So what. There's gonna be studies linked to Medicare for all killing people to if that passes.
America’s Red State Death Trip
Why does falling life expectancy track political orientation?
the past few decades have been marked by growing divergence among regions along several dimensions, all closely correlated.
In particular, the political divide is also, increasingly, an economic divide. As The Times’s Tom Edsall put it in a recent article,
“red and blue voters live in different economies.”
What Edsall didn’t point out is that red and blue voters don’t just live differently, they also die differently.
Democratic-leaning areas used to look similar to Republican-leaning areas in terms of productivity, income and education.
But they have been rapidly diverging, with blue areas getting more productive, richer and better educated.
In the close election of 2016,
counties that supported Hillary Clinton accounted for 64 percent of output, almost twice the share of Trump country.
he red-blue divide isn’t just about money. It’s also, increasingly, a matter of life and death.
U.S. life expectancy has been below that of other advanced countries for a long time.
rise in mortality has, in turn, been largely a result of rising “deaths of despair”: drug overdoses, suicides and alcohol.
In 1990, today’s red and blue states had almost the same life expectancy.
Since then, however, life expectancy in Clinton states has risen more or less in line with other advanced countries,
compared with almost no gain in Trump country.
At this point, blue-state residents can expect to live more than four years longer than their red-state counterparts.
In 1990, Texas and Florida had higher life expectancy than New York and almost matched California; today, they’re far behind.
The growing gap in educational levels has also surely played a role: Better-educated people tend to be healthier than the less educated.
the prevalence of obesity has soared all across America since 1990, but obesity rates are significantly higher in red states.
the facts are utterly inconsistent with the conservative diagnosis of what ails America.
even within America
these evils are concentrated in states that voted for Trump,
and have largely bypassed the more secular blue states.
So something bad is definitely happening to American society.
But the conservative diagnosis of that problem is wrong — dead wrong.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/opinion/life-expectancy-united-states.html
=======================
Red and Blue Voters Live in Different Economies
And they are headed in different directions —
with serious consequences for the president and his political opponents.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/25/o...e&login=google
So what. There's gonna be studies linked to Medicare for all killing people to if that passes.
Will the number be more, or less than 45,000 per year? How do you know?
North Carolina’s New House Map Hands Democrats Two Seats — But It Still Leans Republican
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ns-republican/
The 2020 Congressional-Retirement Tracker
For the second consecutive election, more Republicans than Democrats are forgoing reelection, a potentially ominous sign for the GOP in 2020.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...xander/596965/
Last edited by RandomGuy; 12-11-2019 at 06:20 PM.
in bents win 90%+ of the time, very hard to unseat,
so Repug retirements are Dem invitations.
Pretty much. It is the canary in the coal mine, a warning light on the control panel. I strongly suspect 2020 is going to be a blowout of epic proportions. Conservative pundits made vastly too much of Trumps election. I can't wait for another Rove-style meltdown.
Not getting on enough on the Horowitz thread, TSA?
Wrong thread sport-o.
SJW's and Feminists Push Bernie Sanders to Unendorse Cenk Uygur
What's this?
Uygar is a lightning rod.
I take the sound bites with little import.
Another venal Trump party action that makes the contrast easier between the two parties.
https://www.270towin.com/2020-senate-election/
True wave election can be speculated here.
Give the four tossups and no other changes... split 50/50. Dems win Presidency, that is 51/50
Give just one "lean Trump party" and that changes. Lose all three "leans" and it is 53/47.
Probably as good as that could get, barring something truly odd, which is too hard to predict this far out.
Most likely remains a split Senate. 50/50. Dems keep a good chunk of their gains from 2018, leaving legislative and executive in the the Democrats hands, by a fairly thin majority in most places.
An Unsettling New Theory: There Is No Swing Voter
Rachel Bitecofer’s radical new theory predicted the midterms spot-on. So who’s going to win 2020?
It will be very interesting. I think she is exactly spot on for her theory.
Once you know the shape of the electorate, she argues, you can pretty much tell how that electorate is going to vote. And the shape of the electorate in 2018, and 2020, for that matter, was determined on the night of November 8, 2016. The new electorate, as she forecasts it, is made up mostly of people who want a president named anything but Donald Trump, competing with another group that fears ruin should anyone but Donald Trump be president.
Although the ranks of independents are growing, up to 40 percent by some surveys, Bitecofer says campaigns have spent entirely too much time courting them, and the media has spent entirely too much caring about their preferences. The real “swing” doesn’t come from voters who choose between two parties, she argues, but from people who choose to vote, or not (or, if they do vote, vote for a third party). The actual percentage of swing voters in any given national election according to her own analysis is closer to 6 or 7 percent than the 15 or 20 most analysts think are out there, and that larger group, Bitecofer says, are “closet partisans” who don’t identify with a party but still vote with one. (The remaining 6 percent or so of true independents, she says, tend to vote for whoever promises a break with the status quo.
“If you think of independents as a fixed pool of voters that change preferences,” she says, “well, that has implications for how you campaign after them. But if you are talking about the preference of independents changing because the pool of independents changes, well that is a different ing banana.”
Bitecofer has already released her 2020 model, and is alone among election forecasters in giving the Democrats—who, of course, do not yet have a nominee—the 270 electoral votes required to claim the presidency without a single toss-up state flipping their way. She sees anyone in the top tier, or even the second tier of candidates, as strong enough to win back most of the Trump states in the industrial Midwest, stealing a march in the South in places like North Carolina and Florida, and even competing in traditional red states like Georgia, Texas and Arizona. The Democrats are likely to pick up seats again in the House, she says, pegging the total at nine pickups in Texas alone, and have a decent chance of taking back the Senate.
It puts into a more concrete framework, something I have gotten an intuitive sense of, but never quite put into words, i.e. swing voters are rarer than changes in WHO turns out to vote.
It also puts some meat on my own sense that Trump has been the best thing to happen to Democrats in my life time. I see it directly here in my corner of Texas.
So, you don't really have an answer. First solid critical thinking question and you fold.
Let me answer: " care" is better than "no care". That is what this study shows:
New study finds 45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...alth-coverage/
If, without coverage, 45,000 people die, and with Medicare for all that falls by 50%, then 22,500 die.
Meaning that Medicare for all saves tens of thousands of lives.
That is what, you booger-eating moron. Jesus, you want me to use smaller words?
4+ years of data are in. Medicaid expansion for those benefiting from M E
1) reduced disease and death rate
2) increased the employment rate
compared with states that didn't expand Medicaid.
iow, Trash/Repug policies denying medical care to the poor are policies of negligent manslaughter.
"Cruelty Is The Point"
It kills hundreds of thousands by sucking away prosperity.
GTFO, cuck.
Keep saying it little puppetka. I find is very funny.
Prove it or fold. Bull has been called. Acceptable: peer reviewed economic research.
Prove a negative
Rat cuck
Peer reviewed
Keep bragging about the propagandists stroking each other off, cuck
You made a positive claim, derp.
No.
Ankle Biter Chump
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)