How false narratives are born:

Step 1: Proclaim a falsehood as fact: “M4A wins elections”
Step 2: Present manipulated data you know gullible people won’t fact check
Step 3: Use wording guaranteed to create a false impression
Step 4: Put the deceit on blast to millions of fans

The blanket statement “M4A wins elections” is patently false. Running on M4A might win in some districts but loses in others. There’s not a single 2020 GE race where a candidate running on M4A won in a swing district. The GE wasn’t a referendum on M4A.

But the Dem prez primary was and M4A lost. In the period the primary was competitive:
It lost 21/28 states.
It lost *every county* in MI, FL, AL, MS, SC, MO, OK, WY, and WI.
It lost all but one county in IL, VA, and AR.
¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Co-sponsoring M4A wasn’t a factor in any GE win but anyone can play the correlation = causation con.

Two Reps who co-sponsored M4A died.
No Rep who wasn’t a M4A co-sponsor died.
SPONSORING M4A KILLS PEOPLE!!!!!!

Easy to find a poll in which M4A does well. But as has been documented time and time again, when asked a broad Q, as this one does, “Would you support or oppose providing Medicare to every American?,” many respondents think it means “Medicare if you want it.” How many? …

Well, when *the same polling firm* asked more detailed questions, support for Sanders’ M4A plan was … <checks notes> … <re-checks notes> … 13%.
Hard to imagine anything polling worse than 13%, but wonder what it would've been if the Q included NON-citizens.

While these 6 districts were ranked swing districts in 2018, that wasn’t true in 2020. Three (Porter, Levin, Kirkpatrick) were ranked “solid Dem.” Three (Golden, Harder, Wild) were “likely Dem” swing districts. It’s deceitful to imply these six were tough districts.

Three of them won in swing districts, not six. And while they did co-sponsor M4A (along w other HC bills), the three *ran on* the ACA, not M4A.
So I guess Ocasio-Cortez’ message to other Dems is: “It’s cool to co-sponsor M4A. Just don’t put it on your website or in your ads.”

A big perk of running in a “solid Dem” district & in some “likely Dem” districts is you don’t have outside RW money pouring into your district attacking you. Each of these 8 Dems did. I’m gonna go waaay out on a limb here and say that was a bigger factor than not sponsoring M4A.

The hard truth is that some of the Dems Ocasio-Cortez is dissing ran on *bolder* HC policies (like adding a public option) than the Dems she’s touting. It’s also true some candidates who did NOT support M4A lost votes bc voters thought they *did* (TY GOP attack ads).

Note how she uses the incendiary “oppose M4A” instead of the accurate “support UHC.” She’s well aware her followers have been conditioned by Sanders’ rhetoric to conflate the few SP countries with the vast majority of countries that use different UHC systems.

It’s not unreasonable to support a plan used by other UHC countries, esp if they have better outcomes. It’s not unreasonable to choose not to co-sponsor a M4A plan that’s *still* incomplete. People fighting for UHC aren’t the enemy. Republicans are.

Sorry for the detour but it irks me to no end that people w bully pulpits continue to misinform people & refuse to have the honest debate we NEED on pros/cons of various UHC systems so every person in the country can have HC w/out worrying about access or cost.
Back on track …

Dem wins in swing districts (with 4 races yet to be called):
5 M4A co-sponsors who ran on the ACA (3 AOC counted and 2 she didn’t )
24 non-sponsors who ran on the ACA
Total: 0 ran on M4A and 29, including 3 who flipped red districts, ran on the ACA.

Once more, for the people in the back buying half-truths, manipulated data, and deceitful rhetoric:
ZERO candidates running on M4A won in swing districts.
EVERY Dem who won a swing district (29 and counting) ran on the ACA.

The reality The con