I’ve had two main experiences with presidential debates. In some cases, pollsters found that the person who I thought had the best performance actually lost. More often, the people agreed with my assessment but it didn’t seem to make any discernible difference (at least in the Electoral College results). I long ago concluded both that I’m a poor judge of debates and that debates are overrated in importance.
I’ve also found that the coverage of the debates seems to have more influence than the debates themselves, but this is also more complicated than it might look at first. The immediate reactions from cable news talking heads and spin room operatives are often as wrong and insignificant as my own hot takes. But when the media replays the highlights of the debates on a loop for the next few days, one good zinger or particularly effective comeback can be more valuable than ten good, substantive answers. Candidates have figured this out, too, and they actually prepare to create moments that can go “viral.” In the social media age, this is easier to accomplish because the traditional media can’t serve as the gatekeeper.
The opposite is true, too. One terrible moment in a debate can be devastating, as Rick Perry discovered with his “Oops” moment in 2011.
It’s also possible to have an “Oops” moment that virtually no one notices. This happens when a candidate takes a position in the debate that can be later used very effectively against them. It’s more likely to happen in a primary debate than in a general election debate for the simple reason that partisans tend to have differences of degree rather than type. In all-Democratic or all-Republican debates, it’s easy to miss when one candidate goes so far out on the right or left that they cause permanent damage to themselves with the middle.
Looking at the coverage this morning, I see that several people have concluded that Elizabeth Warren had this kind of “Oops” moment last night. You can see it hinted at in the New York Times:
“The strength of the party’s progressive wing was on vivid display in South Florida, starting in the first minutes of the debate when Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts branded the federal government as thoroughly corrupt. Ms. Warren, the highest-polling candidate onstage, called for the government to bring to heel oil companies and pharmaceutical companies, and embraced the replacement of private health insurance with single-payer care.
“‘We need to make structural change in our government, in our economy and in our country,’ Ms. Warren said, setting the tone for the handful of populists in the debate.”
Jonathan Chait seizes on Warren’s single-payer answer as a major mistake that badly hurt her electability.
Early in the first Democratic presidential debate, all the candidates were asked who would abolish private health insurance. Only two raised their hands: Bill de Blasio, who is not going to be the party’s nominee, and Elizabeth Warren, who might be. Should that possibility come to pass, her frank answer could prove deeply harmful and perhaps deadly.
For Chait, the phrasing of the question was particularly important. Moderator Lester Holt said, “Who here would abolish their private health insurance in favor of a government run plan?”
Warren went on to explain:
“Look at the business model of an insurance company. It’s to bring in as many dollars as they can in premiums and to pay out as few dollars as possible for your health care,” she said at Wednesday’s debate. “That leaves families with rising premiums, rising co-pays, and fighting with insurance companies to try to get the health care that their doctors say that they and their children need.
“Medicare-for-all solves that problem,” she continued. “There are a lot of politicians who say, ‘Oh, it’s just not possible, we just can’t do it,’ have a lot of political reasons for this. What they’re really telling you is they just won’t fight for it. Well, health care is a basic human right, and I will fight for basic human rights.”
If Warren is the nominee, the Republicans won’t run advertisements of her lengthier explanation. They’ll show her raising her hand in response to Lester Holt’s question about abolishing people’s existing health plans. As Chait points out, polling shows that many of the goals of Medicare-for-All are popular but doing away with private insurance is actually very unpopular.
So, does this mean that Warren actually lost the debate last night? Most people gave her good to middling reviews, and her answer is sure to much less unpopular with Democratic primary voters than it is with the public at large. Yet, could it be that she planted a bomb that will explode later?
On Wednesday, Nancy LeTourneau wrote a piece that looked at the electability question from an interesting angle. What happens if you ask Democrats who they intend to support for the nomination and then follow that up by asking them who they’d pick if they could wave a magic wand and make them president. When the research group Avalanche ran this experiment, they found that Biden was far ahead of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren on the first question, but given a magic wand, Democrats actually gave Warren a narrow lead.
What this seems to indicate is that a lot of people prefer Warren to Biden and Sanders but don’t think she can win and so intend to vote for the former vice-president. Her challenge, then, isn’t just to win the hearts of Democrats but to convince them that she can be relied upon not to blow the election and give Trump a second term.
For this reason, she may have created a problem for herself in the debate, but some of that depends on how many Democrats read the New York Times and Jonathan Chait, and also on how willing her competitors are to try to exploit this opening.
It’s important to remember, too, that this isn’t an opening Bernie Sanders can exploit. Warren’s sin, if she committed one, was saying that she agrees with Bernie Sanders on private health insurance. If the same question is put to the candidates on Thursday night, we know Sanders will also raise his hand.
In this sense, Warren helped herself by not allowing Sanders to get to her left on the issue. She’s competing with Sanders right now to be the main alternative to Biden, and poaching Sanders’ supporters helps her accomplish that. Is she looks like the more electable of the two, she’s going to win that battle, and most people think she looked like presidential material during the debate.
It could be that she helped herself in the battle for the nomination but at a high cost for her prospects in the general. It could be that her answer won’t come back to haunt her as much as some people fear. I’d be very surprised if a referendum on Trump’s presidency turned on Warren’s answer to a health care question in June 2019. But, as I said at the top, I’ve almost given up on knowing how the American public will respond to debates.
An alternative take:
I presume Warren fully expected and prepped for that question. Therefore, I presume her raised hand in answer to it was conscious, deliberate, with the potential consequences fully thought-through in advance.
So why would she answer as she did, fully aware of the risks of such an answer that you sketch out (and quote/cite others sketching out)?
Perhaps she (Senator Doctor Professor Warren, remember) recognized and seized on it as what we used to call when I was in the biz a “teachable moment” (or at least the beginning of one). Perhaps she fully intended to stake out the position of Teacher-in-Chief (consciously embracing the risk that comes with it) on the subject of why keeping the parasitic private insurance industry on life support as an impediment to healthcare for all and a drag on the entire healthcare system makes no sense. Perhaps she’s adopting (has already adopted, actually, I think) the novel strategy of speaking to us honestly and truthfully, as adults capable of thinking and understanding and learning (rather than as ignorant, brainwashed fools who must be pandered to and dishonestly manipulated in order for her to win). Perhaps she’s decided to begin that campaign of teaching with the strategy that, by starting now, knowledge and understanding can replace (at least enough of) the ignorance that drives the fear behind those polling numbers.
Again, it defies my credulity that Warren raised her hand in ignorance of those polling numbers, and of the risks they imply for taking that position. So it looks to me like she’s saying, “No, I refuse to campaign on the assumption that the American electorate (or at least the portion determining mostly tautologous ‘electability’) are ignorant fools and brainwashed sheep who must be pandered to and manipulated in whatever manner calculated to cobble together an Electoral College majority and thus eke out a ‘win’.”
And if I’m right about any/all of that speculation, then I love her for it. Because I am one such voter, I presume I have legions of company who hunger and thirst and long for a candidate who would thus treat us so respectfully.
I liked it. Still do and admire her for telling the truth. You want health care? Here it is. It’s messy but it eliminates the gawd awful corruption of health care for profit. And lowers the cost significantly. Let’s have a national debate about co pays, deductibles and other astonishing prices for insulin and other drugs, resting as they do on corruption and monopoly. Is it a human right or only for the elite?
There are still 17 months until the election, and I’d argue that most people still aren’t paying attention.
Those who are, and would vote for a Democrat, are most likely base voters, and Warren has firmly come out in favor of M4A. She isn’t playing the role of a centrist.
Warren is, IMHO, an amazing speaker, and is able to connect with “regular” people. She’ll have time to explain what she means, and why she means it.
I don’t know if it was some extremely brilliant 11th Dimensional move, but I don’t think it will necessarily hurt her with the people who are paying attention now.
I agree. Plus does it really matter? She knows the republicans will lie their asses off regardless of what she says. So why not tell the truth,. I think the country is ready for the truth.
You’re overthinking this. If “health care” is a salient issue of the election as voters go into the booth, Warren benefits from it, Medicare for All or not. Anyone basing their votes on this are going to prefer Dems.
Now if she were to actually enact it, it could be unpopular and provoke backlash depending on how it goes. But overall we should want health care to be the debate. Trump tried and continues to try to take it away. That’s the battle line.
there’s a strong possibility that you are the one overthinking this. Effective ads work most of the time because people don’t think very well.
Very possible. Unlike a lot of single payer supporters I’m under no illusion that it’s popular with the broad electorate.
That is true. Why should young people be terribly interested in health care? They want education and things.They want their company to pay for whatever health care they think they need, Unless they become sick they never really experience deductibles and co pay or the high cost of procedures and drugs. It is fine to patch up Obamacare for those poor souls who do not have company paid insurance. All good, that is, until they get sick or get a few years older. Or their company cuts back on what they pay or Trump eliminates it. Then they discover the truths about health care in this country, I think it is changing and it is time we had the debate.
This being a major, ongoing trend. Probably a significant source of anger/discontent with the current system. I presume a significant proportion of deplorables and other Banana Republicans convince themselves this is the fault either of Obamacare or “those people”.
Well, *I* certainly noticed when she gave that answer, and my heart sank. Not only because I don’t want to lose my private health insurance (regulate the sh*t out of it so that it is basically a public utility, and create a public option, but don’t take it away). But also because I’m pretty sure that “dems will take away your medical insurance” is the one issue that could get Trump re-elected.
Warren is focused on the fact that health care cost in America is higher than any other country in the world, because it includes big profits. This plays well with anyone who is concerned about health care costs, and is unimportant to anyone who isn’t.
I’m not sure, but I think Warren would not try to stop Medicare Advantage, or Part C, which is Medicare+ through a private insurer, with added benefits, and is an alternative to the Part B medical premiums you otherwise will be paying. Most major insurers already have these programs.
Employers could be switched to Medicare Advantage for All, in other words. We are all headed to Medicare when we retire anyway, so it is not irrational to just get on with it. It would be a huge and bumpy change, of course, but it could also rein in health care costs, especially prescription costs, and become a system that makes more sense for everyone.
Advantage plans simply become unnecessary under single payer health care since your health care covers everything. There may be some market for super plans of some sort, I don’t know. Our current health care costs include not only insurance costs but the system is highly inefficient and filled with monopoly costs such as drug costs.
4
5
Can we get rid of the notion that everyone who has employer-based healthcare insurance absolutely loves it and is reluctant to change? I retired from a blue chip company that did have very good healthcare. But that was then. We are related to a pair of forty-year olds with four kids who work for another name brand company and the only policy they are offered sucks big time – a $4,000 deductible with not a lot covered. They hate their company-paid healthcare as do many of the younger people I teach. Work for Walmart or Target and get their healthcare insurance – you’ll see what I mean. I think many people wax nostalgic when they think of their employer-based healthcare insurance. The reality today is that much of it stinks and people would love to have meaningful and practical alternatives. Like Medicare for All.
Right! When it starts to hurt their bottom line, it gets cut and the workers get to pick up the slack, one way or another.
Yes, there’s been a steady trend of employer-supplied health insurance both costing the employee more and sucking more from one year to the next.
Employer-based health care is not beloved as the media and GOP want to make people believe. I’d wager that most people that have it are glad they have insurance, period, but are open to having something better since its always left a lot to be desired, in terms of cost, coverage, administration, etc. As someone who’s had employer-based health insurance, I can’t count the number of times I got jacked by the greedy health insurance vultures in some form or fashion. And all the times I was forced to change doctors because networks changed. And it wasn’t too long ago, pre ACA, that they were finding all kinds of ways to deny coverage for current policy holders. But people who have it look at it as, its better than nothing. And its the “nothing” part that worries people about transitioning to MFA.
The way the GOP has framed it MFA will mean people will “lose” their employer-based coverage, and that’s that. And of course people with insurance don’t want to wake up one day and find they have no coverage. There has to be an easy answer for what happens on day one of MFA under an approach where private insurance is outlawed. How are people transitioned from outlawed private insurance to MFA? How much will they save? How much will employers save?
If the dems are going to run on an MFA approach that outlaws private insurance, they’re setting themselves up for disaster potentially by not having a wonk-less answer to these questions.
Yes, corporate health insurance for the peons has taken a major dive, and it is just going to get worse over time. In my neck of the woods we have gone from excellent insurance with great coverage and no deductibles to much crappier insurance with increasingly higher deductibles. Even the hard core R’s I work with see the obvious trend. Of course, some of them might still argue that the magic hand of the free market or some such nonsense is going to reverse the trend, but that argument becomes increasingly irrelevant when applied to giant corporations that are becoming steadily larger, and have very limited real competition and are run by executives who chant the mantra of lower labor costs to their shareholders at every board meeting.
I think the point being made here is you can always move to the left later. By staking out an extreme position this early, you can’t move to the center without appearing to cave to interests.
Just having a public option would be far better than what we have today and would start to getting people acclimated to the idea of accessible government care, as well as put pressure on the commercial health care industries and compete.
You may be right but I suspect there is quite a lot of wiggle room around this subject, even about how you pay for it. I mean we already pay for it, every damn nickel. We pay too much and it is not divvied up fairly, We could, for example, have the corporations continue to pay.
I honestly tend to lean the other way, at least for Democrats, which is – you’re going to be labeled as a socialist who wants to destroy capitalism no matter what so you are safe to move to the left now and then appear on screen in ads or on the debate stage as a normal and sane person who explains what it means to not have an EPA that is protecting communities instead of allowing companies to poison them and come out a winner twice. The reason for this being that most of America leans left, and especially those who are even gettable once you leave off Trump voters who are so hopped up on FOX news they would never consider Warren anyway.
Going by a town hall on Fox News I’m not so sure this hurts Democrats. I think a lot of Americans realize how bad they are served by private insurance. It’s well worth rewatching the audience at Fox News’ Bernie Sanders town hall [link below] when those who currently had private insurance were asked about moving to a government plan. Many, if not most, supported it and even some cheering erupted. Bernie next pointed out that right-wing talking points ignore the fact that people who leave jobs for any reason, a frequent occurrence, are forced to lose their insurance and have to deal with that problem.
https://www.realclearpoliti…
2.5
No.