Paul Krugman: Thinking About November

Democrats need to reunite. Will they?:

Thinking About November, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The fight for the Democratic nomination seems to be winding down. It’s not completely over, but the odds now overwhelmingly favor Barack Obama. ...

Mr. Obama..., judging by the usual indicators, should be poised for an easy victory... Yet Democrats are worried. Are those worries justified? ...

Political scientists, by and large,... identify three main determinants of presidential voting.

First, votes are affected by the state of the economy — mainly economic performance in the year or so preceding the election.

Second, the approval rating of the current president strongly affects his party’s ability to hold power.

Third, the electorate seems to suffer from an eight-year itch: parties rarely manage to hold the White House for more than two terms in a row.

This year, all of these factors strongly favor the Democrats. ... Robert Erikson, a political scientist at Columbia, tells me: “It would be difficult to find any serious indicator that does not point to a Democratic victory in 2008.”

What about polls that still seem to give John McCain a good chance of winning? Pay no attention, say the experts: general election polls this early tell you almost nothing... Remember 1992: as late as June, Gallup put Ross Perot in first place, Bill Clinton in third.

There’s just one thing that should give Democrats pause — but it’s a big one: the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times.

Ironically, much of Mr. Obama’s initial appeal was the hope that he could transcend these divisions. At first, voting patterns seemed consistent with this hope. ...

But this week, Mr. Obama ... lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points...; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished. ...

Mr. Obama appears to have won the nomination with a deep but narrow base consisting of African-Americans and highly educated whites. And now he needs to bring Democrats who opposed him back into the fold.

It’s possible ... that bad feelings ... will fade away of their own accord. In recent decades, Democrats have had little trouble unifying after hard-fought primary campaigns.

But this time the division seems to go deeper than ordinary political rivalry. ... So what can be done to heal the party’s current divisions?

More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal.

Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have “gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.” On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that “we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.” That sort of thing has to stop.

One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan — representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November — seats at the convention.

And to the extent that campaigning matters, Mr. Obama should center his campaign on economic issues that matter to working-class families, whatever their race.

The point is that Mr. Obama has an extraordinary opportunity in this year’s election. He should do everything possible to avoid squandering it.

Comments

says...

So far, what I've observed looking around the internets is a BushCo style approach from the Obama campaign of "my way or the highway," so it's not looking good on the united party front. What is it about politicians and the people surrounding them that compels them to be total thought control freaks?

[jaquin]

Seating Florida and Michigan delegates would be the worst of all possible outcomes. The party and people need to show a respect for rules, for laws for participatory systems. If the leaders of the party in those states have gambled and lost, breaking party rules, to the detriment of the voters, they should be punished by those voters if they disagree with the attempt. That is a issue for the state party.
Seating the delegates lets people off the hook and trivialize the enormity of the gamble.
Party rules have to stand for something, otherwise why contribute to the party.

[turquoise]

And not a word about health care! Welcome home, Paul.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

I agree wholeheartedly with PK. However, in defense of O, he's had to defend himself against the best organized political machine in the history of this nation, I was a supporter of Edwards and now a supporter of O and the truth is that I thought that HRC was going to cut through him like a buzz saw. I really admire him for having achieved what he has done so far because, I thought that HRC would be invincible.

This was the real race, HRC vs. O... The probabilities favor O to be the candidate, however, we're going to need the Clintons and Gores, the Nelsons, the Pelosies, the Carvels and the entire party behind this candidate. If for some reason HRC becomes the party's candidate we need to stand together and back her with the same passion and persuasion. We must not falter in this, no matter what.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[DJM]

If the state party leaders that broke the rules and the candidate that was underhanded about the original agreement, (Clinton) in order to have a plan "B".....want their delegates to count, I say make them pay for a primary election "do-over". I never liked the way the schedule of primaries made some states seem more important and believe the schedule should rotate or tighten up to maybe four regional "super Tuesdays" or something....and this years mess is a perfect example of why we need some major changes.

[Alex]

How can he say HRC got a raw deal? She was ahead in the polls by 20 points, had more money, had the Clinton machine and much of Washington behind her, and had name recognition. It was her election to lose and she ran a terrible campaign and lost. That is not a raw deal, that is reality.

And as for alienating supporters, Hillary Clinton's campaign has done everything possible to alienate Afrian American voters, I haven't seen anything remotely equivalent by the Obama campaign (the examples he gives are very lame examples). I am Paul Krugman's biggest fan but I don't understand his outlook on this race.

[degustibus]

Doesn't anyone get weary of this seemingly uncontrollable impulse Deep Thinkers have of prognosticating November election results in May.

Many a slip twixt...well, from now until November.

Something to remember: Who controls the major media? McCain steps on his dick and they all look the other way-- Obama.....on his? Clinton on hers? (Well, you know what I mean.)

I, on the other hand, am not prognosticating when I say that it will be very easy for the Democrats to blow the election, given the volatility and fragility of liberal progressive alliances.

Meanwhile I wonder why neither of the Dems has proposed a Summer War Holiday?

[a]

Well ususally it's the loser which is expected to show some humility. PK backed the losing horse but has shown none in his comment.

[NLS]

Paul Krugman brings up some good points. But Donna Brazil wasn't the only guilty party; Begala said the Dems can't win with just "eggheads and African Americans."

This race/class war is the most contrived BS I've seen in a long time.

For the sake of illustration, let's say that everyone in America is of voting age and voted on one day. Census.gov 2006 estimates have whites numbering at 221,331,507 and blacks at 37,051,483, or 73.9% and 12.4%, respectively. And say that Obama gets 92% of the black vote and Clinton gets 60% of the white vote.

So then we have: Clinton votes =132,790,904 + 2,964,119 = 135,763,023
and Obama votes = 88,532,602 + 34,087,364 = 122,619,967

And well whatya know, Clinton votes > Obama votes. (Whoa, contradiction.)

Could it be that it's just not black people voting for Obama? Could it be that the black vote is such a small sliver of the electorate that >90% of them still leaves a ton of room for white votes to Obama?

This is all crap. The media is crap. And it has become glaringly obvious that HRC is trying to split the Dem vote to twist Obama's arm to put her on the ticket as VP.

People need to remove their heads from their asses.

[NLS]

The point is that BO is garnering rather broad support given the media's douchbagness.

People will go into the booth and say, "More of the same, or something a shade different?" or "Leaving Iraq or shooting cruise missiles at Iran." It's really a no-brainer.

[Bruce Wilder]

Some thoughts in reaction.

PK: ". . . the fight for the nomination has divided the party along class and race lines in a way that I believe is unprecedented, at least in modern times."

Paul Krugman can "recall" the division in the Democratic Party of the 1920's, between nativist/populist farmers and immigrant big-city Catholics, but he seems to have conveniently forgotten the last 30 years of triangulation.

The Democratic Party is not divided. The Democratic Party is larger, more diverse, and more agreed upon an agenda than at any time in history. We've witnessed a prolonged primary battle, between two candidates, who AGREE on almost every policy issue!

The Democratic Party of the 1990's, under Bill Clinton's leadership, was seriously divided. Clinton, leading light of the conservative and corrupt Democratic Leadership Council, helped to divide the Party through the politics of triangulation. That was how we got welfare reform instead of health care reform.

The politics of triangulation and conservative southern candidates rested on the slowly ebbing tide of white southern and white working class votes. That re-alignment of the electorate is complete; the tide has ebbed. And, a new Democratic coalition is emerging, one that does not depend on a white, conservative Democratic Party in the South, and one, which is more coherent ideologically than on any day since Andrew Jackson was whining about the Corrupt Bargain.

degustibus: "Doesn't anyone get weary of this seemingly uncontrollable impulse Deep Thinkers have of prognosticating November election results in May.

"Many a slip twixt...well, from now until November."

I get weary of the insistence on horse race coverage, predicated on McCain having much of a chance, and on the Democrats being, somehow, bad campaigners, or the election turning on supposed gaffes and manufactured outrage. The truth is that the Republicans have only a vanishingly small chance, and only that because the Media shills for McCain.

The real suspense in this election revolves around just how huge the Democratic majorities in Congress will become. If Democrats can be frightened into believing that the Presidential election is near-thing, they may lose sight of the main chance.

Alex: "How can he say HRC got a raw deal?"

I don't quite fathom Krugman's point of view on Obama. Or, anne's, for that matter. I don't think Hillary Clinton ran an especially bad campaign or was a bad candidate; I think she had the misfortune to be a very good candidate with a good campaign in a competition with a better candidate and a better campaign. Clinton came into the campaign with the advantage of a high floor of support combined with the disadvantage of a low-ceiling. Even among Democrats, Clinton often could not muster the support of more than 40-55%. An alternative candidate, with a low-floor, but a high ceiling, managed to leap over her ceiling.

My view is that any candidate is a long-odds gamble, if you are betting, not on the election outcome, but, rather, on the outcome of governance. I presume that Krugman and I share a preoccupation with the outcome of governance, as a goal of politics. I have been surprised at the vehemance with which he has insisted on Obama's flaws, while ignoring Clinton's shortcomings. I don't see the evidence for believing strongly that Clinton would be better at governance.

I see a lot of evidence for the proposition that Obama is a much better rallying point for a larger Democratic coalition, a coalition, which will include more moderates and conservatives from the suburbs, but which will also be much more purely moderate and progressive ideologically.

[Miguel Madeira]

"And well whatya know, Clinton votes > Obama votes. (Whoa, contradiction.)"

Unless the blaks are more than 12.4% of the voters in Democratic primaries.

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/why-you-should-hate-economists/

May 8, 2008

Why You Should Hate Economists
By Paul Krugman

From the WSJ: *

Almost half of the economists in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey decided against answering a question on which presidential candidate offers the most responsible fiscal policies. However, Sen. John McCain was the clear favorite of those who answered the question.

McCain offers the most responsible fiscal policies? Notice that this wasn’t about who you think will be most economically sound in general, or who you think would be better at fiscal management in practice — although even there, nothing in the Republican party’s past 30 years offers any reason to believe that it would be responsible in any way shape or form. But this question was about what the candidate is offering — and McCain’s proposals are, demonstrably, ** wildly irresponsible.

It’s true that the WSJ seems to have surveyed business economists rather than academics. But this is still shocking.

* http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/05/08/many-economists-back-mccain-but-more-are-silent/

** http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/blog/_archives/2008/4/17/3644448.html

[anne]

"More tirades from Obama supporters against Mrs. Clinton are not the answer — they will only further alienate her grass-roots supporters, many of whom feel that she received a raw deal."

I could not be more alienated. Get it? I get it.

[anne]

"Nor is it helpful to insult the groups that supported Mrs. Clinton, either by suggesting that racism was their only motivation or by minimizing their importance.

"After the Pennsylvania primary, David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s campaign manager, airily dismissed concerns about working-class whites, saying that they have 'gone to the Republican nominee for many elections.' On Tuesday night, Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist, declared that 'we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.' That sort of thing has to stop."

Right; no more bullying.

[anne]

"So far, what I've observed looking around the Internet is a BushCo style approach from the Obama campaign of 'my way or the highway,' so it's not looking good on the united party front."

Right. Democratic Party Clinton insulters have been intolerable for months, and I have trouble thinking of myself even in the very room such insulters.

[hari]

Looking at this bizzare election process from a distance...one gets the feeling that a lot more disturbance is anticipated before Nov...and it might just be the racial tone of the arguments which will fill the frontpages - me thinks.

Finally, I can't see how DNC can nominate a candidate based on 48/50 states primaries.

As I've said earlier, under US Constitution, State primaries are a function of State Govs. How States conduct primaries and report them (officially) is a matter of governance in the State. Anyone can sue DNC for disallowing officially conducted primaries in Fl & Mi - since State laws pre-empt DNC party rules and regulations. So, I wait for the final judgement of DNC...because it could also become a factor in spilling a lot of (unnecessary) blood and even splitting the Dems.

[Don Quijote]

Since Reconstruction there have only been three African-American Governors (Wilder, Patrick & Patterson), three African-American Senators ( Brooke, Mosley-Brown & Obama ) and only 35 of 6667 elections in white majority US House districts have provided black winners since l966, and most of those were in unusually liberal districts.

Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results. But a damn good predictor...

says...

anne - have fun supporting McCain

[anne]

"Have fun supporting McCain."

Have fun bullying. Democratic Party Clinton insulters have been intolerable for months, and I have trouble thinking of myself even in the very room with such insulters.

[anne]

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/hillary-rodham.html?cid=113813356

May 8, 2008

Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain vs the Economists
By Brad DeLong

It is very clear on both McCain's and Rodham Clinton's part that it is not ignorance It may be to some degree hubris on McCain's part--but I doubt it. It is overwhelmingy on Rodham Clinton's part and predominantly on McCain's part the third option: mendacity with a dash of condescension.

And Greg [Mankiw] is right: it says a lot of bad things about the character of John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton that they would do this.

[Al DeVito]

Is Krugman on Clinton's campaign committee?

[anne]

Imagine using Greg Mankiw * to attack Hillary Clinton.

* Working class hero.

[anne]

"Is Krugman on Clinton's campaign committee?"

Have fun insulting. I could not be more alienated.

[swells]

In my home county of NC, Clinton took the vote by approximately 65% to 32% for Obama. It was the same in the surrounding counties except more lopsided for Clinton in a couple.

Anyone who thinks that wasn't due to racism on the part of white people in my area is wrong. Blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama in the same counties. Anyone who thinks that wasn't race related is wrong.

I'm white and voted for Obama. I look as deeply inside myself as I can and I find that I voted for Obama because he has a plank to get rid of nuclear weapons and because I read his books and came to have some understanding for his character and because I like his policies. Let's hope those were the reasons I voted for him and I don't have some deeper racial motivation but who really knows.

Personally, I find the result in NC to be disappointing even though my candidate won by a lot. It's 2008 and race is still a major issue in politics when race, as far as I have been able to determine, is about how one's body synthesizes vitamin D and not a damn thing else.

I do not trust my neighbors. How can I when a trivial characteristic is so important to them. Their priorities cannot be correct.

[blackswan]

PK writes: "But this week, Mr. Obama ... lost North Carolina whites by 23 points, Indiana whites by 22 points...; there was little in Tuesday’s results to suggest that his problems with working-class whites have significantly diminished. ...

I heard a clip of HRC saying the same thing, yesterday. She is so desperate, that she is now OVERTLY playing the race card. PK has become her echo. These people have channelled their inner Karl Rove. I no longer have any interest in reading anything PK writes in the future.

PK wrote in January: "What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues ... and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing."

Does PK construe race baiting to be "talking about issues"? Krugman has become the worst form of hypocrite, a running dog for people who will do absolutely anything to regain the power of the White House.

Krugman also stated last January: "So what are the lessons for today’s Democrats? First, those who don’t want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don’t want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s ... are deluding themselves."

Yes, PK, and you are making sure of that by playing Karl Rove's Republican role against Obama. Shame on you, sir.

If I were a Republican running against HRC, I'd put together a 30 second film clip on the Clintions. The first 20 seconds would show HRC saying, over and over, "I can't recall. I don't remember" (Number of times Hillary Clinton said "I don't recall" or its equivalent in a statement to a House investigating committee: 50). The last 20 seconds would show Bill, lying and wagging his finger at the American people while saying, "I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," Then I'd freeze-frame Bill's finger wagging picture, and in bold letters at the bottom of the screen, I'd write, DO WE REALLY WANT THESE CLINTONS BACK IN THE WHITEHOUSE?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

If I were the Republicans, I'd run the campaign against the Clintons, not Hillary. That way I wouldn't be accused of woman bashing.

Obama has shown himself throughout this campaign to be a decent human being, while the Clintons have become Rovian attack dogs. After Bush, it's time to put a human face back on the American Presidency.

[swells]

Anne, I understand you are alienated. I personally could never vote for Clinton because of her character flaws; i.e., for exactly the same reason I could never vote for Bush or for McCain. I do understand you are entitled to your opinion and your preference but please, not everyone who won't vote for Hillary is simply a misogynist. She helped with the character assasinations that were effected in relation to some of Bill's sexual harassments of women.

I'm not a prude (I could care less about people's sex lives) but I do not like predatory people or those who aid and abet them. To me, there is no moral difference between someone who will engage in character assasination for personal gain and someone like Bush who used the coercive power of the state to line his own pockets. They are both willing to treat other people as simply means to some personal end and are for that reason unworthy of my support.

There are good reasons some people won't support Hillary. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.

[Lafayette]

Deep in the American psyche

Article (citing Erikson): “It would be difficult to find any serious indicator that does not point to a Democratic victory in 2008.”

Then maybe he doesn't fully appreciate the mastery the Dems possess for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? After Kerry, in 2004?

C'mon, American politics is about evenly divided with sentiment going a bit more to the Right. McCain can influence the election significantly to move a sufficient number of middle-roaders over to his side - and it’s the middle that decides elections, not populists at either fringe of both parties.

Wanna see him do it? Easy enough. Just presume that BO is a shoe-in.

BO has got to get his act together. Character assassination, which both Dems indulged in, is not going to stick on Teflon McCain, the American Vietnam hero. There is nothing outstanding in BO's platform that would make middle-road thinkers plunk for the first black PotUS in history. Have we already forgot what a battle Catholic JFK had to get elected?

[So much of a battle that his father had to recruit the Mafia to deliver the Chicago vote to his son's camp. A chit, btw, that the Mafia did not forget to call in.]

All this Pundit Prancing in the press amuses the body politic to no end. But, when the fit hits the shan, they vote for the guy/gal that they sense best protects/fights for their interests.

BO has had a prime campaign issue handed to him on a platter, the Ill Health of American Health Care in terms of coverage. And yet, he managed to opt for a solution, supposedly guarantying choice, that promises no remedy whatsoever to the problem. (It's a solution custom-made for the AMA -- expand High-cost Health Care into a market that could never afford it anyway.)

He'll live to regret it.

PS: And we think that because Kennedy was elected in 1960, a bit less than half a century ago, political sentiments of religion and race have long since disappeared from America? Wow! How naive can we get? They are far less obvious ... but deep in the American psyche, there they lurk.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Whoever runs really needs Ohio and Michigan, and the various candidates have interesting spins on the auto industry.

McCain and Clinton - the auto industry needs to change, and we will do what we can to help.

Obama - the auto industry sucks, and if you guys get crushed, so what

Paraphrasing of course.

Obama told the voters of Michigan to go to hell, and has yet to even do a drive by to mend fences. Even if he is standing firm on the convention delegates, one would think he would build a few links to the voters, the UAW, and etc.

Six months ago I would have predicted the GOP had no chance to win in Ohio and Michigan, and therefore no chance to win the presidency. Now I am not so certain.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/opinion/09faludi.html

May 9, 2008

The Fight Stuff
By SUSAN FALUDI

San Francisco

NOTABLE in the Indiana and North Carolina primary results and in many recent polls are signs of a change in the gender weather: white men are warming to Hillary Clinton — at least enough to vote for her. It’s no small shift. These men have historically been her fiercest antagonists. Their conversion may point less to a new kind of male voter than to a new kind of female vote-getter.

Pundits have been quick to attribute the erosion in Barack Obama’s white male support to a newfound racism. What they have failed to consider is the degree to which white male voters witnessing Senator Clinton’s metamorphosis are being forced to rethink precepts they’ve long held about women in American politics.

For years, the prevailing theory has been that white men are often uneasy with female politicians because they can’t abide strong women. But if that’s so, why haven’t they deserted Senator Clinton? More particularly, why haven’t they deserted her as she has become ever more pugnacious in her campaign?

Maybe the white male electorate just can’t abide strong women whom they suspect of being of a certain sort. To adopt a particularly lamentable white male construct, the sports metaphor, political strength comes in two varieties: the power of the umpire, who controls the game by application of the rules but who never gets hit; and the power of the participant, who has no rules except to hit hard, not complain, bounce back and endeavor to prevail in the end.

For virtually all of American political history, the strong female contestant has been cast not as the player but the rules keeper, the purse-lipped killjoy who passes strait-laced judgment on feral boy fun. The animosity toward the rules keeper is fueled by the suspicion that she (and in American life, the regulator is inevitably coded feminine, whatever his or her sex) is the agent of people so privileged that they don’t need to fight, people who can dominate more decisively when the rules are decorous. American political misogyny is inflamed by anger at this clucking overclass: who are they to do battle by imposing rectitude instead of by actually doing battle?

The specter of the prissy hall monitor is, in part, the legacy of the great female reformers of Victorian America. In fact, these women were the opposite of fainting flowers. Susan B. Anthony barely flinched in the face of epithets, hurled eggs and death threats. Carry A. Nation swung an ax. Yet they were regarded by men as the regulators outside the game. Indeed, many 19th-century female reformers defined themselves that way — as reluctant trespassers in the public sphere who had left the domestic circle only to fulfill their duty as the morally superior sex, housekeepers scouring away a nation’s vice.

While the populace might concede the merits of the female reformers’ cause, it found them repellent on a more glandular level. In that visceral subbasement of the national imagination — the one that underlies all the blood-and-guts sports imagery our culture holds so dear — the laurels go to the slugger who ignores the censors, the outrider who navigates the frontier without a chaperone.

Certainly through the many early primaries, Hillary Clinton was often defined by these old standards, and judged harshly. She was forever the entitled chaperone. But that was then. As Thelma, the housewife turned renegade, says to her friend in “Thelma & Louise” as the two women flee the law through the American West, “Something’s crossed over in me.”

Senator Clinton might well say the same. In the final stretch of the primary season, she seems to have stepped across an unstated gender divide, transforming herself from referee to contender.

What’s more, she seems to have taken to her new role with a Thelma-like relish....

[swells]

I personally am not worried that the Dems might lose if Obama is the candidate. That is because I am quite comfortable with people experiencing the consequences of their actions. If this election is decided on race or other criteria that aren't sensible, then America will get exactly what America deserves. I have no problem with that.

[anne]

Swells:

"I personally could never vote for Clinton because of her character flaws."

Brad DeLong:

"And Greg [Mankiw] is right: it says a lot of bad things about the character of John McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton that they would do this."

Me, I love the character for the policy; nice policy, nice character.

[swells]

Anne, Faludi is an extremely insightful observer isn't she. I think she is exactly spot on in her analysis of Clinton's new found ability to draw male support.

[anne]

STR:

"Whoever runs really needs Ohio and Michigan, and the various candidates have interesting spins on the auto industry.

"McCain and Clinton - the auto industry needs to change, and we will do what we can to help.

"Obama - the auto industry sucks, and if you guys get crushed, so what."

[Naim Matasci]

"One thing the Democrats definitely need to do is give delegates from Florida and Michigan — representatives of citizens who voted in good faith, and whose support the party may well need this November — seats at the convention."

I take PK has good data to put up to show that this would have a net positive effect in a general election.

The problem is that voters might act resentfully when one ignores and overturns their votes through backroom deals and might decide against voting for a candidate that they feel "stole" the nomination.

So it boils down to the risk of losing FL and MI votes in the general election (unlikely, as FL and MI voters have no reason to be resentful against anyone else but their state party leaders whose actions or inaction caused this problem in the first place) versus the risk of losing every Obama supporter (in every state) who feels betrayed by the democratic party.

[ken melvin]

I've no doubt that Barack and Michelle are tow of the nicest people but his supporters are some of the biggest arseholes I ever seen.

says...

"Anne, I understand you are alienated."

It's not just anne. I can tell you that I live in a VERY liberal place. I can also tell you that internal democratic polling indicates that, now, 1 in 4 HRC supporters will not vote for O. That's pretty staggering. Anecdotally, I can say that this ratio holds true for the people I know, including me. I will not vote for O in a general election, although I would like to change the party in the white house.

He just doesn't connect at all with me, and I'm tired of the overly facile electioneering slogans tossed around about change. I seem to remember that someone else billed themselves as "a uniter, not a divider". This is another attempt by the Democrats to put up an intellectual guy from Harvard and get me to like him. Perhaps this is what passes for change in the Democratic party, but I can't get excited about a younger version of John Kerry with a different ethnic background that, in the end, really doesn't matter. For some reason HRC connects with me, a middle class raised sort of guy with blue collar roots. O doesn't. For some reason I connect with HRC when she talks, with O I feel like I'm being preached to.

So you can bandy about all the policy you want, all the talk of change but you know, voting for a president really doesn't come down to that I've decided. It comes down to who you get some form of sympatico with. And for most people, that's going to be HRC or McCain. And the democrats have shown no inclination to get it. It's a shame.

[AllanW]

The anne that posts amusing thoughts
And links to snappy things
Amuses me, delights me too
And makes my heart-bells ring.

The anne that snipes
And gurns
And gripes
Makes me say a bad word;
She repeats herself so many
Many
Many
Many
Many times
That she cannot be heard.

So give us more of posts and thoughts
We like them all the time
And stop the times when Dr Seuss
Controls your reason and rhyme.

[blackswan]

""I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.

'Clinton's blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.'

Hillary is doing her best to destroy Obama even if he wins the nomination. Maybe she figures if she destroys him politically, she'll have a better chance of being the one running against McSame in the next Presidential election.

[a]

"...For some reason HRC connects with me..."

Is it possible one day to hope that Americans treat the election of their President slightly differently than the election of the High School President?

[swells]

Says, I understand your point and you are, of course, absolutely free to vote for anyone you choose or not vote at all with my best wishes. That is what freedom is all about.

I also commiserate to a degree with you in respect to the slogans about change. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a politician sputter about change when none was subsequently forthcoming, I'd be several dollars richer at least.

It's hard for me to put my finger on why I think Obama means it. He is, after all, a politician. I'm sure it's in part because I agree with the basic position; i.e., that change is absolutely necessary and nothing is easier than to believe someone who agrees with you. So, to some degree, it's the optimist in me winning out over the cynic who is usually very much in the driver's seat.

So, my position is tenuous. Maybe I'm being played. Even if he's sincere, he won't be able to change politics by himself so even if he is sincere, I'd put the odds pretty low that politics will really change.

It's a long shot. Still, I come back to my belief that the long shot is the only thing that will work for the problems facing American in the upcoming years. It's just the only way I see any chance of reversing the death spiral that the US is currently engaged in.

It's my belief that we really, really need to start having the kinds of dialogue Obama says he will have with our political enemies and with our international enemies.

Hope doesn't come easy to me. For my part, it's a desperation gamble. If it doesn't happen, we're all well and truly screwed.

[hari]

First, voter alienation (Anne!) will result in low level of participation in the general election.

Second, from a policy perspective, I'm still wating for BO to simplify his rhetorics and get down to brazz tacks of what the voter expects of him - after 8 yrs of *the decider*. BO has to come down from his elite sloganeering to connect with the moderates and working class.

Three, invariably RACE will finally get a fair amount of coverage in this general election - who knows if it won't push McCain into the WH!

Four, compared to GOP, Dems are more like a split-personality. They're always able to cover-up their self-inflicted injuries including the whole issue if *white racism* - until they enter the voting booth!

Fifth, expect the Dems to split-up in the event they succeed to defeat themselves and allow GOP a third term. One can't really overlook this historical election - possibility of a blackman entering the WH - as a watershed in American politics ...or may be not.

[Lafayette]

Forestalling the bear at the door

s-t-r: McCain and Clinton - the auto industry needs to change, and we will do what we can to help. Obama - the auto industry sucks, and if you guys get crushed, so what. Paraphrasing of course

The decline over the past decade of the American automobile industry has been abrupt. From 73% of the market share down to just a tad less than 50% last year. That is almost 25% of market share gone up the spout.

And, this happened when the SUV-mania was promoted by assuring that these "trucks" did not have to meet tougher standards of pollution. What more of a break can you give the industry on the vehicle with one of the best profit margins -- SUVs?

I mean, did they think that the paradigm would last forever ... cheap gas and no surtax for pollution? Given such juvenile insouciance, is BO all that wrong?

Every time we give a break to an industry because they start yelping all over the media that otherwise "IT'S GONNA COST US A LOTTA JOBS!!!!!" it simply procrastinates the ultimate pain. We have too many industries that just don't want to face the music -- they are in terminal decline unless strong advances are not being made in their technologies.

Somewhere in their history, typically, automotive Top Management preferred reduced long-term product development investments in order to enhance profits. Until profits vanished and they were making just enough money to barely keep the furniture. They were then unable to make any investments in product lines that did not have an availability announcement of more than 18 months.

Detroit is anywhere from two to four years late in a hybrid model and as regards fuel cells, forget it.

What sort of further break (fiscal or otherwise) do they need to forestall the bear banging at the door? What?

[hari]

correction...

Four ...issue of *white racism*...

[btg]

Just because a candidate does better with certain categories of Democratic voters does not mean that the same will be true in the November election.

In general, there are very few blacks that are independents or Republicans, so this part of Obama's base doesn't exist amongstht eh non-Democratic part of the electorate.

HRC does well with older voters and with women - well, there is the gender gap and one can assume that even with Obama in the lead, many of these voters will still vote Democratic. This may not be true of non-Democratic b;ue-collar voters.

What none of this caputures is that Obama did well with independent voters - while many voters would never vote for a Clinton. Conversely, many white voters might not be able to bring themselves to vote for a black candidate.

[hari]

@ Swell -

Me thinks American political system as reached a watershed and needs to take stock of what's gone wrong with its precious *democratic deficit* and undertake a complete re-engineering of the political infrastructure in order to overcome the gridlock.

I'm recalling 1956 autumn - in the Bay Area - when Adlai Stevenson tried (same) liberal rhetorics to defeat Ike ...and failed miserably.

[Callahan]

If any Democratic candidate cannot beat George Bush 2 (McPain), then they might as well hang it up, and fuhget about it.

says...

"Is it possible one day to hope that Americans treat the election of their President slightly differently than the election of the High School President?"

What about connecting with someone indicates High School? Does that mean we're not supposed to vote based on some visceral unspoken connection to someone? I don't know about you, but words impress me not. It's the way in which they are spoken and the underlying fundamentals that get me. When I think that someone's experience or at least mental state allows them, as a leader, to be able to put themselves in my shoes and see the things that affect me. That's what I think is meant by that statement. And O just doesn't give me that. He gives me cold intellectualism. I want someone to know what it's like to be just a normal person like me, even if I know they live a different life. I got that from Bill and I get it from HRC. And I even get it from McCain, who just reminds me of my dad.

Just sayin....

[swells]

says, I do get it. You get to vote on whatever basis you prefer. No grief from me.

As for myself, I would love to experience some cold intellectualism in my lifetime. It would be a unique and refreshing experience, and considering where we are and how we got here, a darn good idea to at least try it once.

[Bupa]

If Paul is truly concerned about November, he should give advice not only to Obama but also HRC. What could be better for the Democratic party than for HRC to withdraw from the race and offer her whole-hearted support to Obama? Really, what single move could any human being make that would be more influential in bringing the party together than HRC using all of her leadership skills to rally around Obama a.s.a.p. Not a luke warm endorsement but a real endorsement. Not just an announcement and disappearing from view but an announcment followed by actively campaigning for Obama's election.

Disclosure, I am not a stary-eyed supporter of Obama. I am a reluctant supporter of Obama. I hope HRC can use her skills to ensure the Republicans are ousted from the White House and from as many Congressional seats as possible.

[hari]

Latest gossip I read - BO prepared to offer VP to HRC! - if she will accept it..and bring the fight to an end.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Lafayette:

I'm not defending the auto industry. I can criticize the Big 3 because I am not running for president.

If Obama wants to be elected he needs Michigan, and he should take Ohio just to block McCain.

How we got here should not be important to Obama, what we do next is important.

Bad mouthing (or ignoring) the United Auto Workers is not a good strategy. Ask John almost-president-except-for-Ohio Kerry.

Telling several hundred thousand UAW workers and spouses to go pound sand may not be a really smart general election tactic. Telling all of the Democrats in Michigan they are second rate compared to the voters in New Hampshire was not too bright either.

[akatsuki]

Krugman does have the NYTimes to espouse his rabid Clintonism, does he really need another venue? His myopic and biased view is beyond shameful - especially when, if we are going to apportion blame for splitting the party, somehow his candidate has been the innocent victim in this whole thing. I don't care about peace int the party if it means cozying up to a Republican in Dem clothing and HRC can pretty much go back to shooting shots of whisky, shooting her guns, dodging her bullets, and frankly, burning crosses, if she thinks it will get her nominated. Do I sound bitter? Sure, but the truth is why should I compromise on my principals to embrace someone who I actually find more morally repugnant than the opposition?

No mention of reasons why she might continue like her growing debt, the current lawsuit against her by Peter Paul which is hampered so long as this carries on.

[ScentOfViolets]

How probable is the O/C ticket, according to People of Importance? Let Obama be the Heart, make Hillary the Brains. There does seem to be precedent from the last 16 years (okay, the last two administrations) to give the VP slot unprecedented influence, after all.

I notice that at this point nothing irrevocable has been said or promised by either candidate that would preclude such a ticket, whether by luck or design, so why not roll out a few test swatches to see how such a line-up would poll.

And . . . think of the McCain team trying to counter by putting Rice in the VP slot :-) Wouldn't happen, of course, but it's fun to think about the subsequent voter reaction.

Btw, is it just me, or does McCain look like he's being operated by remote control? And, if so, would the canonical voter perceive it? They didn't with Reagan or Bush, but the third time . . . especially if the O/C campaign pointed at every opportunity _why_ McCain is looking like Bush 2.5.

[blackswan]

What akatsuki said

says...

"Is it possible one day to hope that Americans treat the election of their President slightly differently than the election of the High School President?"

What about connecting with someone indicates High School? Does that mean we're not supposed to vote based on some visceral unspoken connection to someone? I don't know about you, but words impress me not. It's the way in which they are spoken and the underlying fundamentals that get me. When I think that someone's experience or at least mental state allows them, as a leader, to be able to put themselves in my shoes and see the things that affect me. That's what I think is meant by that statement. And O just doesn't give me that. He gives me cold intellectualism. I want someone to know what it's like to be just a normal person like me, even if I know they live a different life. I got that from Bill and I get it from HRC. And I even get it from McCain, who just reminds me of my dad.

Just sayin....

[Joe]

Wow, a whole discussion on this rather explosive point -will white democrats vote for their nominee even if he is only half-white?--and not one empirical fact. NOt one bit of data.

First, even if Obama had 100% of the primary vote among every demographic group, it would tell you nothing, nothing about what distribution of those demographic groups he would get in the general election. Does anyone here seriously ceontend that point? Anyone?

Simple empirical test: what percent of White "working class" voters did Kerry/Gore/Clinton/Dukakis/Mondale get in the primaries compared to the general election? What is the relationship? I'll bet there isn;t a single person, Krugman included who will have the intellectual honesty to do this research.

But we do have some facts:
1. NYT article shows that the trend line in Obama's favorables among whites has gone up throughout the primary season, even faster than the bump up in his negatives among whites. By contrast Clinton's favorables among blacks has collapsed (~30 points). This tells us nothing about what happens in the general but it does tell us that internally the big story is not Obama looking worse to white democrats--it's not really true-- but that Clinton lost significant support among African Americans.
(can't find the link but it was from a couple days ago using trend in CBS/NYT poll results)

2. Gallup analysis of poll results between Obama and McCain 6 months out shows Obama's demographic breakdown almost the same as Kerry's vs. Bush at election time in 2004

http://www.gallup.com/poll/107110/Obamas-Support-Similar-Kerrys-2004.aspx

So we have data that tell us (1) Obama is not doing worse among whites in the primaries over time, and (2) his demographics are very similar to the traditional democratic coalition when placed against a republican opponenet.

Reaction?

[Joe]

Sorry link to gallup did not work:

http://tinyurl.com/55tfc6

[reason]

anonymous...
I hope you realise that being able to empathise with people is not enough. You have to understand what measures can effectively make a difference. And that is not always obvious (the law of unintended consequences). And why do you think that it is possible to help all the people and not hurt some of them (so empathy may make decision making hard)?

[pw]

I find myself at a loss in trying to understand what I see as PK's anti-Obama bias. I agree with him on most other things he writes. Where is the critical analysis of HRC's positions?

Moreover, I'm dismayed to see PK quote someone completely out of context to make a point that seems 180 degrees from what I observed myself. I watched CNN on Tuesday night and listened to Donna Brazile's interchange with Paul Begala. It seems very clear to me that Brazile was bristling at Begala's (and HRC's campaign in general) to divide the Democratic party on race and class lines. Her point was exactly the opposite of what PK claims it was.

My observation is that BO has personally resisted the urge to attack Clinton personally, but has been forced to do so by HRC's very personal attacks on him.

One last thing. Don't any of HRC's supporters feel any anger or disappointment with her for running one of the worst campaigns imaginable in the early going? What does it say about her judgment that she surrounded herself with people who told her what she wanted to hear (you're the inevitable candidate) and failed to plan for anything beyond Super Tuesday.

[Barkley Rosser]

Clearly what is needed for Obama to beat McCain is to learn how to bowl, to learn how to chug beer, to start shooting ducks, lots of them, with many different kinds of guns that he knows all about, and to start wearing lapel flag pins while threatening to incinerate the entire Axis of Evil.

[Joe]

It would appear many Obama supporters are upset at what Clinton herself has said about Obama (most of what will eventually be the republican attacks in the general minus the he's the most liberal person in the world), while Clinton supporters (on this blog and others) seem to be upset by what Obama *supporters* say to them on various blogs. Curious.

It's Obama's fault he won. I guess he should apologize.

[reason]

pw...
I think you don't understand PK. He is passionate only about policy, not about people, and he doesn't like some of BO's policies. Further he thinks BO gives too much credence to Republican talking points instead of taking them head on. Unfortunately, America has a presidential system and in a personal election, it gets personal. Krugman, I'm sure would rather be in the party room fighting for his policy preferences, under a parliamentary system.

[Joe]

Reason, are you kidding? What is Krugman, a monk? He has been very personal over and over, passionately. This is not about policy.

[bjb]

If Krugman is just about policy, then why does he continue to stick his nose into politics? This is about Krugman's obvious bias in favor of Hillary Clinton. Can you honestly say that Krugman glosses over all of Clinton's fallacies just because he favors her health care policy? And, by the way, how on earth does Hillary Clinton become one's choice to actually pass an improved health care policy? As for mending the party, Krugman refuses to acknowledge either Clinton's role in making this a race about identity politics or her obligation, in my opinion, to bring everyone under the tent, regardless of who gets the nomination. That was Donna Brazile's point in addressing Paul Begala, a point that Krugman takes completely out of context to serve his own prejudice. Until this primary is over, Krugman is dead to me.

[Bruce Wilder]

reason: "I think you don't understand PK. He is passionate only about policy, not about people, and he doesn't like some of BO's policies. Further he thinks BO gives too much credence to Republican talking points instead of taking them head on."

The problem I have with that story is that the policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so minimal as to be difficult to find or articulate. And, Clinton, darling of the DLC, is a past master of Republican talking points, from praising McCain foreign policy credibility to obliterating Iran.

Clinton and Obama differ very slightly on health care insurance reform, with one of them proposing to lead with mandates, and the other reluctantly proposing to follow with mandates, if necessary. Krugman has blown that molehill of a difference into a mountain, practically asserting that the difference in candidates is the difference between enacting and not enacting the sweeping health care reform the the country needs, progressives want, but that neither candidate advocates. But, when Clinton proposes a gas tax holiday, echoing a McCain proposal, he minimizes it as harmless -- never mind the Iraq War, Peak Oil, or Global Warming.

I am sure Krugman would like to see his own politics as policy-driven, but the evidence suggests a personality-driven politics, verging on derangement.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I should add that both the Ohio and Michigan Democratic parties in are in disarray due to massive and ugly scandals.

This self-inflicted disarray will require the Democratic candidate for president to work extra hard just to overcome these problems.

[reason]

Can you honestly say that Krugman glosses over all of Clinton's fallacies just because he favors her health care policy?

Yes - and Krugman would have prefered Edwards to either. I'm not saying he is correct (I would in fact prefer Obama for completely different reasons).

[blackswan]

A tip of the hat to akatsuki. Without his/her post, I would never have known about this.

When you buy the Clintons, you don't always get what you pay for. Imagine what happens when you elect them. Do you think any of that $100 million + they made over the last eight years involved influence peddling? This video shows there is no honor among thieves, unless, of course, there is a logical explanation for all this. If not, the real Rove desciples will make good use of this.

Spellbinding video (part 1 & 2)

http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObjector/entries/2008/02/29/peter-paul-and-hillary-video-and-info/2325

http://journals.aol.com/sazzylilsmartazz/TheConscientiousObjector/entries/2008/02/29/peter-paul-and-hillary-video-and-info/2325

[reason]

Krugman absolutely cares about health policy more than anything else!

[Bruce Wilder]

SoV: "How probable is the O/C ticket, according to People of Importance? Let Obama be the Heart, make Hillary the Brains."

Obama displays great intellect, and Clinton, sometimes, shows heart, even if it appears to many to be a black heart.

Standard political calculation demands that Obama offer the Vice-Presidency to Clinton, or something of roughly equal political value.

If Clinton were the committed policy wonk of Krugman's fevered imagination, she would demand support and advocacy for sweeping health care reform. Obama agrees to re-visit his health care proposals, and approach the subject with greater ambition and committment, to reconcile himself with Clinton and Edwards. Something along those line would be my fantasy for the kabuki, which frames the Clinton withdrawal.

But, Clinton is seeking power, and Obama will almost certainly have to offer a share of power.

The Vice-Presidency, improbably, has become a powerful office. The precedent of Mondale, Bush I, Gore and Cheney makes the Vice-Presidency a seat of real power, quite aside from the macabre calculations, which I am sure are being weighed in Camp Clinton.

From Obama's perspective, Clinton comes with considerable costs. Clinton is obnoxious and disliked in the country, and probably substracts more independent votes than she adds votes among disgruntled Democrats. The star power of the twin suns of the Bill and Hill Show will tend to distract in the campaign, and worse, in governing.

[blackswan]

sorry, this 2/2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&feature=related

[blackswan]

The hell with inexperience, Obama should go with Senator Webb, a war hero and former Secretary of the Navy. Yeah, he's had three wives, but McCain's had two.

[hari]

I don't know if you guys saw Edward interviewd in person on MSNBC on HRC/BO - and who he supported in NC. He refused to answer whom he'd support. But he did a pretty good job of defending HRC and how she manages to get up each day to go out and face the media - ALL against her now.

Bruce - is right that VP would fit her in the circumstances. However I'm not confident she'll be able to make a deal with BO. He needs to keep his gun dry - while the primary is still undecided or undeclared.

Finally, Paul is surely not an objective observer. He's admittedly committed to HRC and her wonkish policies. That's what attracts his intellectual disposition.

What I don't approve is how *unqualified* academics have also become savaging political pundits. That's how one debases (academic profession) the quality of debate and its benefit.

[btg]

"How probable is the O/C ticket, according to People of Importance? Let Obama be the Heart, make Hillary the Brains. There does seem to be precedent from the last 16 years (okay, the last two administrations) to give the VP slot unprecedented influence, after all."

To paraphrase James Carville:

It's the Electoral College, stupid!"

Apart from the ability of the Republicans to use every negative thing HRC has said against Obama in the fall, HRC will not win one state for Obama that he will win in any case.

And while HRC might win over a few extra women voters, she doesn't really broaden the base for Obama.

Obama needs to have a running mate who will either be able to win one or more states that went Repulbican in 200 or 2004 - Bill Richardson would at least win New Mexico, and maybe help to win a few other states with large Hispanic populations.

Better yet, Obama needs someone who can guarrantee a win Florida, or Ohio!

[me]

Larry Sabato from today's Financial Times:

"“I marvel at the widespread tendency to believe that Obama would have an easy time beating McCain in a general election,” says Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. “If you look at the support for Mr Obama, he would have a heck of a time winning the two biggest swing states – Ohio, because it is blue-collar, and Florida, because it is elderly. Some people even think he should write off Florida.”"

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c935d6e8-1d2c-11dd-82ae-000077b07658.html

PS anne, I too am offended.

[Bruce Wilder]

ken melvin says...
"I've no doubt that Barack and Michelle are tow of the nicest people but his supporters are some of the biggest arseholes I ever seen."

To get elected requires 51%. No arseholes gets you to, maybe, 17% of the vote.

swells: "I personally am not worried that the Dems might lose if Obama is the candidate. That is because I am quite comfortable with people experiencing the consequences of their actions. If this election is decided on race or other criteria that aren't sensible, then America will get exactly what America deserves. I have no problem with that."

Well said.

My feeling about the so-called white male working-class vote is that, if a flag-burning amendment and a gas tax holiday is necessary to get your vote, if you judge patriotism by lapel pins, then you are the arsehole. Shut up. Stay home. You and your beer-swilling sympatico have done enough damage.

Intellectually, I understand that my feeling is misplaced.

The decline of manufacturing employment means that the blue-collar vote is just a memory. 80% of the population recognizes that the country is in deep, deep trouble, and 70% understand that Bush had something to do with putting us there.

I understand that there are Hillary Clinton supporters, who are passionately bent out of shape, and angry at the arseholes. I hope they get over their damn selves.

Race matters. Clinton will get huge majorities in West Virginia and Kentucky, and McCain will probably carry those States in November. It is a sad evolution that has led from an overwhelmingly Democratic West Virginia making Kennedy the favorite for the nomination in 1960 to an increasingly Republican West Virginia voting for further self-destruction. But, West Virginia, thankfully, is not the country.

The ideological homogenization of American politics means that almost all the white racists are Republicans anyway.

2008 is a watershed election, marking a generational divide in our politics. It has all the markings of a so-called "wave" election, in which a new generation of voters tries out a political identification different from the past.

And, for people, who are paying attention, and not preoccupied by their narcissism, it is a desperation gamble on the future.

If this country cannot elect Obama because of race, if this country can choose such an obvious fool as McCain, then I will be ready to flush the U.S. away. Give France a U.N. mandate to govern Alabama. Let California secede to become a Canadian Province.

[Gerard MacDonell]

I will not pass judgment on Hillary's supporters. But she played the race card, which is despicable. I cannot believe any liberal would associate with her.

[Barkley Rosser]

daily kos presents the latest polls, which can change of course. There are states that Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain in than Obama. They include Arkansas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, West Virginia, and Kentucky, although current polls have McCain pretty solid in the last two and leading in NH. Obama is neck and neck with McCain in PA and FL, with only AR and OH states that currently look like they would switch from being solidly pro-McCain against Obama to solidly anti-McCain against Hillary.

States going the other way include Wisconsin, Iowa, Washington, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Virginia, North Carolina, Louisiana. Of these the first four look like the equivalent of Arkansas and Ohio for Hillary, total switches, with the next three being like FL and PA, and the rest being ones where McCain has a stronger edge against both, but Obama puts them into play while Hillary does not.

So, Obama needs to get out that flag lapel pin and those guns and bowling balls and...

[Barkley Rosser]

Oh, I should have said that Oregon and Hawaii look pretty strong for either Dem, but they are solid Dem under Obama, but close with Hillary the candidate.

says...

Bruce: I think the idea of California joining Canada is interesting. But I think it would be more like a takeover. I assume California is bigger than my native land, but I have not googled it. That would be a pretty cool country. Any chance we could have Wyoming too. I would give you Quebec, even though unfortunately they are less eager to leave Canada these days having been bought off big time.

I always thought the Maritime provinces of Canada and New England would make a very nice little country. Lots of brains from those clever yankees and some very gentle folk from up north. Could put together a pretty good hockey team, although not one to rival Canada or USA. And no arseholes from parts of this country I dare not mention as a visitor.

One really good thing would be I would not have to cross a border when returning home for summer break. The Canadian border guards are non-threatening but they are always worried about my taking in a low-price American toothbrush or something that I might sell to the locals. And then coming back, it is a NATIONAL SECURITY issue getting my Lexux hybrid back into the USA. Or at least it was. Now that I got a green card, buddy just says "welcome home". Ahhhhh Freedom! So far.

[me]

Bruce says:
"To get elected requires 51%."

The propblem is that Obama barely has 51% of his own party.

[Renee]

I think PK is right. The Obama people are not very gracious while winning. They act like vultures. Still Obama will be the next President. The power elite decided some time ago. They knew how to sell Bush, and Obama after 8 years of Bush and a Republican Congress should be an easy sell. The MSM has started to find fault with McCain already and will make Obama look like he is walking on water.

Obama will be the next President.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

OT:

Funny.....

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/number_of_acceptable_things

[DRR]

First: Why is it a race issue when it comes to black voters but a class issue when it comes to white voters and others with Krugman? By either economic or educational measuring standards it would seem Obama has mobilized quite a chunk of "working class" voters. Nothing against the "white working class" but I fail to see why they always must be first among equals.

Is Krugman ever going to get back to commenting on economic issues or something close to where he has an area of expertise and the most wisdom to effectively impart. Honestly his bitterness lately over the Democratic primary is so tart it's ruining the lemonade I'm drinking as we speak.

[btg]

"Bruce: I think the idea of California joining Canada is interesting. But I think it would be more like a takeover. I assume California is bigger than my native land, but I have not googled it."

California is 36 million people, Canada 33 million.

They must be really desperate to get out freshwater if this idea is floating about!

Michael Adams, a Canadian pollster, wrote a couple of interesting books that compared attides on both sides of the border. Massechusetts is politically very close to Canada on the political spectrum, as is the rest of New England (Within Canada, Quebec is the most to the left) - and even the furthest right Canadian province (Alberta) is no where near as right as Texas! By and large, the political differences between Canadian provinces and their US neighbours are not as large as the differences betwen the countries as a whole, because it is the southern states that tend to skew the US average.

says...

"thinking" about November? I just read Karl Rove's WSJ piece on the Dem candidates yesterday. Krugs column has a strange unsettling resonance with the Republican strategist.

The "white man question" has a weird tautology that few liberals seem able to break out of. In fact liberal Dems today seem well adjusted to the confines of what they firmly believe cannot be changed in the body politic.

On the one hand they are eager to practice the politics of legitimation by avoiding being "too radical" on a host of issues that includes leaving Bush Cheney alone without even an investigation panel, much less an impeachment hearing. The latterr, although destined to fail, would be a brilliant way of flushing out GOP Bush defenders before an election and using that as the main campaign against them.

But liberals hate the word "against". "We wanna show what we are for not against" goes the platitude (never mind the mileage the Right gets from being against everything from the Bill of Rights to Charles Darwin). So liberals seem to forget that the other side of legitimation is delegitimation. They have never waged the struggle needed to dethrone the Right's grip on state and church.

I remember when Bill Clinton got my vote before his first election. He was asked by some senior TV interviewer (Charlie Rose? David Frost?) what he thought was the major issue confronting American society. Without missing a beat Bill answered (like it was a no brainer).. "Race. The singlemost important challenge to the future of the nation is our failure to confront the problem of race." How ironic to watch Mrs. Clinton manipulate and confound the race issue on TV last night with a singularly inarticulate meandering on the "white man question" leaving it open as to whether she thought Obama needed to be reminded that half white aint white enough for her white male blue collar supporters. Ugh.

So I will try to remember Krugs' insight as the chorus of liberal cynics unites around their failed candidate that white men can't be changed and their racism should never be contested by liberals running for office.

Bill Clinton was wrong, the main problem in America is the collective ostrich act that has us silent in the face of a devastating war, dumb before the politics of a certifiable wingnut in the White House, weak in defense of our rights, accommodating to the re-writing of theology and deterrioration of the church and temple, obsequious to the corporate takeover of entire sectors of the economy, and indifferent to the foxnewsization of journalism.

Obama has crafted a third way in political philosophy and electoral campaign. Even old jaded lefties like me can see it. But smarter guys like Krugs can't. Could they be hanging out with too many white guys?

[anne]

Even as America is repeatedly attacking teeming civilian areas in Iraq for no reason that could have anything to do with our well-being, not to mention the well-being of Iraqis, 3 critical advisers of Barack Obama have told us that Obama has only a minimal determination to leave Iraq and we will likely be occupying the country for years to come with all the human and material costs occupation entails.

Challenging a Samantha Power or Susan Rice or Colin Kahl on Obama's policy in Iraq or Afghanistan or Somalia (I even remember war-ridden Somalia) seems impossible.

This however is only a single policy issue that is troubling for the avoidance.

[anne]

There is war and occupation, but there is also a move to universal health care insurance which again is being avoided in discussion even as Democratic policy makers are claiming there will be no funding for years to come and Obama has a health care insurance policy that is anything but universal and an economic policy that would make paying for a move to even broader insurance coverage all but impossible for years to come.

How do we offer tax cuts, remain in Iraq, increase our presence in Afghanistan, adopt pay-as-you-go policy for budgeting and pay for significantly broadened health care insurance coverage?

Then, there is Social Security. Will Obama be protecting Social Security, which has a massive and growing surplus, from advisers who wish to cut benefits and raise Social Security taxes?

[Bruce Wilder]

???: "the main problem in America is the collective ostrich act that has us silent in the face of a devastating war, dumb before the politics of a certifiable wingnut in the White House, weak in defense of our rights, accommodating to the re-writing of theology and deterrioration of the church and temple, obsequious to the corporate takeover of entire sectors of the economy, and indifferent to the foxnewsization of journalism."

Plus, what anne says about American aggression in Iraq, Afganistan, Somalia, et alia.

I am less concerned, really, about the reactionaries in the Republican Party or the "white working class", than I am about the determined complacency of elites, in the Media, Politics (and I include Democrats in leadership positions), and Academia, who just cannot seem to bring themselves to acknowledge or react to, policies of torture, corruption, perpetual war and national bankruptcy.

[anne]

Since education is so important, what of federal state revenue sharing to dramatically reduce tuition for public colleges and universities? What of leaving no child behind by actually increasing funding for public education?

What of developing green infrastructure programs both for the need for the infrastructure and the need to turn round what has been the weakest job market through an expansion since 1945?

Beyond hope as such, what precisely am I to hope for? I really want to know, and never seem to find out listening to Obama.

[agricanto]

And when I see the sign that points one way
The lot we used to pass by every day
Just walk away Renee
You won't see me follow you back home
The empty sidewalks on my block are not the same
You're not to blame
-------------------------
Cuddint resist since it seemed apropos given the one way streets that seem to comfort the Orwellian feminism that follows Hillary. Obama is a product of the power elite and Hillary is the sudden champion of the white male blue collar voting block whose bitterness cannot be referenced and whose confused world view must be accepted. White Feminists lay quiet as the testicular fortitude of their leader is marshaled against the handsome pansy mongrel from Chicago (and Hawaii, and Indonesia, and Kenya).
I love doublethink. I love Big Sister. We are at war with (Eurasia or Oceania?) and we support our troops and our leaders. The proles are with the party and the party is with the proles.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne, Obama doesn't have to be a saint, to get my support. He has to be better than McCain.

As for the policy questions, the main thing is to get the country onto a more rational and humane path. A lot of people are going to foolishly believe that McCain represents a more rational and humane path than Bush, and that bit of self-deception will be good enough for them.

I wish both Clinton and Obama had been more committed to a more radical departure from Bush. But, I understand that both were and are constrained by people's anxieties, expectations, and, of course a corrupt and incompetent Media controlled by a decadent corporate (Republican) plutocracy.

Mark Penn, praise for McCain, "obliterate Iran", the gas tax holiday, the race card, the DLC, and a bunch of other issues did not make the choice an easy or clear one. Clinton did not make herself the clearly better choice.

Now, we have to go with what we've got. Politics is often about changing course only a few degrees. Many years out, that few degrees will make many miles of difference.

anne says...

We invaded Iraq for all sorts of actual reasons, beyond those invented, among the reasons being the idea that an American-Iraq would be a terrific domino that would topple all the dominoes of the Middle East and then some. Look clos