We hear a lot about electability in the run-up to an election, but it is a tough term to define. In concept, "electability" reflects how likely a person is to win an election. Yet, we don't have a reliable way of measuring electability, so it tends to be more based on opinion than on fact. Who people think is electable, and who actually gets elected are often not the same. In 2016 Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was predicted to win against the Republican, Donald Trump. Trump won. And Jeb Bush was the preferred candidate in the Republican primaries before that. In the 2008 Democratic primaries, Clinton had an upset thanks to a lesser-known Illinois senator by the name of Barack Obama. Even though there isn't a reliable way to predict electability, we still see an awful lot of talk about it. And this has a problematic side effect. In one poll 29% of respondents said they support Joe Biden for the 2020 Democratic candidate. Yet, when asked who they would make president "magically" if they could, that number dropped to 19%. More than 30% of Biden supporters would prefer another candidate, but they perceive him as being the most electable. In this way, even considering electability can influence whether a candidate is, in fact, electable.

A centrist is a politician or any person who doesn't identify as conservative or liberal. Instead they're somewhere in the middle. They might favor certain policies from the left and others from the right. But otherwise they don't lean in either direction. Many people will identify somewhat more with one end of the spectrum, "center-right" or "center-left".

One idea that frequently comes up in national politics is that a centrist will have the best chance of winning an election. The thought being that they can appeal to voters across the political spectrum. There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence to back this up, though. In the 2016 presidential elections, Donald Trump won as one of the most conservative candidates in the running. Then, just two years later in 2018 there was a strong swing to the left. Record numbers of women won elections, not to mention LGBT, Muslim, and non-white candidates. When it comes down to it, perhaps electability has more to do with how much a candidate inspires voters than their specific ideology.

There isn't much of anything that can predict electability. There are too many possible variables that can impact an election. A last minute scandal, some other crisis, real or imagined, or even how much media coverage a candidate receives. The 2008 financial crisis aided Barack Obama in his campaign and the color of his skin hurt him some. In the 2016 elections Russians did Donald Trump a favor by sowing discord on social media. Not to mention Hillary Clinton just couldn't shake that controversy over her use of a private email server. She was also harmed by her image as an establishment Democrat, as well as being a woman. Still, she won the popular vote. At the very least, if we learn anything from the 2016 presidential elections, it should be that nobody is unelectable.

Bottom line, vote for the candidate you like and don’t waste your time thinking about who can win. But here is some food for thought. If we elect a president who doesn't take climate change seriously, we could lose another four or more precious years to avert catastrophe. Climate scientists tell us that we have around 10 years to cut our carbon footprint in half. This is probably the most existential issue that we face, but there are many more. Healthcare has been a growing problem for many years. Deductibles have risen so much that even people who are insured often cannot afford healthcare. People are choosing between health and having a roof over their head. And we're seeing an all time high in opioid addictions and deaths from overdose. This is due to decades of pharmaceutical companies aggressively marketing drugs like oxycodone. These are just a couple of examples of large corporations seeking profit over the welfare of the people they are supposed to be helping. It's unlikely these things will improve until we have a government that is willing to stand up to them.

Congresspeople work on a wide variety of tasks aside from passing bills. From govtrack.us:

It’s hard to measure the effectiveness of a person in Congress in general, let alone based only on bills enacted. Not to mention the fact that many of the bills enacted by Congress are little more than renaming post offices and highways.

Medicare-for-All is a plan to replace private healthcare insurers with government provided healthcare. It aims to combat many of the problems with the private healthcare industry. Private insurers have conflicting motivations. On the face of it, their purpose is to provide healthcare for their customers. But, they are also motivated by profit. As such, they continue to strip away the services they provide and pass more costs onto customers. They've continued to increase premiums and out of pocket costs like deductibles. They refuse to cover certain procedures and will not serve people with pre-existing conditions. This leaves the people who need healthcare the most to pay for it on their own, which can lead to financial ruin. Health insurance is often tied to employment, so people also need to weigh their health against their choice of work. Medicare-for-All bypasses a lot of these problems by removing the profit motive.

There are a wide variety of proposals for how to pay for Medicare for All, but the simplest is to raise taxes. This means that you'll pay more out of your paycheck into taxes. But, if you're currently insured, that insurance will go away, so you will no longer be paying premiums. It's hard to estimate how Medicare for All will shake out when it comes to your take home pay, but there is a great chance you'll end up keeping more of your money. Medicare for All will pay almost 100% of your medical expenses, with no deductibles or copays. It will also cover dental, vision and hearing aids. You may have to pay up to $200 a year for prescriptions if your income is more than twice the federal poverty level. In all likelihood, the taxes you pay will be less than the premium for your current insurance. Medicare for All would eliminate a lot of inefficiencies in the current healthcare system. For example, they would be able to negotiate much lower prices for drugs and medical treatments. While hospitals will be paid less per service, they will be paid consistently. Currently almost 70% of patients cannot afford to pay for their medical bills. And our premiums will no longer be paying the salaries of healthcare execs, on the order of tens of billions of dollars per year.

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that Medicare for All would change the wait time for medical services. It's hard to determine if, at all, it would have any impact. We can look at other countries with similar healthcare systems, but they vary as well. There are too many factors to know whether delays are due to the healthcare policy or other factors. People point to the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom. Recently there have been issues with patients not having access to necessary healthcare in the UK. The NHS has been around for more than 70 years, though, and has largely been effective at its purpose. Recent issues seem to stem from austerity cuts. The current system in the United States can already be slow, especially if you need to get approval for a specialist. And for many people it can be impossible to get care at all if they don't have insurance. Medicare for All would ensure that everybody gets the healthcare they need. If we do run into issues with wait times, we can continue to tweak the system, rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Bernie Sanders supporters have gained a bit of a reputation for being toxic. During the 2016 democratic primaries the pejorative term “Bernie Bros” was coined. The implication was that Sanders supporters were largely opinionated and sexist young men. The term has continued to be used in the 2020 elections. Despite this, Sanders has one of the most diverse coalitions of any candidate. This includes around 50% women. Sanders himself has had some strong words against any sexist or inappropriate behavior. Still, the reputation persists that Sanders supporters can be opinionated and even abusive. One study found that only 53% of Sanders supporters would shift their support to another candidate if he didn't win the primary. Without a lot more data, though, it's hard to be sure how much of this is specific to Sanders supporters. It may also be lingering political rhetoric, or even Russian bots again trying to sow discord. Regardless, it is important to focus on the substance of a candidate's policies and message over the noise on social media.