Thread by @asymmetricinfo

Snowstorms = Tweetstorms. We've got a lot to cover this week, so let's get started.

First up: Kamala Harris and Medicare for All: washingtonpost.com/opinions/harri…

Paired with the improbable presidential stylings of Howard Schultz:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/could…

I put these two together, because they're both about something I've been thinking about a lot: the way progressive Democrats and MAGA Republicans are becoming a sort of "bootleggers and Baptists" coalition.

That formulation comes from an old public choice article which points out that bootleggers and anti-alcohol crusaders in dry counties actually need each other. Without the bootleggers, crusaders would have no cause; without the Baptists, the bootleggers would have no market.

The existence of the other side provides the justification for your group; the more extreme they get, the more extreme *you* get. And people in the middle end up picking a "team" because they're terrified of the other side, even if they're not very fond of their new team.

And what does this have to do with elections? Simple: I feel like I'm watching the left convince itself that Trump is so loathesome that they have all the freedom they need to run on their progressive dream platform.

Maybe they're right! Predictions are hard, especially about the future.

However.

You also have to at least consider the possibility that there are folks who don't find Trump *quite* as loathesome and despicable as you do, even if they still think he's pretty loathesome and despicable. That there might be *something* they care about more than Trump.

So. How did Democrats clean up in the midterms? They picked up the suburbs--folks who aren't really looking for a socialist revolution, but also aren't looking for a lewd race-baiter in the Oval office.

These people have, in general:

1) Education
2) Some financial security
3) Good employer-sponsored health insurance
4) Incomes that you will need to tax the bejeesus out of to finance the socialist paradise.

One of the best-replicated results in American politics is that these people will fight like tigers to protect their relative position: to keep the affluent character of their neighborhoods and schools, to protect their savings, etc.

They're also reasonably socially liberal and pro-immigration, which is why they hate Trump.

Elizabeth Warren is wisely leaving these folks alone. She's targeting Wall Street and obscenely rich people. Almost none of these folks work on Wall Street, and/or are obscenely rich.

Kamala Harris *opened* her campaign by going after something they have, and care about a lot: their excellent ESI (employer-sponsored insurance).

HS epromised to do away with it and give everyone Medicare-for-All. That is going straight for their family's financial security and health. You do not carry the suburbs by doing that. Ever. (fine, you can have Berkely. I'm speaking of the vast majority of suburbs.)

There's a good chance that they look at Trump, look at *mandatory* M4A (not an optional buy-in), and decide Trump's not so bad after all.

To this, there are a variety of rejoinders:

1) M4A will save them money and offer better coverage.

2) Everyone loves Medicare; we're not talking about some untested program.

3) We're not really doing M4A; we're just moving the Overton Window for a public option.

Taking these in order:

1) These are not both possible goals UNLESS you cut wages for health care workers by A LOT. Like, really a lot. Enjoy trying to pass your bill while every hospital, doctor, nurse, radiology tech is angrily campaigning against it.

Even then it may simply not be possible; our built hospital environment is different, and more expensive to operate, than is true of other countries. Why this is is a discussion for a different day; for now, we'll just not that it *is*.

Moreover, it was clear from the Obamacare debate that people understood this--fuzzily, but they understood it. When you looked at polls, what were they concerned about? They thought it would cost a lot and reduce their access to care.

(I'm talking now about people who had insurance.)

They turned out to be right! They got very upset! Obamacare burned any hope Democrats had of selling a program on "Great Taste AND Less Filling".

The passage of Obamacare--the skyrocketing premiums, the restrictions on plans and doctor choice for people who were already in the individual market--has constrained Democratic options to pass a new program in ways they have still not acknowledged. Fool me once ...

What people who already had ESI wanted was to be reassured that they would be covered if they lost their ESI. They didn't want someone to take their ESI and give them someone else. Most people are pretty happy with their existing coverage. And most voters have coverage.

For them, M4A is a loss, especially if they are the ones who are going to pay for it. And they are, because the 1% does not have $3 trillion worth of untaxed income lying around.

Now, you can argue that they're just going to be paying out of a different pocket--taxes go up, premiums go down. For some small slice of the population, the ones buying unsubsidized coverage on the exchanges, this MIGHT even be true.

But let's be real: we're not going to slash reimbursements by 40%. It's not going to happen. We couldn't even get doctors to eat a tiny little restraint on the growth of their reimbursements.

So this is going to be pricey, and you're going to have to tax middle class people to pay for it. And yes, their employers will save money. But it's not like their employers are then going to turn around and cut them a check.

At best, it will take some time for the money that WOULD have been spent on their healthcare to filter back through to them as they negotiate their raises. At worst, it won't filter back through. Meanwhile, the taxes start right now.

Meanwhile, you have another problem, something people my age are aware of, but which young progressives aren't.

(whispers)

Medicare isn't that great.

Do seniors love it? Sure. Their alternative is having no insurance and paying for everything out of pocket.

But compared to good ESI, it's ... not that good.

Drugs cost more. Copays are higher. There are all sorts of weird gaps that treatment you want can fall into. Depending on where you live, it can be hard to find good providers who take new Medicare patients, or any Medicare patients. (This depends greatly on the specialty)

My Mom was really, really looking forward to Medicare until she lost a bunch of her providers and saw her drug and copay costs soar. And she didn't have ultra-gold-plated coverage or anything.

These are things you know about if you're middle aged and middle-class and dealing with aging parents, and otherwise, not

Are people grateful for Medicare? Absolutely. Do they want to swap their ESI for it? Not necessarily. I have better insurance than my Mom, and I'm in an HMO.

But middle-aged, middle-class, dealing with aging parents is a big chunk of the demographic you're counting on to beat Trump. Promising them that you're going to kick them out of their ESI and put them on M4A doesn't seem like a promising start.

Because Trump is holding the WWC on immigration and culture-war stuff. If you send the moderate GOP suburbs back into his arms, I don't see where you're getting to 270 in the electoral college.

I dunno, maybe the WWC goes so nuts for Medicare for All they stop caring about identity politics. I'm just saying, I wouldn't want to bet the presidency, or my country's future, on that calculation.

All of which is to say, I think it's possible that the Democrats look at Trump and say "He's so bad, we can shoot for the stars and get anyone elected." And that Trump, in turn, looks at Dems running left and says "Hah! Now I can really pander to my base!"

And that in the race to the peripheries, with each side enabling the other to go farther, there might actually be room for that mythical creature, the winning centrist independent.

Could Schultz be that candidate? Not on the platform he's apparently choosing: budget nanny.

The demographic for "super socially liberal, fairly fiscally conservative" is tiny. It's me and six of my Facebook friends.

Unfortunately, we all hang out together, so we tend to think that this is a really, really common set of political values.

I sense Mr. Schultz hangs out with the same sort of people. But they are not a winning electoral coalition.

What I suggested is that there might be room for a candidate who would offer a truce in the culture wars.

Who would neither promise no abortions, under any circumstances, nor legal abortion up to 9 months. Who would protect LGBT rights in housing and employment, but let small Christian bakeries decide which cakes they want to bake. Etc.

Would that be enough to carry a majority? Dunno. But no one is in that lane, because they're all terrified of being primaried.

It would be interesting to at least find out if there's a market for a negotiated peace.

But I doubt we're going to, because Schultz seems to have settled on "Don't tax billionaires too much" as his main campaign platform. That isn't a winning campaign platform.

And which is the winning campaign platform between "MAGA" and "M4A"? We may find out in November 2020!

I'm just saying, I see way too much certainty on the left that they can't lose.

Remember November 2016?

You can lose.

And that, folks, is all she wrote. The columns are here:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/could…

washingtonpost.com/opinions/harri…

Please read them. And happy Friday.

Oops! Sorry! One more thing! The Overton Window! How M4A is really just about moving the Overton Window!

The Overton Window is a steaming pile of garbage. Public opinion does not move just because you scream louder and/or make your demands more extreme. Thank you, that is all.