Coincidentally, zero donors to the Democratic party will be inconvenienced by this stance.
If you look at Medicare for all it's supported by 52% of Republican voters and 7/10 of voters in general. It's pretty much the definition of an electable policy.
Now, why do you think it might be such a fringe view in the Beltway? Why did Obama write it off as a non starter?
If a policy became super popular and no donor interests were threatened by it, yea, it has a decent chance of being promoted and passed.
It's heartening to me that 50-70% of American voters generally support every sensible policy you can name. Many of them are in no real danger of getting passed though.
Here's an article that covers the research and some critiques. The criticism seems a bit absurd to me, the bit about the rich being successful in convincing people of what they want only makes things worse, yet is presented as if it undermines the research.
Joe Lieberman.
Many of these things can't be modeled from first principles, as nice as it would be to have a simple theory of everything for politics without involving individuals and second, third, etc order effects.
This... doesnt even begin to make any sense.
Only because no one can actually agree on what it means. Which goes to it actually not being passable.
"Medicare for all" has essentially turned into a marketing term.
Politicians would love to capitalize on it's popularity, but that would mean fighting over the meaning, and that would reveal that many people are actually very against certain aspects of it, like funding sources, covering controversial procedures, or even where to draw the line of what's "healthcare". Is OTC medicine? Exercise equipment? Healthy food? Housing?
Everytime you include or exclude any particular policy, you lose some support.
So it ends up being this catch 22 where politicians really want to cash in, but can't figure how to do it without causing the stock to crash.
Take the medicare bill. Strike the words "over 65". Provide funding.
It's not complicated. It can be MADE complicated, but intrinsically it is not.
>Politicians would love to capitalize on it's popularity
Yeah, provided they dont lose their campaign financing doing it - which they will.
After all, if I want the support of gun rights/abortion rights voters, a clear statement of unwavering support will get it - whereas a wishy-washy "I could be convinced either way" will leave them looking for someone more steadfast.
But that doesn't stop me changing my positions in order to win votes. Plenty of politicians flipped their stances on rowdy protests between BLM and Jan 6th. Plenty flipped their stances on "my body, my choice" during the pandemic. And anyone with a 20+ year political career will have updated their stances in that time.