Why millions of working-class voters backed Barack Obama and later Donald Trump and why neither presidency fixed the structural problems facing America’s middle class.
Thanks for engaging, Danni. I’m thrilled you get the importance of this. If you check out my recent posts (non-pandering ones that are gaining traction), and this one in particular, you’ll see solid likes and restacks. I tried presenting a different angle: the 9 million Obama-to-Trump swing voters in 2016 effectively moved 18 million votes. For context, Lyndon Johnson has the largest margin of victory ever, with 16.4 million. It’s not complicated... which makes it all the more frustrating that it’s so rarely discussed.
The most radical thing citizens can do isn’t switching parties... it’s demanding politicians and parties stop controlling the narrative and answer directly to us.
That’s why I started writing. Independent platforms like Substack give us a real shot at restoring the free press: delivering unspun information to citizens instead of partisan reinforcement. The Free Press’s $150 million sale shows strong demand for truth over clicks. And what follows that? A full court Blitz saying that Barry weiss, someone who has voted against Trump in the last three elections, and identifies as a classic liberal, was accused of being the new puppet of trump and heading up Fox News 2.0. If you want to interesting experiment , go search YouTube for anything CBS News has reported. You won't find anything that even resembles right-wing pandering. The best Trump in every bit of coverage.
Bari definitely has a bias when it comes to covering Israel but she's Jewish so I give her a pass in that area and I don't know when hating Israel become a liberal point of view anyway. I think we can say that everything that goes on in that region is against our values. There doesn't always have to be a villain and the hero there can be a bunch of villains . Again, that doesn't sell
Too many creators follow the corporate playbook: “breaking news” hooks, emotional framing, omitted nuance, and constant subscribe prompts. They chase engagement by reinforcing opinions. They don't try to inform and spark honest discussion.
I’ve hit the top 100 U.S. political writers 3x times but never stuck there, little bit because I've only started promoting my publication in april. That piece I wrote in December only had 82 subscribers receive it. But even after the growth I've seen in the last 60 days, I have only about a quarter of the following than I should have because pandering wins.
I’ve chosen the slower road of uncomfortable truths, even if it limits growth. Subscriber models *should* reward better incentives, but many still play the old game.
Real change starts w/ writers and readers demanding objectivity, full context, and facts over framing. If mainstream & independent outlets committed to that, quality journalism would dominate, discourse would improve, and informed citizenship would return. I’d happily be put out of business by it.
Fact-check what challenges your views. The ecosystem only changes when we do.
Yesterday I went to my local Indivisible meeting. The room was filled with people like us. Our Indivisible chapter networks with two pages of local partner groups, all working for the same things, good government and social/economic/environmental justice.
Thank you so much for being a leader in these efforts, Rxan.
IT'S TIME TO TURN THE PAGE ON FAILED DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.
We're launching the largest Democratic primary program in Indivisible's history.
LET'S FIGHT FOR A DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT’LL ACTUALLY FIGHT FOR US.
PLEDGE TO VOLUNTEER THIS PRIMARY SEASON AND SEND CHUCK SCHUMER A LITERAL MESSAGE ABOUT HIS FAILED LEADERSHIP.
We need you in the fight for a stronger, better Democratic Party willing to defend our communities, our rights, and our democracy from the fascist threat of the Trump regime. If you’re fed up with establishment Democratic leaders capitulating again and again, and you’re ready to put in the work to elect the fighters we need in this moment, sign on to join the largest primary campaign in Indivisible's history.
Full Name
Email(required)
Zip Code(required)
Your (optional) message to Chuck Schumer:
SUBMIT
OUR 2026 PRIMARY PROGRAM STARTS TODAY
WE HAVE BEEN FAILED BY DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP, AGAIN.
After the largest mass protest in U.S. history, after a historically successful election for Democrats, and while poll after poll shows that Republicans have the weaker hand in the shutdown fight, Democrats in the Senate have chosen to surrender. As minority leader, Chuck Schumer has demonstrated that he has no strategy, no savvy, and no spine. By allowing his caucus to cave to the will of the regime, he has proven that Democratic leadership is defined by fecklessness in the face of authoritarianism.
THAT’S WHY INDIVISIBLE WILL BE LAUNCHING THE LARGEST PRIMARY PROGRAM IN OUR HISTORY, GUIDED BY A GRASSROOTS NETWORK THAT IS PISSED OFF.
We must turn the page on this era of cowardice. We must nominate and elect Democratic candidates who have an actual backbone. And we must ensure that the kind of failed leadership we see from Senator Schumer does not doom a future Democratic majority.
THIS COUNTRY NEEDS DEMOCRATS TO FIGHT LIKE AN ACTUAL OPPOSITION PARTY TO AN AUTHORITARIAN REGIME.
We need them to fight like lives depend on it, because they literally do. Republicans are working to strip away healthcare and food assistance from millions of Americans; they are enabling a would-be king to undermine our democracy; and they cheer on the invasion of our cities and kidnapping of our neighbors. And too many elected Democrats are content to watch from the sidelines as they do it—or worse, abet this machine of corruption and abuse.
Get on their email list! They LIVE your goals, and know what they’re doing!
You will love this young couple who had been former congressional aides in Washington some time back. They saw what was going on, and started this organization.
It has become very powerful, and networks with Mobilize and others to reach those millions of activists who show up at national demonstration days across the country.
Honestly? I do get the importance of the numbers of Obama voters who voted for Trump in 2016 and how I had not focused on the significance of that statistic. I sort of think the Democratic Party missed it or chose to ignore it.
Before the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, healthcare accounted for 6-8% of GDP. Now it accounts for 18%-20% of GDP. While correlation is not necessarily causation, I hypothesize that there is a causal relationship.
These two programs cover precisely the people who generally generate the highest healthcare costs: the elderly, the disabled, and arguably the poor. A little-known fact is that Medicaid covers nursing home care for those who pass a means test after they “spend down”.
If any hypothesis is correct, eliminating third-party payments, including those by the government, would arguably bring healthcare's share back down to a single-digit percentage of GDP.
That is, of course, not going to happen. The GOP can't even repeal and replace Obamacare. Thus, I argue the best next step is to create an all-public payer monopsony, a Government Purchasing Organization (GPO). It's a solution that should merit bipartisan support.
George... as is becoming your trademark, this comment packs more substance than most full-length articles.
Your hypothesis is plausible, but from an economics standpoint, I would instinctively want to test it against the broader market. That's where it starts to break down for me.
If third-party payment were the primary driver, we'd expect every country with universal or predominantly third-party coverage to spend 18-20% of GDP on healthcare. They don't. Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Japan all spend dramatically less. The U.S. is the outlier, and I think the dysfunction runs several layers deep: pharmaceutical companies, hospital systems, physician groups, insurers, and the PBM middlemen that quietly sit between nearly all of them.
That makes me think the real issue isn't who pays, but who has the leverage to negotiate prices. We have third-party payment without third-party bargaining. Demand is insulated, but prices remain largely unconstrained. That's the worst of both worlds.
It's similar to taxes. Americans often point to lower tax rates than Europe, but then pay privately for healthcare, childcare, higher education, and receive fewer public benefits. Those costs don't disappear because they're private. They simply move off the tax bill and onto the household budget. For many families, they're not discretionary expenses at all. Whether the payment is labeled a tax or a premium doesn't change the economic burden.
Which is why I actually think your conclusion is stronger than your premise. A government purchasing organization, or any system that consolidates buying power, addresses the real imbalance: fragmented buyers negotiating against highly concentrated sellers. Whether it's called a GPO, single payer, or something else, nearly every lower-cost system has some mechanism that allows purchasers to say "no" to excessive prices.
The real obstacle isn't economics. It's politics. Hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and PBMs all have significant influence in Washington. The current pricing structure persists because powerful stakeholders benefit from it. Until those incentives change, meaningful reform will keep running into the same wall.
The difference between the US and the systems in Germany, Japan, et. al., broadly speaking, is that they have quasi-monopsonies much broader than the one I propose, and as you say, use their purchasing power to aggressively negotiate prices with providers. They also rarion care, with varying degrees of explicitness.
When I worked at the American Medical Association (AMA) back in the 1980s, their Council in Long Range Planning and Development did a lot of work on studying comparative health systems. They found that there were big differences between OECD nations--for example, Germany had an anomalous system based on its tradition of sickness societies within a highly unionized labor system, while Canada had (and still has) an extreme single payer system administered at the provincial level which largely bans private contracting for health services.
My point is that there are many ways to structure healthcare, even if the public sector plays a larger role.
Thank you ! This is a very interesting article , and I wonder how much of this sameness makes Donald more crazy than ever ! I’m still feeling sick about Jan 6 th , the Dems really failed on this travesty , Donald should never have held a public office after what he promoted ( treason ) but I read several articles that said “ the Dems let it go , because Trump was too popular “ and that really made me sick ! I think with a normal working government we can get a lot done , the key being NORMAL and WORKING !!
Such an amazing reply, Linda! Thanks so much for taking the time to read and leave such a thoughtful comment.
One of the principles I try to apply when thinking about politics is the same one you'd use when raising a child:
Don't make important decisions out of anger, spite, or emotion.
Hold people accountable, yes, absolutely. But accountability should be about recognizing that life isn't always fair, and we need to prioritize protecting the country
Act in a way that is authentic and shows who we are in order to always reinforce our standards.
Act in a way that produces the best long-term outcome, not simply expressing outrage.
Often, both parties focus on winning today's battle instead of asking, "What lesson does this teach now? What incentives are created tomorrow?" It's how we end up repeating mistakes, when we should've know better.
Looking back, I worried that emotion following January 6, including the second impeachment 7 days before Trump's term, risked producing HUGE unintended political consequences while doing Zero to help a party, or the country, move forward. Whether someone agrees with that assessment or not, it ended up being an accurate one.
I think it's a good example of why strategy should outweigh emotion in politics.
That's the mindset I hope we adopt more often. In politics, as in business or parenting, emotional reactions can feel satisfying in the moment, but thoughtful, strategic decisions produce better long-term results.
My hope is that we can build a government that's effective, accountable, and worthy of the public's trust, regardless of party. Conversations like this are exactly why I write. Thanks for being part of
Thanks for engaging, Danni. I’m thrilled you get the importance of this. If you check out my recent posts (non-pandering ones that are gaining traction), and this one in particular, you’ll see solid likes and restacks. I tried presenting a different angle: the 9 million Obama-to-Trump swing voters in 2016 effectively moved 18 million votes. For context, Lyndon Johnson has the largest margin of victory ever, with 16.4 million. It’s not complicated... which makes it all the more frustrating that it’s so rarely discussed.
The most radical thing citizens can do isn’t switching parties... it’s demanding politicians and parties stop controlling the narrative and answer directly to us.
That’s why I started writing. Independent platforms like Substack give us a real shot at restoring the free press: delivering unspun information to citizens instead of partisan reinforcement. The Free Press’s $150 million sale shows strong demand for truth over clicks. And what follows that? A full court Blitz saying that Barry weiss, someone who has voted against Trump in the last three elections, and identifies as a classic liberal, was accused of being the new puppet of trump and heading up Fox News 2.0. If you want to interesting experiment , go search YouTube for anything CBS News has reported. You won't find anything that even resembles right-wing pandering. The best Trump in every bit of coverage.
Bari definitely has a bias when it comes to covering Israel but she's Jewish so I give her a pass in that area and I don't know when hating Israel become a liberal point of view anyway. I think we can say that everything that goes on in that region is against our values. There doesn't always have to be a villain and the hero there can be a bunch of villains . Again, that doesn't sell
Too many creators follow the corporate playbook: “breaking news” hooks, emotional framing, omitted nuance, and constant subscribe prompts. They chase engagement by reinforcing opinions. They don't try to inform and spark honest discussion.
I’ve hit the top 100 U.S. political writers 3x times but never stuck there, little bit because I've only started promoting my publication in april. That piece I wrote in December only had 82 subscribers receive it. But even after the growth I've seen in the last 60 days, I have only about a quarter of the following than I should have because pandering wins.
I’ve chosen the slower road of uncomfortable truths, even if it limits growth. Subscriber models *should* reward better incentives, but many still play the old game.
Real change starts w/ writers and readers demanding objectivity, full context, and facts over framing. If mainstream & independent outlets committed to that, quality journalism would dominate, discourse would improve, and informed citizenship would return. I’d happily be put out of business by it.
Fact-check what challenges your views. The ecosystem only changes when we do.
Thank you!
You said what I’ve been thinking.
We need to start over from the beginning, and have a do-over.
Next time we’ll know what we’re doing.
Hopefully.
Yesterday I went to my local Indivisible meeting. The room was filled with people like us. Our Indivisible chapter networks with two pages of local partner groups, all working for the same things, good government and social/economic/environmental justice.
Thank you so much for being a leader in these efforts, Rxan.
Open Menu
Indivisible
IT'S TIME TO TURN THE PAGE ON FAILED DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.
We're launching the largest Democratic primary program in Indivisible's history.
LET'S FIGHT FOR A DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT’LL ACTUALLY FIGHT FOR US.
PLEDGE TO VOLUNTEER THIS PRIMARY SEASON AND SEND CHUCK SCHUMER A LITERAL MESSAGE ABOUT HIS FAILED LEADERSHIP.
We need you in the fight for a stronger, better Democratic Party willing to defend our communities, our rights, and our democracy from the fascist threat of the Trump regime. If you’re fed up with establishment Democratic leaders capitulating again and again, and you’re ready to put in the work to elect the fighters we need in this moment, sign on to join the largest primary campaign in Indivisible's history.
Full Name
Email(required)
Zip Code(required)
Your (optional) message to Chuck Schumer:
SUBMIT
OUR 2026 PRIMARY PROGRAM STARTS TODAY
WE HAVE BEEN FAILED BY DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP, AGAIN.
After the largest mass protest in U.S. history, after a historically successful election for Democrats, and while poll after poll shows that Republicans have the weaker hand in the shutdown fight, Democrats in the Senate have chosen to surrender. As minority leader, Chuck Schumer has demonstrated that he has no strategy, no savvy, and no spine. By allowing his caucus to cave to the will of the regime, he has proven that Democratic leadership is defined by fecklessness in the face of authoritarianism.
THAT’S WHY INDIVISIBLE WILL BE LAUNCHING THE LARGEST PRIMARY PROGRAM IN OUR HISTORY, GUIDED BY A GRASSROOTS NETWORK THAT IS PISSED OFF.
We must turn the page on this era of cowardice. We must nominate and elect Democratic candidates who have an actual backbone. And we must ensure that the kind of failed leadership we see from Senator Schumer does not doom a future Democratic majority.
THIS COUNTRY NEEDS DEMOCRATS TO FIGHT LIKE AN ACTUAL OPPOSITION PARTY TO AN AUTHORITARIAN REGIME.
We need them to fight like lives depend on it, because they literally do. Republicans are working to strip away healthcare and food assistance from millions of Americans; they are enabling a would-be king to undermine our democracy; and they cheer on the invasion of our cities and kidnapping of our neighbors. And too many elected Democrats are content to watch from the sidelines as they do it—or worse, abet this machine of corruption and abuse.
Get on their email list! They LIVE your goals, and know what they’re doing!
You will love this young couple who had been former congressional aides in Washington some time back. They saw what was going on, and started this organization.
It has become very powerful, and networks with Mobilize and others to reach those millions of activists who show up at national demonstration days across the country.
Honestly? I do get the importance of the numbers of Obama voters who voted for Trump in 2016 and how I had not focused on the significance of that statistic. I sort of think the Democratic Party missed it or chose to ignore it.
Off topic, but regarding healthcare:
Before the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid, healthcare accounted for 6-8% of GDP. Now it accounts for 18%-20% of GDP. While correlation is not necessarily causation, I hypothesize that there is a causal relationship.
These two programs cover precisely the people who generally generate the highest healthcare costs: the elderly, the disabled, and arguably the poor. A little-known fact is that Medicaid covers nursing home care for those who pass a means test after they “spend down”.
If any hypothesis is correct, eliminating third-party payments, including those by the government, would arguably bring healthcare's share back down to a single-digit percentage of GDP.
That is, of course, not going to happen. The GOP can't even repeal and replace Obamacare. Thus, I argue the best next step is to create an all-public payer monopsony, a Government Purchasing Organization (GPO). It's a solution that should merit bipartisan support.
George... as is becoming your trademark, this comment packs more substance than most full-length articles.
Your hypothesis is plausible, but from an economics standpoint, I would instinctively want to test it against the broader market. That's where it starts to break down for me.
If third-party payment were the primary driver, we'd expect every country with universal or predominantly third-party coverage to spend 18-20% of GDP on healthcare. They don't. Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Japan all spend dramatically less. The U.S. is the outlier, and I think the dysfunction runs several layers deep: pharmaceutical companies, hospital systems, physician groups, insurers, and the PBM middlemen that quietly sit between nearly all of them.
That makes me think the real issue isn't who pays, but who has the leverage to negotiate prices. We have third-party payment without third-party bargaining. Demand is insulated, but prices remain largely unconstrained. That's the worst of both worlds.
It's similar to taxes. Americans often point to lower tax rates than Europe, but then pay privately for healthcare, childcare, higher education, and receive fewer public benefits. Those costs don't disappear because they're private. They simply move off the tax bill and onto the household budget. For many families, they're not discretionary expenses at all. Whether the payment is labeled a tax or a premium doesn't change the economic burden.
Which is why I actually think your conclusion is stronger than your premise. A government purchasing organization, or any system that consolidates buying power, addresses the real imbalance: fragmented buyers negotiating against highly concentrated sellers. Whether it's called a GPO, single payer, or something else, nearly every lower-cost system has some mechanism that allows purchasers to say "no" to excessive prices.
The real obstacle isn't economics. It's politics. Hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies, and PBMs all have significant influence in Washington. The current pricing structure persists because powerful stakeholders benefit from it. Until those incentives change, meaningful reform will keep running into the same wall.
I'm glad you like the GPO idea.
The difference between the US and the systems in Germany, Japan, et. al., broadly speaking, is that they have quasi-monopsonies much broader than the one I propose, and as you say, use their purchasing power to aggressively negotiate prices with providers. They also rarion care, with varying degrees of explicitness.
When I worked at the American Medical Association (AMA) back in the 1980s, their Council in Long Range Planning and Development did a lot of work on studying comparative health systems. They found that there were big differences between OECD nations--for example, Germany had an anomalous system based on its tradition of sickness societies within a highly unionized labor system, while Canada had (and still has) an extreme single payer system administered at the provincial level which largely bans private contracting for health services.
My point is that there are many ways to structure healthcare, even if the public sector plays a larger role.
Priorities.
Thank you ! This is a very interesting article , and I wonder how much of this sameness makes Donald more crazy than ever ! I’m still feeling sick about Jan 6 th , the Dems really failed on this travesty , Donald should never have held a public office after what he promoted ( treason ) but I read several articles that said “ the Dems let it go , because Trump was too popular “ and that really made me sick ! I think with a normal working government we can get a lot done , the key being NORMAL and WORKING !!
Such an amazing reply, Linda! Thanks so much for taking the time to read and leave such a thoughtful comment.
One of the principles I try to apply when thinking about politics is the same one you'd use when raising a child:
Don't make important decisions out of anger, spite, or emotion.
Hold people accountable, yes, absolutely. But accountability should be about recognizing that life isn't always fair, and we need to prioritize protecting the country
Act in a way that is authentic and shows who we are in order to always reinforce our standards.
Act in a way that produces the best long-term outcome, not simply expressing outrage.
Often, both parties focus on winning today's battle instead of asking, "What lesson does this teach now? What incentives are created tomorrow?" It's how we end up repeating mistakes, when we should've know better.
Looking back, I worried that emotion following January 6, including the second impeachment 7 days before Trump's term, risked producing HUGE unintended political consequences while doing Zero to help a party, or the country, move forward. Whether someone agrees with that assessment or not, it ended up being an accurate one.
I think it's a good example of why strategy should outweigh emotion in politics.
That's the mindset I hope we adopt more often. In politics, as in business or parenting, emotional reactions can feel satisfying in the moment, but thoughtful, strategic decisions produce better long-term results.
My hope is that we can build a government that's effective, accountable, and worthy of the public's trust, regardless of party. Conversations like this are exactly why I write. Thanks for being part of