Paul Krugman: The Edwards Effect

Paul Krugman on John Edwards and his effect on the presidential race:

The Edwards Effect, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short. But ... even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built...

At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit. It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system... Some advocated reform based on private insurers...

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.

Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan...

Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues... Unfortunately..., the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself...; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention... And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.

Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows. ... Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.

It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but ... the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.

Furthermore,... it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.

One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.

Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.

If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.

Comments

[Bruce Wilder]

I have had the distinct displeasure of actually listening to John McCain, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani stumping on the campaign trail. Their performances are quite a contrast to the Republican debates. They sound like Democrats, spewing out promises of action on a host of problems. George W. Bush is not going to be on the ballot. Whether McCain or Romney is the nominee, it is not even clear that a recognizable Republican will be in the race, unless it is to be HRC, Republican-lite.

[Joe]

This column is so ridiculous, it's hard to know where to start. The essential contradiction in Krugman thesis is that he complains that Obama isn't partisan enough and that his version of achieving universal health care is flawed.

BUt does anyone really believe that universal health care is going to be the defining partisan wedge in this election? Democrats have been arguing this for years, Repubs ignore it an nothing happens.

No, the partisan issues in this campaign (especially against McCain) are going to be the War and raising taxes. And yet those are two policies where Obama has been crystal clear about how he differs with the Repubs and where Mrs. Clinton has blurred the distinctions as much as she cold get away with.

I still really do not understand Krugman's anti-Obama obsession when he is so clearly wrong about who is is nd what he stands for.

[ds]

Is anyone on here familiar with the Democratic nomination process? I have always thought that a candidate could pledge his or her delegates to another candidate. If that is still the case, it makes almost no sense for John Edwards to drop out now, considering that the majority of delegates are up for grabs this Tuesday. Admittedly, he had no chance of winning super-Tuesday, but if Clinton and Obama finish neck and neck, Edwards' delegates could have made him the deciding factor in the race.

Perhaps I am mistaken in my belief that a candidate can pledge their delegates to another candidate. But if I am not, why would Edwards quit just days before a set of primaries which could give him the ability to decide the winner and thus influence their policies?

[reason]

ds...
Maybe John Edwards believes in democracy, and thinks the voters should make their own choice.

[ken melvin]

Having three strong candidates helped Edward's populism to come the fore, and strengthened the candidates. Now there are two. No less at this point please case one pulls up lame going into the final stretch.

I'm somewhat surprised at the animosity 'progressives' have for Bill Clinton and disappointed they so quickly transferred same to Hillary. Maybe I shouldn't be. These 'progressives' we're hearing from on the left wing blogs are just as nutty as the right's wingnuts. Is it possible that they were supporters of Nader?

[Patricia Shannon]

Edwards has "suspended" his campaign. Many Edwards supporters, including myself, intend to vote for him in the primaries, hopefully giving him influence in the nomination process.

If you read the comments on www.johnedwards.com, you see that we all have noticed the way the MSM was effective in damaging Edwards campaign.

[kharris]

Joe,

You may think that war and taxes will be the defining issues, but when Pew polls voters, the majority of both Democrats and Republicans call doing something about health care costs a "key" issue. The public is, in general, saying that economic issues are their top priority for this election. Republican rhetoric maintains that tax cuts are the only economic issue, but it is far from clear that the public agrees. Pew polling finds that fewer than half of Republicans think extending tax cuts is a "key" issue.

I realize that Krugman is human, and thus prone to error, but declaring him wrong based on personal views of how things ought to be doesn't get us very far. He seems to assume the public is interested in things in which the public says it is interested. That, on its face, is a reasonable starting point.

[Zero]

Kharris - Joe is giving you advance warning of how the Repub's will contest the election - on raising taxes and cutting and running.

[hari]

Paul is a very qualified international trade economist and I've a lot of respect for his academic work because I've read them and like their perspective.

He's NOT a political scientist nor like other bloggers qualified to give subtantive value and quality to this type of discourse - other than some valuable nonsense.

[Lafayette]

To sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom

Article: meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention...

Yes, this is the sad tale of the present campaign. It is not the "best one" who is going to win, it is the most "moneyed one" who will win -- whether its a Rep or a Dem.

Shame, shame, shame ... money doesn't talk, it shouts. Businesses and individuals give humongous amounts of money for what?

To sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom? Yeah, right ..

[Lafayette]

A permanent, durable solution

kharris: the majority of both Democrats and Republicans call doing something about health care costs a "key" issue.

I am pleased to see this. A shame not one of present of candidates has THE solution to the problem.

You rightly mention "health care costs", but the "Universal Health Care" solutions being proposed do not do what is necessary to lower costs.

Mitt Romney was the first Governor to supposedly have made a real advance in the matter by proposing Health Care insurance for all bona fide Massachusetts residents. He passed/signed legislation that required that insurance be extended to the uninsured by present insurers. Mitt had said that his plan would reduce total HC-costs.

The result, now, two years later? Health Care costs are due to rise ... yet again in Massachusetts.

Of course, Mitt is not around any longer for that embarrassing fact, is he? Read about Romney's Massachusetts HC Plan, here. But, when you look at the plan its basic flaw is obvious -- the plan depends upon increased contributions from employers, who just turn around and recuperate their costs from their product/service pricing.

If Medicaid were funded out of the tax base (a Value Added Tax on consumption plus increased marginal taxes on higher incomes) plus employee contributions plus company contributions, then the burden would be shared by a larger base. The sixteen percent of the population that go without HC-insurance (or who go to ER for primary care), as consumers they would also participate in the cost.

Would this solution provide adequate revenues? Probably not, but the nation would then have the choice between the present "no care for the indigent because it is to damn expensive anyway" and ... well, another war somewhere in the world. The latter is not going to happen. But, the government certainly has the money to fund an adequate sole-payer Medicaid program for all Americans.

Hospitals today recuperate one-third of the cost of their Medicaid patients. So, they go begging for the rest to cover it. Health Care in the US is dependent upon public philanthropy.

How can such mindlessness be the source of a permanent, durable solution? Tax the rich, put the money into Health Care and to hell with their philanthropy.

Should anyone accept that the quality of the nation's defenses be at the whimsy of philanthropists? When the DoD budget was inadequate for a new weapons program, the SecOfDefense, should go around, hat in had, begging (the defense) industry for handouts? That's ridiculous.

Then why should Health Care do the same? (Responses welcome, please ...)

[piglet]

hari: Krugman is "NOT a political scientist nor like other bloggers qualified to give subtantive value and quality to this type of discourse".

I wonder which polscientists or bloggers you are referring to who allegedly "give subtantive value and quality to this type of discourse". Krugman's discourse, agree with him or not, seems to be as substantive as any out there.

[Bruce Wilder]

Krugman's hopeful narrative of the failure of John Edwards' campaign should not distract us from the reality that it was a failure. Edwards labored long and hard in Iowa, and to a lesser extent in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and never found a substantial constituency or, as they say in campaign-speak, a workable message.

The sad reality is that Obama and Clinton have been competing to occupy the Right of the Party. This is a partly a response to early perceptions that all the Democratic candidates were far to the Left of the mass of Democratic Party voters. As the Republican Party in Congress and the White House moved to the Right, and the country, in reaction, moved the Left, the Democrats have gained a presumptive advantage -- since the increasingly moderate Democratic Party has aligned itself with the general desires of the country's political majority. But, that's been offset by the perception that the Democratic Party's leading Presidential candidates were to the Left of their own Party, while the leading Republican candidates were far to the left of the Republican Party -- putting the leading Republican candidates closer to the fabled political middle, where low-information "indepedent" voters lend their favor. (I am saying that, while I think Clinton is Right of the Party as a whole, most Americans, according to Pew, in mid-2007 saw Clinton as Left of the Party. I am not sure where she stands in public perception of the political spectrum right now.)

The other thing that conditions candidate behavior pretty substantially is fear of the Media, which, in its incompetence, is a dangerously unpredictable tool of the plutocracy and of the puerile class resentments of journalists and pundits. Krugman can claim that Edwards had an effect, but a main lesson of the failure of the Edwards campaign is that he was unable to enlist the Media in getting substantive attention. And, I dare say, Clinton and Obama remain more afraid of Diane Sawyer than of John Edwards.

Lafayette worries about money in politics. Well, that money goes to the giant Media conglomerates as advertising revenue, and the necessity and efficacy of such advertising campaigns is only increased as the Tribunes of the People in the Media fail miserably to do their jobs, to inform a Public.

Krugman's obsession with Obama, and his fixation with health care mandates, seems bizarre and unfair to me. But, at least he is trying to use his megaphone in a responsible way. If he had more competition in his earnest endeavor, his gracelessness and general cluelessness would matter less, but he's engaged with no one. The more conventional pundits are worrying for us about whether Hillary can "control" Bill, and, naturally, blonde-woman-lost-in-Aruba is back to crowd political news in the run-up to the Feb 5 primary. Yuck.

[donna]

Ken,

It's the nutty people you have to listen to - they are the only ones with any new ideas.

Besides, the progressives are right and the only way to change the direction of the country to pull it out of the dreadful decline we're in.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

February 1, 2008

Obama Does Harry and Louise, Again
By Paul Krugman

The Obama campaign sends out an ugly mailer. * Sorry, but this is just destructive — like the Obama plan, the Clinton plan offers subsidies to lower-income families. And BO himself has conceded that he might have to penalize people who don’t buy insurance until they need care. So this is just poisoning the well for health care reform. The politics of hope, indeed.

* http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/More_negative_mail.html

[NCGuy]

Look y'all, Edwards is a poor loser, but a loser none the less. He didn't run for re-election to the senate in 2004 because a) he knew he would lose and b) he was going to lose because he was a poor senator. Like wise he dropped out before the Feb 5 primaries because it was very likely he would have been under the 15% threshold in most if not all 22 states, and therefore received no delegates. This, along with the probable loss of his senate seat in 2004 had he run, would cement his legacy as a loser for all time. His followers or disciples are very passionate about him, but he is polarizing and disliked by a larger margin he is a known entity. He gave the same answer to every question. The mill thing was way beyond worn out and made non-disciples cringe. Can you imaging 4 more years of that nonsense?

[anne]

Barack Obama is lying in claiming

"Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it"

Obama is perniciously making a movement to universal health care insurance impossible. This ties in with Obama's attacks on Social Security and is completely intolerable. The attacks on universal health care insurace and Social Security are not simple mistakes that are corrected immediately but determined policy.

[anne]

"Krugman's obsession with Obama, and his fixation with health care mandates, seems bizarre and unfair to me."

I am obsessed with policy, and I am obsessed with a candidate who is destroying a chance at universal health care insurance, attacks Social Security and is intent on adding 100,000 soldiers to our forces the better to ring the Middle East and threaten Pakistan and Iran.

Watch me being obsessed with a candidate who cares nothing for critical policy.

[anne]

Barack Obama startled me by speaking of his contribution to gaining universal health care insurance for Illinois, since I had no idea that Illinois has universal or even spreading health care insurance. Turns out that Illinois has no such creature. I listen to Obama speak of health care insurance, and I no longer find the slightest reason to believe there is any substance in the speaking.

[anne]

When Democrats have not been able to protect the health of 3.8 million needy children, when the President is attacking a plan to protect the health of needy American Indians, when the health of needy pregnant mothers and infants is threatened because of cuts in care, when Medicare is under attack, we have a Democratic candidate who is attacking a plan to move to universal health care. Enough.

[anne]

Barack Obama:

"Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it."

This is completely false and entirely destructive, and enough of the unity rubbish.

[evagrius]

Edwards should definitely have a Cabinet post if the Democrats win.

[Patricia Shannon]

Bruce Wilder says...

Krugman's hopeful narrative of the failure of John Edwards' campaign should not distract us from the reality that it was a failure. Edwards labored long and hard in Iowa, and to a lesser extent in New Hampshire and South Carolina, and never found a substantial constituency or, as they say in campaign-speak, a workable message.

I disagree. The problem was that the msm deliberately sabatouged his compaign. NPR this morning, which participated, tried to put a good face on the actions of the media by claiming that the reason the media ignored Edwards was that Clinton and Obama are more exciting because of the possibility of being the first woman or minority president. So why did they try to derail his candidantcy by ridiculing him before they started totally ignoring him? How can a person get a message across when the msm acts as if he doesn't exist?

[btg]

ds - what i read was that in some states, delegates are re-apportioned to the oremianing candidates based on the votes cast - in other states, delegates are free. i do not think that there is any state where the candidate can tell his delegates who to support at the convention, and enforce it.

yes, edwrds constant line about the "mill" gets tiresome, and by quitting now and not being badly embarrassed feb 5 he can fight another day. i hope to see him in cabinet, not so much for what he will do in the post itself, but for his voice being around the cabinet table to push the president in the right direction.

[btg]

ds - what i read was that in some states, delegates are re-apportioned to the oremianing candidates based on the votes cast - in other states, delegates are free. i do not think that there is any state where the candidate can tell his delegates who to support at the convention, and enforce it.

yes, edwards constant line about the "mill" gets tiresome, and by quitting now and not being badly embarrassed feb 5 he can fight another day. i hope to see him in cabinet, not so much for what he will do in the post itself, but for his voice being around the cabinet table to push the president in the right direction.

[ken melvin]

I agree, Edwards long since outgrew NC.

[Patricia Shannon]

Of course, a candidate can't order his delegates to vote for him, even if still actively running, but I would expect that they would be influenced by their candidates opinions.

[Patricia Shannon]

I meant to say a candidate can't force the delegates to vote for a particular person.

[Patricia Shannon]

Some people on his blog suggested that he would make an excellent attorney general.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/importing-chinese-inflation/

February 1, 2008

Importing Chinese Inflation?
By Paul Krugman

This piece * in the New York Times on how China’s inflation affects U.S. consumers is interesting. But I think some perspective is called for.

Yes, there are an awful lot of Chinese products in the store, especially if the store is Wal-Mart. But much of the store price represents US costs — transportation, warehousing, store operations, etc.. So a rise of, say 10% in Chinese prices would produce a rise of much less than 10% in the prices consumers pay. And remember, the great majority of US spending, even now, is NOT on stuff made in China.

In fact, overall, the US spends a little more than 2 percent of GDP on Chinese goods. That’s dramatically more than in the past. But it suggests that if Chinese prices rise 10%, the overall cost of living here would rise by less than a quarter of a percent. Every little bit hurts, but this isn’t as big a deal as a casual reading of this article might lead you to think.

* http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/business/worldbusiness/01inflate.html

[anne]

Notice how clever an analyst can be:

"In fact, overall, the US spends a little more than 2 percent of GDP on Chinese goods. That’s dramatically more than in the past. But it suggests that if Chinese prices rise 10%, the overall cost of living here would rise by less than a quarter of a percent."

We are just not importing inflation from China. I do love Paul Krugman.

[Arne (not anne)]

"while the leading Republican candidates were far to the left of the Republican Party"

I had to think about this several times. The republicans I know are certainly to the left of the party leaders. Is the 'Republican Party' defined by its leaders or by people who are registered Republican?

[anne]

John Edwards deserves so much credit, and I am sorry not to have him as a candidate to the convention since his voice was so distinct in defining policy and his sympathies were readily trusted. Health care policy was quickly defined by Edwards, and can be a passable workable model.

[Vicente Fox]

How can a person get a message across when the msm acts as if he doesn't exist?

They're doing the same thing to Ron Paul, and he's doing better in his primaries than Edwards was in his.

[Patricia Shannon]

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-chamber8jan08,0,4301350.story?coll=la-politics-campaign

By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 8, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.
...
Reacting to what it sees as a potentially hostile political climate, Donohue said, the chamber will seek to punish candidates who target business interests with their rhetoric or policy proposals, including congressional and state-level candidates.

Although Donohue shied away from precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle. That approaches the spending levels planned by the largest labor unions.
...
The chamber has become a significant force in state and national politics under Donohue's decade of leadership. Once a notably bipartisan trade association with a limited budget and limited influence, it has hugely increased its political fundraising and developed new ways to spend money on behalf of pro-business candidates.

Under Donohue, the organization has also frequently aligned itself with GOP priorities.

Since he took over the chamber, contributions by businesses have soared, often to pay for political advertising known as "issue ads," which are exempt from many of the Federal Election Commission limits.

Under a system Donohue pioneered, corporations contribute money to the chamber, which then finances attack ads targeting individual candidates without revealing the name of the businesses involved in the ads.

In 2000, drug companies paid the chamber to run advertisements in Michigan to help elect then-Republican Sen. Spencer Abraham. Pharmaceutical companies that year gave the chamber additional millions to run issue ads attacking mostly Democratic House candidates. And large corporations paid $1 million or more to support advertising campaigns against judges deemed too friendly to plaintiffs.

[calmo]

From one of those outlets:

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-romney-set-sights-super/story.aspx?guid=%7B67D1BA8F-44F9-4FAE-ACD4-284FBB795144%7D

we have the report on Paul's delegate count:

McCain is currently leading the delegate count, with 93. Romney is in second with 59 and Huckabee trails with 40. Paul has five, according to a tally provided by The Wall Street Journal.
But I hear you...some voices weren't heard...such a mercy in some Republican cases.

[Lafayette]

More disinformed than uniformed

BW: Lafayette worries about money in politics. Well, that money goes to the giant Media conglomerates as advertising revenue, and the necessity and efficacy of such advertising campaigns is only increased as the Tribunes of the People in the Media fail miserably to do their jobs, to inform a Public.

Agreed. Well said.

The press is helter-skelter, tumbling over one another in the rush to print banalities. Substance is blown to the winds.

At least there's Krugman to make the two or three points worth making and get some national coverage with it. The public is perhaps more disinformed than uniformed, methinks.

Still, this forum seems to be recruiting newcomers. Is it the campaign, meaning people seeking additional input or just the blogosphere phenomenon?

[BJ Feng]

"Although Donohue shied away from precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle. That approaches the spending levels planned by the largest labor unions."

So the US Chamber of Commerce, the lone voice, is going to spend almost as much money as ONE of the many unions out there. This is supposed to be unfair? Hell, the article forgot to mention that liberal special interest groups outspent conservative ones, by what, 4 to 1?

Outside of Iowa, Edwards received very little support. His ideas were too extreme even for Democrats who overwhelmingly rejected his proposals. Yes his voice was distinct, distinctly foolish and hateful toward a few of the principal ideals America was founded upon--capitalism and individualism. Edward's poor showing among liberals should serve as a warning here on this board that his views are FAR from what leftists want, not to mention mainstream Americans. Yes, if his policies were unpalatable to Democrats, imagine how they are viewed by the American public in general. We repudiated socialism and class warfare decades ago, and despite what some say here, Americans want to keep their money and don't want a tax hike to fund big government programs. Fortunately, Americans are less gullible than some here and understand that large government programs cannot be run without a huge amount of waste and corruption, no matter how well meaning the program. In the end, the slick pleas of the trial lawyer Edwards were correctly determined to be the garbage they are.

Now Democrats must demand that their candidates come back to planet Earth. Although all the money comes from spacey, wacked out extremists like MoveOn.org, the power to elect still resides with the mainstream, a mainstream that sent Edwards packing.

[anne]

The way to be especially hateful is to be hateful while having nothing to say. Remember though, the real problem in America is having lawyers who,like, go to court where lawyers, like, practice, thus dooming, like, democracy. What is it about Republicans and a disdain for law or possibly just for lawyers who,like, practice law?

[Bruce Wilder]

arne: "The republicans I know are certainly to the left of the party leaders."

That could be sample bias, or deception. Given that we are talking Republicans, I would guess deception plays a part.

[Cyrille]

"Fortunately, Americans are less gullible than some here and understand that large government programs cannot be run without a huge amount of waste and corruption, no matter how well meaning the program."

Funnily, despite heavy investigations, not ONE serious case of the like could be found in the whole of the New Deal program.

Maybe it did not qualify as large? Or maybe BJ's statement can only qualify as shameless propaganda?