What Super Tuesday may tell us about the electability of Hillary and Obama

My friend Ari (we call him "cute Ari" since there are several, but he doesn't know it - well, he does now) discusses what we can learn about Hillary and Obama's electability through the looking glass of Super Tuesday's results.

Decent candidates must win their own states, for example, so Clinton practically begins with a 79-delegate edge, since her home turf of New York is bigger than Obama’s in Illinois.

She is also well-positioned for 477 delegates in the other two largest states — New Jersey and California — so the media “expectations” run high for a Clinton delegate lead.

But primary victories there are not necessarily indicative of strength in the general election.

After all, losing Democratic nominees routinely win New York and California by wide margins.

In reality, the best indicators of the Democrats’ general election prospects are tucked away in the remaining 18 states, each of which has fewer than 100 delegates a pop.

The true potential of Clinton’s and Obama’s candidacies faces the most consequential test in key swing states such as Missouri, Colorado and Arizona....

Bottom line: Tuesday’s “delegate winner” could actually be the less electable candidate, if the winner’s support comes from the coasts.

Read the rest of this post...

The booming Bush economy?

Yippee. Record growth and low unemployment. Too bad they were only good times for a few. With consumers responsible for 70% of the US economy, who will be consuming when there's no money left over to consume? Will the Democrats stand up to the lame duck and unpopular president or will they roll over, again? We are in a different economic era but Washington hasn't seemed to catch up and act, though everyone in the working world is painfully aware of the new truth. Barbara Ehrenreich is really spot on.

But hellooo, we've had brisk growth for the past few years, as the president has tirelessly reminded us, only without those promised increases in personal income, at least not for the poor and the middle class. According to a study just released by the Economic Policy Institute, real wages actually fell last year. Growth, some of the economists are conceding in perplexity, has been "decoupled" from widely shared prosperity.

Read the rest of this post...

Pasquotank County beaten up by NRA for lumping gun owners and sex offenders together :-)

More from DailyAdvance.com Read the rest of this post...

Predictions

From Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic:

According to campaign sources, polling and stealing off other analysts, Hillary Clinton has an edge in New York, New Jersey, Tennessee, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Arkansas.

Obama has an edge in Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, North Dakota and Illinois.

Tossups: California, Connecticut, Democrats Abroad, Arizona, Missouri, Delaware, Utah, American Samoa, Alaska, Massachusetts

Keep in mind that it comes down to delegates, not just winning states, and they'll be splitting a lot of these states' delegates. And as always, California is the big prize. The NYT has a nice list of the various states, how many delegates they have, whether they do "winner take all," and who's ahead in each (h/t to Ablog reader Hector in the comments). Read the rest of this post...

Krugman: Hillary's health care plan will cover twice as many uninsured at only slightly more cost

Paul Krugman in the NYT:

[N]ew estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost....

Both plans require that private insurers offer policies to everyone, regardless of medical history. Both also allow people to buy into government-offered insurance instead.

And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies.

I'd be interested in also knowing what each plan does to help keep health care affordable for the rest of us too. Are we going to see $2,000 a month premiums for 60-something-year-old self-employed individuals under either plan? What about lifetime caps on how much you can get out of the plan? I don't care how "rich" you are, good luck paying for a catastrophic illness if your health insurance runs out or simply refuses to cover it.

After the jump, the details of why Hillary's plan covers more, and why Obama may have boxed himself in by criticizing mandates.

More from Krugman:

Mr. Gruber finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.

That doesn’t look like a trivial difference to me. One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although it costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured....

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

Read the rest of this post...

It's about punishment, not compassion

As the presidential race continues to heat up, we're going to hear more and more about the need for unity on major issues. I'm not unsympathetic to that idea, and certainly compromise is a vital part of politics. I like a vibrant marketplace of ideas, and I'm certainly competitive to the extent that I like to win (who doesn't?), but part of sharing a nation (or state or town or street) with other people is making trade-offs. On the other hand, this kind of give-and-take requires good faith on both sides. On some important issues, many conservatives are disingenuous about their positions -- especially when it comes to social conservatism, where too often some policy fig-leaf is used as a cover for the basic desire to punish for perceived social transgressions.

Details after the jump.

Mark Kleinman writes about an amazing drug that can instantly reverse the effects of opiate overdoses. The drug is not addictive, cannot itself be overdosed on, costs less than $10 for an effective dose, and can be easily used by people with no medical training. Naturally, the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy opposes its distribution. The reason is, basically, that if heroin users died less, they'd have less incentive to quit. Seriously, that's the justification! Because so many junkies are super psyched about their addiction -- and would totally stop trying to quit if they thought it was less likely they might drop dead. And really, why should we help people -- by, y'know, allowing them to live -- who choose to do Bad Things when we can show them just how awful they are by helping bring about their death?

Right around the same time I read this, a report came out that women on the birth control pill are dramatically less likely to develop ovarian cancer -- even *decades after* they stop taking it. With the caveat that the pill isn't for everybody, for a variety of reasons, this is a great thing! To the extent that, I would imagine, it might be worth it for some women to take the pill simply for the anti-cancer benefit. But you're crazy if you think social conservatives will suddenly reverse course and promote the use of the pill, because it allows for -- horror of horrors -- sex without pregnancy, another Bad Thing. So some people are would rather women be twice as likely to develop ovarian cancer than even have the *possibility* of sex without pregnancy by virtue of the pill. Compassion, or punishment?

Compromise and unity does not equal progressives caving on these kinds of issues. Read the rest of this post...

5 years in captivity made John McCain a hero. It also may have made him nuts.

John McCain's awful temper has been talked about for a long time. Well, it's still being talked about and his campaign has had to declare that John McCain does NOT wake up every day and think "I have to control my temper." Well that's reassuring. The Washington Post delves into the issue, and how some of McCain's Senate colleagues think McCain isn't quite presidential material as a result:

[O]thers have outright rejected the idea of a McCain nomination and presidency, warning that his tirades suggest a temperament unfit for the Oval Office.

"The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.), also a senior member of the Appropriations panel, told the Boston Globe recently. "He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me."

Romney, of all people, has documented some of McCain's more out of control moments in the US Senate:

Defending His Amnesty Bill, Sen. McCain Lost His Temper And "Screamed, 'F*ck You!' At Texas Sen. John Cornyn" (R-TX).
"Presidential hopeful John McCain - who has been dogged for years by questions about his volcanic temper - erupted in an angry, profanity-laced tirade at a fellow Republican senator, sources told The Post yesterday. In a heated dispute over immigration-law overhaul, McCain screamed, 'F--- you!' at Texas Sen. John Cornyn, who had been raising concerns about the legislation. 'This is chickens---stuff,' McCain snapped at Cornyn, according to several people in the room off the Senate floor Thursday. 'You've always been against this bill, and you're just trying to derail it.'" (Charles Hurt, "Raising McCain," New York Post, 5/19/07)

More of McCain's madness after the jump...

Sen. McCain Repeatedly Called Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) An "A**hole", Causing A Fellow GOP Senator To Say, "I Didn't Want This Guy Anywhere Near A Trigger."
"Why can't McCain win the votes of his own colleagues? To explain, a Republican senator tells this story: at a GOP meeting last fall, McCain erupted out of the blue at the respected Budget Committee chairman, Pete Domenici, saying, 'Only an a--hole would put together a budget like this.' Offended, Domenici stood up and gave a dignified, restrained speech about how in all his years in the Senate, through many heated debates, no one had ever called him that. Another senator might have taken the moment to check his temper. But McCain went on: 'I wouldn't call you an a--hole unless you really were an a--hole.' The Republican senator witnessing the scene had considered supporting McCain for president, but changed his mind. 'I decided,' the senator told Newsweek, 'I didn't want this guy anywhere near a trigger.'" (Evan Thomas, et al., "Senator Hothead," Newsweek, 2/21/00)

Sen. McCain Had A Heated Exchange With Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) And Called Him A "F*cking Jerk."
"Senators are not used to having their intelligence or integrity challenged by another senator. 'Are you calling me stupid?' Sen. Chuck Grassley once inquired during a debate with McCain over the fate of the Vietnam MIAs, according to a source who was present. 'No,' replied McCain, 'I'm calling you a f---ing jerk!' (Grassley and McCain had no comment.)" (Evan Thomas, et al., "Senator Hothead," Newsweek, 2/21/00)

In 1995, Sen. McCain Had A "Scuffle" With 92-Year-Old Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC) On The Senate Floor.
"In January 1995, McCain was midway through an opening statement at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing when chairman Strom Thurmond asked, 'Is the senator about through?' McCain glared at Thurmond, thanked him for his 'courtesy' (translation: buzz off), and continued on. McCain later confronted Thurmond on the Senate floor. A scuffle ensued, and the two didn't part friends." (Harry Jaffe, "Senator Hothead," The Washingtonian, 2/97)

Celebrating His First Senate Election In 1986, Sen. McCain Screamed At And Harassed A Young Republican Volunteer.
"It was election night 1986, and John McCain had just been elected to the U.S. Senate for the first time. Even so, he was not in a good mood. McCain was yelling at the top of his lungs and poking the chest of a young Republican volunteer who had set up a lectern that was too tall for the 5-foot-9 politician to be seen to advantage, according to a witness to the outburst. 'Here this poor guy is thinking he has done a good job, and he gets a new butt ripped because McCain didn't look good on television,' Jon Hinz told a reporter Thursday. At the time, Hinz was executive director of the Arizona Republican Party. ... Hinz said McCain's treatment of the young campaign worker in 1986 troubled him for years. 'There were an awful lot of people in the room,' Hinz recalled. 'You'd have to stick cotton in your ears not to hear it. He (McCain) was screaming at him, and he was red in the face. It wasn't right, and I was very upset at him.'" (Kris Mayes and Charles Kelly, "Stories Surface On Senator's Demeanor," The Arizona Republic, 11/5/99)

Read the rest of this post...

Hillary cried again

If she's tearing up for real, then it's interesting and a window into her heart, shows she isn't just cold and calculating, shows that she's a real person with feelings, empathy, etc. And if she's faking it, it's also relevant as it shows that she really is just a calculating phony. Either way, as tedious as it may sound, the tears are relevant:

Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

A doctor, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, the doctor was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

I'm not really a crier. Though I'll admit that post-Sept. 11 I'm certainly more prone to get misty-eyed, something that never happened to me before. But I can point to September 11 as the moment that changed something in me. Now, as Hillary readily admits, and admitted again this past weekend, she is one of the most scrutinized women in America, and has been so for going on 18 years. I don't recall, ever, Hillary being "one of those people who get all misty-eyed" at any time prior to these two really important primaries. It certainly isn't the first time Hillary has been faced with emotional scenes. But I just don't ever recall her being someone who teared up once a month. Which leads me to ask, what happened to change all of that? What changed in her at such a profound level, and why, as to make her one of those people who tears up? Or, is it all just a show? Either way, the question is actually relevant in determining just who Hillary Clinton is. Read the rest of this post...

Ralph Nader, we are anonymous...

First, a popular new YouTube video about Scientology:



Next, a response about Ralph Nader. It's funny, and from our usual cohort of LA comedians.

Read the rest of this post...

24 Hours to Super Tuesday

Joe and I just completed episode 14 of the AMERICAblog podcast. In this episode, we discuss Super Tuesday: where the candidates stand in the polls; what constitutes a victory for each of the candidates Tuesday night; and what to look for as the returns trickle in. This show is about 28 minutes long.

You can listen to the podcast by clicking here. For those who don't know, a podcast is really just a radio show. Click the link and your computer should play it automatically, assuming you have speakers and your volume is turned up.

As always, you can subscribe to the AMERICAblog podcast via iTunes here, or you can subscribe to the podcast's RSS feed here. And you can listen to any of our old shows via either of the two links in the preceding sentence, or you can find them in the Podcast tab in the upper right corner of this page. Read the rest of this post...

Did AP steal a story from a blogger and ABC News?

Most Americans would read this AP story and think, wow, that's a hell of a scoop. They'd read how AP bought the audio tape of a new book BEFORE it was available to the public (sneaky AP), and how AP scooped the rest of the media in uncovering that the executive director of the 9/11 Commission may have been corrupt.

Of course, what you wouldn't know is that the AP story comes 5 days after a blogger already broke this story (HE got the audio tape), and 5 days after ABC News already broke the story about the blogger breaking the story, and they confirmed it. And we posted the story, crediting the blogger and ABC, 3 days before AP came out with it's "scoop." But suddenly, five days after that, AP has a story declaring that THEY have this big scoop about the executive director of the 9/11 Commision, and they got it from a pre-sale audio tape (imagine that!), with no mention of the blogger and no mention of ABC, both of whom had the story first.
It's not the first time that AP has refused to credit the blogs for stories (though this time they also are refusing ABC News). I remember going back a couple of years now that AP had said that they wouldn't credit blogs for stories because, you know, you just can't trust those crazy bloggers. But does that stop them from stealing and reprinting our crazy stories as their own? Hmmm...

Now, in this case, is it possible that the AP had no idea that this blogger had the story 5 days before, and is it possible that AP had no idea that ABC News had the story about the blogger having story also 5 days before AP? Sure, it's possible that AP has never heard of ABC News, and it's possible that AP independently came up with the crazy idea of trying to buy the audio tapes of a new book before they were supposed to be on sale, just in the hopes of finding out that, oh I don't know, maybe the executive director was corrupt. But come on. They write the same story 5 days later, don't cite the previous stories, and pretend like it's a scoop?

Now who has a blogger ethics problem? Read the rest of this post...

Monday Morning Open Thread

Good morning.

Big week. Right wing talk radio is in overdrive to defeat McCain -- sending the word that a vote for Huckabee is just a vote for McCain. And, don't forget: Romney has Rick Santorum on his team now.

And, yeah, I know the Patriots lost.

Let's get it started. Read the rest of this post...

Citigroup division cancels 140,000 credit cards

A bank canceling credit cards? In recent weeks I have heard so many stories about people receiving calls from credit card companies asking if payments were still going to be made. There have also been itchy fingers by the banks who are charging massive late fee penalties when payments arrive a day or two late. In the past, grace periods would allow a small window but with banks such as Citigroup having to beg for money around the world, they're becoming much more aggressive. It's all stick and no carrot with the credit industry today.

When Bush and the GOP arrived, these banks couldn't wait to get their precious bankruptcy bill so they could squeeze every last penny out of people. There's not much more left to squeeze and the banks have no one other than themselves to blame. If Citigroup is taking such drastic steps, they really must be in trouble. As the expression goes, you reap what you sow. Read the rest of this post...

CrackBerry blackouts in Canada

Thankfully I have managed just fine without a BlackBerry. I often forget to even take my mobile phone with me because I'm not very interested in talking when I'm out on my own time having fun. Sure it's nice to be able to use these things in a pinch or a special emergency but most of the time for most people, it can wait. Nice work by the Canadian government for encouraging a dose of work/life balance.

Trying to re-establish a proper balance between work and life, Citizenship and Immigration Canada is starting by trying to cut the chains to what some have called CrackBerries.

The department's deputy minister, Richard Fadden, sent out a memo asking employees to implement a BlackBerry "blackout" between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and on weekends and holidays.

"Work/life quality is a priority for me and this organization because achieving it benefits us both as individuals and as a department," Fadden wrote.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

So, our regular readers may know that I have a hang up about how companies today have to put perfume in every single product imaginable. There's often some kind of artificial scent in your shampoo, soap, conditioner, hair spray, deodorant, toothpaste (artificial taste too), skin lotion, hair gel, toilet paper, kleenex, and on and on and on as if I can't go buy my own cologne, I'd rather wear 14 different really cheap ones at the same time. Well, I have allergies, and they've grown over the years, so I'm trying to get away from all the scented crap since I'm now allergic to the perfume in my conditioner and at least one shampoo I have (isn't it great growing old?). Tonight I tried, for the first time, Tom's of Maine toothpaste. Chris (in Paris) and his wife Joelle use it, so I figured I'd give it a try. And let me say, wow. For the first time in memory I can brush my teeth without my mouth hurting. I'd always figured I had some weird allergy to something in toothpaste, the longer I brushed the more my mouth hurt (and not from the brush), but at the same time I figured that sounded a bit crazy. Well, now I know. I have an allergy to some crap they put in regular toothpaste. And whatever it is, they don't put it in Tom's of Maine. I brushed for a good 2 minutes until the electric toothbrush did its thing, and no pain.

Mark my words. Some day in the future, it may be 5 years it may be 20, you're going to read about how the cumulative effect of all the absurd perfume they put in everything is harming our bodies. Someone will sue all of these companies for a lot of money, and win. And you'll think of this blog post. Good night. Read the rest of this post...