|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
The Edwards Effect
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| The Edwards Effect
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Fdubya247 |
Krugman's been taking his Fdub101.... ;)
He's a wise dude.
:roach:
February 1, 2008
The Edwards Effect
By PAUL KRUGMAN
So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.
But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.
To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.
At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.
If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.
It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.
Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.
With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.
But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.
Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.
Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.
Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.
And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.
Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows.
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn’t all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.
Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.
One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.
Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.
If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.
:ps: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
This is the crux of my intuitive apathy towards Obama thus far... |
|
|
| zimmie |
| Maybe Krugman can pull a few strings and get Edwards a job doing what he used to do; an adviser to Enron |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
:freak:
The next time zimmietard has something relevant to say will be the first. |
|
|
| zimmie |
| same goes for Krugman and you |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
a scandalous wit...
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
This is the crux of my intuitive apathy towards Obama thus far... |
Well of course Krugman would blame the Republicans - he is a Liberal loon.
What Krugman is pushing for will never, ever fly. He wants the Canadian model for our health care system.
Now an Edwards sycophant like yourself will find fault with Obama for not being "bold" enough (as Krugman has put it), but both Edwards and Clinton are pushing for programs that will not pass through Congress. Obama's "tame" health care proposal is far more pragmatic in that it doesn't include a federal mandate. He understands that the federal government should not be in the business of forcing people to buy personal health care. The proposals that Clinton and Edwards are pushing will be DOA.
And I'm sure you'll just point the finger at those "evil" Republicans but consider this - President Bush put forward a decent plan to make Social Security solvent by allowing people (voluntarily) to opt out of the current system and start their own personal retirement investment plan. The Democrats went ballistic screaming that Bush was trying to "privatize" Social Security and killed the bill.
Krugman is a dipshit. |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Krugman has done nothing but bash Obama in his columns for months
The fact is Edwards supporters have been going to Obama by a margin of 3-1
Interesting when he is talking about edwards as a change candidate he doesnt mention that Edwards called Clinton the Status Quo candidate |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
Quote: Originally posted by Fdubya247
Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.
This is the crux of my intuitive apathy towards Obama thus far... |
so it makes you mad when he says he wants to bring Repubicans over to our team? Thats how you get things accomplished, by building large coalitions. |
|
|
| danrich03 |
| Krugman is a Clinton stooge. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
What Krugman, in a rather pathetic way, is saying is that John Edwards had the superior ideas but somehow lost the election.
Well, someone needs to tell the elitist Krugman that the electorate is not as stupid as it seems he thinks they are.
Edwards was a complete phony and people saw him for what he was.
You can't win a campaign running on one side of a bunch of positions and having voted completely differently a few years before. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
so it makes you mad when he says he wants to bring Repubicans over to our team? Thats how you get things accomplished, by building large coalitions. |
FDipshit247 thinks that Republicans are evil, Reverend. You're not going to convince him or people like Krugman that what Obama is trying to do is in the best interest of the party.
See, Krugman took shots at Obama when he gave a nod to Reagan. Here's what I would ask Paul Krugman -
Ever hear the term "Reagan Democrat?"
Ever hear the term "Clinton Republican?" |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
I'll get to the dumb comments contained in this thread tomorrow.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| mb33139 |
| Inside word is that Edwards may endorse Obama Monday... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
Well of course Krugman would blame the Republicans - he is a Liberal loon. |
:lol:
....yeah, cuz Republicans aren't economic elitists....
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
What Krugman is pushing for will never, ever fly. He wants the Canadian model for our health care system. Now an Edwards sycophant like yourself will find fault with Obama for not being "bold" enough (as Krugman has put it), but both Edwards and Clinton are pushing for programs that will not pass through Congress. |
:secret:......as many as 28 Reichpublican Congressional incumbents aren't even bothering to run.... the "numbers" will be changing dramatically.
:opps: |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Krugman has done nothing but bash Obama in his columns for months |
....you have a pretty pussified definition of "bash" methinks....
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
The fact is Edwards supporters have been going to Obama by a margin of 3-1 |
Irrelevant.
It's obvious Krugman's "fulcrum" issue is Healthcare. Mine happens to be the Iraq issue. Obama and Clinton are not different enough for there to be any substantive "outrage" over choosing one or the other.
At least that I have been able to discern yet. Clinton has two very big negatives for me though, in her Iraq stance and coziness with the corporate dollar.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including (and especially, a guy like) Krugman.
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
Interesting when he is talking about edwards as a change candidate he doesnt mention that Edwards called Clinton the Status Quo candidate |
Irrelevant.
1. They were running campaigns against each other.
2. Status Quo compared to Edwards.
3. Equations change when it becomes Obama v. Clinton. I think its clear Krugman would have voted for Edwards. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
so it makes you mad when he says he wants to bring Repubicans over to our team? Thats how you get things accomplished, by building large coalitions. |
I can't say it any better than Krugman did. You either understand the dissonance he is describing or you don't. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by danrich03
Krugman is a Clinton stooge. |
I guess he was an Edwards "stooge" before that...?
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| dreadlock |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
so it makes you mad when he says he wants to bring Repubicans over to our team? Thats how you get things accomplished, by building large coalitions. |
but with hillary it is a negative? |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
he said status quo compared to him and Obama
Besides, there's electability, and I know you think a Democrat is guaranteed, but we pretty much thought that in 2004 as well. Obama has shown he can get support for a liberal platform from many independents and republicans, many of whom would never think of voting for Clinton. Obama would defeat McCain in a landslide, because McCain cant get support from the far-right...they wont vote for Obama, they just likely wont vote...unless they can vote against Clinton. And while Obama can take out McCain for independents, I dont think Clinton can.
Also look at the red states...Obama puts many of them into play. Yes Clinton and Obama both will probably sweep all the traditional blue states, but Obama guarantees purple states like Illinois and Ohio, and puts places like South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, North/South Dakota, Idaho ...He can put together a landslide....And what that does is gives the Democrats a clear mandate to push through health care easily...pull out the troops easily...pass social security reform (not privatization, but raising caps) easily |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
What Krugman, in a rather pathetic way, is saying is that John Edwards had the superior ideas but somehow lost the election. |
Yeah, that's just unheard of....What retaaaaaded planet are you from, Cunt?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
Well, someone needs to tell the elitist Krugman that the electorate is not as stupid as it seems he thinks they are. |
Of course they are. Where you been?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheTurd
Edwards was a complete phony and people saw him for what he was. You can't win a campaign running on one side of a bunch of positions and having voted completely differently a few years before. |
It is possible to have a history of being (even running as) an "Establishment Man", but then actually leading as a Progressive once in power.
See: FDR
Look at what Al Gore became once political considerations were out of the equation.
It served Edwards not at all to step out from the Establishment fold and stand on some progressive principles. Its no accident we have the two remaining Dems that we do. Ask Howard Dean about that.
Your "phony" cockroach "lojik" just doesn't hold any water: :shit:
*FLUSH*
:crapper: |
|
|
| dreadlock |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
he said status quo compared to him and Obama
Besides, there's electability, and I know you think a Democrat is guaranteed, but we pretty much thought that in 2004 as well. Obama has shown he can get support for a liberal platform from many independents and republicans, many of whom would never think of voting for Clinton. Obama would defeat McCain in a landslide, because McCain cant get support from the far-right...they wont vote for Obama, they just likely wont vote...unless they can vote against Clinton. And while Obama can take out McCain for independents, I dont think Clinton can.
Also look at the red states...Obama puts many of them into play. Yes Clinton and Obama both will probably sweep all the traditional blue states, but Obama guarantees purple states like Illinois and Ohio, and puts places like South Carolina, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, North/South Dakota, Idaho ...He can put together a landslide....And what that does is gives the Democrats a clear mandate to push through health care easily...pull out the troops easily...pass social security reform (not privatization, but raising caps) easily |
which is one theory |
|
|
| Reverend Tyler |
| well whats yours then? |
|
|
| dreadlock |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
well whats yours then? |
that disgusted repukes might feel more comfortable with hillary than a blaek |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Reverend Tyler
he said status quo compared to him and Obama |
The Healthcare issue is the obvious fulcrum for Krugman.
It is a morally/logically/factually defensible and consistent position to hold.
Bashing Krugman on this is out of line. He is one of leading counter voices to corporatist propaganda we have. Dismissing him because of his personal voting preference is just stupid when the big picture is taken into account.
Obama is not above criticism.
Without the pressure of progressive voices like Kucinich, Krugman, and yes, even Edwards....The Dems would be even more GOP-lite than they already are.
If we truly care about progressive CHANGE, Edwards had the better positions/ideas. He also had a higher elect-ability, having none of the negatives of the other two, ...and by "negatives" I mean the kinds of things the right-wing propagandists will be able to use in the election.
Obama is a great candidate. I'll never say different. Don't worry that my retaaaded principles prevent me from being all gung-ho over him. I'm like 2% of the electorate. My opinion is statistically irrelevant. |
|
|
|
|
|
