The latest polling has things very close in California with some even showing a lead for Barack Obama. Exciting stuff. It is worth noting that given the vagaries of the delegate allocation process, the odds overwhelmingly favor the February 5 outcome being fairly indecisive.
« Odom at the Three | Main | Innovation »
California Dreaming
03 Feb 2008 11:52 am
Comments (63)
I call party foul on the title of this post. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
PS: In the end, I think she will win CA narrowly, which in itself should be an important SL considering her advantages here but will raise the question of whether his momentum which is real will be enough in the end.
I think I should mention some of the tactics Clinton is using in California. Matthews's ex-colleague Harold Meyerson just reported some racially charged phone calls made in California which he guesses might have been made by Clinton or her supporters. Read his report at TAPPED
"Earlier Friday, I wrote a blog post in some haste, as I was and scurrying to catch a cross-country flight at LAX. The post talked about a phone call a friend of mine received while the two of were talking in his kitchen a little before noon on Friday, in which a gentlemen with a highly exaggerated black accent very loudly talked up Barack Obama."
"As I said, I have no reason to think the Clinton campaign itself sanctioned or had any knowledge of these calls. I cannot empirically verify that the call came from some group backing Hillary Clinton. But based on my knowledge of L.A. elections, I certainly believe it came from such a group, and the odds that it didn't are roughly the odds that O.J. was innocent."
I agree with Benjamin. Although the Super Tuesday delegates are almost certainly going to end up split fairly evenly, the question of who wins the most votes in the most states (regardless of how that translates into delegates) will be the most important thing. (As demonstrated by the coverage of the Nevada vote, in which Clinton was declared the winner by the media even though Obama won more delegates.) The media will almost certainly declare Obama is finished if he doesn't lead in votes in a majority of the Super Tuesday states. Also, since McCain will probably win an insurmountable lead in the Republican race after Super Tuesday, if Obama doesn't finish strong the Democratic establishment will ratchet up the pressure on him so the party can declare a champion.
I agree with Benjamin. Although the Super Tuesday delegates are almost certainly going to end up split fairly evenly, the question of who wins the most votes in the most states (regardless of how that translates into delegates) will be the most important thing. (As demonstrated by the coverage of the Nevada vote, in which Clinton was declared the winner by the media even though Obama won more delegates.) The media will almost certainly declare Obama is finished if he doesn't lead in votes in a majority of the Super Tuesday states. Also, since McCain will probably win an insurmountable lead in the Republican race after Super Tuesday, if Obama doesn't finish strong the Democratic establishment will ratchet up the pressure on him so the party can declare a champion.
More push-polling from the Clintons:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html
If she wins, I'm going to vote for her in November. But she's making it harder and harder.
Clinton has had the 2 major advantages of name recognition and establishment connections. Plus she's had a significant lead in national polling for a very long time.
So if Obama comes anywhere near tying her Tuesday, either in delegates or in popular vote, it's hard for me to understand how that could be spun as a Clinton win, no matter who wins California... especially considering that the February slate of primaries and caucuses following Tuesday seems to be so favorable to Obama: Kansas, Louisana, Washington (state), D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Guam, Wisconsin, Samoa.
I wouldn't be surprised if this thing is a virtual tie heading into March 4 -- Ohio, R.I., Texas, and Vermont --, but with Obama having all the momentum.
Yes, the new CA poll numbers---which basically show a tie with heavy undecideds---are pretty interesting.
Normally, given Hillary's far superior pre-existing name ID and also Obama's obvious momentum, these trends would almost certainly indicate a win for Obama, perhaps even a big win.
But the "X factor" for this race is basically...race. There may or may not be a sizable "hidden" anti-Obama vote among the undecideds, who would normally break sharply towards a newcomer with momentum. This may or may not have been a big factor in the NH surprise as well.
Anyway, we'll find out in around 60 hours or so...
"The media will almost certainly declare Obama is finished if he doesn't lead in votes in a majority of the Super Tuesday states. Also, since McCain will probably win an insurmountable lead in the Republican race after Super Tuesday, if Obama doesn't finish strong the Democratic establishment will ratchet up the pressure on him so the party can declare a champion."
I have to disagree on both counts. If it's close, it continues. After all, what Democratic establishment do you have in mind? The DNC, which the Clinton campaign has openly flaunted? Senate leaders, who are more or less split between Obama and Clinton? Al Gore?
If Clinton scored a resounding victory, perhaps there'd be pressure from both media and party establishment to move on to the next phase of the race. But if it's close, I doubt it.
Very encouraging for us Obama supporters. The longer this goes on, the more of a chance the Senator has to show his wares.
Frankly, the polls seem to be all over the map, and it's hard to say which is the real trend. My guess is that Obama has the real momentum, and the national polls probably haven't caught that. I am also not sure that they factor in Independents enough - and here is where I suspect he is probably several percentage points better than it seems, even nationwide. A lot of the state level polls suggest he is doing very well - even in CA, NJ, MA, CT. New York is probably a solid Hillary win, just as IL will go for Obama by a mile.
Given the massive leads Clinton had for so long, a draw/narrow loss for Obama is a big blow to her credibility. I doubt there will be more than 100 delegates in it either way, but I'd guess the night will end with matters pretty much even, and perhaps a slight overall lead for Clinton - maybe 50-60 delegates over Obama. (I am not counting MI or FL). After Super Tuesday, my bet would be some pretty thumping wins for Obama in the more scattered states before the big March madness. My guess is that he will raise much more than Clinton, and really hammer her before March, probably picking up endorsements from Gore and Edwards in the interim. By March, my bet would be an Obama lead of 100-120 delegates, and Clinton running short of money and credibility.
Anyway, this may turn out to be about as reliable as Punksutawny Phil, but I think it is worth seeing how people feel about this fascinating race.
I wanna correct the misunderstanding concerning what I say.
I don't believe the number of states or the number of delegates is going to yield a clear-cut answer and clearly unless there is a blowout of some sorts that would be unexpected I don't see anybody concluding the race is over based on either count.
What I do foresee though is specific to California. If Obama wins California, the media will treat it as a huge upset and THAT specifically will mould the rest of the coverage, especially if the rest of the states divide equally as we can expect.
Hillary Clinton's pal James Carville was trashing the Field Poll this morning. Which was, from Clinton's standpoint, strategically necessary. Because the most frightening part of this poll for Hillary wasn't the matchup with Obama at all: it was her 2% margin over John McCain in the general election.
Yes, just one poll. But if, for the sake of argument, Clinton vs. McCain in California stayed that close deep into the fall (a state that Democrats must have, and hasn't voted Republican since Mike Dukakis) we are in deep doo-doo. We can't afford to be spending millions trying to save California, while Ohio, Florida, et al slip away yet again.
Obama had a 7 point margin over McCain in CA. Certainly not anything to relax about! But better.
To be fair, bcamarda, both margins will grow substantively once the general election is in full swings, and McCain has to run as a Republican.
Right now, his high numbers are a function of people's fuzzy ideas of what he is advocating.
He is going to have start talking about abortion and staying in Iraq for a hundred years and trust, that his poll numbers in CA will go down quite fast. Whoever is our nominee, trust that the margin will grow by summer. For sure. Remember that most voters have only a vague notion of who is what. McCain won Florida voters who care about the economy. 'nuff said.
How will Clinton's lead in the mail-in vote be reported? As far as delegate count goes, all votes are equal...but as an indicator of who people like today they don't help much. And they won't appear in exit poll data, will they? I expect all manner of spin from both camps.
The media will almost certainly declare Obama is finished if he doesn't lead in votes in a majority of the Super Tuesday states.
I doubt it. My take is somewhat middle of the road in this discussion. I reckon the media really will begin to focus on the delegate total, since that's what ultimately wins you the nomination (not the popular vote) and since, finally, truly meaningful numbers of delegates are up for grabs. That said, I think if Obama comes in behind Clinton in the delegate tally from Tuesday's haul, but it really is close (say, 47-44, especially with a win for him in California), he's probably got the momentum -- as well as a slim overall lead in pledged (but not super) delegates, headed into an Obama-friendly schedule in February. Remember, Clinton already has a delegate deficit she needs to make up (if you don't count superdelegates). Obviously if Obama wins outright on Tuesday, the scenario is set for him to begin to pull away and rapidly consolidate toward the nomination. Democrats, after all, will at some point want to coalesce around a strong candidate, so as not to give John McCain too much of a head start in defining the race. And the rest of February indeed looks quite favorable for Obama.
On the other hand, if Clinton pulls out a win on Tuesday, and it's at least arguably a strongish victory (better than, say, five points or so in front of Obama in popular vote and/or delegate haul), the momentum probably shifts back toward her. One problem with running on momentum is that it's not as solid or as consistent or as dependable as a long track record or high name recognition. Momentum is an incredibly powerful force in politics, but it can be fickle. I don't see how Obama maintains it if his opponent manages a reasonably convincing victory on Tuesday.
For these reasons I suspect the winner in popular vote and delegate count (I realize the two don't necessarily have to be the same, but they almost certainly will be) from Tuesday's contests will go on to become the nominee. How's that for going out on a limb?
But doesn't the early voting clearly favor Clinton? She was way ahead and people were voting--and Edwards was still in the race too. So whatever the polls say, Obama's votes SHOULD be lower than that. If they aren't, then it is a true win for him. If he is close, that's still very good for Obama, because he would have won the vote of those voting Tuesday.
I agree Vaughan.
Hillary still has a clear edge, not just in California, but all across the country. This is similar to New Hampshire where the early voting really skewed in her direction and Obama's late momentum didn't help him enough.
I wouldn't be surprised if the polls showed him taking the lead, but he still lost convincingly.
In regards to early voting:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=428#comments
One poll (SurveyUSA) has 23% early voting, with Clinton easily winning 56 to 32.
Another poll taken a few days later (the more reliable Field Poll) has 43% early voting... with Obama slightly winning, 32 to 31.
Both of these are pretty good for Obama: he's actually winning in one, and only 23% of the votes are early in the other.
As a side note, to people who say Obamas #s will be lower than what the polls say: all polling companies take into account early voting.
In regards to early voting:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=428#comments
One poll (SurveyUSA) has 23% early voting, with Clinton easily winning 56 to 32.
Another poll taken a few days later (the more reliable Field Poll) has 43% early voting... with Obama slightly winning, 32 to 31.
Both of these are pretty good for Obama: he's actually winning in one, and only 23% of the votes are early in the other.
As a side note, to people who say Obamas #s will be lower than what the polls say: all polling companies take into account early voting.
The early voters are bad news for Obama IF a good chunk of them have changed their minds. If 20% of them change their minds in favor of Obama, he lost a 5% swing.
But also, contrary to Republican florida voters who discovered Rudy to have imploded wasting their votes, chances are that these are more committed supporters who followed the race and made a deliberate decision.
I think what's going on here is a "grass is greener on the other side" phenomenon. The race is very close, Hillary and Barack have very different strengths. So we get back-and-forth shifts of momentum. If Barack becomes the frontrunner I think people will suddenly start thinking about "experience" and push Hillary up again.
What it comes down to is that Hillary and Obama are going to be the ticket. At least, that's what I would guess.
Matt Bai speculates in today's New York Times Magazine that it may come down to the super-delegates, and gives some of the not-always-nice history on that, especially Gary Hart v. Mondale--he has quotes from Hart. He implies that it might not be fun.
I think that if that happens, it's not going to be fun in the blogosphere at bare minimum, where the supporters of each of the two candidates seem to hate each other far far more than the candidates themselves do--I predict conspiracy theories galore about the Clinton machine, DLC machine, DNC machine, machines galore.
MK: A combined ticket is really not going to happen. Certainly not Clinton-Obama. A senator has more power and influence than the VP would have in an administration that already has two presidents.
And there's no strategic reason for Barack to accept VP. After running this campaign, he clearly has the stature to run again if he wants to.
As for Obama-Clinton, why put her on the ticket? She has high negatives that don't help you in a general election.
No. It's a nice fantasy, cause I like them both -- though I don't much like HRCs *campaign.* But it ain't gonna happen.
"the odds overwhelmingly favor the February 5 outcome being fairly indecisive."
If either candidate wins 55%+ of the 2/5 delegates, this thing is pretty much over but for the shouting.
"Matt Bai speculates in today's New York Times Magazine that it may come down to the super-delegates"
Given that a candidate would have to win 65%+ of earned delegates to not have to depend on the superdelegates, I'd say "may" is too soft a word.
"it may come down to the super-delegates, and gives some of the not-always-nice history on that, especially Gary Hart v. Mondale"
The difference between '84 and '08 is that the entire Dem establishment was on one side in '84, while they are much more split today.
While Clinton would be the nominee if earned delegates are split evenly, if Obama could win earned delegates by a relatively small margin, I think Clinton wouldn't be able to rely on superdelegates to stop him.
In '84, Hart clearly won the earned delegates, but was wiped out among superdelegates. I don't think we're in line for that kind of scenario this year.
I predict conspiracy theories galore about the Clinton machine, DLC machine, DNC machine, machines galore.
There will be no need for conspiracy theories. If the superdelegates decide the nominee - whether they simply put one candidate over the top or let one candidate leapfrog the other - it will be a fundamentally undemocratic result generated by a fundamentally undemocratic system.
"If the superdelegates decide the nominee - whether they simply put one candidate over the top or let one candidate leapfrog the other - it will be a fundamentally undemocratic result"
Given the math, the odds of the superdelegates deciding the nominee by your definition are basically 100%.
Neither candidate is going to get to 2025 without the superdelegates.
Given the math, the odds of the superdelegates deciding the nominee by your definition are basically 100%.
If that's true (and Petey's hardly ever wrong), then we haven't heard the end of the FL and MI brouhaha either.
"then we haven't heard the end of the FL and MI brouhaha either."
We haven't heard the end of it because there is no downside for Team Clinton to keep bringing it up over and over again.
But at the end of the day, it won't matter.
- If the convention is decided, they'll be seated.
- If the convention is narrowly pro-Clinton, they'll be seated.
- If the convention is narrowly pro-Obama, they won't be seated.
Whoever has a majority on the floor will decide FL and MI. And so it'll obviously be a straight Clinton/Obama proxy vote if things are close.
-----
In short, for the sake of deciding the nomination, FL and MI won't count in the least.
But chatter about seating them will be a talking point for Team Clinton.
- If the convention is narrowly pro-Clinton, they'll be seated.
If the convention is narrowly pro-Clinton solely on the strength of super-delegate support and those delegations are seated, I predict riots in most major cities.
"If the convention is narrowly pro-Clinton solely on the strength of super-delegate support and those delegations are seated, I predict riots in most major cities."
Would the precedent be the riots in most American cities after the '84 Democratic convention nominated a candidate who got significantly fewer votes and significantly fewer delegates than his opponent?
Or would the precedent be the riots in most American cities after the '00 general election produced a President who clearly lost the popular vote and likely lost the electoral college vote?
-----
And again, your notion here just reinforces the point about the irrelevance of the FL and MI delegates.
If Clinton has enough support to seat FL and MI, that means she has enough support to win the nomination without FL and MI.
There's just no scenario where FL and MI decide who wins.
"If the convention is narrowly pro-Clinton solely on the strength of super-delegate support and those delegations are seated, I predict riots in most major cities."
Moreover, the Clintons will be despised by many - the majority, even - of their party. What will the GOP do if they're able to lay any claim that HRC stole the nomination?
Why is that HRC continually reminds me of Madame de Merteuil in "Les Liaisons Dangereuse"? The question is when, not if, HRC loses face.
Would the precedent be the riots in most American cities after the '84 Democratic convention nominated a candidate who got significantly fewer votes and significantly fewer delegates than his opponent?
My precedent is the 1968 convention in Chicago, where Hubert Humphrey, despite not competing in the primaries, used his majority of undemocratic delegates to brush aside the anti-war candidate and secure the opportunity to lose to Richard Nixon.
Still, that catastrophe led to pretty serious reforms in the primary system, and voters seem to be more engaged in the Democratic primary now than at any time I can remember, and the candidates are sorta unique this year, so there may not be a good precedent.
So what happens if Clinton has the most elected delegates and superdelgates break for Obama and he gets the nomination? Is everyone going on record that no matter who wins the superdelegates that this is an affront to the Democratic Party and an assault on democracy?
Is everyone going on record that no matter who wins the superdelegates that this is an affront to the Democratic Party and an assault on democracy?
Yep.
Is everyone going on record that no matter who wins the superdelegates that this is an affront to the Democratic Party and an assault on democracy?
Yep.
It would be much better if pledged delegates decide the nomination, no matter who that favors.
"My precedent is the 1968 convention in Chicago"
Ah. But, of course, the "riots in most American cities" took place from '64 to '67, and were basically over by the time of the mess in Chicago.
"It would be much better if pledged delegates decide the nomination, no matter who that favors."
I'm actually pretty sympathetic to having a role for superdelegates.
Their existence provides a disincentive against running against the Party.
I think the current number of superdelegates - 20% of the total - may be a bit too high. But the basic concept seems correct to me.
Not to state the obvious, but since nobody else here will: predicting "riots in most major cities" if Obama is robbed is a blatant racial reference, is it not?
predicting "riots in most major cities" if Obama is robbed is a blatant racial reference, is it not?
Uh, no. Again, I was referring to significant political turmoil along the lines of 1968, when there were riots in Chicago (without a racial tenor, so far as I know) while McCarthy was being robbed. Appreciate the implication, though, thanks.
Southpaw, there were no riots in Chicago's NEIGHBORHOODS during the August 1968 convention. (There were in April after King was assassinated.) Nor were there "riots" at the time of the convention in any other city.
There were huge demonstrations in Grant Park by largely young, heavily white antiwar protesters which were brutally broken up by Daley's pigs ... err, "law enforcement." The Walker Commission investigation correctly ruled the events a "police riot." For anyone with memory or knowledge of the 1960s, to say "riots in major cities" over Obama has a clearly racial implication.
"There were huge demonstrations in Grant Park by largely young, heavily white antiwar protesters which were brutally broken up by Daley's pigs ... err, "law enforcement." The Walker Commission investigation correctly ruled the events a "police riot."
Yup.
"there were no riots in Chicago's NEIGHBORHOODS during the August 1968 convention ... Nor were there "riots" at the time of the convention in any other city."
Yup, again.
What I found faulty in southpaw's history here is that the urban riots of the 60's (which were fundamentally racial in nature, of course) were over and done with by the time of the Chicago convention.
For anyone with memory or knowledge of the 1960s, to say "riots in major cities" over Obama has a clearly racial implication.
I have no memory of the 1960s, and apparently my knowledge is pretty limited. So if my comment offended you, I apologize and I hope you'll chalk it up to a poorly chosen hyperbole and not racially coded language.
The sum total of what I meant to say is that selecting a nominee in a patently undemocratic fashion is bound to really upset people, especially in a year when the public appears to be massively engaged in the nominating process. In other words, if Hillary is nominated solely on the strength of her superdelegates and the uncontested MI and FL delegations, that's a recipe for turmoil.
Hillary is crushing Obama in the early votes, which began the day after she "found her voice" in New Hampshire. Obama would have won Florida had there not been early votes.
As an Obama supporter, I find this disappointing. So, my fellow Obama fans in later states, get ready to vote! I know I am.
"if Hillary is nominated solely on the strength of her superdelegates ... that's a recipe for turmoil."
It's a recipe for disillusioned young voters, not a recipe for riots.
I would prefer if the nomination went to the candidate that won the most delegates via election.
However, since the superdelegate structure for the nomination was established by the DNC in August of 2006 the candidates have to abide by whatever the results.
it is comical to compare this situation to 1968.
obama is not even that strongly identified as the anti war candidate.
what is obama trying to gain here?
what agenda is he pushing that makes it so vital that he stay in the race?
is it just because he's not a clinton?
are you suggesting the party be split because obama wants to "lead a movement" that rejects the "politics" of the last elected democrat?
obama is an embarrassment if he stays in after tuesday, when he will be thoroughly defeated.
likening his candidacy to 1968 shows that his supporters are deeply disturbed and swept up in a personality cult.
they want to send up a guy that has served less than three years in the senate to clean up the biggest mess of government since the great depression.
the obama "momentum" meme is a huge joke manipulating obama's huge ego and his gullible supporters who keep sending him money so he can buy advertising so his supporters can be told how great he is.
he is in the way of destroying the bush and republican agenda. by keeping the focus on him, we can not focus on the real problem: bush and the republicans.
deal with it punks.
Southpaw, I'll gladly give you a pass based on youth and the fact that the history of the '60s apparently is not taught honestly in our schools. The powers that be wouldn't want children to grow up knowing that once a upon a time Americans believed they could change the world. So all they are told of the era is great music, embarrassing closing, lax hygiene, easy sex and copious drug use.
I watched the Chicago convention live on black and white TV at the age of 11 and will never forget it. Kids being dragged and beaten by thuggish police, so much tear gas that it reached the convention hall, Sen. Abe Ribicoff on the podium denouncing "Gestapo tactics on the streets of Chicago," Daley screaming at him from the floor, "You fucking Jew, you fucking kike," and the pathetic Hubert Humphrey, unable or unwilling to say or do anything about it. We got Nixon, and in many ways it's been downhill for our country ever since.
I think something in our nation has been in mourning ever since King, Bobby and that convention. Dare I say that for those of old enough to feel that grief, Obama touches something so deeply buried we had forgotten it was there?
I know Hillary's Hacks will scoff. Yes, I voted for your Slick Willie, but I never respected or trusted him. And he richly earned that distrust.
Sure, Obama's a politician; so were the Kennedys. (And he doesn't have a daddy to steal elections for him.) But anyone who can say before 20,000 people (St. Louis, Saturday night) that our children should be learning poetry rather than constantly being drilled for tests has won me for good.
"Dare I say that for those of old enough to feel that grief, Obama touches something so deeply buried we had forgotten it was there?"
Go to fucking therapy for your sorrows. But don't vote for the candidate trying to sabotage universal healthcare to win votes.
Social justice is what Bobby Kennedy was campaigning on in 1968, not substance-free uplift.
Don't tell me you're on the HRC wagon now, Petey.
I have to say I find something a bit suspect in the intensity of Krugman's Obama-bashing. I can't think of any other Dem he has targetted this way. And - even assuming he's right on healthcare - Krugman doesn't find any time to push the other direction on issues where he agrees with Obama more than Clinton, like being against the Iraq war before it was cool.
"Don't tell me you're on the HRC wagon now, Petey."
I think I'm going to hold my nose and vote Clinton.
If you'd have told me six months ago that I'd end up voting Clinton, I'd have laughed in your face.
"And - even assuming he's right on healthcare - Krugman doesn't find any time to push the other direction on issues where he agrees with Obama"
The next Congress is the best opportunity we're going to have to pass UHC since we missed a chance in the early 70's.
Krugman is concentrating on it because it's the right thing to be concentrating on right now.
If Obama was selling out the Party on any other issue, I could forgive the trespass. But not this issue at this moment.
The next POTUS is the best chance we have to end US military adventurism in the Middle East, bar none. The difference between the candidates on the war is greater than on healthcare, and of course the President does control military policy, whereas it's Congress that will dispose on healthcare. Not new points for you, I'm sure.
Anyway, the much-awaited "Petey endorsement" has been rolled out just in time for Super Tuesday. It will drive Maria S. off the front page...
"The difference between the candidates on the war is greater than on healthcare"
This confuses me.
Obama and Clinton have utterly identical positions on Iraq, but completely opposite positions on UHC.
"Anyway, the much-awaited "Petey endorsement" has been rolled out just in time for Super Tuesday. It will drive Maria S. off the front page..."
Petey had influence during the invisible primary when the junkies were the only ones paying attention.
Now, all I have is a vote, which I will uncomfortably use for Clinton.
If by identical positions, you mean one enabled the US invasion of Iraq while the other opposed it, you're dead right. And if by identical positions, you mean one is surrounded by advisors who supported the invasion of Iraq while the other is surrounded by advisors who opposed it, you're dead right. But of course, you know this as well anyone ...
"Now, all I have is a vote, which I will uncomfortably use for Clinton."
Say it ain't so, Petey.
Have you read Chris Hayes?
"Say it ain't so, Petey. Have you read Chris Hayes?"
Tribally, I'm with Obama. Most of the folks in the Party whom I normally side with are in the Obama camp.
But UHC trumps all that for me.
But UHC trumps all that for me.
We've disagreed about UHC before, and there's no need to go into it all again. I'll just note that renowned anti-progressives like Atrios seem to agree with me that mandates are awfully tough to sell politically.
If I recall, you thought that Edwards was the one and only candidate who could make that case. I don't know if you still believe that. But if you do, I think your support should logically go to Obama. He's likely to have much longer coattails than Hillary, and a big democratic majority is the best shot progressives have at truly universal health care.
"If I recall, you thought that Edwards was the one and only candidate who could make that case. I don't know if you still believe that. But if you do, I think your support should logically go to Obama. He's likely to have much longer coattails than Hillary, and a big democratic majority is the best shot progressives have at truly universal health care."
You recall correctly.
I have profound doubts about Clinton's political commitment to sell UHC, as well as doubts about her abilities to make the case effectively if she does end up having the courage.
But over the past month and a half, Obama has put himself in a box where he's literally going to be unable to push for UHC even if he wants to.
I think Krugman put it fairly today:
If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.
Throughout 2007, I was willing to give Obama a pass on his lousy healthcare plan to the extent that I was willing to happily vote for him if Edwards didn't make it.
But Obama's decision to actively campaign on an anti-UHC platform has made it impossible for me to vote for him, despite the fact that I'm not very happy about voting for Clinton. He's just not going to be politically able to make a U-turn on mandates in a year or two.
I find myself a single-issue voter this time around.
But Obama's decision to actively campaign on an anti-UHC platform has made it impossible for me to vote for him, despite the fact that I'm not very happy about voting for Clinton. He's just not going to be politically able to make a U-turn on mandates in a year or two.
I disagree. Krugman's putting a lot of significance into one admittedly dodgy mailer. I think it's more useful to look at what Obama says about the issue in debates, it's all "I haven't met the folks who refuse to buy healthcare" and "Senator Clinton has a perfectly legitimate view."
Perhaps I'm putting too much significance into Obama's rhetorical framing, but it seems to me that he's shading his language to allow for the possibility that mandate advocates are right on the facts. If there are Democrats in Congress ready to pass a universal program, Obama can discover that there are enough freeloaders and adverse selection problems to warrant mandates.
Hillary, I fear, is going to get so thoroughly bashed over the head with her "going after people's wages" quote that she can't go near the issue. As if she didn't bring enough baggage to the healthcare debate before this . . .
I have to say I find something a bit suspect in the intensity of Krugman's Obama-bashing. I can't think of any other Dem he has targeted this way.
There's nothing suspect in it at all. Krugman's a true liberal on economic matters, and wants the economy to once again be safe for non-plutocrats. I'm sure he realizes the political stars are aligned for a once in a generation move to the left (unpopular and disastrous war, weak economy, deteriorating GOP demographics, etc.). He therefore is no doubt desperate to make sure we get it right this November. He sees Hillary Clinton -- somewhat of a traditional New Dealer on economic issues -- as the person best suited (now that Edwards is done) to get national UHC enacted. Not only would such an accomplishment plug up the largest gap in the safety net, it would move the whole national dialog in favor of progressive economics and a robust safety net. In other words, it would put the Republicans on the defensive, and they'd have to start explaining to a skeptical public why it is that they oppose something so obviously commonsensical and effective as robust social democracy.
This election has the potential to be a game changer. Krugman gets that. Also, being a serious economist, he understands the worldview of an Austen Goolsbee, and isn't thrilled at the prospects of such political economy becoming the lodestone of a Democratic president's domestic policy.
Comments closed February 17, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Yes but to be fair, considering the expectation game right now, even with a delegate tie in CA and a very narrow victory for him in CA, if he came up on top here, that would clearly make the media storyline about him winning Feb 5th.
Concretely, the delegate count will be close no matter what. What is going to be important is how the media cover it and no doubt that were he to win California, that's what they will breathlessly highlight.
Mark my words.
Posted by Benjamin | February 3, 2008 12:05 PM