POTUS Donald Trump

[TheLeviathan]

For Dems, this should be a must read

 

Also, knock off the hyperbole about ICE.  That's a campaign loser waiting to happen.  (I'm not defending ICE or their tactics, just the strategy of attacking the agency)

[PseudoSABR]

 

Also, knock off the hyperbole about ICE.  That's a campaign loser waiting to happen.  (I'm not defending ICE or their tactics, just the strategy of attacking the agency)

Here's a helpful article talking about the role of ICE and its history.  I think this paragraph is key:
 

As García explains, knowing which department handles the matter “reveals a great deal about how a society views immigration.” If immigration is an economic or work-force issue, it would make sense to place it under the oversight of departments that deal with those issues. Placing immigration in the national security sector, however, reveals a changed focus on the idea of potential safety threats represented by immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees.

IMO, I really don't like the idea of a police-force enforcing immigration laws with the supposed veneer of national security.  I'd much rather have a civil agency overseeing asylum and deportation, whom upon need, could call for local and federal police powers.  Whether or not we would need to abolish ICE in order to make such changes misses the point  (and largely, I think that we would need to build a new agency from the ground up as ICE mission and focus on national security has influenced its structures and personnel).

 

Abolish ICE is something of a hyperbole, but its also a simple slogan that people can rally around--even though the actual solution is more nuanced ("Restructure ICE doesn't have the same ring to it").  I think Democrats need to be bold in order to get turn out.  I think the Democrats should be less worried about supposedly pushing some people in the middle to Trump and the Republicans; it's risk-aversion that gives you Hillary Clinton.  Again, I think turn out is so much more important than trying to persuade the middle; Republicans aren't trying to persuade the middle at all. 

 

I don't think the Dems should make this a national policy, but I think in certain regions "abolish ICE" will play well (such as Ocasio-Cortez' district), and in other regions, the Dems should definitely take a more nuanced approach. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

 Again, I think turn out is so much more important than trying to persuade the middle; Republicans aren't trying to persuade the middle at all. 

 

I don't think the Dems should make this a national policy, but I think in certain regions "abolish ICE" will play well (such as Ocasio-Cortez' district), and in other regions, the Dems should definitely take a more nuanced approach. 

 

You don't have to persuade the middle, but you also need to be careful not to offend rational people with talking points that are so hyperbolic.

 

I'm not sure the Republicans will let this thing stay nuanced - from almost the second it was uttered they have made it a national talking point.  I think it's a mistake to keep doubling down on that mistake.  Or to think you can contain it to a few local races.

 

I'm all for reshaping how we view immigration, but this is unwise.  It's taking a winning issue  (family separation) and turning it into a losing one.  To take down the Republican machine takes smart messaging.  This is the opposite of that.

 

Stay smart: Family separation, trade wars hurt farmers, health care, women's issues.  Dems win if they do.  ICE?  Instant loser and it neuters one of the messages that could be a winner IMO.

[PseudoSABR]

 

You don't have to persuade the middle, but you also need to be careful not to offend rational people with talking points that are so hyperbolic.

The rhetoric on the right is wholly hyperbolic, and they aren't worried about offending any one rational.  I don't see how the Dems really could offend someone to the point that they'd suddenly vote for the Republicans, if it's hyperbole that person is truly concerned about (more likely is that such a person was never really in the middle and was always waiting for an excuse to go back with their tribe--Dems can't craft policy for such people).

 

The Family separation may lose a lot of steam by the time the election comes around, as seemingly Trump's conceded the policy.  (Though the issue of reunification still lingers).

 

Abolish ICE will motivate people, especially tons of American Hispanics, who may otherwise sit out an election.  Cowing to some aggrieved conservative independents will not.   I think we just genuinely disagree about how to win the next election.   I think "abolish ICE" is only a loser for middle aged white men. 

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

The rhetoric on the right is wholly hyperbolic

 

Right, they aren't rational.  

 

No one is asking for cowing, you don't need to go down that road again.  You can drive Hispanic voters out in ways that are far more effectively messaged than abolishing ICE.  You are literally taking a winning issue/talking point and changing the subject.  

 

I don't think Cecilia Munoz or Tammy Duckworth are a middle aged white man.  There are also a lot of good data points in the article.  If only half of self-identified liberals are on board....that's not a good sign.  42% of Democrats.  This isn't even clearly a winning message on the left.  You know what is?  "This douche separated kids from their mothers"  Why change the subject from that?

[PseudoSABR]

 

Right, they aren't rational.  

 

No one is asking for cowing, you don't need to go down that road again.  You can drive Hispanic voters out in ways that are far more effectively messaged than abolishing ICE.  You are literally taking a winning issue/talking point and changing the subject.  

 

I don't think Cecilia Munoz is a middle aged white man.  There are also a lot of good data points in the article.  If only half of self-identified liberals are on board....that's not a good sign.  42% of Democrats.  This isn't even clearly a winning message on the left.  You know what is?  "This douche separated kids from their mothers"  Why change the subject from that?

Again, I think it will play well in certain regions, and it does not need to be the party platform. 

 

I also don't think people really understand what ICE is at this point; the more they learn, the less supportive of the agency I believe they will be.

 

(thanks for the link; I'll look over it).

[TheLeviathan]

The Republicans have already nationalized the remarks.  You may be right that it would've been effective in specific places, but the Republicans have already eliminated that possibility.  

 

I also think you're right that people won't like that they are under national security jurisdiction and some of their practices.  But people won't hear that, they'll hear "abolish" from one side and "open borders" on the other side.  Fair or not, that's a lose-lose.  

[PseudoSABR]

 

The Republicans have already nationalized the remarks.  You may be right that it would've been effective in specific places, but the Republicans have already eliminated that possibility.  

 

I also think you're right that people won't like that they are under national security jurisdiction and some of their practices.  But people won't hear that, they'll hear "abolish" from one side and "open borders" on the other side.  Fair or not, that's a lose-lose.  

I haven't been paying attention to how the right has been framing it, but they were always going to paint Dems as being for open borders.  Look, I do agree that Abolish ICE is unnecessarily incendiary, but I also think Dems need some rallying cries, even if the message itself isn't a sure winner.  I am just really wary of risk-adverse politics, and that's been the Dems playbook for so long.

[Mike Sixel]

I'd not talk about immigration or borders at all....but I would talk about children and mothers and show images, and tell stories.....lots of stories.....

[TheLeviathan]

 

I haven't been paying attention to how the right has been framing it, but they were always going to paint Dems as being for open borders.  Look, I do agree that Abolish ICE is unnecessarily incendiary, but I also think Dems need some rallying cries, even if the message itself isn't a sure winner.  I am just really wary of risk-adverse politics, and that's been the Dems playbook for so long.

 

You should always strive for winning rally cries.  This isn't about being risk-averse, this is about already having a sure-fire winning rally cry on immigration and not distracting from it.

 

You want to take a risk?  Universal health care.  Immigration?  You already have family separation.  It was gifted to you by the buffoon in office.  Don't obfuscate a winning message with a short-sighted one that your own voting bloc is unsure of.  It's the kind of emotion-driven stupidity that has long plagued the Dems.

[Mike Sixel]

My medicare for all plan:

 

1 Everyone gets catastrophic coverage - I don't know, maybe costs over 50K in a year, with anything NOT 100% necessary exempted. I know we'll have to argue over a few things, but no purple pills for men, and not cosmetic surgery for adults unless it is needed as a result of some accident....

2. Everyone gets an HSA with 1000 per year from the government, that money is invested in teh market, and never goes away until you spend it. You can spend it on HC costs, or HC insurance. 

3. Private insurance exists for everything below catastrophic coverage.

4. Employers and employees no longer get tax advantages for insurance to be offered through employers...break the requirement I be employed with a W2 to have affordable insurance.

 

Pay for this by killing medicare and medicaid, with older people still getting regular medicare as a transition (and by reducing subsidies of other kinds, of which I have not laid out here, as I ahven't looked a the budget in years). At one time, this was affordable, but I don't know what the exact numbers are any more.....

[TheLeviathan]

Mike, you seem to be floating this as a sort of in-between the Canadian/Eurpean models and our current model.  Is that an accurate take away?

 

If so...why not go all in on a Canadian-style system?

[Mike Sixel]

 

Mike, you seem to be floating this as a sort of in-between the Canadian/Eurpean models and our current model.  Is that an accurate take away?

 

If so...why not go all in on a Canadian-style system?

 

because we aren't ready for that IMO.....and, I'm not sure Canada has it right. But mostly because we aren't ready.

 

This gets rid of the big issue for a lot of people, most of us really need protection from bankruptcy. People with kids can get insurance, and people can pay the dentist and for a yearly physical out of the HSA. 

 

The unintended consequence is that A LOT of people may pass on insurance....OTOH, you might be able to get OK insurance for 1K a year, if the companies don't need to cover costs over 50K or whatever the number is.....

 

I'd certainly have 10-20 insurance companies that manage the Catastrophic insurance, and let anyone compete for the gap insurance (not it's real name....). I'd incentivize the heck out of those 10-20 to figure out how to keep chronic people healthier.....

[TheLeviathan]

I'd love to see the numbers on what it would cost Americans to go to the Canadian format. 

 

I have to think most Americans, even paying significantly higher taxes, would see more money in their pocket each month switching away from our current system.  

 

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we wouldn't come out ahead....am I crazy to think that?  I know you're in health insurance so maybe you have a better idea of that. I think if it's framed that way (Basically - the vast majority of us come out ahead), we might be ready for it.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I'd love to see the numbers on what it would cost Americans to go to the Canadian format. 

 

I have to think most Americans, even paying significantly higher taxes, would see more money in their pocket each month switching away from our current system.  

 

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe we wouldn't come out ahead....am I crazy to think that?  I know you're in health insurance so maybe you have a better idea of that. I think if it's framed that way (Basically - the vast majority of us come out ahead), we might be ready for it.

 

Yes, the VAST majority come out ahead (and I got laid off in November, but haven't forgotten everything yet!).

 

My original plan had more money going into the account, and the ability to use it for education or health care, but I don't trust people not to fall for private schools, and have no HC money again.....maybe it should be for school past age 18, college, technical, other or HC costs.

 

Really, if we covered all newborn costs to age 5, and catastrophic, and gave people money every year, most people would have A LOT of money in that account (possible unintended consequence that college or vo tech is more expensive, but it's hard to see how our current path is any better).

[TheLeviathan]

I think the brave, gutsy rally cry for the Dems is to embrace something they are afraid of just saying:

 

Yes, we want to raise your taxes.  And in exchange we give you universal health care.

 

Then proceed to lay out how that would benefit your average American.  Their employers now have more money to pay them in salary rather than benefits.  Small businesses are no longer strapped with that burden.  Large companies can now compete globally.  You'll never have to pay another co-pay or battle another insurance company.  No more risk of bankruptcy for a health issue.  And more money in your pocket every month, even with the higher taxes.

 

Sell the hell out of that.  That's the gutsy play for the Dems in the next 4-8 years.  I think they'd sway a lot of Trump voters who aren't really Republicans with that message.  It can be a winner with the right salesperson and enough gusto behind it.

[PseudoSABR]

 

My medicare for all plan:

 

1 Everyone gets catastrophic coverage - I don't know, maybe costs over 50K in a year, with anything NOT 100% necessary exempted. I know we'll have to argue over a few things, but no purple pills for men, and not cosmetic surgery for adults unless it is needed as a result of some accident....

2. Everyone gets an HSA with 1000 per year from the government, that money is invested in teh market, and never goes away until you spend it. You can spend it on HC costs, or HC insurance. 

3. Private insurance exists for everything below catastrophic coverage.

4. Employers and employees no longer get tax advantages for insurance to be offered through employers...break the requirement I be employed with a W2 to have affordable insurance.

 

Pay for this by killing medicare and medicaid, with older people still getting regular medicare as a transition (and by reducing subsidies of other kinds, of which I have not laid out here, as I ahven't looked a the budget in years). At one time, this was affordable, but I don't know what the exact numbers are any more.....

What is catastrophic coverage? Does it include non-trauma? Cancer? Diabetes? A cold? Mental illness? Or are those things taken care of by the HSA account? 

 

Part of the appeal of universal health care is the model is more adept at providing preventive health care.  Especially in terms of mental illness, people often don't realize they are suffering from something treatable.  If we continue to require people to have to pay a copay to see their PCP for a yearly exam, they are going to skip the exam, and end up waiting until any underlying issues turn into a catastrophe.

 

Part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is that hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc. can pass costs on to consumers ad nauseum.  The more that such institutions can be made non-profit, without costing innovation (which is an argument I don't necessarily buy), the better.  

 

 

[Mike Sixel]

What is catastrophic coverage? Does it include non-trauma? Cancer? Diabetes? A cold? Mental illness? Or are those things taken care of by the HSA account?

 

Part of the appeal of universal health care is the model is more adept at providing preventive health care. Especially in terms of mental illness, people often don't realize they are suffering from something treatable. If we continue to require people to have to pay a copay to see their PCP for a yearly exam, they are going to skip the exam, and end up waiting until any underlying issues turn into a catastrophe.

 

Part of the reason healthcare is so expensive is that hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc. can pass costs on to consumers ad nauseum. The more that such institutions can be made non-profit, without costing innovation (which is an argument I don't necessarily buy), the better.

They won't get universal medical any time soon. Catastrophic is a huge deductible, like fifty thousand. The goal is to avoid bankruptcy. Probably a multi year rolling number.

 

You also want to make all healthcare non profit? That's just not going to happen in one step. My plan is a step. Zero chance your plan passes.

[Mike Sixel]

It's not even close. Every citizen gets insurance against going bankrupt. It also breaks the requirement you have a job to get insurance. It also gives people money to spend if the just need a little, and maybe gives them enough for full insurance

 

It is so far beyond Obamacare as not to be recognizable....

 

Look, I'd love real universal healthcare, but it is not coming. This plan could work. In the old days, when there were moderates in both parties, this passes... Now? Maybe. Maybe.

 

But, imo, universal care had no shot right now. This is also a first step toward that. ... You need a transition anyway.

 

Catastrophic includes everything that is medically necessary, mental, dental, accidents, whatever. I thought I said that.....

 

Did I miss a question? Also, mellow out. It's a message board, where I'm typing from my phone. I'm not blowing anyone off, that should be clear after my dozens of posts in this thread. Maybe my expectations of this as a great communication vehicle are too low....

[PseudoSABR]

 

It's not even close. Every citizen gets insurance against going bankrupt. It also breaks the requirement you have a job to get insurance. It also gives people money to spend if the just need a little, and maybe gives them enough for full insurance

It is so far beyond Obamacare as not to be recognizable....

Look, I'd love real universal healthcare, but it is not coming. This plan could work. In the old days, when there were moderates in both parties, this passes... Now? Maybe. Maybe.

But, imo, universal care had no shot right now. This is also a first step toward that. ... You need a transition anyway.

Catastrophic includes everything that is medically necessary, mental, dental, accidents, whatever. I thought I said that.....

Did I miss a question? Also, mellow out. It's a message board, where I'm typing from my phone. I'm not blowing anyone off, that should be clear after my dozens of posts in this thread. Maybe my expectations of this as a great communication vehicle are too low....

My post posed a series of questions (mostly about what counts as catastrophe), and then I substantiated why I asked the questions.  And I don't mean to be heated (glad you responded even if by phone), but whether intentionally or not, you did take the politically viable argument angle before addressing the merit and morality of the point I was making.  (I'll continue to echo that Democrats lose when they get too politically clever; they will seem inauthentic and motivate few to turn out.)

 

I agree we need a transition, but you don't lead with that.  Yes, your plan is step further than Obamacare, but Obamacare too was posited as a necessary step; indeed, it was bridging with what was a for-profit system to a somewhat less for-profit system, and it did so at the outset; Obama never made any kind of argument for universal healthcare--he started negotiation at the halfway point, and ended up giving his opponent Romneycare.  We can't forget the politics of the situation, whatever the plan, no matter how reasonable, the opposition party will decry that it is socialized medicine. They won't concede our capacity to bridge the now to the goal.  So let's set the goal, and we can perhaps implement something like your plan in the interim, but I think it's totally foolhardy to run on that. 

 

The sooner we get to universal healthcare, the better it will be for all of us.  There will be a transition, but the goal should be firm, before we concede what the transition looks like.

 

I think universal health care is totally politically viable.  The ruling class, corporations, have burned their good will with Trump.  We don't need to cow to them.   Universal health care will drive people to the polls, and the Democrats could have a mandate.  One they can't enact without the president, but the longer the critique of for-profit medicine is in mind of the public, the less for-profit medicine will get support. 

[Mr. Brooks]

It's not even close. Every citizen gets insurance against going bankrupt. It also breaks the requirement you have a job to get insurance. It also gives people money to spend if the just need a little, and maybe gives them enough for full insurance

 

It is so far beyond Obamacare as not to be recognizable....

 

Look, I'd love real universal healthcare, but it is not coming. This plan could work. In the old days, when there were moderates in both parties, this passes... Now? Maybe. Maybe.

 

But, imo, universal care had no shot right now. This is also a first step toward that. ... You need a transition anyway.

 

Catastrophic includes everything that is medically necessary, mental, dental, accidents, whatever. I thought I said that.....

 

Did I miss a question? Also, mellow out. It's a message board, where I'm typing from my phone. I'm not blowing anyone off, that should be clear after my dozens of posts in this thread. Maybe my expectations of this as a great communication vehicle are too low....

But its not insurance against going bankrupt.

Who is deciding what is 100% necessary?

Outside of trauma, medicine is rarely that black or white.

A person may have an issue that is life threatening, but not 100%. Doctors may say, we recommend surgery, but its possible you could do nothing and survive.

If it's 80% survival with treatment, and 20% survival without, most people are going to choose treatment. But that likely wouldn't be covered under these terms.

[Mike Sixel]

Medical necessity is a term used in the healthcare industry. The kinds of things you are discussing are covered. Things that aren't are cosmetic surgery, unless trauma related, and similar items. There are cases where there are disagreements, but that's in the one percent or less area of care. Also, the government would decide.... Just like in universal care.

 

The edge cases are usually about new, untested, treatments. There are also a super tiny percent where the government, and doctor panels, say it isn't necessary, but some doctors think it is. That will exist in universal care also. Same exact cases.

[TheLeviathan]

 

The sooner we get to universal healthcare, the better it will be for all of us.  There will be a transition, but the goal should be firm, before we concede what the transition looks like.

 

I think universal health care is totally politically viable.  The ruling class, corporations, have burned their good will with Trump.  We don't need to cow to them.   Universal health care will drive people to the polls, and the Democrats could have a mandate.  One they can't enact without the president, but the longer the critique of for-profit medicine is in mind of the public, the less for-profit medicine will get support. 

 

I think I made my position clear on this the last post before I get accused of anything....but all of this can be true and Mike can still be right that we aren't ready.  I'm not sure we'll know until it's tried.

 

I don't think it can be understated how important it is for the left to approach the issue correctly.  Stop talking about it as a "right" (whether it is or not) and stop running away from the implications.  Republicans have won on the issue time and again by stressing the taxes.  They make liberals out to be promising everything without admitting their plan for paying for it.  Bernie was sunk by this IMO.  He because a socialist caricature of "everyone can have everything for free!"

 

Get out ahead of it.  Admit you're going to raise taxes.  Tell people how much even, but stress how the end result will hit the pocketbooks of every American in a good way.  That's the key, get them to look past the taxes and at the net gain rather than the system being "free".  If the refrain goes back to the same, tired "Healthcare is a right!  It should be free!" - then the issue is a loser and we aren't ready.  It's all about framing and messaging.

[jimmer]

I know it's a huge load off my mind not having to pay for any of the diagnosis, surgeries, radiation therapy, and all the miscellaneous other things you need to do when battling cancer.

 

It allows me not to worry about finances and focus just on going through the process and getting better.

 

I wish we could, as a country, get to that point for everyone.  Where patients don't have to balance out whether or not to even try to fight cancer if there's a chance the debt cripples him and his family in the future (or even worse, his family after he loses the battle).

[PseudoSABR]

 

I think I made my position clear on this the last post before I get accused of anything....but all of this can be true and Mike can still be right that we aren't ready.  I'm not sure we'll know until it's tried.

 

I don't think it can be understated how important it is for the left to approach the issue correctly.  Stop talking about it as a "right" (whether it is or not) and stop running away from the implications.  Republicans have won on the issue time and again by stressing the taxes.  They make liberals out to be promising everything without admitting their plan for paying for it.  Bernie was sunk by this IMO.  He because a socialist caricature of "everyone can have everything for free!"

 

Get out ahead of it.  Admit you're going to raise taxes.  Tell people how much even, but stress how the end result will hit the pocketbooks of every American in a good way.  That's the key, get them to look past the taxes and at the net gain rather than the system being "free".  If the refrain goes back to the same, tired "Healthcare is a right!  It should be free!" - then the issue is a loser and we aren't ready.  It's all about framing and messaging.

  I do think the Democrats need to run on what is "right."  Practical, bridge-like policy isn't any way to motivate people to turn out. 

 

I think its fine to say you are going to raise taxes. I don't think Bernie or liberals in general are under some belief or trying to cast some spell that we can have everything for free, raising taxes has always been the implication.   (That's the carictaure created by the opposition)

 

And look, I just don't think there's much political fallout from the Democrats being too aspirational.  Again, this isn't going to make practical people suddenly look at the GOP and say well these guys sure know what they are doing. 

 

When the actual policy gets put into place, of course, Democrats will have to face political and practical realities.  But we shouldn't concede them during the campaign (which has largely been the Democrats gameplan for decades).  And I'm fine with something like Mike's plan being step 1, but the other steps need to be formulated as a matter of law, before I'm willing to get behind step 1--otherwise, step 1 is all we get.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

  I do think the Democrats need to run on what is "right."  Practical, bridge-like policy isn't any way to motivate people to turn out. 

 

Not right/wrong, right/privilege.  The left has eroded the word "right" into basically a synonym for "want" and that's all anyone hears now when they hear that word come from the left.  "Healthcare is a right" might as well be "We want to give you free stuff"

 

It's not fair that the opposition has painted it that way, but it's also reality.  The only way to paint out of that corner is to stop the same messaging.  That also includes ending the idea that only the rich and corporations will pay for universal healthcare.  It has to be sold as everyone is paying in and then explain how everyone also benefits. 

 

You've spent several pages now attacking anyone who isn't as far left on you on things, while also saying "yeah!  better messaging" - well sometimes better messaging won't sound as left-wing as you want it to be.  We all want the same thing here - less power for the Republicans.  It isn't "cowing" to expand your voting base in both directions.  I think you should consider being less resistant to that idea.

[PseudoSABR]

Here's an article that addresses some the arguments I was trying to make: Democrats ignore the left at their peril. Midwesterners aren't scared of socialism — they're hungry for it.  It's thin on real policy, but I think the article makes a credible argument for how left-leaning politics are viable in the American middle.

[Mike Sixel]

while I agree that Dems can succeed with more liberal (and coherent) strategies, I have plenty of friends that are turned off by going "too far". Not having the actual data in front of me, it's hard to say what they should do if they care more about winning than they have achieved in some time.....

 

I'd push hard on healthcare and gas prices skyrocketing, and what they plan to do to help with those. I'd push hard on education spending at the local level (somehow, even nationally) but not so much on college costs. Fixing college costs won't win them elections....I'd push hard on stories about how their policies have helped, and GOP have hurt. I'd appeal more on emotions and stories and solutions than on right and wrong messages. And I'd show kids behind bars every single day in late October. I'd run ads showing how much farmers have lost due to tariffs, and all the companies that have sent jobs over seas too.

 

As for the article, it was an opinion piece by a democratic socialist, so I'm not sure it's really all that unbiased.....

[gunnarthor]

A lot of voters in MN, WI, MI, PA etc supported Sanders over Clinton, IIRC. Ignoring Russia interference and racism and other things, in 2016 the Dems were seen heavily as the party that supported big businesses and big banks over the little people. The DFL in MN ignored serious economic harm in rural areas of our state and I suspect they ignored those issues in other states as well. For all the warts guys like Sanders and Trump had, they at least spoke about it. Clinton didn't. 

 

I think progressive economic ideas could easily work in GOP leaning parts of MN. The GOP tax bill isn't looked on too well by most people, even republicans. Part of the Dems plan to be competitive in these areas should certainly go back to Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid" plan.

 

Economic gains for rural Minnesotans have continued to tank and China's tariffs on Soy are going to kill some farms in this state. The DFL has some openings if they'll try and take them.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I think progressive economic ideas could easily work in GOP leaning parts of MN. The GOP tax bill isn't looked on too well by most people, even republicans. Part of the Dems plan to be competitive in these areas should certainly go back to Bill Clinton's "It's the economy, stupid" plan.

 

Economic gains for rural Minnesotans have continued to tank and China's tariffs on Soy are going to kill some farms in this state. The DFL has some openings if they'll try and take them.

 

Spot on.  My father is still a farmer in southern Minnesota and I have several cousins who voted for Trump.  Every one of them now say they regret the vote because, while they liked the estate tax roll back, the trade war is crushing them.  They felt suckered by Trump and have turned on him.  My father was a Hillary voter, but he says the tune on Trump has shifted dramatically.

 

There is a huge opening there.  You know what else a lot of rural Americans have to do?  Pay for healthcare out of their own pocket, no employer subsidies.  Healthcare and trade war and you can sweep the Midwest.