The following article is a slanted but informative criticism of the McCain healthcare program.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=7e9b013b-2fb7-45c7-91cb-e05218063a33
The summation is that McCain would incentivize the country to move to individual insurance (and away from employer-based insurance) via tax credits.
The disconnect in the McCain proposal is that without Govt intervention, there is no reason to think that the free-market will come up with a solution for individuals that have pre-existing conditions. Think about an analogy to auto insurance ... the cost of a policy for someone with a history of accidents can be an order of magnitude higher than for someone with a spotless record. Extrapolating that to health care, a high-risk family might be paying $4000/month if a healthy family pays $400/month. Obviously that cost would be prohibitively expensive for most high-risk families.
Continuing my auto insurance analogy, would it make sense for an insurer to offer auto insurance that didn't take driving record into account? Obviously the answer is no, there is nothing like that on the market. Why? Because good drivers would always opt for the lower cost insurance that they get because they are low risk. A risk-independent insurance market is equivalent to a high-risk insurance market.
For the health insurers to make money AND maintain costs to an affordable level for individuals, the healthy have to pay for the sick. In our current system, healty individuals effectively split the costs of sick individuals with employers.
So the bottom line on the McCain plan is that it's unsustainable as proposed. Practically speaking, such a plan could never produce legislation without significant modification. Ultimately it could only result in no action and thus status quo, or perhaps it is trying to remove the employer contributions and thus put the entire cost burden on individuals.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Obama: Re-Branding Liberalism
Barack Obama is making an interesting proposition to the American people. He’s trying to sell Liberalism to Independents and Conservatives that have rejected that philosophy for decades. And so far … it’s working.
To understand why it’s working, we have to understand Liberalism itself. In America, we equate Liberalism with a set of policy preferences …diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, environmental protection laws, the preservation of abortion rights, etc … But in terms of core values, Liberalism is defined by the desire to provide everyone with an equal opportunity and to promote a creative and productive society.
Opposing philosophies (i.e. Conservatives) have been successful in branding Liberalism as “un-American”. Conservatives have no problem with the equal opportunity component of the Liberal philosophy. However, Conservatives believe that our society should be shaped only by the free market, the Constitution, and God – the ideas of the founding fathers of this country. When Liberals advocate an idea that they think makes the country better but has no basis in the free Market, the Constitution, or God (for example Social Security), Conservatives will often argue that the idea is un-American. Strictly speaking, they are right.
The Obama proposition is that our country as presently constructed denies opportunity to many middle and lower class families. Furthermore, the denial of opportunity is fundamentally un-American. Thus we have to build infrastructure in a way that’s not guided by the ideals of the founding fathers in order to maintain the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are being un-American either way, but one way is better than the other. Why? Because of this thing that Americans all hold near and dear … the American Dream. Making government a little bigger than it would otherwise be to preserve the American dream fits within the core values of Americans.
Thus, Obama is operating within Liberal philosophy AND he’s operating within Conservative philosophy. He’s advocating opportunity for all and he’s shaping America beyond its strict definition for some greater good. At the same time, he’s pushing the envelope only as far as it needs to be pushed to preserve the American Dream. If he’s successful, he’ll offer a brand of Liberalism than can’t be called “un-American”.
Let’s illustrate this with a couple examples.
Obama’s Health Plan
Obama argues that health care costs have risen to the point where ordinary American’s can’t afford coverage and also build a life for themselves and their families. Thus the government has to step in and insure that there is an affordable option that is available to everyone including those with pre-existing conditions.
The distinction between the Obama plan and the other Democratic candidates plans is subtle, and his campaign has taken a lot of heat from his opponents over his lack of “universal coverage”. However, in Obama’s brand of Liberalism, mandating that everyone has health coverage goes too far. Universal Health care is an idea that’s long been deemed to be un-American. However Americans accept that the rising cost of health care is swamping some families. And furthermore, American’s accept that pre-existing conditions and health care portability are further limiting opportunities. So if something can be done which solves those two problems, it won’t be un-American. It may require bigger government and Conservatives generally oppose things that make government bigger. But sometimes there are big problems that only the federal government can solve … the interstate highway system for example.
Another feature of Obama’s Liberal brand is that his programs in general will be smaller in scope than many Liberal ideas … after all they aren’t intended to make America “better”, they are only intended to make sure that opportunities are available. In fact Hillary Clinton believes that her Health care plan will cost $100B dollars while Obama estimates his as costing about half as much.
So in the Fall, McCain and Obama will argue over the relative merits of their respective health plans, but McCain can’t attack the brand … or if he does, many won’t buy into his attack. After all, the brand is keeping the American dream alive.
Obama’s Subprime Mortgage Crisis Recovery Plan
Another example of the Obama’s brand is his program to recover from the subprime mortgage crisis. In Obama’s view, the problem with the subprime lending market isn’t that middle class families are going to lose their homes. They were speculating and / or were taking too much risk and they lost their money. The problem is that people who rely on risky loans just to have a home shouldn’t get wiped out along with the speculators.
Contrast this to the Clinton plan that freezes interest rates on ARMs for 5 years across the board. Philosophically speaking, her plan isn’t grounded in the core American values and by the way … is much more expensive.
Conclusion
So the bottom line is that Obama’s program is at least palatable to the entire spectrum of political philosophies. His program is in fact, Liberal. However, it can’t be dismissed out of hand by anyone. Obama still has to convince Americans that his ideas are better than McCain’s ideas. However the argument won’t end when Americans read the brand name.
To understand why it’s working, we have to understand Liberalism itself. In America, we equate Liberalism with a set of policy preferences …diplomacy over military action, stem-cell research, the legalization of same-sex marriage, secular government, stricter gun control, environmental protection laws, the preservation of abortion rights, etc … But in terms of core values, Liberalism is defined by the desire to provide everyone with an equal opportunity and to promote a creative and productive society.
Opposing philosophies (i.e. Conservatives) have been successful in branding Liberalism as “un-American”. Conservatives have no problem with the equal opportunity component of the Liberal philosophy. However, Conservatives believe that our society should be shaped only by the free market, the Constitution, and God – the ideas of the founding fathers of this country. When Liberals advocate an idea that they think makes the country better but has no basis in the free Market, the Constitution, or God (for example Social Security), Conservatives will often argue that the idea is un-American. Strictly speaking, they are right.
The Obama proposition is that our country as presently constructed denies opportunity to many middle and lower class families. Furthermore, the denial of opportunity is fundamentally un-American. Thus we have to build infrastructure in a way that’s not guided by the ideals of the founding fathers in order to maintain the ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are being un-American either way, but one way is better than the other. Why? Because of this thing that Americans all hold near and dear … the American Dream. Making government a little bigger than it would otherwise be to preserve the American dream fits within the core values of Americans.
Thus, Obama is operating within Liberal philosophy AND he’s operating within Conservative philosophy. He’s advocating opportunity for all and he’s shaping America beyond its strict definition for some greater good. At the same time, he’s pushing the envelope only as far as it needs to be pushed to preserve the American Dream. If he’s successful, he’ll offer a brand of Liberalism than can’t be called “un-American”.
Let’s illustrate this with a couple examples.
Obama’s Health Plan
Obama argues that health care costs have risen to the point where ordinary American’s can’t afford coverage and also build a life for themselves and their families. Thus the government has to step in and insure that there is an affordable option that is available to everyone including those with pre-existing conditions.
The distinction between the Obama plan and the other Democratic candidates plans is subtle, and his campaign has taken a lot of heat from his opponents over his lack of “universal coverage”. However, in Obama’s brand of Liberalism, mandating that everyone has health coverage goes too far. Universal Health care is an idea that’s long been deemed to be un-American. However Americans accept that the rising cost of health care is swamping some families. And furthermore, American’s accept that pre-existing conditions and health care portability are further limiting opportunities. So if something can be done which solves those two problems, it won’t be un-American. It may require bigger government and Conservatives generally oppose things that make government bigger. But sometimes there are big problems that only the federal government can solve … the interstate highway system for example.
Another feature of Obama’s Liberal brand is that his programs in general will be smaller in scope than many Liberal ideas … after all they aren’t intended to make America “better”, they are only intended to make sure that opportunities are available. In fact Hillary Clinton believes that her Health care plan will cost $100B dollars while Obama estimates his as costing about half as much.
So in the Fall, McCain and Obama will argue over the relative merits of their respective health plans, but McCain can’t attack the brand … or if he does, many won’t buy into his attack. After all, the brand is keeping the American dream alive.
Obama’s Subprime Mortgage Crisis Recovery Plan
Another example of the Obama’s brand is his program to recover from the subprime mortgage crisis. In Obama’s view, the problem with the subprime lending market isn’t that middle class families are going to lose their homes. They were speculating and / or were taking too much risk and they lost their money. The problem is that people who rely on risky loans just to have a home shouldn’t get wiped out along with the speculators.
Contrast this to the Clinton plan that freezes interest rates on ARMs for 5 years across the board. Philosophically speaking, her plan isn’t grounded in the core American values and by the way … is much more expensive.
Conclusion
So the bottom line is that Obama’s program is at least palatable to the entire spectrum of political philosophies. His program is in fact, Liberal. However, it can’t be dismissed out of hand by anyone. Obama still has to convince Americans that his ideas are better than McCain’s ideas. However the argument won’t end when Americans read the brand name.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Obama Takes Control of the Democratic Race; Obama and McCain Outline General Election Themes
Barack Obama has taken control of the Democratic race due to the stunning results in the VA, DC, and MD primaries. Obama was supposed to win these primaries by a pretty big margin. By the last set of polls, he was up about 17%. But when the results came in at 27% … the game changed. Obama is going to net something like 25 extra delegates above and beyond the expected 20-25. Those extra delegates will more than offset a 10 point Clinton victory in Texas. Effectively, Clinton lost Texas along with VA, MD, and DC yesterday.
Here are the ramifications of the extra delegates won last night:
1. Even if Clinton is able to get her expected victories in TX, OH, and PA, she will NEVER get the lead in pledged delegates. In fact, I now expect her to lose in pledged delegates by 90 or so. And that’s assuming that the demographic trends that happened in VA don’t extend to other states.
2. This effectively takes the scenario where Obama wins in pledged delegates but loses due to superdelegates out of play. Furthermore it’s hard to believe that Clinton’s 90 superdelegate lead will hold up if everyone knows that there is virtually no chance that she will regain the pledged delegate lead.
Bottom line: This is now Obama’s race to lose.
So where does Obama go from here? I believe he foreshadowed his approach in last night’s speech in Madison, WI.
Obama’s Themes for the Stretch Run to Denver:
Obama was able to break into Clinton’s coalition in the Potomac Primaries. The $40K/year and under white males were the group that will be key going into states like WI, TX, OH, and PA. As CNBC’s Andrea Mitchell quipped, “White Men Can Jump … to the Obama coalition!”. But in order to continue that trend, Obama will have to stress his economic program and how it helps the blue collar Democrats. This theme was stressed in Obama’s speech last night:
“… Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won't do. Not this time. Not this year. We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing.
It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.
It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. …”
Obama’s Themes for the General Election
And to set some themes for the fall campaign, Obama struck a chord that will resonate with Republicans and Democrats alike. He didn’t argue against the war, but instead against spending for the war. Even the most hawkish conservatives will freely admit that they can’t abide the costs of the war in Iraq.
Obama then went on to point to McCain’s vote against the Bush tax cuts (a little salt for the wounds of fiscal conservatives). He underlined McCain’s rationale for not supporting the tax cuts at the time. This accomplished two things: first, it lends credibility to Obama’s argument that the tax cuts need to be rolled back. Second, it challenges McCain to either re-affirm his position as a maverick that does what he believes is right (the McCain that most of his fans like) or to position himself as a conservative establishment candidate (which the Republican base would love, but would probably spell disaster for the McCain presidential campaign).
“If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges – and that's what the American people need us to do right now.
And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his "conscience" to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn't support a tax cut where "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate." But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for them.
Well I'm not. We can't keep spending money that we don't have in a war that we shouldn't have fought. We can't keep mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt. We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It's time to turn the page”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-obama.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
The Failed Clinton Strategy … is it About the Money?
Clinton’s strategy of abandoning / conceding states cost her once more. The “Big State” strategy has been used successfully many times. However, that strategy doesn’t work when you get your clock cleaned in the small states. If Clinton was even competitive in the caucus states and the Potomac primaries, this race would be over by now. There’s no way that this can be intentional. Campaign funds must be an issue on the Clinton side.
One last comment on the Clinton Campaign, I don’t believe that the statement made by Clinton endorser Ed Rendell to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette yesterday was a coincidence or an accident:
“"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,"”
I believe this was intentionally put out by the Clinton Campaign on the eve of Obama’s big win in the Potomac primaries in an attempt to mitigate the perceived damage of the losses. Clearly they anticipated that the white voters would support Clinton as they had in previous primaries. This was basically the same divisive racial strategy used when it became apparent that Clinton wouldn’t win in SC. This is interesting because the strategy backfired in SC, yet Clinton re-tooled it and used it again. Again the result will be a net negative for the Clinton campaign. They guessed wrong, and they look bad for trying it.
McCain Doesn’t Believe in Miracles
I’ll have to hand it to Huckabee. He nearly pulled off a miracle in VA. He was greatly helped by a massive crossover of Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primary. The crossover left an electorate composed mainly of evangelical conservatives … who voted for Huck. VA was a winner-take-all state so the win would have been a major coup for Huckabee. But alas, it was not to be. McCain narrowly pulled out the victory.
I predicted in an earlier post that Huckabee would be out of the race before yesterday. At the time, I couldn’t understand why staying in would be a good idea. I still don’t. However, Huckabee can clearly make his presence felt in Wisconsin and Texas. I’m not sure why that’s a good thing. It will be interesting to find out what Huckabee was thinking post-mortem.
But let’s get back to John McCain. McCain, in his victory speech also started to lay out themes for the fall. First, he made the classic Republican argument:
“… But now comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision. We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for President. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them. They will promise a new approach to governing, but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government's failures is to simply make it bigger. They will appeal to our dreams of a better future for ourselves, our families and our country, but they would take from us more of the wealth we have earned to build those dreams and assure us that government is better able than we are to make decisions about our future for us. They will promise to break with the failed politics of the past, but will campaign in ways that seek to minimize their exposure to questions from the press and challenges from voters who ask more from their candidates than an empty promise of "trust me, I know better." They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals; a world that can be made safer and more peaceful by placating our implacable foes and breaking faith with allies and the millions of people in this world for whom America, and the global progress of our ideals, has long been "the last, best hope of earth."
We will offer different ideas, based in a better understanding of the challenges we face, and the resolve to confront them with confidence in the strength and ideals of free people. We believe that Americans, not our detractors and certainly not our enemies, are on the right side of history. We trust in the strength, industry and goodness of the American people. We don't believe that government has all the answers. We believe that government must respect the rights, property and opportunities of the people to whom we are accountable. We don't believe in growing the size of government to make it easier to serve our own ambitions. We believe that what government is expected to do, what we cannot do for ourselves individually, it must do with competence, resolve and wisdom.
The American people don't send us to Washington to serve our self-interest, but to serve theirs. They don't send us to fight each other for our own political ambitions; but to fight together our real enemies. They don't send us to Washington to stroke our egos; but to help them keep this beautiful, bountiful, blessed country safe, prosperous, proud and free. They don't send us to Washington to take more of their money, and waste it on things that add not an ounce to America's strength and prosperity; that don't help a single family realize the dreams we all dream for our children; that don't help a single displaced worker find a new job, and the security and dignity it assures them; that won't keep the promise we make to young workers that the retirement they have begun to invest in, will be there for them when they need it. They don't send us to Washington to do their job, but to do ours; to do it better and with less of t heir money… ”
McCain then went on to argue against Obama whom he now knows for the first time is his likely opponent in the fall. Of course his argument was similar to the Clinton argument that has worked to some degree … that Obama is style but not substance. But McCain went further. He insinuated that Obama was seeking self-glorification and considered himself “anointed by history”. I found this argument to be interestingly personal.
“… Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.
To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.
When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.
In that confrontation I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.
I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has managed to do: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a stronger country and a better world. …”
McCain then concluded by mocking an Obama standard closing line:
“I am fired up and ready to go”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&sq&st=nyt&scp=4
I’m guessing that McCain is looking for something that the conservative base can hate about Obama. It’s been said many times in this campaign that Hillary would be “the one thing that would energize and unite Republicans in the Fall”. For whatever reason, Hillary is disliked by the conservative base and reviled on conservative talk radio. However, Obama is only disliked for his policy differences. So McCain threw a couple of things against the wall in his speech and we’ll see if anything sticks.
One thing’s for sure, the threat of poor Republican turnout in the fall is very real. So at this point … anything that excites the Republican base would be a good thing.
Here are the ramifications of the extra delegates won last night:
1. Even if Clinton is able to get her expected victories in TX, OH, and PA, she will NEVER get the lead in pledged delegates. In fact, I now expect her to lose in pledged delegates by 90 or so. And that’s assuming that the demographic trends that happened in VA don’t extend to other states.
2. This effectively takes the scenario where Obama wins in pledged delegates but loses due to superdelegates out of play. Furthermore it’s hard to believe that Clinton’s 90 superdelegate lead will hold up if everyone knows that there is virtually no chance that she will regain the pledged delegate lead.
Bottom line: This is now Obama’s race to lose.
So where does Obama go from here? I believe he foreshadowed his approach in last night’s speech in Madison, WI.
Obama’s Themes for the Stretch Run to Denver:
Obama was able to break into Clinton’s coalition in the Potomac Primaries. The $40K/year and under white males were the group that will be key going into states like WI, TX, OH, and PA. As CNBC’s Andrea Mitchell quipped, “White Men Can Jump … to the Obama coalition!”. But in order to continue that trend, Obama will have to stress his economic program and how it helps the blue collar Democrats. This theme was stressed in Obama’s speech last night:
“… Because at a time when so many people are struggling to keep up with soaring costs in a sluggish economy, we know that the status quo in Washington just won't do. Not this time. Not this year. We can't keep playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expect a different result – because it's a game that ordinary Americans are losing.
It's a game where lobbyists write check after check and Exxon turns record profits, while you pay the price at the pump, and our planet is put at risk. That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda, and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am President of the United States of America.
It's a game where trade deals like NAFTA ship jobs overseas and force parents to compete with their teenagers to work for minimum wage at Wal-Mart. That's what happens when the American worker doesn't have a voice at the negotiating table, when leaders change their positions on trade with the politics of the moment, and that's why we need a President who will listen to Main Street – not just Wall Street; a President who will stand with workers not just when it's easy, but when it's hard. …”
Obama’s Themes for the General Election
And to set some themes for the fall campaign, Obama struck a chord that will resonate with Republicans and Democrats alike. He didn’t argue against the war, but instead against spending for the war. Even the most hawkish conservatives will freely admit that they can’t abide the costs of the war in Iraq.
Obama then went on to point to McCain’s vote against the Bush tax cuts (a little salt for the wounds of fiscal conservatives). He underlined McCain’s rationale for not supporting the tax cuts at the time. This accomplished two things: first, it lends credibility to Obama’s argument that the tax cuts need to be rolled back. Second, it challenges McCain to either re-affirm his position as a maverick that does what he believes is right (the McCain that most of his fans like) or to position himself as a conservative establishment candidate (which the Republican base would love, but would probably spell disaster for the McCain presidential campaign).
“If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished the job in Afghanistan, and put more resources into the fight against bin Laden; and instead of spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Baghdad, we could have put that money into our schools and hospitals, our road and bridges – and that's what the American people need us to do right now.
And I admired Senator McCain when he stood up and said that it offended his "conscience" to support the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in a time of war; that he couldn't support a tax cut where "so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate." But somewhere along the road to the Republican nomination, the Straight Talk Express lost its wheels, because now he's all for them.
Well I'm not. We can't keep spending money that we don't have in a war that we shouldn't have fought. We can't keep mortgaging our children's future on a mountain of debt. We can't keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich and the rest who struggle to keep pace. It's time to turn the page”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-obama.html?_r=1&fta=y&oref=slogin
The Failed Clinton Strategy … is it About the Money?
Clinton’s strategy of abandoning / conceding states cost her once more. The “Big State” strategy has been used successfully many times. However, that strategy doesn’t work when you get your clock cleaned in the small states. If Clinton was even competitive in the caucus states and the Potomac primaries, this race would be over by now. There’s no way that this can be intentional. Campaign funds must be an issue on the Clinton side.
One last comment on the Clinton Campaign, I don’t believe that the statement made by Clinton endorser Ed Rendell to the Pittsburgh Post Gazette yesterday was a coincidence or an accident:
“"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate,"”
I believe this was intentionally put out by the Clinton Campaign on the eve of Obama’s big win in the Potomac primaries in an attempt to mitigate the perceived damage of the losses. Clearly they anticipated that the white voters would support Clinton as they had in previous primaries. This was basically the same divisive racial strategy used when it became apparent that Clinton wouldn’t win in SC. This is interesting because the strategy backfired in SC, yet Clinton re-tooled it and used it again. Again the result will be a net negative for the Clinton campaign. They guessed wrong, and they look bad for trying it.
McCain Doesn’t Believe in Miracles
I’ll have to hand it to Huckabee. He nearly pulled off a miracle in VA. He was greatly helped by a massive crossover of Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primary. The crossover left an electorate composed mainly of evangelical conservatives … who voted for Huck. VA was a winner-take-all state so the win would have been a major coup for Huckabee. But alas, it was not to be. McCain narrowly pulled out the victory.
I predicted in an earlier post that Huckabee would be out of the race before yesterday. At the time, I couldn’t understand why staying in would be a good idea. I still don’t. However, Huckabee can clearly make his presence felt in Wisconsin and Texas. I’m not sure why that’s a good thing. It will be interesting to find out what Huckabee was thinking post-mortem.
But let’s get back to John McCain. McCain, in his victory speech also started to lay out themes for the fall. First, he made the classic Republican argument:
“… But now comes the hard part, and for America, the much bigger decision. We do not yet know for certain who will have the honor of being the Democratic Party's nominee for President. But we know where either of their candidates will lead this country, and we dare not let them. They will promise a new approach to governing, but offer only the policies of a political orthodoxy that insists the solution to government's failures is to simply make it bigger. They will appeal to our dreams of a better future for ourselves, our families and our country, but they would take from us more of the wealth we have earned to build those dreams and assure us that government is better able than we are to make decisions about our future for us. They will promise to break with the failed politics of the past, but will campaign in ways that seek to minimize their exposure to questions from the press and challenges from voters who ask more from their candidates than an empty promise of "trust me, I know better." They will paint a picture of the world in which America's mistakes are a greater threat to our security than the malevolent intentions of an enemy that despises us and our ideals; a world that can be made safer and more peaceful by placating our implacable foes and breaking faith with allies and the millions of people in this world for whom America, and the global progress of our ideals, has long been "the last, best hope of earth."
We will offer different ideas, based in a better understanding of the challenges we face, and the resolve to confront them with confidence in the strength and ideals of free people. We believe that Americans, not our detractors and certainly not our enemies, are on the right side of history. We trust in the strength, industry and goodness of the American people. We don't believe that government has all the answers. We believe that government must respect the rights, property and opportunities of the people to whom we are accountable. We don't believe in growing the size of government to make it easier to serve our own ambitions. We believe that what government is expected to do, what we cannot do for ourselves individually, it must do with competence, resolve and wisdom.
The American people don't send us to Washington to serve our self-interest, but to serve theirs. They don't send us to fight each other for our own political ambitions; but to fight together our real enemies. They don't send us to Washington to stroke our egos; but to help them keep this beautiful, bountiful, blessed country safe, prosperous, proud and free. They don't send us to Washington to take more of their money, and waste it on things that add not an ounce to America's strength and prosperity; that don't help a single family realize the dreams we all dream for our children; that don't help a single displaced worker find a new job, and the security and dignity it assures them; that won't keep the promise we make to young workers that the retirement they have begun to invest in, will be there for them when they need it. They don't send us to Washington to do their job, but to do ours; to do it better and with less of t heir money… ”
McCain then went on to argue against Obama whom he now knows for the first time is his likely opponent in the fall. Of course his argument was similar to the Clinton argument that has worked to some degree … that Obama is style but not substance. But McCain went further. He insinuated that Obama was seeking self-glorification and considered himself “anointed by history”. I found this argument to be interestingly personal.
“… Hope, my friends, is a powerful thing. I can attest to that better than many, for I have seen men's hopes tested in hard and cruel ways that few will ever experience. And I stood astonished at the resilience of their hope in the darkest of hours because it did not reside in an exaggerated belief in their individual strength, but in the support of their comrades, and their faith in their country. My hope for our country resides in my faith in the American character, the character which proudly defends the right to think and do for ourselves, but perceives self-interest in accord with a kinship of ideals, which, when called upon, Americans will defend with their very lives.
To encourage a country with only rhetoric rather than sound and proven ideas that trust in the strength and courage of free people is not a promise of hope. It is a platitude.
When I was a young man, I thought glory was the highest ambition, and that all glory was self-glory. My parents tried to teach me otherwise, as did the Naval Academy. But I didn't understand the lesson until later in life, when I confronted challenges I never expected to face.
In that confrontation I discovered that I was dependent on others to a greater extent than I had ever realized, but that neither they nor the cause we served made any claims on my identity. On the contrary, I discovered that nothing is more liberating in life than to fight for a cause that encompasses you, but is not defined by your existence alone. And that has made all the difference, my friends, all the difference in the world.
I do not seek the presidency on the presumption that I am blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the presidency with the humility of a man who cannot forget that my country saved me. I am running to serve America, and to champion the ideas I believe will help us do what every American generation has managed to do: to make in our time, and from our challenges, a stronger country and a better world. …”
McCain then concluded by mocking an Obama standard closing line:
“I am fired up and ready to go”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-mccain.html?pagewanted=2&sq&st=nyt&scp=4
I’m guessing that McCain is looking for something that the conservative base can hate about Obama. It’s been said many times in this campaign that Hillary would be “the one thing that would energize and unite Republicans in the Fall”. For whatever reason, Hillary is disliked by the conservative base and reviled on conservative talk radio. However, Obama is only disliked for his policy differences. So McCain threw a couple of things against the wall in his speech and we’ll see if anything sticks.
One thing’s for sure, the threat of poor Republican turnout in the fall is very real. So at this point … anything that excites the Republican base would be a good thing.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Superdelegate Math
(click chart to enlarge)
Like the Obama and Clinton campaigns, I've done my own spreadsheet predicting the outcome of the Democratic race. I've made the assumption that current voting coalitions hold up and I take into account latest polling where possible.
I'm showing the picture 2 different ways. First, I show the pledged delegates at various points in time. Then I include the superdelegates assuming they continue to accumulate proportionally (i.e. no major break for one side or the other). In both cases, the race is always close ... the margin is never more than 100. The maximum margin happens after PA and includes the superdelegates. At that point, Hillary is leading and the margin is almost entirely provided by the superdelegates.
If status quo continues, Hillary ends up within a hair of winning the nomination. However, Obama will have won the pledged delegates. This is not a happy scenario for the Dems. I'm guessing that at some point, the superdelegates will have to put their finger on the scale even moreso than it already is (currently favoring Hillary by about 90). The question is ... when? and for whom?
Of course there is another possibility. Clinton or Obama may at some point peel off enough voters from the other's coalition that they open up a wide gap in pledged delegates. Ultimately, this would be the best case scenario for the party. But there is no reason to think that's going to happen. The coalitions on both sides are rock solid. Both candidates will probably have plenty of money. And there will probably be no major mistakes.
So now we see the stakeholders posturing on whether the superdelegates should should commit to a candidate or whether they should stay on the sidelines. Clnton advocate Donna Brazil has gone so far as to threaten to quit the Democratic party if the superdelegates "decide the race". Of course her position ignores the fact that the current difference of 90 superdelegates in favor of Clinton might very well decide the race. In my prediction, that 90 delegate margin is 2x the pledged delegate margin. The Obama side is openly urging the superdelegates to commit. The fact is that he NEEDS them to commit or he will most probably lose.
In a previous post, I tried to interpret a statement by Howard Dean that seemed to be trying to pressure superdelegates into commitment. Since then, various other "nuetral" figures in the Democratic party have suggested that the superdelegates wait "for a few more weeks" ... presumably they are hoping that someone will control of this race ... or possibly they don't want the superdelegates to pick sides at an Obama high point.
How will all this unfold? My crystal ball is very cloudy at the moment ... I'm guessing that after the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas the end-game should be pretty apparent to everyone. Either the superdelegates break for Obama and he wins, or status quo and Hillary wins. I can't tell which way this will go at the moment, but I can predict that the superdelegate gap on April 22 (the day of the PA primary) will predict the eventual winner. I say if the margin is closer to 90 than 0, Clinton will win. Otherwise, Obama will be the nominee.
Like the Obama and Clinton campaigns, I've done my own spreadsheet predicting the outcome of the Democratic race. I've made the assumption that current voting coalitions hold up and I take into account latest polling where possible.
I'm showing the picture 2 different ways. First, I show the pledged delegates at various points in time. Then I include the superdelegates assuming they continue to accumulate proportionally (i.e. no major break for one side or the other). In both cases, the race is always close ... the margin is never more than 100. The maximum margin happens after PA and includes the superdelegates. At that point, Hillary is leading and the margin is almost entirely provided by the superdelegates.
If status quo continues, Hillary ends up within a hair of winning the nomination. However, Obama will have won the pledged delegates. This is not a happy scenario for the Dems. I'm guessing that at some point, the superdelegates will have to put their finger on the scale even moreso than it already is (currently favoring Hillary by about 90). The question is ... when? and for whom?
Of course there is another possibility. Clinton or Obama may at some point peel off enough voters from the other's coalition that they open up a wide gap in pledged delegates. Ultimately, this would be the best case scenario for the party. But there is no reason to think that's going to happen. The coalitions on both sides are rock solid. Both candidates will probably have plenty of money. And there will probably be no major mistakes.
So now we see the stakeholders posturing on whether the superdelegates should should commit to a candidate or whether they should stay on the sidelines. Clnton advocate Donna Brazil has gone so far as to threaten to quit the Democratic party if the superdelegates "decide the race". Of course her position ignores the fact that the current difference of 90 superdelegates in favor of Clinton might very well decide the race. In my prediction, that 90 delegate margin is 2x the pledged delegate margin. The Obama side is openly urging the superdelegates to commit. The fact is that he NEEDS them to commit or he will most probably lose.
In a previous post, I tried to interpret a statement by Howard Dean that seemed to be trying to pressure superdelegates into commitment. Since then, various other "nuetral" figures in the Democratic party have suggested that the superdelegates wait "for a few more weeks" ... presumably they are hoping that someone will control of this race ... or possibly they don't want the superdelegates to pick sides at an Obama high point.
How will all this unfold? My crystal ball is very cloudy at the moment ... I'm guessing that after the March 4th primaries in Ohio and Texas the end-game should be pretty apparent to everyone. Either the superdelegates break for Obama and he wins, or status quo and Hillary wins. I can't tell which way this will go at the moment, but I can predict that the superdelegate gap on April 22 (the day of the PA primary) will predict the eventual winner. I say if the margin is closer to 90 than 0, Clinton will win. Otherwise, Obama will be the nominee.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney Out, John Kerry's Endorsement More Important than Ted Kennedy's
Romney goes fishin'
Time to start up the boat again Kenny ... VRRRM VRRRM
As I predicted, Mitt Romney exits the race. The fiscal conservative wing of the house of Reagan mourns. There was no heir apparent to Reagan in this race, but Mitt beared the closest resemblence to one.
This basically clears the way for McCain. A shift from Romney to Huckabee seems extremely unlikely.
Prediction: Huck will also drop out by Sunday. Then let the healing begin.
Kerry's endorsement more important than Kennedy's
Why you ask? Check out this article from the Washington Post:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/07/obama_fundraising_strength_com.html
When you get John Kerry's endorsement, you also get his database of 2004 Democratic Presidential campaign donors. Turns out this comes in handy since he's the only one that's got one.
I’m Super, Thanks for Asking!
Before the conclusion of the voting on Super Tuesday, Howard Dean said the following in an interview on NY1 television:
"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario,"
"I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement, because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention -- that would not be good news for either party."
Of course, he’s right. Brokered conventions are bad. They tend to weaken the nominee, as they weren’t directly elected by the people. Brokered conventions need to be avoided.
However, Dean now faces the very real possibility that neither candidate earns the necessary 2025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination outright. So, what’s Dean thinking when he says that he may have to get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement? The possibilities are as follows:
1. One of the candidates steps aside. (not a very likely possibility)
2. Seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan or possibly re-run those races (which the Obama campaign would not agree to as it would stack the deck for Clinton).
So knowing that both of these options are essentially non-starters, I’m guessing that Dean’s intent was to rally the superdelegates to pick a candidate.
I believe that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns made the same interpretation and reacted.
Clinton’s campaign (through it’s surrogates … I said cynically) started to argue for a re-do or delegate seating of Florida and Michigan. The argument was made by pointing to the standing positions of the DNC and the respective state democratic committee– DNC has requested that Florida and Michigan re-do, the state committees have said “seat our delegates”.
But is a fight over seating these delegates really what Clinton wants? First of all, deadlock between the DNC and state Democratic Commitees would have to be broken and could get ugly. Along with that, Obama’s supporters would cry foul and there would probably be a legal challenge. It’s hard to believe that all that could happen without substantial damage to Hillary's general election campaign.
So what's the thinking of the Clinton camp? My guess is that the argument they'll be making to the undecided superdelegates will be: If Florida and Michigan had had a voice, I would have been elected. Therefore, I'm really the people's choice.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign “accidentally” let a spreadsheet slip that supported the Howard Dean nighmare scenario where no candidate has the delegates for nomination. Basically, I interpret this as ... "yeah, Howard Dean is right! You superdelegates can't let this happen!"
See the following article for the details:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9T3ToQrPGqc&refer=home
“Coincidentally”, Obama is openly lobbying for more superdelegate support:
"If this contest comes down to superdelegates, I think we're going to be able to say that we have more pledged (earned) delegates, meaning that the Democratic voters have spoken," Obama said.
"And I think those superdelegates who are elected officials, party insiders, would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination, when the people they claim to represent have said, `Obama's our guy.'"
Thus the Obama campaign likes the idea of virtual brokerage. Furthermore, they are making the case for a rally to their side. But obviously a Clinton argument which included Florida and Michigan would weaken and possibly trump the delegate count argument.
So, Obama may be counting on another rationale to sway the superdelegates: Obama's electability in the general election. The case is made today by columnist George Will (again I said cynically … not coincidentally):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020603943.html
So what’s going to happen here? The most likely scenario is that the election will be decided by primary voters.
If neither candidate can get enough delegates, I expect that the superdelegates will decide matters. Or at least with that premise, I can manufacture plausable rationale that might explain why all the players did what they did.
"The idea that we can afford to have a big fight at the convention and then win the race in the next eight weeks, I think, is not a good scenario,"
"I think we will have a nominee sometime in the middle of March or April. But if we don't, then we're going to have to get the candidates together and make some kind of an arrangement, because I don't think we can afford to have a brokered convention -- that would not be good news for either party."
Of course, he’s right. Brokered conventions are bad. They tend to weaken the nominee, as they weren’t directly elected by the people. Brokered conventions need to be avoided.
However, Dean now faces the very real possibility that neither candidate earns the necessary 2025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination outright. So, what’s Dean thinking when he says that he may have to get the candidates together to make some kind of an arrangement? The possibilities are as follows:
1. One of the candidates steps aside. (not a very likely possibility)
2. Seat the delegates from Florida and Michigan or possibly re-run those races (which the Obama campaign would not agree to as it would stack the deck for Clinton).
So knowing that both of these options are essentially non-starters, I’m guessing that Dean’s intent was to rally the superdelegates to pick a candidate.
I believe that both the Obama and Clinton campaigns made the same interpretation and reacted.
Clinton’s campaign (through it’s surrogates … I said cynically) started to argue for a re-do or delegate seating of Florida and Michigan. The argument was made by pointing to the standing positions of the DNC and the respective state democratic committee– DNC has requested that Florida and Michigan re-do, the state committees have said “seat our delegates”.
But is a fight over seating these delegates really what Clinton wants? First of all, deadlock between the DNC and state Democratic Commitees would have to be broken and could get ugly. Along with that, Obama’s supporters would cry foul and there would probably be a legal challenge. It’s hard to believe that all that could happen without substantial damage to Hillary's general election campaign.
So what's the thinking of the Clinton camp? My guess is that the argument they'll be making to the undecided superdelegates will be: If Florida and Michigan had had a voice, I would have been elected. Therefore, I'm really the people's choice.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign “accidentally” let a spreadsheet slip that supported the Howard Dean nighmare scenario where no candidate has the delegates for nomination. Basically, I interpret this as ... "yeah, Howard Dean is right! You superdelegates can't let this happen!"
See the following article for the details:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9T3ToQrPGqc&refer=home
“Coincidentally”, Obama is openly lobbying for more superdelegate support:
"If this contest comes down to superdelegates, I think we're going to be able to say that we have more pledged (earned) delegates, meaning that the Democratic voters have spoken," Obama said.
"And I think those superdelegates who are elected officials, party insiders, would have to think long and hard about how they approach the nomination, when the people they claim to represent have said, `Obama's our guy.'"
Thus the Obama campaign likes the idea of virtual brokerage. Furthermore, they are making the case for a rally to their side. But obviously a Clinton argument which included Florida and Michigan would weaken and possibly trump the delegate count argument.
So, Obama may be counting on another rationale to sway the superdelegates: Obama's electability in the general election. The case is made today by columnist George Will (again I said cynically … not coincidentally):
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/06/AR2008020603943.html
So what’s going to happen here? The most likely scenario is that the election will be decided by primary voters.
If neither candidate can get enough delegates, I expect that the superdelegates will decide matters. Or at least with that premise, I can manufacture plausable rationale that might explain why all the players did what they did.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday Postgame Analysis
Democratic Headline: Obama levels the playing field
Let’s start by saying that when the delegate counting today is complete, Obama will have won more delegates on Super Tuesday than Clinton. The difference will be small, but make no mistake - Obama has cleared a major barrier to his candidacy.
Don’t tell this to Rudy Guiliani, but front-loading the primary schedule was a huge advantage for the frontrunner. Hillary Clinton has held a 20-30% lead in most of the Super Tuesday states for the last few months. Obama has had to pare down these huge margins in a very short amount of time. The odds were long against Obama still having a viable candidacy exiting Super Tuesday. Last week I predicted he’d lose by 70 delegates, and I thought he’d be lucky to get that. But thanks to some brilliant tactics and campaigning we now have a horserace. Furthermore, the back half of this race favors neither. The best campaign will win.
So, what were the strategies going into Super Tuesday?
Clinton:
1. Clean up in NY and CA
2. Win her “backyard” states: MA, CT, NJ
3. Win Western states with large Hispanic populations: AZ, NM
4. Win in her other “home” state and backyard AK, MO, OK, TN
5. Concede the caucus states?
Obama:
1. Clean up in IL and heavily black AL, and GA
2. Minimize the damage in NY and CA
3. Try to pick off a couple of Hillary’s backyard states where it was close: CT, NJ (Concede MA), MO
4. Clean up in caucus states
Evaluating the execution, I’d say both sides did well. Hillary cleaned up in NY, the jury is still out, but she should get something like a 10% delegate margin in CA … a solid victory, but not the bonanza she was hoping for. Obama was able to win narrow victories in a couple of Hillary’s backyard states: MO and CT. But that was somewhat offset by extra delegates in MA and a convincing win in NJ (which had been running neck-and-neck in all the polling). AZ and NM were split, but NM was a caucus state and was won by a very narrow margin.
On the Obama side, he did extremely well in his cleanup states winning many extra delegates. Results in the head to head competitions were mixed as I described above. But most impressive was that he was able to run the table in the caucus states. I’m thinking that the Clinton team has to be pretty surprised at the magnitude of the victories there:
State Clinton Obama
Idaho 17% 80%
Kansas 26% 74%
Alaska 25% 74%
Colorado 32% 67%
Minnesota 32% 67%
North Dakota 37% 61%
These are some lily white states we’re talking about. Prior to Super Tuesday, Obama hadn’t proved he could get more than 40% of the white vote. I think team Clinton was counting on the race gap to keep Obama from blowing her out here. One problem with that strategy though … these are typically low turnout affairs. So a good “get out the vote” ground game produced some eyebrow raising results.
The bottom line on all of this is that even though both sides will be claiming victory today, the Obama camp has to be pretty happy to be where they are. And the Clinton camp has to feel like they missed the opportunity to take control of this race.
But exiting Super Tuesday both sides probably feel pretty good about their chances going forward.
GOP Headline: McCain takes Command, but Reagan coalition fractures
On the Republican side McCain swept the big winner-take-all NE states: NY, NJ, CT. He also won convincingly in IL and OK and eked out MO. On this basis, he takes something like a 250 delegate lead and is the prohibitive favorite.
The story of the night was Huckabee’s over-achievement. He was expected to be competitive in states with a heavy evangelical population. But he was able to win 6 states outright: AL, AK (where he was governor), WV, GA, IA and TN. In GA, AL, an WV the margins were slim. My guess is that the conservative campaigns that were intended to drive votes from McCain to Romney unintentionally diverted votes to Huckabee. Thus McCain’s margin of victory was not as strong as it might have been, but the race is still 3 horses which ultimately hurts Romney. Had Huckabee only won 2 states, he might have been convinced to step aside.
So while Romney otherwise did well, he now faces very long odds. His campaign is relying heavily on his personal fortune and the return on investment doesn’t look good. This is purely speculation, but I’m guessing Romney will withdraw in the very near term.
As of today, McCain is in the driver’s seat. He’s got a coalition of moderates and hawks that will make him competitive going forward and his competition is running out of steam. It’s hard to think of a scenario by which McCain might lose, but if there is one, it starts with Huckabee or Romney dropping out of the race quickly.
The bad news in all of this is that with Huckabee’s success, the Republican coalition is now split 3 ways: moderates and hawks going with McCain, fiscal/traditional conservatives going with Romney, and evangelicals going with Huckabee. McCain has to bring the coalition together again. The quicker he can put this race away, the sooner he can start doing that.
PS: Here's some good links to watch today as the delegate counts unfold. I wouldn't pay too much attention to the superdelegate counts until we get closer to the convention.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=D
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/#val=R
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
The Vice Presidential Short List
While we’re waiting for the Super Tuesday returns, let’s speculate on potential Vice Presidential candidates.
First of all, what makes a good Vice Presidential candidate? The first and most important criterion is that the ticket is strengthened in the swing states. The second criterion is that the choice excites the party’s base (usually by providing balance). The third criterion is that the candidate can hold his (or her) own on the stump and in debates.
Looking at the swing states, the “big 4” (i.e. the ones with the most electoral votes) are Florida (27), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), and Pennsylvania (21). In 2000 and 2004, Florida and Ohio went to the Republicans while Pennsylvania and Michigan went to the Democrats. The margins in these states were all less than 5%. Looking at the 2006 elections, Florida went mostly Republican while the other 3 went Democrat. Here are the Governors:
FLA Gov. Charles Crist (R)
OH Gov. Ted Strickland (D)
PN Gov. Edward Rendell (D)
MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) (foreign born so she can’t be president)
Next, I’ve listed the remainder of the battleground states with a significant number of electoral votes.
Other Battleground States (Electoral votes >5)
VA (2004 margin: 8.2% R, EV: 13) Gov. Tim Kaine (D)
MO (2004 margin 7.2% R, EV 11) Gov Matt Blunt (R)
MN (2004 margin 3.5% D, EV 10) Gov Tim Pawlenty (R)
WI (2004 margin .4% D, EV 10) Gov James Doyle, Jr. (D)
CO (2004 margin: 4.7% R, EV: 9) Gov. Bill Ritter (D)
IA (2004 margin .7% R, EV 7) Gov. Chet Culver (D)
OR (2004 margin 4.2% D, EV 7) Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D)
On the Democratic side, the guy that jumps out at me here is Tim Kaine from VA. He’s a Harvard Law guy, a Jesuit, and he gave the Democratic Response to the State of the Union in 2006. He’s been tabbed as a rising star in the party and his approval rating is 55%. Strickland and Rendell should also be considered (61% and 54% approval rating. respectively). Recently Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all been going Democratic. But there’s a pretty good chance that Ohio and Pennsylvania go Democratic in 2008 without the Veep bump, while Virginia will be more difficult to win. I’d definitely lean towards Kaine. One problem though, Kaine has endorsed Obama so that may tip the scales toward one of the other two if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
On the Republican side, Crist and Pawlenty are both 60%-ish approval rating in their state. The Republicans are more likely to take FL without a lot of help though, so I might lean towards Pawlenty.
Lastly, I don't think we'll see any "dream tickets" this time around. On the Dem side, I don't think Hillary would help Obama's ticket should he win. Older women are pretty reliable voters. If she wins, he could help her but I doubt he would. A better career choice would be to go be Governor of Illinois.
On the GOP side, none of the other candidates has the fiscal conservative credentials to help McCain.
First of all, what makes a good Vice Presidential candidate? The first and most important criterion is that the ticket is strengthened in the swing states. The second criterion is that the choice excites the party’s base (usually by providing balance). The third criterion is that the candidate can hold his (or her) own on the stump and in debates.
Looking at the swing states, the “big 4” (i.e. the ones with the most electoral votes) are Florida (27), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), and Pennsylvania (21). In 2000 and 2004, Florida and Ohio went to the Republicans while Pennsylvania and Michigan went to the Democrats. The margins in these states were all less than 5%. Looking at the 2006 elections, Florida went mostly Republican while the other 3 went Democrat. Here are the Governors:
FLA Gov. Charles Crist (R)
OH Gov. Ted Strickland (D)
PN Gov. Edward Rendell (D)
MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D) (foreign born so she can’t be president)
Next, I’ve listed the remainder of the battleground states with a significant number of electoral votes.
Other Battleground States (Electoral votes >5)
VA (2004 margin: 8.2% R, EV: 13) Gov. Tim Kaine (D)
MO (2004 margin 7.2% R, EV 11) Gov Matt Blunt (R)
MN (2004 margin 3.5% D, EV 10) Gov Tim Pawlenty (R)
WI (2004 margin .4% D, EV 10) Gov James Doyle, Jr. (D)
CO (2004 margin: 4.7% R, EV: 9) Gov. Bill Ritter (D)
IA (2004 margin .7% R, EV 7) Gov. Chet Culver (D)
OR (2004 margin 4.2% D, EV 7) Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D)
On the Democratic side, the guy that jumps out at me here is Tim Kaine from VA. He’s a Harvard Law guy, a Jesuit, and he gave the Democratic Response to the State of the Union in 2006. He’s been tabbed as a rising star in the party and his approval rating is 55%. Strickland and Rendell should also be considered (61% and 54% approval rating. respectively). Recently Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia have all been going Democratic. But there’s a pretty good chance that Ohio and Pennsylvania go Democratic in 2008 without the Veep bump, while Virginia will be more difficult to win. I’d definitely lean towards Kaine. One problem though, Kaine has endorsed Obama so that may tip the scales toward one of the other two if Hillary Clinton is the nominee.
On the Republican side, Crist and Pawlenty are both 60%-ish approval rating in their state. The Republicans are more likely to take FL without a lot of help though, so I might lean towards Pawlenty.
Lastly, I don't think we'll see any "dream tickets" this time around. On the Dem side, I don't think Hillary would help Obama's ticket should he win. Older women are pretty reliable voters. If she wins, he could help her but I doubt he would. A better career choice would be to go be Governor of Illinois.
On the GOP side, none of the other candidates has the fiscal conservative credentials to help McCain.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Jan-31 Gallup: Clinton-Obama gap to 4%, McCain running away from the field
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104071/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx
Great performance by both candidates in last night's debate by the way. By far the most substantive debate in the campaign.
Great performance by both candidates in last night's debate by the way. By far the most substantive debate in the campaign.
POLICY: HEALTH CARE
Health care in America has several major shortcomings.
First and foremost, there is a major deficit issue that needs to be addressed. See the figure from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. "Outlays" are Outlays due to Social Security + Medicare. The numbers on the left are percentage of GDP.
First and foremost, there is a major deficit issue that needs to be addressed. See the figure from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. "Outlays" are Outlays due to Social Security + Medicare. The numbers on the left are percentage of GDP.
So in other words, Social Security and Medicare taxes and premiums would have to almost double in the coming decades to pay for the rising costs. Part of that problem is Social Security, but I will only address the Medicare component in this post.
Second, there are millions of uninsured or underinsured in our system. This is not just a social problem, but also a cost problem. Since the only way that a lot of these folks get treated is in emergency rooms, the cost is unduly high. Of course, those costs are passed along to the consumer through higher hospital costs, doctors fees, etc....
Third, the cost of insurance to most families is onerous.
HEALTH CARE REFORM PROPOSED BY THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES
To broadly characterize the health care proposals put forth by the presidential candidates, the Republican plans attempt to address the cost of insurance to families and leaves open the possibility of working the deficit problem (they can’t address it outright due to the political difficulties) but does little for the problem of the uninsured. The Democratic plans attempt to address the uninsured and the cost to families problems, but do nothing for the deficit problem (the assumption being that this will have to be solved by reprioritization of budgets or tax increases / reductions in service).
A PROPOSAL BY A DUMB BLOGGER
In my view, there is a better answer. I propose a health care system modeled on the system we use to finance retirement. In other words, I propose a system that looks very much like a 401k / IRA with a safety net of Social Security. To accomplish this, I’ll have to borrow some of the ideas from both the Republican and Democratic plans. The outline of the plan is as follows:
1. Responsibility of paying for health care in retirement is shifted from Medicare to the individual with a safety net. The safety net would be analogous to Social Security.
Individuals would have to save money in the equivalent of IRAs or 401ks (Health Savings Accounts or a similar vehicle) while they are employed to pay for medical expenses in their retirement. Contributions to these accounts would be tax free.
Additionally, taxes would be deducted from paychecks with employer contributions (assumably less than the current FICA) to pay for the safety net. The safety net would work in similar fashion to Social Security: upon retirement, a monthly stipend would be paid into the individual’s HSA based on contributions.
2. Mandatory High Deductible Insurance with Tax Credit for the poor. A big difference between saving for retirement and saving for health care in retirement is that at any time, an individual may get sick and have to pay medical bills which would deplete their HSA. Insurance would have to be in-place to mitigate this risk. Tax credits would be given to offset costs for poor families.
Medicaid would still be required to help poor families that can’t meet their deductibles. Although In theory the costs of such a program should be substantially lower.
3. Larger employers would be required to match (up to a fixed amount) employees contributions to HSAs. In the current employer-based system, employers incur large and ever increasing health insurance expenses. Their burden could be greatly reduced while greatly increasing value.
4. Private sector insurance would receive tax credits for offering High Deductible Insurance policies if they met the following requirements:
a. Cover all individuals regardless of pre-existing conditions
b. Reimburse preventative healthcare costs (i.e. yearly checkups, mammograms, etc ..)
The tax credits would be designed to offset higher costs to the insurer due to meeting the requirements.
5. Heath care decisions would be entirely the responsibility of the individuals. Thus the burden/costs of health care administration are shifted to the individuals and away from the Govt. and away from Employers.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM?
The first advantage is that the Healthcare system becomes consumer driven. In the current system, inefficiencies are not driven out by market forces.
For example, even though drugs cost 2-5 times as much in the United States as they do elsewhere else in the world, HMOs typically don’t re-import them. The HMOs just pass that cost along to their customers (individuals and employers). Individuals don't see the outrageous cost of the drugs. They simply pay the co-pay. But ultimately, individuals and employers are paying for that inefficiency.
When an individual is looking at the choice between re-importing a drug and paying an exorbitant price, they’ll choose re-import. Other inefficiencies, such as unnecessary medical tests and procedures, and perhaps overhead due to excess litigation will be driven out as well.
Ultimately, good consumers will drive all the inefficiencies out of the system. The result will be that overall health care costs will go down. In the prescription drug example, Drug companies would have to lower prices in the US to compete with re-imports (where the prices would have to be raised). Even though the unfair US pricing has been a well-known problem and re-importation was legalized in 2003, reform has never fixed it. However where legislation fails, market forces would succeed.
The second advantage of the proposed system would be that cost savings from driving out inefficiencies and from removing the administrative costs would enable deficit reduction, universal coverage, manageable costs to families, and even reduced cost for employers.
The third advantage of the proposed system would be increased demand for more cost-effective healthcare solutions. Right now, individuals don’t necessarily feel the pain due to cost-ineffective management of diseases. However if individuals with diseases that cost a lot to manage (e.g. Diabetes) had to pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets every year, you can be sure the urgency would be much higher to find a better solution. Diseases would get cured instead of managed, and ultimately the costs of healthcare would go down.
WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES OF THE PROPOSED SYSTEM?
A disadvantage of the proposed system would be that people would make bad decisions. People that might not have gotten sick in the current system will get sick in the proposed system. Unfortunately there will always be a certain percentage of people that won’t make good risk / reward trades when it comes to healthcare. However, one would expect that the free market will come up with a solution for that problem as well.
A second disadvantage may be cost. The various tax credits I proposed wouldn't be free. I have to believe the cost would be significantly less than the $110 Billion needed to fund Hillary Clinton's plan. Furthermore, I believe that removing the healthcare burden from employers would increase profits and encourage growth. Ultimately as the inefficiencies in the system worked themselves out, the cost would mostly be offset. Combine that with the long term solvency of the healthcare system and I think that the total picture would be acceptable to even fiscal conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)