The importance of the Democratic nomination competition: Medicare for All (as set forth by Warren and Sanders) could sink us.

With so many of us understandably fixated on the horror show which is Donald Trump and his presidency, it is easy to be complacent about the Democratic nomination competition. Recent polling in battleground states is chilling, for it indicates that we could beat Trump soundly in the popular vote and still lose in the Electoral College.
 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/upshot/trump-biden-warren-polls.html

As never-Trump Republican Michael Gerson opines in a recent Washington Post column entitled, in the print edition, A health-care plan to get Trump reelected, Elizabeth Warren’s weakness in head-to-head polling against Trump in the battleground states — “even at this low point of presidential character and Congressional GOP courage” and notwithstanding her ability as “perhaps the most politically talented Democratic challenger” — is attributable to her Medicare for All plan and her commitment “to abolish all private health insurance, put a government bureaucracy in charge and spend an additional $2 trillion a year on her ambitions. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/warrens-climb-in-the-polls-should-horrify-democrats/2019/11/04/429f4032-ff4d-11e9-9518-1e76abc088b6_story.html 

But it is not just never-Trump Republicans sounding this warning. Progressive economics columnist Catherine Rampel, in that same edition of the Post,  explains clearly why Elizabeth Warren’s numbers do not add up.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-tried-to-do-bernie-sanderss-homework-for-him-she-failed/2019/11/04/bddfb0b0-ff48-11e9-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html That, on top of Rampel’s observation that recent polling shows that “eliminating private insurance is not actually a political winner” (see, e.g., https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/29/politics/medicare-for-all-polling/index.html) should give all Democrats pause with respect to Warren’s candidacy.  I do not see the numbers increasing in support for the proposal; the more it is closely examined, the more nervous voters get -- and justifiably so.  

Rampel’s column has particular resonance for me. Early on, I saw Warren, with her energy, intelligence, commitment to progressive values, and clear-eyed understanding of how insufficiently regulated Capitalism is destructive of the public welfare, as a very plausible choice for the nomination. But her rigid commitment to Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All proposal is both a political and policy mistake — indeed, a potential disaster with the specter of another four years of Trump looming over us. 

This does not mean that we ought to nominate Joe Biden. His weaknesses as a candidate are too significant to overlook. Fortunately, Pete Buttigieg offers brilliance, youthful energy, and sound policies designed to “win the era.” He would present a stark contrast to Trump in every way. I am aware of the potential weaknesses of Buttigieg’s candidacy. But I think they are far less risky that the weaknesses of the other contenders.