• Skip to content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

AR Intel

AR Intel takes you beyond the news to give you the full picture of what’s going on in the political world.

  • Features
    • Action Alerts
    • Data Center
    • In The News
  • Member Exclusives
    • Race Briefs
    • Intel Exclusives
  • Subscribe

The Political Edge: Medicare For All Is A Losing Issue

November 27, 2019

Over the last year, Medicare for All has grown in popularity among Democrats. Once a fringe policy supported by only those on the farthest fringe of liberal politics, the plan has grown into an issue that leading presidential are embracing wholeheartedly. Whether it’s a winning issue is still in question, however.

A recent analysis by Alan Abramowitz at Sabato’s Crystal Ball suggests that the $34 trillion plan is, in fact, an albatross around the neck for Democrats running for the U.S. House of Representatives. The study, which compares the performance of 2018 Democratic House candidates that supported Medicare for All versus those who did not, shows that opponents of the proposal won their election at a higher rate.

The full analysis can be found here but we’ve highlighted the major points below:

According to a survey by National Nurses United, 51% (219 of 429 districts included in the survey) of Democratic House candidates endorsed a version of Medicare for All in 2018. Abramowitz broke down the candidates supporting the proposal by their district’s partisanship, which “shows 73% of Democratic candidates in districts that Hillary Clinton won by a margin of at least 20 points supported Medicare for All.”  However, the data also shows that the lowest level of support for the policy was not in strongly Republican districts but in districts that voted narrowly for Donald Trump in 2016. As Abramowitz notes, “These findings suggest that Democratic candidates were least likely to support Medicare for All in marginally Republican districts where it could reduce their chances of winning.”

Abramowitz then broke down the outcomes of the House elections in competitive and open seats based on where the Democratic candidate stood on Medicare for all:

The evidence suggests Medicare for All was a losing issue in theses swing districts. Indeed, of the 60 seats considered to be in play, “Democratic candidates supporting Medicare for All did substantially worse than those who did not — winning only 45% of their races compared with 72% for the non-supporters.”

Even when accounting for variables like the 2016 presidential margin, incumbency advantages, and campaign spending, Abramowitz still found the same results to be true: Medicare for All may play well among the Democratic base, but it still faces an uphill battle in more moderate districts.

Filed Under: Data Center, Featured

Reader Interactions

Primary Sidebar

Get the Race Rundown

Our free, weekly newsletter is a must-read for campaign insiders.

Race Rundown: Congress Returns To Washington, Welcomes New Senator From Georgia

January 10, 2020

Week In Review: Politicians, Pundits Debate Actions In Iran

January 10, 2020

The Political Edge: Roundup Of Announced Q4 Fundraising Totals

January 9, 2020

Bernie Sanders

2020 Dems: Campaigns Announce Q4 Fundraising Totals Ahead Of Iowa Caucuses

January 7, 2020

Look Ahead: House To Vote On War Powers Resolution As 2020 Session Begins

January 6, 2020

Footer

  • About Us
  • Account
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

About AR/Intel

AR/Intel is a subscription supported political news and analysis website powered by research from America Rising. Subscribers get access to a library of detailed race briefs digging into the most competitive elections in the country. Click here to become a subscriber.

Get the Race Rundown

Our free, weekly must-read email newsletter.

Copyright © 2019 America Rising Corporation | Powered by America Rising Corporation