Thread by @ClaireBerlinski

Okay, @ArunInParis, @rodrikdani, here's some of the research on which I base my judgment that the policies upon which the candidates are focused are vote-losers. This study comes from Kaiser, obviously not a neutral party: kff.org/slideshow/publ…

But I've seen the same results over and over. People (~60%) like the idea of universal health coverage when they first hear the words. But the moment you tell them "Your taxes will go up," or "You'll lose your private insurance," support collapses.

What do you think the GOP will hammer throughout the campaign? See figure 12. Especially after the mess of the Obamacare rollout, this will be an easy suspicion to exploit. Don't underestimate how burned people felt by that.

I can find many similar studies if you'd like to see more research.

Next: polling on extending healthcare to undocumented immigrants suggests this is a highly unpopular idea, and it will get more unpopular when the GOP hammers home the Figure 12 arguments.

(Parenthetically: Do *I* wish to see universal health coverage, even if it means paying higher taxes and causing a massive disruption in the established system? Yes. Living in France has convinced me. I am sold.)

(I do worry that the French are much more gifted administrators, though, for a number of cultural reasons, and that we may not be *able* to create a system that works as well. My experiences with the NHS were not as positive.)

(Americans hate "government-run" things because ours is often astonishingly bad at them, compared to other governments. But this is a separate discussion.)

(Do *I* think illegal immigrants should be eligible for health benefits? Yes, some of them. It's obviously insane not to offer anyone in the US treatment for infectious diseases, for example, and inhumane to withhold emergency care. Knee replacements? Nope. Get legal, first.)

But my preferences aren't the issue: the electorate's preferences are. I can drown you in polling indicating that the idea of making publicly-funded healthcare available to people who are in the country illegally is about as popular as Jeffrey Epstein. In fact, just Google it.

Decriminalizing illegal entry? I know and you know that the point of this is to remove the legal justification for family separations. No one is talking about open borders. They're talking about making a criminal offense a civil offense.

What does the ordinary person hear, however, when they hear "decriminalizing illegal entry?" They hear, "open borders." And when you combine that with "free health care," which is what they also hear, they think, "Everyone in the whole world will show up here, why wouldn't they?"

You and I appreciate that as of now, it's in fact a misdemeanor, not a felony, to cross the border illegally, and making it a civil offense would not appreciably make life easier for illegals in the US. The electorate doesn't.

(I don't believe offering health care to the undocumented would cause us to be deluged. The push factor is more important than the pull factor; there's not a Guatemalan alive who would undertake that journey because he's feeling a mite poorly and wants to see a doctor.)

But the electorate firmly believes otherwise. It amazes me that so many Democrats (correctly) diagnose the electorate to be xenophobic, but can't see what this entails. It entails this: if they want to win an election, xenophilia isn't a winning strategy.

You may recall that civil norms began their descent into the abyss over this issue precisely. When Obama pitched the ACA to Congress, he assured them it would exclude people in the country illegally. That's when Joe Wilson hollered, “You lie!

Americans overwhelmingly hate the idea of rewarding illegal immigration in any way. Is this a view I share? No. I do believe it should be discouraged, not rewarded; people who enter illegally should face a stiff fine, and serious obstacles to employment--

though the focus of punishment, IMO, should be on the employers. I think they should be deported immediately if they commit a serious crime. But I otherwise think we should allow people who entered illegally but have otherwise lived blameless lives to:

a) become eligible after a certain time to work legally; b) pay a very stiff fine and do community service as a penalty; and c) after, say, five years of contributing usefully to the economy and otherwise living blameless lives, apply for citizenship.

(For which I believe they should pass a rigorous, stringent citizenship test.)

The electorate, however, does not agree with me. Illegal immigration absolutely chaps their hide. We live in a democracy. We have to respect the majority view until we persuade them otherwise.

If you Google it, you'll see that even self-described Democrat "moderates" oppose offering health coverage to people unlawfully in the country by significant majorities. Swing voters? Forget it. And this election can't be won without them.

Friedman is right: This isn't difficult. Democrats win so long as they don't terrify independents, moderate Republicans, and suburban women. They win so long as they seem like normal Americans. Americans love free markets and entrepreneurialism:

The message, "We're going to fix the system so that the markets aren't rigged, and hard work and entrepreneurialism are rewarded the way they should be" is a winning message.

All of the issues he mentions as "winning messages" *are* winning in the sense that Americans overwhelmingly support them *and* they're what we actually need:

1. Investment in education and science;
2. Legislation that rewards risk-taking, discourages [financial sector] recklessness, and breaks up
monopolies;
3. More legal immigration, especially highly skilled;
4. Rebuilding our crappy infrastructure;
5. Basic social safety nets.

If Democrats focus on those issues, and sound serious about national security, they win. If they focus on socialism, race, gender, sexual orientation, massive military cuts, or anything that sounds like open borders, they could well lose.