your arguments.

I live in a bubble. My views are constantly reinforced by the people I'm close to, the city I live in and the way I was raised. I can tell you what I believe, and what my friends believe, and what my neighbors believe. But I can't tell you what the country believes, because I don't know. That's why polls are important. No, they're not perfect, but they're a shitload better than the alternative, which is me extrapolating my dirtbag leftist worldview into a fantasy picture of the rest of the united states.

Main Paineframe posted:

So in this poll, 20% of public option supporters change their minds and go against the public option when they think about it in the context of what it might do to the private insurance market. That is not what I'd call a reliable base of support for a realistic public option. And, as Nate notes, that poll doesn't explicitly say that the "public health insurance option" refers to a government-run program (you might think that would be obvious, but no, it does make a difference in the numbers). Now, how many of the people who still support it even after that actually care enough to go out and vote based on that?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I am also not against changing that structure. I am simply trying to explain to you that the reality isn't as simple as y'all are trying to make it.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

What does anyone stand to gain from that? Why is that important to you? If the reality isn't so simple, how do you affect change to get what you want?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Because it's important to understand that it's not just "messaging a little bit better." That it's a very big obstacle to getting the policy goal we want. Like big loving deal obstacle.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

OK, again you've defined an obstacle. It's very clear that you're good at pointing out problems that you need to overcome to get to your goal. Given that obstacle, how do you affect change to get what you want?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

We have to be realistic, for starters and I think we also have to consider ways to get to same end-goal (UHC) that don't involve a problem we might not be able to solve. So like what are the kinds of proposals that we could make that could get us to universal care that aren't single-payer?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

We have to be realistic, for starters and I think we also have to consider ways to get to same end-goal (UHC) that don't involve a problem we might not be able to solve. So like what are the kinds of proposals that we could make that could get us to universal care that aren't single-payer?

WampaLord posted:

Like, oh say, a public option for the ACA? I think Hillary was for that, but it doesn't matter now.

I think starting from a compromised position is admitting failure. I think you push Medicare for all, a big idea that gets big attention, that's the kind of poo poo people respond too.

WampaLord posted:

Like, oh say, a public option for the ACA? I think Hillary was for that, but it doesn't matter now.

I think starting from a compromised position is admitting failure. I think you push Medicare for all, a big idea that gets big attention, that's the kind of poo poo people respond too.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

That's a fair question, but I'd like to know how you would affect change to get what you want.

Ardennes posted:

At least during the 2016 campaign, I don't believe even a public option was on the platform. In reality, Hillary and the DNC was rather selective on the policies they would adopt.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

A public option of some kind, strengthening ACA, expanding medicaid in more states to more people, working to improve the other two parts of the healthcare triangle of death (actual services and ancillary services) with more low-cost/public ran health clinics in undeserved rural and urban areas. Working on some kind of prescription drug legislation to curb costs. Create more cooperatives for small businesses and encourage them to offer healthcare for their workers.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Yep, that's the goal and I agree with you 100%. Now, how would you affect change to get what you want?

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

Medicare for all was a bad loving idea in the primaries and it's a bad idea now. Medicare has a lot of systemic problems with how it's structured and how it's paid for.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

By electing people to carry out those changes? I don't know what you're even after here.

WampaLord posted:

Hmm, weird how it was highest in satisfaction rating in that poll someone posted.

My point is, call it Medicare for all because people love Medicare. I would loving kill for Medicare.

Marketing/messaging is the issue here, Bernie got more hardcore followers because he had a simple message.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

Most of your posts in this thread are critiques of specific actions and strategies that other people are proposing to achieve the goal we all want to achieve. I know what actions you don't agree with, but you haven't proposed any alternatives. So, I'm asking you how you would affect change to get what you want.

Ytlaya posted:

While this is all true, I think it would be useful to compare with the data from policy that was successfully passed. In other words, having most of the country support the details of a policy may not be necessary to getting it passed. It seems very possible to me that policy that Americans vaguely support but disagree with once described in more detail is still entirely viable. A huge portion of Americans will automatically say no to anything that involves increasing their taxes (even if it reduces their overall spending), but once you actually pass the policy they may end up supporting it.

I mean, isn't Obamacare actually an example of this? That it's not necessary for Americans (who are generally kinda ignorant about a lot of stuff) to approve of a more detailed description of a policy in order to pass said policy?

quote:

From time to time, political writers in this country have asserted the well-meaning but idealistic notion that America's Government is, or should be, controlled by public opinion--that legislators should behave as though public opinion polls are instructions on the part of the voters. Thus, if 59 percent of the electorate favor Government health insurance, the argument runs, it should be passed forthwith. But what if the 59 percent are only mildly in favor of the proposal, while the other 41 percent are strongly opposed?

The answer is that highly controversial legislation must be treated as a special case. No system of representative government can truly be equitable--nor can it survive in the long run--unless it takes into account the intensity with which opinions are held.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

So polls are unreliable because when you start talking about the downsides of the thing you're polling for, people tend to change their minds.

No poo poo. That doesn't mean polls are unreliable, it means you can't use them as an excuse not to get off your rear end and fight for the thing that you want to get done. If people respond positively to the messaging used in one poll but not the other, then great. You just did an A/B test for your marketing. Go with the message that works.

BI NOW GAY LATER posted:

I just told you what policies we could and should propose to affect change. Like the post you quoted was a laundry list of policy proposals that we could adopt. We could then hold people to the fire on enacting those policies.

Dr. Fishopolis posted:

We've already established that we agree on policy. Your critiques in this thread are universally about your disagreements over marketing, messaging and strategy in building public support for those policies. I have yet to see you propose an alternative to the strategies you're criticizing, so I'm asking you how you would affect change to get what you want.