Zogby Poll Shows Shrinking NH Leads For Hillary And McCain

Comments (68)

awrbb wrote on January 5, 2008 8:57 AM:

INTRADE now shows Obama ahead of Clinton.

For the nomination.

noexpert wrote on January 5, 2008 9:17 AM:

I've been wondering about the possibility of Richardson becoming competitive and replacing Hillary as the voice of experience on the campaign trail. I'm an Obama supporter who thinks a commpetative primary for another month or two would would a very good thing in terms of growing the grassroots. Of the four remaining dems Richardson is my second choice.

Jane wrote on January 5, 2008 9:29 AM:

So was the veep slot part of the inducement for Richardson to try to throw his supporters to Obama? Most second choices went to Edwards.

noexpert wrote on January 5, 2008 9:39 AM:

to jane,
Edwards is a good candidate who made a good showing in Iowa, but realistically neither Edwards or Richardson has the resources to go the distance.

Along the lines of be careful what you wish for in terms of a competative race, my worries about a Bloomburg run have been stoked again.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7726.html

Hatch wrote on January 5, 2008 9:42 AM:

Richardson gave the second best speech at the 100 Club dinner last night... made me think Obama/Richardson could be a really strong ticket.

Tim wrote on January 5, 2008 9:42 AM:

As Richardson said, he didn't advise or instruct his supporters on who to give their second preference to, and if he had they wouldn't have listened anyway.

I agree noexpert, Richardson is an under-rated candidate, that, if nothing else, makes an excellent VP choice now that Mark Warner is out of the equation.

Liam wrote on January 5, 2008 10:00 AM:

Richardson lays off staff.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/05/democratic-presidential-hopeful-richardson-lays-off-staff/

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire (CNN) – New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson has laid off campaign staffers, one day after he placed a distant fourth in the Iowa caucuses, a campaign aide confirms to CNN.

Anon wrote on January 5, 2008 10:09 AM:

An Edwards v. Obama contest from here on out would really frame the issues for the Democratic Voters in a way that the MSM has been trying to avoid for years. The truth is that the MSM has used BOTH Obama and Edwards as foils to promote the Hillary Clinton candidacy as 'inevitable' and now that Iowa Caucus-goers have rejected that the MSM still will not admit that they were wrong and the Democratic voters rejected Hillary's preservation of the status quo.

If Edwards and Obama come out of 'Super Tuesday' as the top viable candidates, Edwards will have an excellent chance to win the nomination because the Democratic voters have not been given coverage of Edwards' campaign like they have Obama --and it will resonate with those looking for a candidate who will fight for them and the 'change' they want as compared to Obama's plan to negotiate with the very corporate interests that have threatened the survival of the middle class.

THe sooner Hillary is off the radar screen the better for all Democratic voters, and the longer the MSM keeps Hillary in the fight the longer Edwards and Obama will split the 'anti-Hillary' vote in the Party.

Michael wrote on January 5, 2008 10:12 AM:

Eric--

An interesting question to ask Zogby would be if the changes we're seeing (and judging by their prediction of seeing more soon, the post-Iowa data probably was a lot more than +2 for Obama) reflects changing preferences within demographs, or a changing demographic makeup of both parties.

Put in another way, is Obama gaining b/c more Independents (where he's strong) are leaving the GOP primary to vote in the Dem primary, or is Obama gaining b/c Dems previously on the fence are going with him (or defecting from Hillary to him)?

If its the former, it could explain how an Iowa bounce for Obama could turn into a NH lull for McCain.

If its the latter, Hillary could be in big trouble.

cwolff wrote on January 5, 2008 10:13 AM:

I was at a caucus where Obama started with 29 people Hillary about 56 and Edwards about 50. The 20 people there for Richardson moved to Obama's camp in realignment like they were lambs going to the slaughter. Two decided not to go saying "I just can't do it" and their votes weren't counted. I heard a lot of this after the wrap up.

Liam wrote on January 5, 2008 10:37 AM:

Last night, Hillary told the New Hampshire audience that Change takes working hard at it, and that is what she has being doing for over thirty years. Here is my question: If Hillary has being working on it for over thirty years, like she claims, then why has she not got the changes done already.

Her and Bill had eight years to get it done, but now she is claiming that that she is the only one who can make the changes needed. Her failed approach on Health care reform set back that cause twenty years.

If you work on something for more than thirty years and still have not got it done, then it is time for a change, a change a the top. Sorry Hillary. You had your thirty years shot at getting it done, and you failed. Time to let someone new take on the challenges that you did not solve.

Organizer wrote on January 5, 2008 10:47 AM:

Anon commented that an Obama - Edwards race could frame progressive issues and force the MSM to cover actual reality. I agree with the sentiment, but I honestly don't expect that. I've been an Edwards supporter from day one, but to be viable he needed to win or come in a very close second. 8 points behind just wasn't close enough. I expect Edwards to continue, but he simply doesn't have the resources to be viable much longer. Maybe if he runs ahead of Clinton in NH, but I don't think that's very likely. I think the real race will be Obama vs Clinton; If Obama wins NH, he'll roll in SC. Nevada is anyone's guess, but I think he's looking very strong. Clinton won't quit though; personally I think the delegate count will be close after Feb 5. This is going to go on for a while, I think.

frankly0 wrote on January 5, 2008 11:14 AM:

I think that if Obama wins in NH, it's going to be some pretty hard sledding for Hillary through the primaries, but I think she'd still have a good chance, just given the breadth of her organization and the depth of her presence in the public consciousness.

But if Obama loses in NH, I wonder how viable his candidacy will remain. Iowa and its strange caucuses are hard for most voters to give a large amount of credit to in any case as an indicator of quality.

Certainly, if he loses in NH, his momentum will have appeared to have been stopped. It will have passed, clearly, to Hillary. That certainly will be the conclusion and the narrative.

In short, winning NH is probably more critical for Obama than Hillary.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 11:38 AM:

INTRADE now shows Obama ahead of Clinton.

For the nomination.

And damn Bill Frist for sneaking his Internet Gambling Act through at the end of his last session in Congress. I tried to start an account with Intrade when Obama was at 19, but noooooo, Frist had to pander to the religious right, and to his contributors in the casino and horsetrack businesses, in preparation for his glorious run for the presidency.

How's that working out for ya, btw, Bill?

hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 11:39 AM:

During Obama's speech on C-Span, he said that people have been deriding his vision, and calling him a "hopemonger". God I love that phrase! It immediately crystallizes the differences between an Obama Presidency, and that of the previous administration, while at the same time exposing Clinton's attacks against him for what they are. Tired cynicism.

The man is smooth, and he's winning all the ground skirmishes against Hillary and the Clinton machine (as it used to be known). I really think we're looking at our next President for sure here.

wes2 wrote on January 5, 2008 11:42 AM:

Rasmussen (fwiw) just put up a new NH poll -- Obama 37, Hillary 27.

Walker wrote on January 5, 2008 11:52 AM:

If you read the fine print at the bottom, you will see +/- 3.3% margin of error. I am tired of "analysts" who talk about statistically insignificant changes as if they were meaningful. I am not denying that Iowa is going to have an effect. But crap like this only furthers the mathematical illiteracy of the average American.

underwhelm wrote on January 5, 2008 11:53 AM:

People have ignored an important fact about the Iowa Caucus. It is not "instant-runoff." People can see the outcome of the "first vote" and reallocate themselves strategically.

This resulted in many OBAMA supporters moving to EDWARDS for the final tally, particularly in precincts like mine, where Edwards was not viable.

Had the Iowa Caucus been straightforward proportional instant runoff, Obamas margin of victory would have been much larger. He would have gained Richardson's second choice support (they moved en masse in my precinct, too), but not lost anyone to Edwards

Iowa caucus goers, particularly Obama supporters, kept Edwards alive quite deliberately.

frankly0 wrote on January 5, 2008 12:03 PM:

The thing that bothers me most about an Obama Presidency is that he will have singlehandedly doomed universal health care throughout his term at least.

As Krugman has argued, and as everybody who understands the basics has recognized, the only way to get universal health care short of something like single payer is use mandates. And Obama has clearly staked out a position on health care very far to the right of single payer, and to the right of Edwards.

But Obama has himself already demonized mandates, using right wing talking points. How can he possibly turn around and suddenly argue that we must adopt them? Republican and insurance industry critics would savage him by his own words on this point. He simply can never allow mandates to come to pass, precisely because he will damage his own political future. (And I have seen zero evidence -- zero -- that the man is in any way capable of taking a hit for the team. In fact, his use of right wing talking points when it can only undermine progressive policies is pretty clear evidence that he, more than any other Democratic candidate, is, in fact, quite happy to force the team to take a hit for him.)

I have never seen an argument about how Obama could possibly get around this self-created obstacle. I've only seen kumbayah-singing blather about how he's so wonderful, he could charm Republicans and insurance industry executives to give up on their most basic, perhaps even existential, interests.

If some Obama supporter could explain how he might get around this obvious problem, I'm all ears.

But as far as I can see, if Obama becomes President, universal health care is DOA.

What a great way to start an era of a Democratic Presidency.

gcs wrote on January 5, 2008 12:05 PM:

So, I have a question.

How come when all the so-called "experts" and "consultants" that the MSM trots out week after week, month after month are proven to be completely, utterly, absolutely 100% dead wrong on all their predictions and insights they still have jobs?

These clowns had decided on a Giuliani-Clinton campaign a year ago. Wrong. They decided Obama was too inexperienced for people to vote for him. Wrong. They decided Huckabee didn't have enough foreign poilicy experience so no one would vote for him. Wrong. They decided the Iraq war was the number one issue in 2008. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

And when they are exposed for the frauds that they are, what do they say, "Oh, well, we were wrong." Really? No shit genius.

Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 12:07 PM:

Sorry for the multiple posts, but here it is:

Uh oh, clinton people. It may be time to turn out the lights, because the party might be over. Obama has a ten point lead in New Hampshire in the latest rasmussen poll. 37 to 27. Edwards is at 19. Here's the link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

Obama in 08, let's get our country back.

Gregor wrote on January 5, 2008 12:08 PM:

Obama Data: When I crunched the numbers in Iowa, what dawned on me is that Hillary was going to get crushed in N.H. Obama is not going to win N.H. **because** her won Iowa. (Though, the IA win is a big plus). Rather, when you look at the data of HOW he won, it dawns on you (if you know NH and IA like I do) that he is going to drive his bulldozer through the Granite State.

I wrote to Hillary Clinton two years ago and told her not to run. I explained she really had no talent for national politics, was a dud before an audience, and in fact was the PERFECT Senator. I told her she could be the NY Senator for another 20 years, and that was a fine thing to be.

Many women in history have had the right stuff to lead a nation. Hillary doesn't have it and I remain amazed at how easily this was clear years ago, yet how many just didn't get it.

When I told my friends in late 1990 that this young Governor from Arkansas was the real deal, they thought I was nuts.

I guess it's because I make my living making predictions in the financial markets that all this stuff is so crystal clear to me.

Within a few weeks, Hillary Clinton will be plagued with questions as to whether she intends to remain in the race.

It's kind of sad when a person works so hard for a goal that is totally inappropriate to their talents.

DTM wrote on January 5, 2008 12:22 PM:

In addition to Zogby and the Rasmussen one-day poll, the Suffolk two-day tracking poll went from Clinton +12 to Clinton +7 when the first post-Iowa day was included.

frankly0 wrote on January 5, 2008 12:24 PM:

Obama in 08, let's get our country back. And let's make sure it doesn't have universal health care, just like before

Fixed it for you.

Big River Bandido wrote on January 5, 2008 12:34 PM:

Dear noexpert — As a New Yorker who is pretty familiar with Michael Bloomberg, and in particular his campaign skills...I don't think you really have much to worry about.

Bruce Webb wrote on January 5, 2008 12:36 PM:

Well the headline is a little deceptive. Hillary didn't lose ground, Obama simply gained some and a good guess is that he just picked up the slivers that formerly went to Biden and Dodds.

By my count there are 13% not yet committed. If no one currently committed switches Obama would need to pick those up at a 8 to 5 rate if all gains went to Obama and Clinton and less of course if any portion of it breaks to Edwards. But absent any actual defections from current Clinton supporters (quite possible if she has lost the 'inevitable' label), it is a little early for any Obama triumphalism. At least based on Zogby. As for Rasmussen that is a hell of a lot of swing particularly when a poll taken over what would seem to be the same interval didn't pick up anything of the sort.

kaspian wrote on January 5, 2008 12:44 PM:

frankly0: Okay, as you asked, here's a quick explanation of why you shouldn't be so worried about this.

The president, powerful as he or she is, does not create legislation. That's the job of the Congress. No matter which Dem is in the White House, and no matter what details are in the health-care plan that president sends up to the hill, it is 100-percent guaranteed not to be enacted into law without serious tinkering, perhaps drastic revision.

The question of whether or not there is a universal-enrollment mandate will thus not be made by the president, whoever he or she is. So the critical question is the makeup of the next Congress -- and that's why it's critically important to elect more (and more progressive) Democrats.

In my opinion, an Obama candidacy would electrify the voting public -- especially young people -- who in turn would send more Democrats to Congress. A Clinton candidacy would likely increase the GOP turnout. Those folks might not be thrilled with any of their own candidates, but they sure know what they don't like.

Either Democrat will win the White House. I believe Obama will bring more Dems to Washington with him.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 5, 2008 12:45 PM:

Nevada is anyone's guess...

You really think so? According to the polls at which I am looking, Clinton is winning there by ~20 points. I find it hard to believe that NV will go to anyone but Clinton. Maybe Obama can narrow the margin between now and then, but win outright? I would be delighted, of course, were that to happen, but I find it hard to believe.

Certainly, if [Obama] loses in NH, his momentum will have appeared to have been stopped. It will have passed, clearly, to Hillary. That certainly will be the conclusion and the narrative.

It will and it will not. Obama is ahead in SC right now and could likely still win SC even if he loses NH. Given that no one appears to be paying any attention to NV, I think that the "momentum" narrative would go right back to him if he were to win SC, especially given that the media do not want to let either candidate get too far ahead at the moment because they want to stretch out the horse race story for as long as possible.

In short, winning NH is probably more critical for Obama than Hillary.

More critical? Probably, but not by much. Both of these two can survive a NH loss.

kaspian wrote on January 5, 2008 12:52 PM:

Bruce Webb: But remember, this is a 3-day rolling poll, and only one day of post-Iowa data has been folded in. If the same trend continues, Obama will continue to see his numbers rise from day to day.

Also, as others have noted, another polling firm just released post-Iowa data showing Obama in a pretty big lead (outside the margin of error, I think).

Isn't it the case the Obama out-performed all the polls in Iowa except the late poll conducted by the Des Moines Register? It's hard to know what's going on without knowing what particular methodologies a given pollster is using -- for instance, responses by younger voters might be "discounted" to reflect the fact that, historically, young people don't vote as often as older ones. This year, in Iowa, those historic trends did not hold. If that continues to be the case, Obama's true strength might continue to be underestimated by many pollsters.

As always, there are limits to how much we can know until the actual votes come in. This doesn't reflect any kind of weird media bias or blindness; it's just the inherent uncertainty of the political process, especially in this unusual year.

DRinOH wrote on January 5, 2008 12:52 PM:

I'm not sure which is a better sign for Obama - the fact that he's up by 10 in the latest Rasmussen poll, or the fact that their site crashed from the traffic minutes after it was posted.

Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 12:53 PM:

franklyo, I don't think so. Two points.

1. You have no basis to make that claim and its false. He is promoting universal healthcare, just not mandating corporate welfare to big insurance and big pharma.

2. However, I do encourage you to keep up the false claim. It reminds people of your candidate's healthcare fiasco in 93. She wouldn't negotiate with a dem controlled congress and she and Mr. bill cost the dems congress in 94. She set us back 20 years on universal healthcare, almost single handedly. Keep it up franklyo, I don't think people forget that one. Thank you.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 12:56 PM:

Eric, I think your record is still unbroken. Not one mention of the only candidate that consistantly opposed Iraq, will start a not-for-profit health care system and doesn't take tainted money.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 5, 2008 12:57 PM:

But as far as I can see, if Obama becomes President, universal health care is DOA.

Maybe it is and maybe it is not. I think that this is the wrong way to look at it, however. Getting a guy with a good plan elected is only half the battle. That guy still has to get the plan passed in order to matter, and as Bill Clinton proved, it is entirely possible to arrive in office with big plans on this issue and see them come to absolutely nothing.

As such, the question should not be "who can get universal coverage?". The question should be "who can move us closer to universal coverage?". If Obama can get a more expansive coverage scheme past (including a more expansive degree of government funded coverage) then this will move us closer to the real goal, which should be a single payer plan along the lines of France or Canada. It is important, however, not to get so ambitious that one end up getting nothing at all because it cannot get passed.

I cannot pretend to know that Edwards' plan is not politically doable, but I am sure that Obama's is at least more plausibly able to be moved through Congress. While I agree that Edwards' plan looks more appealing to my eyes, that does not necessarily mean that it is the "better" plan in the real world of U.S. politics.

Greg DeLassus wrote on January 5, 2008 1:00 PM:

I do encourage you to keep up the false claim. It reminds people of your candidate's healthcare fiasco in 93.

I think that Frankly0 is an Edwards' supporter, not a Clinton supporter. I welcome correction from Mr 0 if I am wrong about that, but I think that you are somewhat off-base in the above claim, dear Michael A.

kaspian wrote on January 5, 2008 1:02 PM:

No, frankly0 is correct: Obama's health-care plan does not include a mandate of universal enrollment, as do the plans of Edwards and Clinton. (It's quite similar to Edwards' plan in other respects.)

This failing has been noted by Paul Krugman among others. I agree it's a problem. But, for the reasons I noted above, I'm not putting too much weight on it.

In this kind of conversation, we tend to exaggerate the differences between our candidates, overlooking the larger truth that they are really all quite close in the specifics of their respective policies. I'd vote for Obama if my caucus was tomorrow, but I don't dislike Hillary, and I have nothing but admiration for John Edwards. We are lucky to have candidates that are this strong and this progressive -- what a change it is from just a few years ago!

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 5, 2008 1:10 PM:

Edwards's and Hillary's health care plans suck almost as much as Obama's- as does any plan that does not remove the current parasitic health-insurance industry from the picture; no real and viable reform can happen without that. So I really don't care about this issue right now. This country won't get serious about true root-and-branch health care reform until the current system collapses of its own weight, as it will within a decade if current trends continue. Until then, rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is pointless and may even delay a real overhaul.

Jason Shapiro wrote on January 5, 2008 1:13 PM:

I haven't gone through all of the above comments, but please, do not fall for Richardson's bullshit. He's nothing more than an over-the-hill game show host. Those of us in New Mexico know that he belongs to a party with only one member - the Billocrats. He has done nothing for this state but has spent huge amounts of money in self-aggrandizing glitzy projects that polish his image but do nothing to improve the state. He's a phony - don't get suckered in.

Comic Book Guy wrote on January 5, 2008 1:15 PM:

Bill and Hillary didn't cost Democrats control of Congress in '94. Credit for that belongs to the "liberal" media, which invented numerous "Clinton scandals" out of thin air and covered up Clinton's many successes in his first two years as well as the unprecedented obstructionism in which Republicans needed to engage in order to prevent even more accomplishments.

roo_P wrote on January 5, 2008 1:16 PM:

frankly0:

The thing that bothers me most about an Obama Presidency is that he will have singlehandedly doomed universal health care throughout his term at least.

I disagree. If you are actually interested in discussing the merits of the propositions, I would be happy to oblige.

Honestly though, bringing up the talking point about Obama's "right-wing talking points" does not do a lot to convince me that you are.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 1:17 PM:

Obama's lack of not-for-profit health care is the reason he's getting so much money. he makes lovely speeches that say nothing.

kaspian wrote on January 5, 2008 1:18 PM:

Greg DeLassus: That's a really good analysis of the political realities, where universal health care is concerned. Thanks!

One reason for Bush's unbending opposition to any expansion of the SCHIP program is the fact that -- in your apt phrase -- it moves us closer to universal health care. It obviously doesn't take us very far, but it moves another step. It also builds a constituency for the IDEA of the government taking the lead role in guaranteeing health care for people. This is crucial, because we've got to neutralize the scare factor in the phrase "socialized medicine."

It's quite possible that this process will take years to play out -- that we'll have to settle for incremental, piecemeal advances toward the ultimate goal of a single-payer system like other civilized countries enjoy. But we've learned from the civil rights movement, for example, that incremental, piecemeal advances will get you where you're going if you just keep pushing and working and keep your eyes on the prize.

Remember: "They said this day would never come." But come it has.

liz wrote on January 5, 2008 1:20 PM:

does anyone else think it is also a good time to get new talk show pundits and tv anchors and reporters? They are all biased.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 1:20 PM:

Elect Kucininich. We will have health care again.

Frog Leg wrote on January 5, 2008 1:28 PM:

The newest Rasmussen poll has now taken into account the likelihood that 40% of the voters on the Dem side will be independents. This poll retooling is likely the reason for the huge swing for Obama. It looks like the pollsters are learning from their mistakes in Iowa and from the Des Moines Register's accuracy.

kaspian wrote on January 5, 2008 1:28 PM:

Steve LaBonne, you might try to see these complicated issues in more nuanced terms.

Edwards' plan (and also, I think, Obama's) takes a very clever approach to the question of how to treat the private insurance industry. He insists that every citizen be given a range of choices, and that one of these choices MUST be a Medicare-style, government-administered system, with no private intermediary. The reasoning here is twofold and, I think, very smart:

1. First, you're not REQUIRING anyone to become involved in "socialized medicine." They can keep their Blue Cross card if that's what they really want.

2. Secondly, you allow the clear advantage of a single-payer system to win out in the actual marketplace. Because a Medicare-style system eliminates the private profit incentive, and thus operates more efficiently, this should be, in practice, the low-cost option. Eventually, people will get over their fear of "socialized medicine" -- as they've somehow managed to do with ordinary Medicare for many decades now -- and the "invisible hand" of the market will lead us toward single-payer, in a non-scary way.

Now you may not think that's a good approach. But to say it "sucks" is not just needlessly cynical, and not just unfair. It's also wrong.

SC Progressive wrote on January 5, 2008 1:28 PM:

Obama in 08, let's get our country back. And let's make sure it doesn't have universal health care, just like before

Fixed it for you.

The little Hillary drones sure are getting desperate, huh?

Hillary will not be able to enact any meaningful progressive legislation, especially on health care. You must be incredible naive or have never left the blue cocoon of San Fran / NYC because Hillary is one of the most hated people in America. Rethugs will be able to fillibuster anything she proposes and will actually earn the respect of the majority of the public that hate her. "Hillarycare" ring a bell?

Of course, when faced with even the minor setback, she'll revert to the triangulation nonsense and retreat back to a bill that's safe for corporate fatcats.

Even if your Hillary approved talking points were correct (a point I am not conceding), a 90% progressive bill is better than none at all (or worse, a Rethug friendly bill).

DTM wrote on January 5, 2008 1:29 PM:

kucinich for prez,

For good or ill, the President does not have the power to dictate domestic policy.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 1:36 PM:

DTM who said anything about dictating? He has the correct approach, as he does with so many things. When we vote for compromise, we don't even get compromise. We get the corporate plan.

frankly0 wrote on January 5, 2008 1:40 PM:

SC Progressive,

Sorry to go against your narrative, but I wouldn't even count myself as a Hillary supporter. I prefer Edwards' policies, though I'm not so sure he'd necessarily be effective in bringing them about (I just don't have that confidence in him yet).

But Obama strikes me as just bad, bad news.

As I said, if Obama becomes President, truly universal health care is DOA. I don't see how he or you gets around that fact, given the very right wing words Obama himself has interposed between him and universal health care.

And, of course, you have done nothing -- nothing -- to counter my argument on that point (which is really just an extension of Krugman's argument).

Boy, isn't it going to be great to celebrate a Democratic Presidency knowing that the guy has made universal health care impossible under his term? What kind of champagne do you break out for that? I guess the kind that makes you so drunk you can forget it all.

Steve LaBonne wrote on January 5, 2008 1:41 PM:

kaspian- it's not a matter of nuance, it a matter of no free lunch. We simply cannot combine good-quality universal care with reasonable cost controls until we eliminate the bloodsucking middlemen. And that cannot happen until public outrage becomes strong enough to outweigh health insurance companies' campaign cash. We're not there yet. But we'll get there.

Edward wrote on January 5, 2008 1:42 PM:

If Obama gets the nomination, and I think he will, I'd like to see Jim Webb get the VP consideration.

kaspian wrote on January 5, 2008 1:42 PM:

I guess this is a minority view here, but I think any of the Democratic candidates will (a) win the election handily, and (b) lead us toward some version of universal health care, however imperfect it may be.

I don't get the Hillary-bashing. She's been fighting this fight for a long time. I'm not supporting her, but I think she's a decent lady. And for god's sake, she's on our side.

I don't agree with any sentence in the form of "ONLY candidate X will..." We've all got our reasons for picking one person over another, but politics and history are larger than any single person. The country is moving in a certain direction right now -- we can all feel it, I think -- and just as no single person can claim credit for that, no single person is the ONLY person who will do X (no matter what X is).

I personally think Obama is the strongest candidate because I think he will have most appeal to independent voters and will bring a huge number of young people into progressive political involvement. So even though Edwards is closer to where I stand personally on the issues, Obama is very close, and I think his election will electrify the nation in a way that could never happen with anybody else.

Having said that, I think Hillary would also make a strong president. Kucinich -- no matter how strong he is on the issues -- just doesn't strike me as presidential material. He's a great asset to the party and the country, though.

We've got a lot of reasons to feel positive right now. Can't we all just get along?

DTM wrote on January 5, 2008 1:45 PM:

kucinich for prez,

OK, so Kucinich has just been inaugurated as President, and he has a plan for health care. What happens next?

hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 1:46 PM:

I'll disagree with you about one thing. The President does have some power to influence domestic policy. One of the most powerful means for a President to achieve this is with the use of the "Bully Pulpit".

And we've all seen how effective Obama can be when given a platform.

kaspian wrote on January 5, 2008 1:47 PM:

frankly0, I tried to respond to you above.

The president does not make laws. Congress makes laws. Congress will either pass universal coverage or it will not. The man or woman in the White House cannot "make universal health care impossible." He or she can make a proposal, but that's the end of the line.

If you think Barack Obama will actually veto a universal health-care bill if it lands on his desk ... well, I don't think you know the man.

hello_world wrote on January 5, 2008 1:48 PM:

That last post was for DTM regarding the President being able to influence domestic policy.

Michael wrote on January 5, 2008 1:50 PM:

The health care debate seems silly to me. In an article defending Hillary, John Cohn noted that fully functioning mandates covered 98% of citizens in other countries! Meanwhile, nasty Obama's plan leaves out as many as 15 million people! Hence, Hillary's is universal, Obama's isn't.

Anyone can see how dishonest this is.

We could say Obama's plan would cover 95-96% of Americans while Hillary's would leave as many as 6 million (!) uncovered. But that would be dishonest too.

We could make the numbers sound good for either candidate, or sound bad for either candidate. The real dishonest, however, is in pretending what is a quantitative difference (number left uncovered) is actually a qualitative difference (universal vs non-universal).

Fact is, none of the top 3's plans are universal.

Further, Cohn, in his defense of Hillary and mandates notes that mandates are only effective insofar as they have effective tracking mechanisms for finding out who is not covered or not paying premiums and effective coercive enforcement techniques (i.e. penalties).

He further says a mandate without either is unlikely to have any effect at all: it's the same as no mandate at all.

Hillary's plan provided neither neccesary component.

So, to recap:

Obama's plan vs a theoretically perfectly functioning mandate is not a debate between non-universal and universal plans, it's a debate between two non-universal plans, one that gets us closer to universality but is arguably much harder to demagogue (socialized medicine omg!).

However, Hillary's plan (unlike Edwards', and props to him for taking the politically risky move of actually laying out his stuff) is not a model of a theoretically perfect mandate; it's a symbolic nod to a mandate that could very well be an empty gesture. As such, Hillary's plan could very well leave as many uninsured as Obama's, since her mandate, if impotent (as is very possible), wouldn't pull in anymore people.

Indeed, given that Obama seems to put more money up front than Hillary, its arguable that his plan would, if both were implemented exactly as conceived, actually cover more people.

But that's arguable, though not definite. Hillary's might very well cover more too.

But of course we're not actually having an honest debate like that, discussing the realities of a mandate, what it would require both in policy terms and in terms of political capital. Indeed, Iowa entrance and exit polls show voters trusting Obama more than Clinton on health care, which makes one wonder: if you can't sell a mandate in a Democratic primary, how the hell do you expect to sell it in a general election, against people likely to go after it much harder?

This are worthwhile discussions to have, and ones being totally obfuscated by the likes of Paul Krugman, et al. I imagine many in the blogosphere fancy themselves precisely the type of people who do have these discussions, but, of course, the health care debate is perfect example of how easy it is to slip out of that mode and into demagogy. And that serves nobody's purpose.

c wrote on January 5, 2008 1:52 PM:

frankly0 I think you have the better side of the policy argument on health care. But I'd echo above comments that Presidents don't rule by decree and any plan would have to get through Congress. Work on the downticket races, organize, put pressure on politicians -- the old-fashioned stuff -- and you may get what you want.

Obama's proposal is way better than the status quo; his political judgment is that mandated coverage -- forcing everyone to buy a plan -- is not gonna fly in this election. I find him the more likely and compelling change-producer overall. But I'd also have complete respect for someone who felt strongly on this and backed HRC because of it.

Personalities aside, we have about as good a choice as I've seen, at this stage in a Democratic race, ever. Let's keep it positive.

kjoe wrote on January 5, 2008 1:54 PM:

If some Obama supporter could explain how he might get around this obvious problem, I'm all ears.

But as far as I can see, if Obama becomes President, universal health care is DOA.

I am a 61 yer old vietnam veteran, and the only viable healthcare plan for me is with the VA. The facilities are shabby, and not convenient to get to, but the doctors are great. I thank you and all other taxpayers. There are 9 million of us covered this way, and it costs the taxpayers an average of around 4000 dollars a person per year for kind of a no-frills program.

I do not have a good answer for you, even though i support obama, except to say obama's plan does the least amount of damage. All three plans are terribly flawed and inadequate----(120 billion translates into 400 dollars per citizen---one tenth of what you spend on me). Obama's plan, subject to the unpredictable demands of 535 legislators, seems to have a lot
of common sense pragmatism built in---the largest of which is to not be offering a huge hunk of misspent money to insurance companies.

Krugman has an agenda---i am not sure what---but it does not seem to have much to do with rational ideas regarding healthcare.

DTM wrote on January 5, 2008 2:03 PM:

hello_world,

Oh, absolutely. In addition to the bully pulpit, the President has a constitutional right to recommend legislation to Congress, and the veto power, and he is also the de facto leader of his political party. So he undoubtedly has a large role to play in domestic policy.

But my point was just that getting Kucinich elected is not the same thing as getting his policies put into place, as of course would be true for any President. Accordingly, it is always valid to ask whether a candidate for President would be able to actually lead a successful effort to get their policy ideas enacted into law in light of the structure of our government and current political conditions.

JGabriel wrote on January 5, 2008 2:03 PM:

Michael A:

She set us back 20 years on universal healthcare, almost single handedly. Keep it up franklyo, I don't think people forget that one.

I know I don't. But I tend to put the blame where it belongs: on Republican and Health Care industry dirty tricks, and Gingrich style bigotry and class warfare.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 2:17 PM:

'OK, so Kucinich has just been inaugurated as President, and he has a plan for health care. What happens next?' -DTM

Would you write that response just one more time? It looked so good on the screen.

What will happen is he will get someone in congress to write a bill declaring single-payer health care for the US. He will promote it, and gather support from a country that just elected him to do it.

At some point, some redneck collector of insurance lobby money will table it. Kucinich will attack that congressman, and have another introduced. It will be a major battle. But that's what we need. Eventually, there may be a compromise. But to walk into the fight compromising is the wrong approach.

We need to fight to get what we need. Kucinich [and Edwards] promise to fight. If we just keep voting for someone who will 'bring us together' we'll all be together in debtor's prison.

frankly0 wrote on January 5, 2008 2:28 PM:

What nobody among all those people objecting to my arguments can seem to acknowledge is the one obvious point: Obama has already, pre-emptively taken universal health care out of possibility under his term by his right wing demonization of mandates. He alone

And how can Obama or anyone else pretend to know that the country couldn't be persuaded, with a good, effective Democratic political leader, to achieve something like truly universal health care access? (I don't anymore doubt that Obama is right that he couldn't do so -- he seems to lack both the desire and the ability.) Why should this man presume to rule that possibility out for years upon years?

And, I have to say, I find pretty disgusting the argument that it's OK if Obama's plan would leave out, say, 15 million people, because Hillary's would leave out 6 million.

That would be 9 million Americans who would suffer because of Obama. 9 million Americans.

What the hell are you people doing pretending to be progressives, if you don't care about the poor circumstances of 9 million people?

You see, those millions of people, I'm sure, is exactly what motivates Krugman to blast Obama. He knows as progressive economist that the happiness or suffering of millions of people is what the game is being played for. And the man has an uncanny nose for bullshit. He was the first to call Bush on it, and he's now called Obama on it.

What do you people have in contrast motivating you? How Kool Obama makes you feel when he talks?

It's just a little hard for me not to despise that attitude.

kucinich for prez wrote on January 5, 2008 2:33 PM:

Kucinich's plan would leave out nobody, and wouldn't saddle employers with the expense of healthcare. It's a far better plan.

frankly0 wrote on January 5, 2008 2:35 PM:

Sorry, my tags seem to have gotten broken.

I meant, in one of my sentences above,

He alone among Democratic candidates has rendered it impossible for universal health care to be implemented under his term. Even Hillary has not essentially pissed where she might have to eat some day, as has Obama. She hasn't introduced mandates, but she has not used rhetoric that's made it impossible for her to do so, either.

Anonymous wrote on January 5, 2008 2:39 PM:

Obama/Webb would be a great winning ticket.

Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 3:23 PM:

ABSOLUTELY Annon, I was preaching that months ago. Talk about a landslide. Webb is awesome, smart and a straight talker. He is not great on the campaign trail, but he would be an awesome running mate to one of the greatest communicators in over 50 years. Then webb can carry the mantle in 2016 and really keep the country moving in the right direction. Obama/Webb 08 all the way.

Michael A wrote on January 5, 2008 3:37 PM:

Gregg and Gabriel, I stand chastized. It is noteworthy that she refused to negotiate with a dem controlled congress to start the ball rolling to the goal of universal healthcare. It was a take it or leave it proposition, then after the 94 republican sweep, it obviously was doa. The best way to get things done in congress is negotiate at least, not try to lead by fiat. The king is a classic example of how not to deal with congress.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)