wifeisafurd said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

The Democrats are three groups-
1. professional class, mostly white
2. The remnants of the traditional white union working class
3. Minorities, also mostly working class

The first group is more socially liberal and ironically more identify focused. The second is economically liberal and socially conservative. The third group is also economically liberal and more socially liberal than number two but less so than number 1.

Biden's strength is 2 and 3. Warren's is 1. Sanders is mostly 2 and 3. Buttigieg is 1.

If Warren falters, Buttigieg may gain but how he does after Iowa and New Hampshire are key- he has significant problems with minorities and it just isn't that they don't know him.

Sanders supporters are most loyal and he will never quit the race. Oddly he may benefit greatly by the Warren- Buttigieg-Biden tussle. If Buttigieg actually surges, he may pick up strength from Warren's constituency and be the "progressive" standard bearer.

Iowa and New Hampshire are very important for Buttigieg and Warren. Warren can't afford to finish third in both. Buttigieg has to at least finish second in one or both to build momentum. Sanders and Biden will soldier on. Biden will win South Carolina- barring a miracle- and the big industrial states and the south will be good for him. Sanders will be stronger in Nevada than people think and also strong like last time in the industrial Midwest.

---

I get where you are gong, and this is not a bad way to generalize the Dems.. Let me give you another distinction. The gender gap means a lot more Dems are women. You keep thinking women would be doing better as candidates, but they are not. I keep thinking identity politics matter and should help Warren at the lead woman candidate in the field. Maybe not in the polls yet, but in the ballot box. Again, watch me proved wrong.

I agree Sanders has staying power, but if he can't gain more traction, does he blow out and defer to Warren?

---

Buttigieg is going nowhere. He isn't unknown in the Black community. He is disliked. He's kind of earned it. You can't win a Democratic nomination without at least decent support from the Black community. He just polled at 0% among Blacks in South Carolina.

Warren has dropped almost 8 points since the beginning of October. Both Biden and Sanders have gained since then. Sanders is now slightly ahead of her. So I'd say it is an equally valid question whether she will drop out and whether her voters go to Sanders.

Polls have been mixed as to where Sanders voters would go. It is doubtful they are going to substantially go to one candidate. It is irrelevant because Sanders is staying in.

I'm not a Biden supporter, though I could end up voting for him. At one point I was in anybody but Biden camp. But the narrative around his support is plain bullshyte. His support hasn't diminished. True, he hasn't gained. True his fundraising is awful. But he's 10% points ahead nationally. He has lead almost every national poll. It doesn't appear anyone is going to challenge him for the Black vote. Yes, he makes gaffes and is not great at debates, but that is pretty much already baked in for most people. He still has the best chance of winning.

I see Buttigieg winning virtually all White, Iowa and doing well in virtually all White New Hampshire. Then he crashes and burns. Biden will win Nevada and win South Carolina in a landslide. Then we go into Super Tuesday with a mixed up race and who knows what will happen.

I think Warren is in real danger at the moment. Her polls have been consistently slipping. I think some of her voters are those who see her as a more electable Bernie. If she loses that veneer, those voters will go over to Bernie. If she doesn't win either Iowa or NH, she is done.

If I had to predict, and I think things are more unpredictable now than they seem, I think coming out of Super Tuesday it will be Biden v. Bernie.

OaktownBear said:

---

Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.

---

The only "plan" to enact one's polarizing policies is for your party to own the WH and majorities in both houses. And that's step 1. There isn't broad support among Democrats for Warren or Bernie's health care policies. Revamping health care is a political risk that still many (most?) careerist Democrats are relunctant to put their name on it at this point.

It's difficult to BLAME Warren and Bernie for this reality that every bold policymaker in either party faces.

It's like, what is Warren supposed to say during a primary campaign? "Hey America, this is what I believe in, but I'm willing to compromise with my own and competing parties due to the complex dynamics of congressional politics, and quite frankly I don't see enough broader support within my own party to realistically accomplish this."

calbear93 said:

---

Even as someone who is open to a single payor system where everyone has some skin in the game and has to pay at least something for each service to avoid overuse of the services, I just don't have confidence that our government can get it done right.

I would much prefer a public option to force the government and the private sector to compete with each other. If expanded Medicare and the government truly are the better option, we will eventually move to a single payor system anyway.

Let's let the government prove itself in this industry before we hand over something like healthcare and medical services to the government as the only option.

---

The public options will destroy the private insurance sector over time, that's why both parties didn't want to support it 10 years ago. A for profit insurance system that requires both high costs to purchase and scale to be sustainable cannot compete with a non-profit not needing to charge anything in theory. Obamacare basically gave private insurance a ton of new customers with their blank checks, increasing scale. Obamacare only helped the "really poor" by giving them subsidies to purchase private insurance. A married friend made a modest $75k/yr, didn't qualify, and their monthly premium for the lowest possible coverage was I think $400/month with $4,000 deductible. Don't need to go through through obamacare to get ripped off like that.

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.

---

The only "plan" to enact one's polarizing policies is for your party to own the WH and majorities in both houses. And that's step 1. There isn't broad support among Democrats for Warren or Bernie's health care policies. Revamping health care is a political risk that still many (most?) careerist Democrats are relunctant to put their name on it at this point.

It's difficult to BLAME Warren and Bernie for this reality that every bold policymaker in either party faces.

It's like, what is Warren supposed to say during a primary campaign? "Hey America, this is what I believe in, but I'm willing to compromise with my own and competing parties due to the complex dynamics of congressional politics, and quite frankly I don't see enough broader support within my own party to realistically accomplish this."

---

What I expect is that a politician promotes a plan that has some realistic chance of actually working IF ONE COULD ACTUALLY GET IT ENACTED. Bernie's plan is in the ballpark of working. Hers is not. My issue with her is that she is using the fact that she can't get her plan enacted to promise anything because she knows she won't have to fulfill any of those promises.

If the Republicans had guts, they would tell President Warren "okay. We will enact your plan exactly as you drew it up as long as you take responsibility for the consequences". And watch her back down because if she enacted her plan it would be dead in a year along with any chance that she had of being re-elected and any chance of health care being passed in my lifetime. Medicare would collapse and the federal deficit would at least double.

OaktownBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.

---

The only "plan" to enact one's polarizing policies is for your party to own the WH and majorities in both houses. And that's step 1. There isn't broad support among Democrats for Warren or Bernie's health care policies. Revamping health care is a political risk that still many (most?) careerist Democrats are relunctant to put their name on it at this point.

It's difficult to BLAME Warren and Bernie for this reality that every bold policymaker in either party faces.

It's like, what is Warren supposed to say during a primary campaign? "Hey America, this is what I believe in, but I'm willing to compromise with my own and competing parties due to the complex dynamics of congressional politics, and quite frankly I don't see enough broader support within my own party to realistically accomplish this."

---

If the Republicans had guts, they would tell President Warren "okay. We will enact your plan exactly as you drew it up as long as you take responsibility for the consequences". And watch her back down because if she enacted her plan it would be dead in a year along with any chance that she had of being re-elected and any chance of health care being passed in my lifetime. Medicare would collapse and the federal deficit would at least double.

---

She wouldn't back down. She would run with it and it would be a huge success.

But I like how you not only "know" things about her plan the experts don't know but you also "know" her internal thoughts. Well done. Hard to argue with that.

OaktownBear said:

---

If the Republicans had guts, they would tell President Warren "okay. We will enact your plan exactly as you drew it up as long as you take responsibility for the consequences".

---

What an odd thing to assert.

Rolling over to a key Democratic President's policy goal while turning your back on your constituents is your barometer for Republicans having "guts"? Doing that would be PURE STUPID. Would anybody advocate Democrats lie down to Republicans like that? Imagine Pelosi helping Republicans pass their draconian abortion rules thinking "Americans will turn on you when they realize they can't access abortions after 6 weeks of gestation"

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

If the Republicans had guts, they would tell President Warren "okay. We will enact your plan exactly as you drew it up as long as you take responsibility for the consequences".

---

What an odd thing to assert.

Rolling over to a key Democratic President's policy goal while turning your back on your constituents is your barometer for Republicans having "guts"? Doing that would be PURE STUPID. Would anybody advocate Democrats lie down to Republicans like that? Imagine Pelosi helping Republicans pass their draconian abortion rules thinking "Americans will turn on you when they realize they can't access abortions after 6 weeks of gestation"

---

I'm not serious. I'm just saying if she actually had to fulfill the promises she has made on health care she'd freak out.

dajo9 said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

Look at the "reality" of her plans. She will back down on all of them whenever she thinks it will get her a few percentage points. She has a plan to get elected, not a plan to bring liberal policies to America.

---

The only "plan" to enact one's polarizing policies is for your party to own the WH and majorities in both houses. And that's step 1. There isn't broad support among Democrats for Warren or Bernie's health care policies. Revamping health care is a political risk that still many (most?) careerist Democrats are relunctant to put their name on it at this point.

It's difficult to BLAME Warren and Bernie for this reality that every bold policymaker in either party faces.

It's like, what is Warren supposed to say during a primary campaign? "Hey America, this is what I believe in, but I'm willing to compromise with my own and competing parties due to the complex dynamics of congressional politics, and quite frankly I don't see enough broader support within my own party to realistically accomplish this."

---

If the Republicans had guts, they would tell President Warren "okay. We will enact your plan exactly as you drew it up as long as you take responsibility for the consequences". And watch her back down because if she enacted her plan it would be dead in a year along with any chance that she had of being re-elected and any chance of health care being passed in my lifetime. Medicare would collapse and the federal deficit would at least double.

---

She wouldn't back down. She would run with it and it would be a huge success.

But I like how you not only "know" things about her plan the experts don't know but you also "know" her internal thoughts. Well done. Hard to argue with that.

---

I don't know anything the majority of experts haven't said.

OaktownBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

If the Republicans had guts, they would tell President Warren "okay. We will enact your plan exactly as you drew it up as long as you take responsibility for the consequences".

---

What an odd thing to assert.

Rolling over to a key Democratic President's policy goal while turning your back on your constituents is your barometer for Republicans having "guts"? Doing that would be PURE STUPID. Would anybody advocate Democrats lie down to Republicans like that? Imagine Pelosi helping Republicans pass their draconian abortion rules thinking "Americans will turn on you when they realize they can't access abortions after 6 weeks of gestation"

---

I'm not serious. I'm just saying if she actually had to fulfill the promises she has made on health care she'd freak out.

---

I think she'd have an orgasm. It won't be relevant that some of her promises don't pan out. Enacting comprehensive health care reform will be the win, it will be a GOP loss, just like Obamacare. I wish these guys and girls would be transparent about how there are costs/benefits to any policy, and it doesn't hurt/help everyone the same. But ultimately that aint that important (politically).

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

If the Republicans had guts, they would tell President Warren "okay. We will enact your plan exactly as you drew it up as long as you take responsibility for the consequences".

---

What an odd thing to assert.

Rolling over to a key Democratic President's policy goal while turning your back on your constituents is your barometer for Republicans having "guts"? Doing that would be PURE STUPID. Would anybody advocate Democrats lie down to Republicans like that? Imagine Pelosi helping Republicans pass their draconian abortion rules thinking "Americans will turn on you when they realize they can't access abortions after 6 weeks of gestation"

---

I'm not serious. I'm just saying if she actually had to fulfill the promises she has made on health care she'd freak out.

---

I think she'd have an orgasm. It won't be relevant that some of her promises don't pan out. Enacting comprehensive health care reform will be the win, it will be a GOP loss, just like Obamacare. I wish these guys and girls would be transparent about how there are costs/benefits to any policy, and it doesn't hurt/help everyone the same. But ultimately that aint that important (politically).

---

GOP loss? They won the House, the Senate, the Presidency and some 500 seats all over the country in the wake of Obamacare. It was a huge win for them.

Anarchistbear said:

---

GOP loss? They won the House, the Senate, the Presidency and some 500 seats all over the country in the wake of Obamacare. It was a huge win for them.

---

It was so unpopular the GOP had no path to altering it let alone abolishing it when they had majorities in all three in 2017. The electorate is fickle and reactionary, and the grass is always greener.... You can't pin the losses on Obamacare.

The legislation put Democrats one step closer to more public health care legislation. It wasn't the blowout victory they wanted at the time, but it was a victory nonetheless.

GBear4Life said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

GOP loss? They won the House, the Senate, the Presidency and some 500 seats all over the country in the wake of Obamacare. It was a huge win for them.

---

It was so unpopular the GOP had no path to altering it let alone abolishing it when they had majorities in all three in 2017. The electorate is fickle and reactionary, and the grass is always greener.... You can't pin the losses on Obamacare.

The legislation put Democrats one step closer to more public health care legislation. It wasn't the blowout victory they wanted at the time, but it was a victory nonetheless.

---

Have to agree with that. If health care expansion of any kind is passed it's not a victory for conservatives. Backlash will come and I don't think the Dems handled it well under Obama, but the law itself is still a win.

GBear4Life said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

GOP loss? They won the House, the Senate, the Presidency and some 500 seats all over the country in the wake of Obamacare. It was a huge win for them.

---

It was so unpopular the GOP had no path to altering it let alone abolishing it when they had majorities in all three in 2017. The electorate is fickle and reactionary, and the grass is always greener.... You can't pin the losses on Obamacare.

The legislation put Democrats one step closer to more public health care legislation. It wasn't the blowout victory they wanted at the time, but it was a victory nonetheless.

---

Because the GOP made even more disastrous calculation than the Dems- end Obamacare and replace with nothing. That led to their demise in the midterms

The Dems losses were certainly related to Obamacare. They were running away from it and it definitely helped tip the House and Senate The reasons are obvious- those that really benefited don't vote. The people making $60,000 with no subsidy, often do.

Anarchistbear said:

---

GBear4Life said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

GOP loss? They won the House, the Senate, the Presidency and some 500 seats all over the country in the wake of Obamacare. It was a huge win for them.

---

It was so unpopular the GOP had no path to altering it let alone abolishing it when they had majorities in all three in 2017. The electorate is fickle and reactionary, and the grass is always greener.... You can't pin the losses on Obamacare.

The legislation put Democrats one step closer to more public health care legislation. It wasn't the blowout victory they wanted at the time, but it was a victory nonetheless.

---

Because the GOP made even more disastrous calculation than the Dems- end Obamacare and replace with nothing. That led to their demise in the midterms

The Dems losses were certainly related to Obamacare. They were running away from it and it definitely helped tip the House and Senate The reasons are obvious- those that really benefited don't vote. The people making $60,000 with no subsidy, often do.

---

They tried to sell Americans on they could replace it with something "better". Turns out it's hard to take away subsidies for health care for millions of people once they've had it. Many of those people are Republicans. And there's no way to message that to the country in a positive way.

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

Yup. It's possible Warren has fallen a lot, but I would wait for more evidence before declaring it.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

Former Vice President Joe Biden has retaken the lead in the poll after an autumn that saw him surrender his solid frontrunner status, climbing 3 points to earn 24 percent in the poll. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., surged into second, rising 6 points to 16 percent, with Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders not far behind at 14 and 13 percent, respectively.

From the bottom of the article, I presume the 95% confidence interval is +/- 4.9%.

=>FWIW: Biden leads...with the others in a statistical tie.

What was Warren's percentage in the previous poll? Damned if I'm going to look that up.

Then again, whoever wrote the article may have screwed up.
Then again, I may have screwed up.

Next interpretation, please.

Current averages:

Biden has always had the lead here with a pretty similar percentage of the vote. The other candidates have gained and lost behind him.

bearup said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

Former Vice President Joe Biden has retaken the lead in the poll after an autumn that saw him surrender his solid frontrunner status, climbing 3 points to earn 24 percent in the poll. Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., surged into second, rising 6 points to 16 percent, with Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders not far behind at 14 and 13 percent, respectively.

From the bottom of the article, I presume the 95% confidence interval is +/- 4.9%.

=>FWIW: Biden leads...with the others in a statistical tie.

What was Warren's percentage in the previous poll? Damned if I'm going to look that up.

Then again, whoever wrote the article may have screwed up.
Then again, I may have screwed up.

Next interpretation, please.

---

OK, OK......I did look it up

Warren receives 28 percent of the vote among Democratic voters and independent voters who lean Democratic....

=>
*She didn't just nosedive, she crashed and burned
OR
*The whole thing is a statistical artifact=>wait for the next poll

sycasey said:

---

Current averages:

Biden has always had the lead here with a pretty similar percentage of the vote. The other candidates have gained and lost behind him.

---

What was Warren's percentage in Silver's previous compilation?

I would think she hasn't "nosedived" (however you want to quantify that), but I don't know.

bearup said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Current averages:

Biden has always had the lead here with a pretty similar percentage of the vote. The other candidates have gained and lost behind him.

---

What was Warren's percentage in Silver's previous compilation?

I would think she hasn't "nosedived" (however you want to quantify that), but I don't know.

---

He thinks she's probably fallen about 4 or 5 points from her previous high.

Interesting. Thanks.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

But Bernie is up 2 points, so it can't be Medicare for All.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

I'm not sure it's specifically about health care and more that the other candidates actually started attacking her. Mayor Pete may soon see his momentum stalled for similar reasons.

And of course, current trends can always end, for anyone.

If you want to look up the recent history of the polls (see link below). The National poll is mirroring what is happening in the Iowa and New Hampshire polls where she peaked in October and has been losing ground.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/2020_democratic_presidential_nomination-6730.html

My main take away is that a lot of Dem's aren't quite sure what they want yet, the race will continue to be tight for a while, but I would guess that the indecisive end up making the 'safe' choice which would be Biden.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

I would think of this more like a race. The guy in first halfway through isn't always the guy that wins - you just want to be close enough to be able to make a move at some point. The only people who should be concerned are the ones who continue to languish at the bottom.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

I'm not sure it's specifically about health care and more that the other candidates actually started attacking her. Mayor Pete may soon see his momentum stalled for similar reasons.

---

He will eventually have to answer for the Douglass plan fiasco. That kind of thing isn't popular with Democratic voters. Right now the press is suppressing it just like like they suppressed any negative news on Warren, but eventually the truth gets out.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

More like her meteoric rise wasn't sustainable. It happened in about the same amount of time.

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

More like her meteoric rise wasn't sustainable. It happened in about the same amount of time.

---

well the timing suggests it was related. That said, she can recover (there hasn't even been a primary), so your analogy to a race tracks.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

They are like stocks.

Sander's is holding steady if not trending up a bit....perhaps if it really was about Medicare, he'd be expected to drop also.

You do say "appears".......better to wait and see.

sycasey said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Professor Turgeson Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Warren nosedives in new nationwide poll https://politi.co/2Orbcq1 via @politico

I guess healthcare really is the third rail politically.

---

I guess people will never stop using single polls to justify their thinking.

---

According to recent national polls and state polls aggregated by Real Clear Politics, Warren in sinking fast. I'm a little surprised, and to some degree disappointed, that medicare for all appears to be the reason.

---

I'm not sure it's specifically about health care and more that the other candidates actually started attacking her. Mayor Pete may soon see his momentum stalled for similar reasons.

And of course, current trends can always end, for anyone.

---

+1000

From the NYT

"But a new analysis of more than a half-century of federal mortality data, published on Tuesday in JAMA, found that the increased death rates among people in midlife extended to all racial and ethnic groups, and to suburbs and cities. And while suicides, drug overdoses and alcoholism were the main causes, other medical conditions, including heart disease, strokes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, also contributed, the authors reported.

"The whole country is at a health disadvantage compared to other wealthy nations," the study's lead author, Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University, said. "We are losing people in the most productive period of their lives. Children are losing parents. Employers have a sicker work force."


According to the new study, the death rate from 2010 to 2017 for all causes among people ages 25 to 64 increased from 328.5 deaths per 100,000 people to 348.2 deaths per 100,000. It was clear statistically by 2014 that it was not just whites who were affected, but all racial and ethnic groups and that the main causes were drug overdoses, alcohol and suicides.

"The fact that it's so expansive and involves so many causes of death it's saying that there's something broader going on in our country," said Ellen R. Meara, a professor of health policy at Dartmouth College. "This no longer limited to middle-aged whites."


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/26/health/life-expectancy-rate-usa.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

This is the abstract from the study
November 26, 2019
Life Expectancy and Mortality Rates in the United States, 1959-2017
Steven H. Woolf, MD, MPH1; Heidi Schoomaker, MAEd2,3
Author Affiliations
JAMA. 2019;322(20):1996-2016. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.16932
Abstract

Importance US life expectancy has not kept pace with that of other wealthy countries and is now decreasing.
Objective To examine vital statistics and review the history of changes in US life expectancy and increasing mortality rates; and to identify potential contributing factors, drawing insights from current literature and an analysis of state-level trends.
Evidence Life expectancy data for 1959-2016 and cause-specific mortality rates for 1999-2017 were obtained from the US Mortality Database and CDC WONDER, respectively. The analysis focused on midlife deaths (ages 25-64 years), stratified by sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geography (including the 50 states). Published research from January 1990 through August 2019 that examined relevant mortality trends and potential contributory factors was examined.
Findings Between 1959 and 2016, US life expectancy increased from 69.9 years to 78.9 years but declined for 3 consecutive years after 2014. The recent decrease in US life expectancy culminated a period of increasing cause-specific mortality among adults aged 25 to 64 years that began in the 1990s, ultimately producing an increase in all-cause mortality that began in 2010. During 2010-2017, midlife all-cause mortality rates increased from 328.5 deaths/100000 to 348.2 deaths/100000. By 2014, midlife mortality was increasing across all racial groups, caused by drug overdoses, alcohol abuse, suicides, and a diverse list of organ system diseases. The largest relative increases in midlife mortality rates occurred in New England (New Hampshire, 23.3%; Maine, 20.7%; Vermont, 19.9%) and the Ohio Valley (West Virginia, 23.0%; Ohio, 21.6%; Indiana, 14.8%; Kentucky, 14.7%). The increase in midlife mortality during 2010-2017 was associated with an estimated 33307 excess US deaths, 32.8% of which occurred in 4 Ohio Valley states.

Conclusions and Relevance US life expectancy increased for most of the past 60 years, but the rate of increase slowed over time and life expectancy decreased after 2014. A major contributor has been an increase in mortality from specific causes (eg, drug overdoses, suicides, organ system diseases) among young and middle-aged adults of all racial groups, with an onset as early as the 1990s and with the largest relative increases occurring in the Ohio Valley and New England. The implications for public health and the economy are substantial, making it vital to understand the underlying causes.