After Gas Tax

Maybe this is just wishful thinking, but it seems to me that the failure of the Hillary Clinton gas tax holiday gambit may prove to be something of a watershed in the politics of climate policy. A lot of thinking by political people over the years has been dominated by the idea that the public is absolutely fixated on cheap gasoline by any means possible. We seem to be seeing, however, that that's not necessarily the case. Obviously, that's not to say that the public is now going to run to embrace Yglesias-esque schemes overnight, but it does show that the boundaries of political possibility may not be quite where most folks thought they were.

Meanwhile, I think it continues to be noteworthy that most of Barack Obama's most impressive moments have been essentially counterattacks to silly gambits from Team Clinton -- not just this gas tax business, but the "naive and irresponsible" diplomacy, etc. -- and I'm not really sure if it's noteworthy in a good way or noteworthy in a bad way.

Comments

Well, somebody was projecting we'd hit $200 a barrel oil in the next two years which some guy worked out to equal $7.50 a gallon gas.

If that happens Yglesias-esque plans might be pretty damn palatable... after the rioting stopped, of course.

Posted by J.W. Hamner | May 7, 2008 7:23 PM

Here's a question I have about the gas tax. Some countries in Europe have gas taxes equivalent to $8 per gallon. Why haven't taxes that high led to the widespread adoption of alternatively-powered cars in Europe?

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2008 7:26 PM

I think the real nail in the coffin for the gas tax holiday was that it wouldn't reduce gas prices by the 19 or so cents anyway. Not even for a day would it go down that much--and soon it'd be right back where it was beforehand.

And all the jobs and repairs would be lost.

But I'm just guessing, of course. So sue me.

Posted by riffle | May 7, 2008 7:26 PM

Why haven't taxes that high led to the widespread adoption of alternatively-powered cars in Europe?

Because Europe has pedestrian-friendly cities and usable mass transit.

Posted by James Gary | May 7, 2008 7:28 PM

Jerome Armstrong still needs convincing, because he thinks the fact that Hillary won late-deciders yesterday in Indiana is proof that her gas tax pander worked. (Of course, he conveniently ignores that late-breakers have gone for Clinton in the 45 contests before the Great Gas Tax Pander of Aught-Eight)

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/7/164935/7400

Posted by Ready for change | May 7, 2008 7:30 PM

Here's a question I have about the gas tax. Some countries in Europe have gas taxes equivalent to $8 per gallon. Why haven't taxes that high led to the widespread adoption of alternatively-powered cars in Europe?

Because "alternatively-powered cars" are a long way off? The things it has lead to is a robust and popular mass transit system and a dearth of gas guzzlers on the road.

We're the only people who think it's our god-given right to have cheap gas to run our massive SUVs. Go to streets Shanghai or Brussels and it will be hard to find anything like our Expeditions or Tahoes. Even the delivery vehicles tend to be smaller.

Posted by ben | May 7, 2008 7:32 PM

most of Barack Obama's most impressive moments have been essentially counterattacks to silly gambits from Team Clinton -- not just this gas tax business, but the "naive and irresponsible" diplomacy, etc. -- and I'm not really sure if it's noteworthy in a good way or noteworthy in a bad way.

Well, gee, Matt. What about (1) opposing the war and (2) bringing young voters to the polls and (3) the Obama doctrine and (4) the national voter registration drive and (5) the speech on race and all the other stuff? Don't get snowed by the obsessive horserace coverage.

Posted by southpaw | May 7, 2008 7:33 PM

What makes Obama's response to things like the gas tax and his "naive" foreign policy so impressive is that they are so completely unlike the usual Democratic response in previous years.

Traditionally the proper response to an opponent hitting you on a pandering gas tax scheme is to try and create some pander of your own and claim that you're going even further. Obama refused to take that way out even in the face of an impending, crucial election and not only insisted that the issue required a long-term, large-scale approach, a strategy that requires the voters to take a more nuanced view, but called Hillary out on suggesting such a weak measure.

On the foreign policy question, he didn't say he misspoke on anything or said that the differences between the two were exaggerated -- instead, he made the issue of talking to foreign enemies a central part of his platform.

That these unflinching responses, while difficult to maintain during a difficult news cycle, ultimately were successful should signal to Democrats everywhere that responding to Republican attacks with some defensive assurance that they're just the same only kinda different are not only ineffective in that they water down policy, they're ineffective politically as well. This has been said for years, especially by the blog-based activists community, but Obama seems to be the first politician in forever who actually gets it and follows through with it.

Posted by Dan Panorama | May 7, 2008 7:38 PM

So what's your answer to Bryan Caplan's question:

How expensive will gasoline have to get before the federal government brings back price controls? My guess is $5.50. What's yours?

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/05/name_your_price.html

Posted by ed | May 7, 2008 7:40 PM

Some of the other stuff:

- The speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church

- $233 million from over 1,500,000 individual donors

- The sleek, nationwide, grassroots organization.

Posted by southpaw | May 7, 2008 7:45 PM

I think you're grasping a little Matt. This didn't have much to do with climate policy.

The gas tax holiday proposal by Clinton was viewed by some in the media as a gesture showing she was more in tune with the financial struggles of ordinary Americans. Could it be that the proposal showed how out touch Clinton is? It smacked of a "here's $30 for your problems."

On top of that, it was bad policy, poor economics and would do nothing to force people to use less gasoline.

Posted by Ben | May 7, 2008 7:46 PM

I think riffle's basically got it; the reason people didn't buy the gas tax holiday is that they were convinced (along with all reasonable people and every economist in the country) that there's no way the "holiday" would actually lead to cheaper gas. I imagine that if the Clinton/McCain plan were to simply cap prices at the pump at some lowish price, support would have been much higher, even if the plan were far worse in economic terms.

Posted by Jesse | May 7, 2008 7:46 PM

what about the security perspective. I would be curious to see the results of a poll that asks something like:

"Would you be willing to willing to pay $8 per gallon of gas if it reduced our dependence on foreign oil, eliminated the need for a military presence in the middle east, and significantly reduced the chances of another 9/11-like attack on the United States?"

the 9/11 part would need to be reworded but the idea is that we frame foreign policy in terms its effect on the consumer.

{I would bet that most people would be OK with $8 gallon gas)

Posted by yep | May 7, 2008 8:14 PM

What Dan Panorama said. Word!

NPR actually reported something line "Senator Obama countered McCain by saying the gas tax holiday doesn't go far enough...". I had a genuine WTF'inF? moment listening to this until I realized the reporter was really using an old script and hadn't had paid enough attention to notice that it wasn't , you know, true.

Another impressive thing about the whole Obama campaign is how measured their responses and counterattacks have been. No drama.

Posted by kvenlander | May 7, 2008 8:37 PM

I question the premise here. How clear is it that the gas tax didn't work? Obama was supposed to win Indiana. His spreadsheet said he would. In recent days however HRC pulled into the lead in polls. Then she won more narrowly than people expected. What is the counterfactual that shows that the gas tax was a failed gambit? The fact that in some poll x percent of people said they were against the gas tax plan is not dispositive. It is often profitable for candidates to take positions popular with a minority if the minority is more likely to vote on the issue.

It's too convenient for people who don't like the gas tax and don't like HRC to say she used the gas tax issue and she didn't do as well as she needed to, therefore the gas tax issue didn't help or was a liability.

Posted by Vito Marzullo | May 7, 2008 8:44 PM

I'd love to think this is a watershed in politics and its relationship to the media, but look at it this way: innuendos about sex, race, patriotism, religion, and whatever the heck "elitism" means play to a receptive audience. Pandering by policy shifts does not, because it ruins the whole media fun and games. Unless you're McCain, I guess, since calling him on it would require the ruining the fun and games, too.

Posted by John Haber | May 7, 2008 8:54 PM

"Because "alternatively-powered cars" are a long way off?"

They're actually here now, just not cost-effective at $3.50 per gallon gas.

"Because Europe has pedestrian-friendly cities and usable mass transit."

That's a good point, though $8 per gallon gas here wouldn't turn Los Angeles into The Hague. It will lead to a surge people converting their cars to able to take E-85, along with a surge in E-85 filling stations. That's the most likely response, since it's a lot cheaper to convert a regular car to a flex-fuel one than it is to buy a brand new electric-only car from Tesla, Zenn, etc.

Anyhow, it's not going to happen anytime soon. Oil is due for a pullback this year. I don't think the fundamentals alone justify a 100% year-over-year increase in its price.

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2008 8:59 PM

Until I start seeing a slowing in growth in both India and China or a increase in the supply (like say Nigeria ramping up to 100%), I think oil is more likely to go up than down.

Part of the problem with E-85 is what the source is. Corn isn't very efficient, sugar is.

I might be wrong but weren't/aren't diesel cars much more popular in Europe? Not exactly an alternate fuel, but they are more efficient.

Posted by daveNYC | May 7, 2008 9:34 PM

$8 per gallon gas here wouldn't turn Los Angeles into The Hague.

It could if it forces more drivers into taking mass transit and those former drivers vote for better mass transit.

Sugar-based ethanol fuels (like E85) are a giant subsidized scam. They require far too many resources (water, fuel, cash subsidies), have played havoc with world food prices, and produce a more CO2 per unit of energy than gasoline.

Posted by ben | May 7, 2008 9:49 PM

Jerome Armstrong still needs convincing, because he thinks the fact that Hillary won late-deciders yesterday in Indiana is proof that her gas tax pander worked. (Of course, he conveniently ignores that late-breakers have gone for Clinton in the 45 contests before the Great Gas Tax Pander of Aught-Eight)

It's not just that Clinton won the late deciders -- she won the deciders in the last month, the last week, the last three days and the last day, all at about the same margin. The biggest shift was between last month and the others, at which point her margin went *up*. A quarter of the exit poll sample decided in the last week or less, and Clinton won those by 14%.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | May 7, 2008 9:50 PM

1) I thought Obama's opposition to the gas tax repeal would hurt him a lot more in North Carolina and Indiana than appears to have been the case.

I was wrong. (Don't any of you guys faint from syncope)

2)I do have to wonder whether Obama would have won even more strongly if he had pandered with Hillary and John.

Posted by Don Williams | May 7, 2008 9:51 PM

Because Europe has pedestrian-friendly cities and usable mass transit.

Also, don't forget about a larger propensity for ride-sharing. If gas gets to $5-$7/gallon, you can bet I'll be advertising on craigslist for anyone who wants to split fuel expenses in exchange for a ride to northeast the next time I visit my family.

Posted by Tyro | May 7, 2008 10:42 PM

Fred,

As others have pointed out, you are artificially constraining the question by limiting the possible substitutes to alternative-fuel cars. Indeed, in addition to walking and public transit there are also bicycles, mopeds, scooters, motorcycles, and microcars.

Also, there is a technology hangup with electric cars and hybrids, namely the batteries (the rest of the technology works just fine). Assuming at some point they get the battery problem solved (and the big car companies are betting on it), I suspect we will see electrics and hybrids start increasing rapidly in market share.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 10:45 PM

"...I'm not really sure if it's noteworthy in a good way or noteworthy in a bad way."

It's the good way. I've noticed too that these are some of his best moments, and I've decided that it's because these are the moments that allow him to engage in what politicos seem to want to call "contrast," using the silly Clinton policy as a foil to illustrate one of his basic messages. As a practitioner of the different kind of politics, Obama has eschewed the more Republican types of contrast (that have nevertheless been used on him), so when he can hammer her butt on a legitimate issue that is easy to explain in a short stump speech, he seems to grab on to it with real verve.

Like a lot of people, I think that if there were more easy-to-explain policy differences between them, we wouldn't have to spend quite so much time listening to flag pin crap.

Posted by moose | May 7, 2008 10:52 PM

Incidentally, I question the premise of Matt's second paragraph. Specifically, I think if you are in the small minority of people who follow politics as much as Matt (and admittedly I) do, then that might be the case. But I suspect from the perspective of the broader electorate, something like his first few post-primary speeches count as Obama's most impressive moments in this campaign.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 11:04 PM

Many of your people are unbelievable ignorant and shortsighted.
A pathetic bunch of petroholics bickering over a few cents more pr. gallon. Already you 5% of world's population consume over 25% of our common resources.
In Norway we pay $11 pr. gallon, and we want to increase that..maybe up to $15. That way more people will use public transportation.
In some mysterious way the tax money does not disappear, but are used to finance our welfare state…Pension ,free health , free education etc.

The World is like a runaway train heading for the abyss..but you are comfy sitting 1st class and demand more speed.

Btw. Obama is right. gas tax holiday (Jehosaphat what a silly name for a stupid media stunt ) will fill the moneybags for BP, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips and no impact for the American consumer.

Posted by Daga | May 7, 2008 11:09 PM

DTM,

The batteries work (see A Better Place, Tesla Motors, etc.). The cars just aren't cost effective yet. It's cheaper to buy a used Honda for $10k and pay $3.50 per gallon for gas than it is to buy a Tesla roadster for $100k (their follow-up mass market sedan will probably retail for $50k).

Regarding E-85, my point wasn't to debate it's merits but to note that it would be the most logical choice for the average American if our gas prices approached European levels. The converter is a lot cheaper than a new Prius.

"Until I start seeing a slowing in growth in both India and China or a increase in the supply (like say Nigeria ramping up to 100%), I think oil is more likely to go up than down."

Then load up on oil stocks or buy the commodity. I'm long on a few oil stocks, but I'd like to be out of them before the bubble pops.

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2008 11:22 PM

Nothing like getting lectured by a Norwegian about oil. If you're worried about us using too much gas, you could always stop selling us your oil.

Posted by Fred | May 7, 2008 11:33 PM

I'll be interested if Hillary still touts the gas tax holiday after it clearly did not work for her. If not, it will be fully exposed as the political stunt Obama said it was. If she truly believes it's the right move, she will still push it. Conditions with gas prices obviously have not changed.

Posted by Myron | May 7, 2008 11:39 PM

Fred,

Yes, the batteries work in the broad sense (otherwise the cars wouldn't work), but the battery problems are directly responsible for why plug-in EVs and hybrids have not yet been mass-marketed. The basic problem is that the batteries currently available won't last through enough recharging cycles. To address this, vehicle makers are basically giving the cars in question bigger batteries and not charging them completely, which extends their life. But that also makes the batteries heavier, reducing range for EVs and fuel-efficiency for hybrids, and the cars more expensive.

So, yes, the battery problems translate into a cost-efficiency problem. But if and when they solve this problem and can get enough recharging cycles at a full charge, it will help address the cost-efficiency issues.

Posted by DTM | May 7, 2008 11:53 PM

Fred said:

Nothing like getting lectured by a Norwegian about oil. If you're worried about us using too much gas, you could always stop selling us your oil.

The secret in life is to enjoy as much as you can, but always in moderation.
You don't blame the bartender when you've had a few too many do you ?
In a way you are right..we want the oil production to slow down. That's why we refuse to open the Barents see for further exploration. Contrary to Bush' plan for Alaska. In part because this is the breeding ground for arctic cod and salmon, but also to slow our economy…it is overheated.

Posted by Daga | May 8, 2008 12:00 AM

By the way, I agree if there is a rationale for food-based ethanol at all, it is as a transition fuel between today's gasoline vehicles and tomorrow's electric/biodiesel vehicles. The problem with this theory is that even as a transition fuel, it will require large fixed costs investments to provide food-based ethanol on any sort of scale, and those investments may have a limited return period as the fundamentally more efficient vehicles follow along. So, it may well make sense to bite the bullet and pay to swap the vehicles faster, skipping this intermediate step.

Posted by DTM | May 8, 2008 12:04 AM

we have no idea whether the gas tax proposal from Clinton worked against Obama.
The wonks hated it because it was bad policy, but I am not sure that wonkish opposition moves many votes.
I do think that she mugged McCain and stole the first domestic policy initiative of his campaign. Up until McCain put forward his gas tax holiday, gas prices worked for Democrats as an example of the bad economic policies of Bush and Co. Every time you filled up the tank, you were going to hate Bush more. But McCain offered a plan to lower the price by about 20 cents, not much but something. Democrats were supposed to drag out some economist wearing a helmet with rear-view mirrors and bicycle shorts to tell you that McCain's plan wouldn't really work, and that high gas prices were good for the USA. WOW! That would really work.
McCain was trying to steal the issue of gas prices from the Democrats.
Clinton stole it back, and by proposing a tax on windfall profits made it unpalatable to Republicans.
None of it was going to pass anyway, but she sufficiently muddied the waters that gas prices are not going to be a GOP issue in the fall.

Posted by tom in ma | May 8, 2008 12:07 AM

Let's add another thing to the list: more than half the new cars sold in Europe run on diesel. Though it costs more than petrol, it gets more mpg or km/l. LPG (liquigas) is available at most petrol stations in Britain. The government provides a tax break for conversions.

Ford and GM/Opel sell a smaller, more fuel-efficient range in Europe than they offer to Americans. Detroit is going to lose out at home to Scion, the Honda Fit and Toyota Echo, in spite of putting out small, fuel-efficient cars for the rest of the world (including flex-fuel cars in Brazil) because it bet the farm on high-margin SUV and truck production.

That's a shift in attitude beyond the whole Prius thing -- and with hybrids, we're only just reaching the point at which end-of-life issues for the battery kicks in.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 8, 2008 12:23 AM

Diesel cars were big sellers in the U.S. for a while, after the oil shocks of the 70s. Diesels can also run on eclectic sorts of bio diesel.

"because it bet the farm on high-margin SUV and truck production."

Toyota and Honda have been selling high-margin trucks and SUVs here as well; Prius has been a loss-leader for Toyota. Ford has also sold a decent small car in America for years, the Focus, and GM is planning to launch the mainly-electric Chevy Volt in 2010.

Posted by Fred | May 8, 2008 1:00 AM

To add to what pseudonymous said, a lot of the diesel cars in Europe are high-efficiency diesel engines that get mileages in the range of our gas hybrids. If I remember correctly, high-efficiency diesel engines never caught on here because diesel cars are perceived as dirty and underpowered (and I think I remember reading about a chicken-and-egg problem with the grades of diesel sold here, but I don't have a link.)

Posted by Redshift | May 8, 2008 1:04 AM

Matt,

what it shows is that obama won't succumb to the same tendencies of kerry. essentially he won't take the wrong side of an issue simply because he doesn't want to look soft on defense. he's not going to embrace a universally-acknowledged horrible policy simply because it'll win him a few votes. this shows that he's the type of democrat i want to represent me.

Posted by James | May 8, 2008 2:22 AM

Howard Dean and the Far-Left, Wealthy, Elite of the Democratic Party fear that a second Clinton presidency would also focus on political expediency, reaching out across the isle when necessary, and failing to implement their radical agenda and failing to focus on their attempt to seize total political control.

As a result, the elite of the Democratic Party decided that their best interests would be served by supporting a candidate that would drive forward their agenda and would not depart from the elite party line. The DNC leadership along with the powerful and wealthy far-left elite decided to turn their back on Clinton, just as they previously had turned their back on Joe Lieberman.

So here is the question… How do you overcome the Clinton Political Machine and install your own elitist candidate and take political control of your party? Last fall, Clinton was the quintessential Democratic front-runner. She garnished popular support from nearly every segment of the Democratic Coalition: Low Income and Middle Income Democrats, Democratic Senior Citizens with high voting consistency and turnout, Unionized Democrats, the African-American Community and Hispanic Community.

The Answer… You create your own candidate from a blank slate and opportunistically disenfranchise large segments of the Clinton voter coalition.

The far-left elite of the Democratic Party had found the ideal candidate: A well spoken, inexperienced junior senator from Illinois. Barack Obama was a blank slate: inexperienced (no political skeletons in the closet), a powerful speaker, African-American, and had never crossed party lines or the Democrat Elitist Agenda on any major issue. The wealthy and elite now had their candidate.

Step One: Paint your ideal candidate as a great unifier, able to end the divisiveness in Washington and change the political polarization that Hillary Clinton represented. Although Barack Obama had little experience, he also did not bear the scars of previous political fights or have the political skeletons in his closet. Although Obama has essentially voted directly down party lines and has shown no ability to work with the Republican Party, the DNC, unchallenged, was able to paint the highly liberal Obama as a moderate politician able to transcend party lines.

Step Two: Overcome Obama’s inexperience by utilizing his great speaking skills. Because Obama is a great speaker, he is able to talk about change and focus the election, not on his experience, but on his Judgment of opposing the “evil” Bush Administration. By pushing a highly populist agenda that a large government can solve our individual problems, and deflecting all of our nation’s problems onto the unpopular Bush Administration, American Voters have been hypnotized into overlooking Obama’s policy positions and elitist views. For instance, Obama's calling for an increase in taxes on people making over $200,000 per year, so that the middle class does not suffer higher taxes. But at the same time, calling for the raising or removal of the tax cap on social security; a policy that would automatically increase taxes by over 6% on every middle class American making $80,000 - $200,000 per year.

Step Three: Break up the Clinton voter Coalition. By choosing Obama, as the elite-left’s choice, Dean and his cohorts automatically removed a major segment of the Clinton Coalition: The African American Vote. As any politically attuned person knows, Democrats traditionally carry 80%-90% of the African-American Vote. In a general election the black vote makes up 15%-20% of the electorate, with an even higher ratio of 20%-40% in the democratic primaries. By removing this block of Clinton Supporters, the DNC was able to drastically change the outlook of this primary.

Next, the elite-left leadership put together a strategy for Obama to campaign directly to the middle-upper class of the Democratic Party and take advantage of Obama’s youth and idealistic inexperience to attract the youth vote from the University systems. Although a relative non-factor in past elections, a motivated youth vote could offset the Clinton stronghold on the senior votes.

Step Four: Use A Rove Strategy. During the primary season, candidates have typically relied upon only a handful of key states that vote early in determining the outcome of their candidacy. Most candidates dump a majority of the resources into these key states. Using a Karl Rove type strategy, the elite-left leadership encouraged the Obama Campaign to focus not on states such as New York, California and Massachusetts, where Clinton would likely pick up large numbers of delegates; but rather focus resources on smaller Midwestern caucus states in which voter turnout was typically low (meaning that an influx of younger voters and African-American voters could easily swing the outcome), and Obama could piecemeal enough small victories to offset the delegate counts from the larger states.

The strategy would give Obama an opportunity to make this race tight, but it would also require that he win early and build a lead. Here is where the DNC took full advantage of voters. With 20 states, such as Illinois, moving up there primaries to have a greater influence; states such as Florida and Michigan, which have traditionally been key states in general elections looked to maintain their importance by assuring that their primaries played a more influential role. The problem for the elite-left was that these states were Clinton strongholds, and they knew that the traditionally the candidate who became the front-runner after the early primaries, would also become the benefactor of momentum and massive endorsements as the party unified behind them. In order for the elite-left to maintain any opportunity to seize total control of the party, they made the decision not to penalize Florida and Michigan, but rather to completely strip these states of their delegates; disenfranchising millions over Democratic voters residing in key general election states. Prior to the DNC delegate stripping plan, most pendants expected the DNC to penalize candidates who campaigned in these states with up to half of the delegates from the states. Thereby, allowing Florida and Michigan voters to have a strong influence in the election, but also penalize the states by removing the campaign attention they received. The stripping of Florida and Michigan’s delegates is not only important because these were well-known Clinton strongholds, but more importantly, the early momentum Clinton would have gained from these contests would have carried over into Super Tuesday.

Dean and the rest of the far-left elite knew first hand the importance of the earliest primaries. Dean’s ailing campaign experienced a boom of momentum and funds after his early victory in the 2004 primaries, quickly becoming a front-runner who self-destructed as quickly as he had risen. With Florida and Michigan’s 350+ delegates removed (roughly 8%-9% of the total available delegates) the elite focused on the Iowa caucuses. Knowing that Clinton & Edwards would split the working class vote, Obama’s campaign was able to take the state. With Iowa came momentum, a wholesale shift in African-American Support, and a steady flow of elite democratic endorsements.

The wealthy and elite far-left of the party however still had to overcome the other large states where Clinton garnished support. They needed to take advantage of the ways delegates were awarded in order to suppress a potential comeback by Clinton. On Super Tuesday and afterwards, the Obama campaign and far left have focused on caucus states with lower turnout and more easily manipulated by the influx of first time African-American and youth vote turnout. Building a small lead on Super Tuesday, the elite left began rolling out endorsement after endorsement for Obama, and worked diligently to create the façade that Obama’s delegate lead could not be overcome. In previous primaries, these endorsements and calls to unity worked, and Dean and the Elite-Left assumed that the unprepared Clinton campaign would fade quietly into the night, therefore solidifying their power-grab.

The Clinton’s fight-on not only to preserve their families’ political influence, but I believe that because both Clinton’s genuinely care about the United States and our proud of this nation. Although Hillary Clinton continues to campaign on a populist platform, which I believe is not what has made this country great, she does maintain a genuine concern and appreciation of the public. Unlike Obama, Clinton does not view this nation as a second-class society that needs to have their hands held by those few enlightened individuals who look down upon America and speak to Americans as if we are misguided children.

STEP FIVE: DO NOT TREAT ALL VOTES EQUALLY. Our forefathers had the insight to abandon a pure democratic society and implement policies that would equalize & protect American voters from politicians that would pander on focus on only densely populated areas, unequally distributing rights and wealth into these areas, in an attempt to secure and maintain political power. They understood that the lifeblood of our vast and diverse nation existed in every American, not just in the big cities. It is ironic that today, the very fear of our founding fathers is coming to fruition before our very eyes. The elite-left understood that with their proportional delegation system, that if Obama could piecemeal together enough delegates through the caucus states, and states with a large African-American turnout, then his home state of Illinois would give him enough delegates to prevent Clinton from overcoming his narrow lead. The Elite-Left focused on imbalanced delagatory policies that existed within Clinton Strongholds.

Texas: Clinton wins a majority vote with a 4 point lead. Clinton also wins in over 80% of all counties in Texas and 18 of the 31 congressional districts. Yet, after the Texas caucuses in which less than 10% of Texas democrats participated, Obama walks away 99 Delegates to Clinton’s 93, essentially disenfranchising the 1.45 million Texans that gave Clinton a Primary Victory.

Ohio: Clinton Wins Ohio by 10 points (54%-44%), a landslide by political standards. Obama only wins in 5 of the over 70 counties in the state, and Clinton also achieves victories in 14 of the 18 congressional districts. Yet, because of delegates being disproportionately awarded to districts in densely populated areas, Obama walks away with nearly 47% of the delegates.

Pennsylvania: Clinton wins by 9 points, again a landslide by political standards.
Clinton wins in over 90% of counties and 14 of 19 congressional districts. Yet, like Ohio, Obama walks away with nearly 47% of the delegates.

In reality, as of May 2nd, Obama only led Clinton by 159 pledged delegates, less than 5% of the total available Democratic Delegates. Obama also leads the popular vote, not including the disenfranchised Florida and Michigan by around 500,000 votes. In Illinois, Obama won by more than 600,000 votes. Yet these numbers don’t include the millions of votes disenfranchised in Florida and Michigan; and the inconsistent and imbalanced method of awarding delegates in states such as Pennsylvania, who clearly demonstrate that a vote in Pittsburgh doesn’t quite equal a vote in Pennsylvania.

Howard Dean and his far-left, wealthy, and elitist backers, expected the Clinton Campaign to fold after Super Tuesday. Supported by elitist endorsements, media friendly coverage of Obama, and the disenfranchisement of millions of Democratic voters nationwide, the elitist far-left has clearly shown that this election is not about working class America but rather about power.

I commend the Clinton campaign for continuing to fight for what they believe is best for this nation. Democratic Elite have blamed the Clintons for causing chaos in the Democratic Primaries and possibly damaging the party in November. However, let’s remember that until January, Clinton was the front-runner and presumably would be anointed the Democratic nominee. Most political analysts agreed that unless she stumbled and fell, or self-destructed, she could not lose the nomination. The fact is that Hillary Clinton did not stumble or fall, her campaign did not self-destruct. So I ask: What Changed????

Many political pundits want to compare this primary season to the political civil wars that happened in 1912 and 1968. However, unlike those previous party breakups whereas moderates battled for control against the far-right or far-left; the civil war occurring now in the Democratic party is being fought by the far-left elitist faction and the left-of-center Clinton machine, with moderate Democrats dumbfounded sitting on the sidelines. Now is the time for moderate Democrats to stand up to the rich, elitist, far-left leadership of their party and end the polarization caused by these elitists who will suppress any voice of opposition and end the madness.

Sidenote: How is it that John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the Governor of Massachusetts, all super delegates, support a candidate that lost by 15 points among their constituents? Perhaps, just perhaps, power is more important than the voters.

J Brown
05/05/2008

Posted by no hold | May 8, 2008 2:30 AM

Note that the above pack of lies was also posted on the "MI/FL Excuse" thread as spam under the poster name of "Vote for McCain".

Posted by Don Williams | May 8, 2008 3:31 AM

Fred: "Oil is due for a pullback this year."

Not when the Iran war starts. You're looking at $200-250/barrel.

After that, until the war ends, fergeddaboudit.

Not to mention that the lousy 2.5 million barrels a day Iraq is producing will stop dead, too, when the Shia take on the US for Iran's sake.

You want oil shock? Bush and Cheney have your oil shock right here.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 8, 2008 4:28 AM

Quote J Brown

Howard Dean and the Far-Left,Wealthy, Elite of the Democratic Party fear that a second Clinton presidency would also focus on political expediency, reaching out across the isle when necessary, and failing to implement their radical agenda and failing to focus on their attempt to seize total political control.
As a result, the elite of the Democratic Party decided that their best interests would be served by supporting a candidate that would drive forward their agenda and would not depart from the elite party line. The DNC leadership along with the powerful and wealthy far left elite decided to turn their back on Clinton, just as they previously had turned their back on Joe Lieberman.
So here is the question… How do you overcome the Clinton Political Machine and install your own elitist candidate and take political control of your party?

A classic example of monomania Even small children know that "the wealthy far left" is a contradiction-- And elite ? From where I observe the political life in Washington the "left" seems powerless and marginalized against the military industrial media religious complex.
Let me give you an advice..free of charge. The hazard of listening too much to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and the other rightwing nuts is that you after a while start to sound like them yourself-so people who dont know you might think you are mentally challenged. Open your eyes to an alternative source of information...a different way of looking at the World

I wouldn't call it fascism exactly, but a political system nominally controlled by an irresponsible, dumbed down electorate who are manipulated by dishonest, cynical, controlled mass media that dispense the propaganda of a corrupt political establishment can hardly be described as democracy either: Edward Zehr

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.": Mussolini

Posted by Daga | May 8, 2008 5:24 AM

Toyota and Honda have been selling high-margin trucks and SUVs here as well; Prius has been a loss-leader for Toyota. Ford has also sold a decent small car in America for years, the Focus, and GM is planning to launch the mainly-electric Chevy Volt in 2010.

You cannot possibly have made this argument not in jest. There's a difference between "selling" and "betting the farm." Honda's best selling cars are the 4-cylinder Accord and Civic. Toyota's flagship is the Camry. While the Focus was decent, Ford's flagship, best-selling car was the F-150, and that's what it concentrated on. GM didn't even have anything that could compete with the Focus.

The Prius only came into production because the US gov't started allocating public money to encourage American automakers to build alternative cars, and Toyota made the mistake of thinking that American automakers were going to take this initiative seriously and worried about being "beaten to the punch." Turned out that Toyota had nothing to worry about, but now they own the "brand" as the company with the nice hybrids.

Posted by Tyro | May 8, 2008 7:34 AM

Not when the Iran war starts.

I realize this is an article of faith with you, Mr. Hack, but even as someone repulsed by recent US foreign policy in the region, I wouldn't bet on this happening. Basically:

a) The US can't manage it. Overstretched.

b) Stratospheric oil prices get Republicans booted out of office for a generation

c) With the mullahs toppled, the whole excuse for occupying Iraq goes away, and more generally, the whole domestic political strategy of 'fear up' becomes unsustainable. Republicans lose.

Posted by Ryan | May 8, 2008 8:14 AM

The DNC is backing Obama over Hillary? Don't make me laugh.

Posted by Daddy Love | May 8, 2008 10:08 AM

Reality was only a factor this time because it worked to Hillary's detriment and everyone agrees Hillary is a monster bitch who must be stopped at all costs.

Cutting gas taxes may become a great idea in the future if somebody more likable is pushing it. Like McCain.

Posted by Decided | May 8, 2008 10:18 AM

Shorter no hold: Elite! Elite! Elite! Elite! Elite! Elite! Elite! Elite!

Posted by AG | May 8, 2008 2:07 PM

Regarding the gas tax, tom in ma ( May 8, 2008 12:07 AM ) stated: "I do think that she (HRC) mugged McCain and stole the first domestic policy initiative of his campaign". Actually McCain had one excellent idea, repeal the $0.54 cent per gallon tariff the U.S. charges on every gallon on ethanol the Brazillion's make from sugarcane.

Posted by JimB36 | May 9, 2008 12:56 AM

Regarding the gas tax, tom in ma ( May 8, 2008 12:07 AM ) stated: "I do think that she (HRC) mugged McCain and stole the first domestic policy initiative of his campaign". Actually McCain had one excellent idea, repeal the $0.54 cent per gallon tariff the U.S. charges on every gallon on ethanol the Brazillion's make from sugarcane.

Posted by JimB36 | May 9, 2008 12:56 AM

Fred, Ben:
I think the other point that makes adoption of alternative modes of transportation less likely as a result of high gas prices in europe is size: The US is simply huge compared to anywhere in europe, and people think nothing of driving from New York to Miami (which can take as much as 24 hours of driving, no stops included,) or taking a cross country car trip, from Boston to LA, for a week (about 50 hours of driving, no stops included.) (I know several people who have done both, repeatedly, in the last 2 years, after prices started getting high.)

In Europe, it is much less usual to drive 1000's of miles, not only in general, but on a lark. America has a consumer car culture, so we will be quicker to adopt a truly fuel efficient vehicle that doesn't stink. Once we see 100+ MPG cars, people will start thinking that $300 for gas to drive to California, or $130 for gas to go to Atlanta is reasonable, even at $10/gallon gas, which is still not quite likely without Yesglasias-esque schemes, and would certainly still be cheaper than flights with gas that expensive.

Posted by David Manheim | May 9, 2008 9:34 AM

Re: European market diesels: Aside from market demand (or the previous lack thereof) in the US, the other factor impeding the use of modern European diesels was the high sulfur content of diesel sold in the US. Now that diesel sulfur levels have been lowered, there's going to be more effort from European car companies to sell them here.

As for why the big 2.5 focused on large trucks and SUVs: profit margins. It's hard to make small cars and have them be profitable - which gives you some idea of how badly Saturn was doing that they have essentially dropped all but one of their US designed / built cars and started rebadging Opels. Making small cars that are decent and sell well is hard work, which is why domestic manufacturers are either importing their small cars, building them in collaboration with foreign manufacturers, or making superficial changes to cover over decade or more old designs.

Posted by Colin | May 9, 2008 11:03 AM