General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAgree with Dan Savage
He said on real time that we Dems need to stop trying to reach out to voters who will never vote for Dems. Instead they need to concentrate on people who don't or rarely vote, but if they did they, would vote Dem
mopinko
(70,092 posts)deurbano
(2,895 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Numbers are set to be growing unless we stop it.
mopinko
(70,092 posts)of 300,000. that would certainly have made the difference.
and it is an issue that would rally a lot of voters who think the party doesnt care about them.
Pisces
(5,599 posts)Me.
(35,454 posts)Which means exactly
Lotusflower70
(3,077 posts)We have to focus our time and energy on the base and turnout. Fuck the Trump humpers.
Cha
(297,196 posts)the jackholes have made it harder and almost impossible to vote.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)They are unreliable voters, even if you get them to agree to vote. If it's raining that day, they won't go. If they don't feel energetic that day, they won't go. If there's a good sale at Macy's, they won't vote. If someone cares about politics and current events, they are registered, and they vote. My Mom didn't care about the world around her. She only cared about her small world. She never voted, that I know of. Because she had no interest in it.
I think the Dems should reach out to middle class white voters...the ones who flipped and voted for Trump. They are desperate to find a party who is looking out for their jobs, and cares about Social Security and Medicare and health care for the middle class as much as they care for the working class and poor people. Yes, Medicaid is vitally important. But so in good insurance for a middle class family bringing in $60,000 a year and trying to save for retirement and feed the kids and keep the car maintained and pay the mortgage, while working 40 to 60 hours a week. They are not that concerned with transgenders being able to use whatever bathroom they want. That's an important issue, but not to them. But the Dems in power spend a lot of time focusing on social issues that don't affect the daily lives of middle class Americans. Those social issues are important. But health care and jobs and such are equally important.
Middle class voters, particularly white voters, used to be the base of the Democratic Party. It's great that the Dem. Party has a wide base, now. But the middle class votes are there, if the Democratic politicians start thinking about them again.
But the Democratic Party has to have the right candidate. I don't see many stars on the horizon. On either side.
politicat
(9,808 posts)The cost of contraception for a year for a 20-something woman on an employer plan who is paying $150 a month, also with a $6000 deductible, is between $75 and $200 a year. (IUDs and implants amortize over 3-10 years, so the up-front cost may be $500-700, but they last.) That 20 something is using probably two visits a year, again costing about $100 each. So max it out, she's paying $1800 and using maybe $400 in care.
A cardiac stent, with no complications, averages $30,000. Prostate surgery averages $35,000, but can reach $100,000 pretty easily. Cardiac catheterization (which is extremely common in 50 year old men) cost about $50,000. So the average 50 year old man, paying 800 a month plus 6000 a year in deductible, who has one of those procedures, is free-riding for at least $14,000. It takes 10 young women to make up for his care.
I am tired of being blamed for health care costs when it's not young women who are the expensive ones. Yeah, it sucks that costs go up. And just as a reminder, our contraception is saving tens of thousands in maternity care, and hundreds of thousands in grudging child support and court fees.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)It's not a two way street.
Most people over 50 never have stents or prostate surgery. MILLIONS of young women are on birth control. And the cost isn't much, per person. Middle class women can EASILY spend the $30 to $40 a month on birth control. But all together, the cost is high....and that cost is DISPROPORTIONATELY PASSED ON TO THOSE WHO DON'T TAKE BIRTH CONTROL...EVERYONE over 50, male and female. They pay triple premiums.
They shouldn't have to buy maternity care, either. BECAUSE their premiums are causing a hardship.
But there you go. My point is made. You don't care. You only care about your issues. So bye-bye middle class voters.
I'm still voting Democratic, but I'm a political junkie and an exception to the rule.
politicat
(9,808 posts)Do the math.
Sorry you don't like actuarial statistics, but it costs far less to insure a young person than they pay, and that overpayment supports the older and sicker people in the risk pool until the younger person becomes older and sicker. This is the BASIS of the ACA. It has always been the basis. It is also the basis of Medicare -- nobody's Medicare tax covers 20 years of care, even if they're maxed out on annual salary from the day they start work at 18 until they retire at 65. The maximum annual Medicare tax rate is $1711 per year ($118K salary per year as of 2016), about $80K in taxation after 47 years of work. Full medical coverage from 65 to 85 on $4000 per year? Nope, not even compound interest works that magic.
Let me walk you through actuarial math 101. We're going to use life insurance first, because it's a discrete defining event: people are either alive or dead. When we buy an insurance policy, we're making a legal bet that we could die in the next X years, and the insurance company is betting that we won't, based on our age and statistical math.
Life and health insurance use similar actuarial statistics. This is why Gerber can still offer $10,000 whole life policies for babies for $78 a year with no increases until the child reaches 21. Over those 21 years, the parents/grandparents pay $1600 if their kid survives and they hand the kid a whole life insurance policy at 21 (which has cash value, unlike term). The now adult child has the choice to cash it or continue paying per the actuarial rates for their age, until the policy reaches face value. The reason Gerber can do this is because only 6.2 babies in 1000 die before age 4; 13 more will die between 5 and 14, and 46 will die between 15 and 19. That means of 1000 children, Gerber will pay out on 65 -- $650,000 -- while collecting $1.6 million. Pretty good bet for them, and it protects the parents if their worst nightmare happens.
For an adult male, age 50, the Social Security actuarial statistics say he has a 0.005 percent chance of dying in the next year, and statistically has 29.5 years left. But every year, his chance of death increases by about .0005 percent, so at 51, it's .0055, then .006 at 52, Then .0065 at 53. So if Mayhew Insurance writes 1,000 policies for 21 years for 1,000 50 year old men, they can expect that 5 will die in the first year, 5.5 will die in the second, 6 in the third, 6.5 in the fourth, 7 in the 5th and so on. Let's say the men are paying the Gerber rate of $6.53 a month, $78/year for 10K coverage. That means Mayhew collects slightly under $7800 the first year (because some of those five die before they've paid their whole annual premium) and pays out $50,000 the first year. Mayhew Insurance has just gone out of business. But if they charge $200 a month, $2400 a year, they're collecting $2.4 million the first year and paying out $50,000 and that's a much better bet.
Health insurance works the same way, except with far more defining events, and it only works if everyone is in the system. Example: 350 million Americans use 1 million cardiac stents per year, most of those performed on people over age 48. The actuarial chances of a 21 year old needing a stent are close to 1 in 3 million, while it's 8 in 100,000 for people over age 48. That's risk pooling, and it applies to everything. Everyone pays according to their actuarial status, not their income. What ACA does is subsidize when income is insufficient, and ACA does that regardless of age. A self-employed 27 year old who chooses the second Silver plan pays the same amount as every other 27 year old, but is so much less of a risk that they pay less than a self-employed 57 year old choosing the same plan. If the 27 year old is making 150% of the FPA, and the 57 year old is also making 150% of the FPA, the 57 year old will get a larger subsidy. But if they both work for the same company and they both choose the same individual policy, they will both pay the exact same amount, regardless of what they make. It may be a different percentage of their income (and usually the 57 year old is making significantly more), but all employees of a given company are charged the same amount for the same plan. Employer based is not allowed to discriminate (including different costs) on the basis of age.
And you're the one who is only interested in your own interests. You're pulling a sexist, selfish argument to support your supposition that is objectively wrong.
Since you don't want to hear me, allow me to send you to another 101, written by a man, because maybe you need a Y chromosome to explain it to you. David Anderson has been writing about this for years at Balloon Juice. Go do your homework.
Good day.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Because no. Older people are not cheaper to insure. And we shouldn't waste time reaching out to Trump voters. Neither of those are connected mind you. But they're both wrong.
Proud liberal 80
(4,167 posts)That is the problem. Dems are always trying to reach the white Middle class voters who have no intention on voting for them. And I seriously doubt that there are many Trump/Obama voters. Clinton didn't lose because of those voters. She loss because some Obama voters didn't vote. That is what made the difference. It is all about getting those voters excited.
I also disagree with you on Dems only concentrating on social issues. They also concentrate on the economic well being of the poor and middle class.
It's those middle class whites that you mention that don't want to hear what Dems are saying just because they are Dems. But the Dems are catering to them hoping to reach them as you suggest.
gopiscrap
(23,758 posts)I pray they all cease to exist, we need to work on reachable people not deplorables, may the deplorables rot in hell
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)You know...the ones who swing the election one way or the other.
gopiscrap
(23,758 posts)the ones I am talking about are the repubs who vote that way in EVERY election no matter what, may they die and go to hell
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I love them, but it is true that they have anger and hatred in their souls for certain kinds of people, certain things. It's not based on facts or logic. It's just ridicule and hatred for "them Arabs" or "those libruls." My father has a very high IQ, but will easily fall for any fake Republican story he hears. The govt is preventing us from buying bullets, Obama's Muslim, Obama was born in Kenya, etc.
I personally think they are intentionally not thinking, or they know the far right memes are false but they're okay w/that since it serves their purpose and bolsters their views.
Hieronymus
(6,039 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)At least to the extent one can identify them.
40% of potential voters didn't vote in special election in Georgia. Of course, who knows how they would fall on election day.
DesertRat
(27,995 posts)Duppers
(28,120 posts)zentrum
(9,865 posts)...figure out why so many people who voted for Obama, stayed home in 2016.
Without blaming Bernie. Bernie brought many new, young voters into the Democratic column.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Very small. Clinton was down about 50,000 from where Obama was in 2012. Trump was up under 2,000,000 from Romney in 2012. How many of those 2 million were Obama voters? I find this line of thinking to be questionable at best as it is such a small percentage. Clinton took the overall vote by over 2%. This went to the EC and was regional. There are so much larger groups available than the questionable Obama voters switching. I guess it feels good to say that and then follow it up with an empty line about Sanders.
zentrum
(9,865 posts)There are many non-biased studies and op-eds available that address what happened in 2016 to the
Democrats.
Here's but one, from middle of the road Forbes:
"Yet its also becoming clear that turnout really was an important part of the 2016 story and addressing it is crucial to the Democrats comeback plans.
In the simplest terms, Republican turnout seems to have surged this year, while Democratic turnout stagnated. The Republican surge is easiest to see in those same heartland states that flipped the election.
In off-year elections, Democratic turnout is even spottier, which helps explain the Republican dominance of Congress, governors mansions and state legislatures."
This shouldn't have been a squeaker. Majorities in the country support the Democratic agenda when asked questions in a non-push-poll way. The Democrats should be in a majority almost everywhere at every level. There should not have been almost any losses, even by small percentages, in Obama voting districts.
The Democrats should have surged especially vs. a candidate like Trump.
There is something wrong with our strategies and messaging. On DU one has to preemptively remove Bernie/Comey from the discussion, as your comment demonstrates, or the real issue---Party strategy & messaging, among other problems--- is not allowed to be whispered
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Tatiana
(14,167 posts)Preferably one adjacent or close-by.
During the 2008 campaign, the Obama team had outreach efforts from people in Illinois to Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Wisconsin, and Michigan. They literally bussed volunteers to those states to work on voter registration, education about voting rights in each state, and knocking on doors. The information they had was very specific and detailed. There were addresses, maps, and number of volunteers needed/requested for each outreach effort.
We need that same type of coordination and outreach right now and henceforth.
California can adopt some of the right-wing Plains states and we can use Virginia and North Carolina as a vehicle to work on the South.
Find those disposed to vote for us and increase voting by those 18-26 by 10% and we start winning again.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Stats showed her winning and she was also spending energy on places where senate, house and gov races were deemed to be important.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)I truly don't understand people who don't vote.
JI7
(89,248 posts)we should get that message out there. if those who benefit from it still vote against us we can't do anything about it. but we need to make clear that those are OUR issues . that the things which benefit them are OUR things.
randr
(12,412 posts)he would fix the mess
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)mcar
(42,307 posts)They are the voters we need to reach out to, not the others.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)It is on them. Forget the accommodating and coddling to beg them to be reasonable. Then we reach out with our policy. Our policies are what the majority of the nation wants. We have to define ourselves instead of third party, media and Republicans.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)the ass and very divisive.
pirateshipdude
(967 posts)We coddled and accommodated only to continually be insulted, falsely accused, and called cheaters. Holding out well beyond when he should have. No, we did not even get close to doing it in 2016. The Democratic Party bent over backwards and did nothing but hurt us.
Skittles
(153,160 posts)FUCK these Trump-swooning pieces of SHIT - THEY ARE A LOST CAUSE