Read on Twitter
So, I'm seeing this image a lot. It's put out in support of the idea that (one) deciding factor for whether Democrats won or lost House races was whether they boldly supported Medicare for All. I'd like to talk about it.
See, 'cause there are, what, 16 races there? On Ballotpedia, they list 41 "battleground" districts for 2020. So I kinda wondered: what's the rest of it look like. And since today is kinda a slow day at work, I started plugging shit into Excel. https://ballotpedia.org/U.S._House_battlegrounds,_2020
I'm starting this thread before I've finished even half of the races, so I don't know what it's going to show, but I'm committed to posting this thread no matter what. Whether it confirms my priors or contradicts them.
Now, I'm saying anything short of supporting or "working towards" Medicare for All or Single Payer counts as a "No" on the question. Because I don't think leftists want to give credit for public options or expanding Medicaid.
And I'll say what's making me suspicious about the way leftists are presenting that table. First, it's only 16 races. And second: they're only looking in terms of win-loss. I'm looking at the overall SHIFT.
2018 was a GREAT year for House Democrats. 2020 less so!
2018 was a GREAT year for House Democrats. 2020 less so!
For example! In 2018, we LOST #MI06 by 4.4 points. But Jon Hoadley, running on M4A, lost it this cycle by 21.0 points!
And we lost #AZ06 by 10.4 points in 2018, but Hiral Tiperneni managed to close that gap to only 4.2 points, running on a public option!
And we lost #AZ06 by 10.4 points in 2018, but Hiral Tiperneni managed to close that gap to only 4.2 points, running on a public option!
Anyway. Enough of that. What did I find? First, let's talk about the races. Because the graphic? Not what Ballotpedia rated as a "battleground" race.
They looked at the 2018 margin, the 2016 presidential margin, and other factors. Methodology here: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia:Battlegrounds
They looked at the 2018 margin, the 2016 presidential margin, and other factors. Methodology here: https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia:Battlegrounds
In those 41 "battleground" races, only FIVE of the Democrats running ran on Medicare for All (or "working towards" it, whatever that meant).
Of those 5, only 1 of them won, and that dude also happened to be the only incumbent: Jared Golden (ME-02).
The average shift was R+4.5.
Of those 5, only 1 of them won, and that dude also happened to be the only incumbent: Jared Golden (ME-02).
The average shift was R+4.5.
Of the other 36 Democrats who were campaigning on anything that wasn't "Medicare for All," we won 9, with 2 more still too close to call. The average shift was R+4.1.
That's the same number, by the way, of races where we saw improvement over 2018.
That's the same number, by the way, of races where we saw improvement over 2018.
It's really messy data, and it's hard to draw any firm conclusions from it. For the most part, Democrats weren't running on M4A in these "battlegrounds." Those that did saw a slightly worse slide from 2018.
It was a bad year, relative to 2018. Or, rather, it wasn't nearly as GOOD a year as 2018. And whether a candidate did or did not campaign on M4A doesn't seem to be what drove their result.
Which sounds like I'm saying, "Neither side in this internecine fight is right."
Which sounds like I'm saying, "Neither side in this internecine fight is right."
But I'm not. Because one side is arguing that it is what drove the results. The left wants us to believe that Democrats weren't bold enough. But boldness doesn't seem to have mattered.
Moderate dems are right: it didn't matter what they said. They got attacked for AOC.
Moderate dems are right: it didn't matter what they said. They got attacked for AOC.
