Obama '08?

georgeob1 wrote:

Do you think the situation today is comparable to that in 1932?

No. But I do think Edwards's healthcare plan (and Clinton's clone of it) will work. Obama's more timid plan, which grants universal access to healthcare but stops short of imposing a mandate, probably won't.

joefromchicago wrote:

Actually, that letter writer's take on Krugman's article is pretty much the same as mine. Populism has failed as a unifying national platform. If FDR used populism (and, in my view, he didn't), it only succeeded because of the extraordinary circumstances of the Great Depression.

I suspect that you and Krugman merely disagree on your usage of the word "populist". By your standards, is Edwards's platform populist?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Meaning, there are those who would confuse who wrote that statement.
That should be obvious for those who know how to read.

cicerone, do you really think you add something to the discussion with juvenile jabs like that? What makes you any better than MM or okie if you rush to the stupid insults just as quickly?

0 Replies

snood wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Meaning, there are those who would confuse who wrote that statement.
That should be obvious for those who know how to read.

cicerone, do you really think you add something to the discussion with juvenile jabs like that? What makes you any better than MM or okie if you rush to the stupid insults just as quickly?

I'm not here to please you, snood. Get used to it.

0 Replies

Okay, man. Que cera.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Okay, man. Que cera.

Snood, what chances do you give Obama, now, with a couple of weeks to go in Iowa? It seems to me he has to win Iowa to have a chance.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

sozobe, quoting a letter to the NYT editor, wrote:
But historically populism has failed as a unifying national platform in part because Americans tend to dislike "class warfare." Also, policy change is most likely, and most likely to succeed, when it is incremental.

FDR will find that an interesting piece of news. He somehow missed the memo on this.

That was my immediate reaction as well.

0 Replies

I posted in the polls, bets etc thread:

"In the Obama '08 thread, especially, there has over time been a lot of discussion about Hillary Clinton's negatives. In polling terms, I mean: her high unfavourability ratings, the high number of people who say they absolutely won't vote for her, et cetera. If I can roughly paraphrase, one school of thought emphasises that her unfavourability rating is anywhere between 40% and 50%, which leaves little space to get elected, as even winning over everyone who is neutral about her wont be enough. The other school emphasizes that the number of people who view her [i]strongly[/i] unfavourably, or who say they will under no circumstances vote for her, is more equivalent to the core Republican support - say, 30%-40%, and that the rest can be persuaded still. That latter argument is fair enough: someone who tells a pollster that he has a "somewhat unfavourable" opinion of Hillary is hardly by definition lost. The campaign season will see an onslaught of political arguments and media coverage, and plenty of opportunities to change some minds. In the case of Hillary, that argument is weakened, however, by the fact that people know her already very well - or at least [i]think[/i] they know her very well already. She's been prominently in the public eye for a decade and a half, after all. In turn, however, Blatham especially has emphasised that a large part of the negative impressions of Hillary are the result of a sustained propaganda campaign, perpetuated by a barrage of media narratives and conservative talking points rolled out over time - which would still catch up with any Hillary rival if he were nominated instead as well. Voters dont really know her, this argument goes - a large part of who they think they know is a caricature, and now is the time on Sprockets when people get to find out that she's not actually a fireblazing witch, but in fact quite a sensible politician and an actual human being. Especially the sentiments of the group that feels only moderately negative about her are only skin deep and can thus be corrected. That argument raises the question: has this unfavourable impression of Hillary shown much flexibility over time? Has the proportion of people with a negative view of her varied much over the years as the propaganda for and against her had its ebbs and flows?"See the post there for the graph I ended up making.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Thomas wrote:
sozobe, quoting a letter to the NYT editor, wrote:
But historically populism has failed as a unifying national platform in part because Americans tend to dislike "class warfare." Also, policy change is most likely, and most likely to succeed, when it is incremental.

FDR will find that an interesting piece of news. He somehow missed the memo on this.

That was my immediate reaction as well.

Not to mention that, more recently, Al Gore may have been ridiculed by the media for his "People vs. the Powerful" shtick, but it did help him claw back from being far behind in the polls to winning the popular vote.

Journalists and pundits dont like populism. Really don't like it. Neither do the enlightened moderate folk - who are usually either materially well off or highly educated or both - who analyse politics and post on internet forums about it. The population at large is a different matter.

It's beginning to look more and more like the 2008 elections will not be about Iraq. Not be about foreign policy, or terrorism and security. They will be about the economy. A sense of economic insecurity is growing, and issues like "the economy", health care and health insurance, jobs, and even unemployment are rising in the ranking of priorities, the polls show. When asked about globalisation, clear majorities consider it a bad thing.

People are apprehensive, and are, for perhaps the first time since the early 90s, starting to look at the state or government again to provide some protection and compassion. 2008 could well be the year for populism, and whoever has his finger on it best has a good shot at winning the general elections.

On the Republican side, that appears to be Huckabee, while Rudy "Tough Love" Giuliani is out of touch on this one and dropping accordingly in the polls. On the Democratic side, I'd say it's clearly John Edwards. Hillary does her best to cultivate a populist appeal, but is even more hampered by her personality than Edwards admittedly already is. And Obama simply wont have it, doesnt want it, despises it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

snood wrote:
Okay, man. Que cera.

Snood, what chances do you give Obama, now, with a couple of weeks to go in Iowa? It seems to me he has to win Iowa to have a chance.

I tell ya, man - I honestly can't predict with any confidence. I'm heartened that he's made as good a showing as he has thus far. I don't think he HAS to win in Iowa to be still in it - but I think he has to be at least second place.

IF everyone who got asked about this was honest about it, I bet a whole lot of them would have to admit that they have been forced to raise their bar of expectations about Obama considerably since he first announced.

And that in itself has some small gratification for me.

0 Replies

Vietnamnurse wrote:

I just found out that there are 8,000 people volunteering to go to Iowa to knock on doors for Obama. My cousin called to tell me that she had not heard from the Obama representative for a long time...so she called to find out WHERE we were assigned. The fellow (young) told her that WE were no longer needed as there were so many that volunteered. My cousin asked, why he hadn't informed her as her friend/cousin had bought a ticket to fly to Chicago....

I was sooo disappointed not to be in on the process of the caucus as well as meeting people in Iowa, having lived there many years.

My cousin told the fellow that it was a shame because they need older people to get the message out for Obama. It would seem to make sense. I just lost a few bucks...but really am disappointed.

Aw, that's too bad Vietnamnurse!

Does it look like you'll be able to do some volunteering elsewhere? NH, SC?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

And Obama simply wont have it, doesnt want it, despises it.

What?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I suspect that you and Krugman merely disagree on your usage of the word "populist". By your standards, is Edwards's platform populist?

It's about as populist as a responsible candidate can get, I suppose.

0 Replies

The validity of the term, "populist" is in my opinion, overrated. They are all populists to some extent, or they wouldn't get elected.

0 Replies

I have a question for those who support Obama's approach of negotiating health care reform with the insurance industry. Let me introduce it with two paragraphs of background:

Obama, according to the health care plan on his website, intends to create "a national healthcare plan, similar to that of federal employees". Adult citizens then get the choice between signing up for it, buying health insurance in the private sector, and buying no health insurance at all. They must, however, enroll any dependent minors either in the national plan or a private plan.

Now, the healthcare plan for federal employees is fairly attractive. Let's say that several ten percent of the American workforce would opt into it if given the option. I haven't seen any precise estimates of the actual percentage yet. But whatever it is, it'll be a huge hit into the cash flow of private insurance companies. Major industries aren't known for sitting by as the government chokes off major revenue streams for them.

So let's say Obama does "bring the insurance companies to the table". Let's say he does negotiate with them. Here's my question: What exactly does he bring to the negatiating table for them? What can Obama offer to the insurance companies that would make them part voluntarily with a major percentage of their present revenue?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
I suspect that you and Krugman merely disagree on your usage of the word "populist". By your standards, is Edwards's platform populist?

It's about as populist as a responsible candidate can get, I suppose.

And in your opinion, how populist is that? Populist enough to belong in the category of what has "historically failed"?

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

nimh wrote:
And Obama simply wont have it, doesnt want it, despises it.

What?

Populism. Appealing to the "hell, yeah!" and "yeah, throw the bums out!" sentiments.

Remember that profile in the Atlantic:

nimh wrote:

Obama, a candidate torn between ideals and effectiveness

Quote:

Also, populism as in "the people vs the powerful". As in, playing on the widely spread (IMO justified) resentment. Excoriating the greed and power of the establishment, of big business. That by definition involves a "us vs. them" discourse. Obama wants to bring us all together. Wants to sit at the table with the insurance companies as well as the consumers, and hammer out a solution together in a constructive dialogue. Populist appeal, not so much.

0 Replies

I knew you meant populism, that was more a flabbergasted "huh??"

I looked up some definitions of populism since then and am a little less flabbergasted. The whole class war thing, well, no, that's not him. But empowering people, giving the disenfranchised a voice, all of that stuff -- heck yeah. This is the community organizer we're talking about, remember.

When I first looked up "populist," this was the definition I found and the one I was thinking of:

Quote:

A supporter of the rights and power of the people.

That's a big big part of what he talks about and what people like about him.

If it were just "Edwards is more of a populist," sure, I'd buy that. But Obama as some sort of anti-populist? No.

0 Replies

Hell no.

0 Replies

I think the politico definition may be a tad different from the one in the dictionary.

Isn't it one who seeks to ride a crest of wide net promises to victory?

Edwards would be the one.

0 Replies

Again, I'm not saying Edwards doesn't have a more credible claim to that mantel.

I just think it's a stretch to say that Obama "despises" (and won't have and doesn't want) populism.

I do think there are some different definitions at work though.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know