tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post2648076201815667498..comments2023-11-05T02:58:27.295-05:00Comments on Campaign Diaries: As Clinton plays up gas tax issue, superdelegates show discontentTanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17333289018970623022noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-17625714723881512182008-05-04T15:22:00.000-04:002008-05-04T15:22:00.000-04:00robert, thanks for the input. interesting. We kno...robert, thanks for the input. interesting. We know there's racsists and sexists on all sides. It's all identity politics and it sounds like your wife identifies with Hillary more and is grasping at reasons to justify her antipathy. Perhaps. No charge for the psychoanalysis.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-58757667056035676282008-05-04T14:29:00.000-04:002008-05-04T14:29:00.000-04:00robert_v: Admittedly without any knowledge of your...robert_v: Admittedly without any knowledge of your and your wife's personal situation, I think what may be going on is something I've seen quite a bit of: attributing the attitudes of some fraction of a candidate's supporters to the entire campaign and even to the candidate.<BR/><BR/>Every candidate has people who are passionate and can't see any reason except illegitimate ones for not being a supporter. Those people, even if they are not the majority of the candidate's backers, are the ones most likely to speak out (or post online). When those voices are the loudest, it's not hard for others to conclude that all of that candidate's backers have the same attitude, even though it's not true.<BR/><BR/>But that attribution can be shown to be incorrect. We've discussed polls that say that X percent of Obama supporters would not vote for Clinton in the general election, and vice versa. But not only are those numbers probably overstated, they're a substantial minority; most supporters of each candidate say they would vote for the other against McCain. I think that result lends support for the claim that those who think the only reason not to support Obama is racism, or the only reason not to support Clinton is sexism, do not constitute the bulk of either candidate's supporters; they just may be the ones that people are hearing the most.<BR/><BR/>I think most people think there are plenty of reasons to support or not support either candidate that have nothing to do with race or sex. But hearing only the extremists on one side, and then attributing those claims to the entire group, helps turn others into extremists on the other side. You're right that there will be sore feelings no matter who gets the nomination; I just hope that most people recognize that most supporters on both sides are not extremists and so mitigate the damage going into November.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-27956433192823937002008-05-04T07:59:00.000-04:002008-05-04T07:59:00.000-04:00mpd: Well it is difficult to explain, but, my wif...mpd: Well it is difficult to explain, but, my wife is an educator and has spent her adult life working with AA children, therefore a very sizeable number of her closet acquaintance are AA. When Barack became viable, most of her friends became ardent Barack supporters, which is fine. Her discomfort arises for the fact that many of her AA friend shave implied to her that if she does not support Barack then she must be a closet racist, that she does not really get it. Racism is the only explanation for not supporting a candidate that is so evidently superior. And she resent the way in which Obama has used republican right wing points to attack Hillary. I think the whole think is silly. I counter with the fact that Hillary has done pretty much the same, and that this is the nature of politics. But not to her. Right or wrong, she blames the Obama camp for this. I am telling you, no matter who wins, there will be some very sore feelings out there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-40539636603844761312008-05-03T20:18:00.000-04:002008-05-03T20:18:00.000-04:00robert, Care to elaborate why your wife has such a...robert, Care to elaborate why your wife has such antipathy to Obama?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-68152707930304624422008-05-03T20:14:00.000-04:002008-05-03T20:14:00.000-04:00anon17:49, Do you run a business? Just curious.anon17:49, Do you run a business? Just curious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-3446555216092517712008-05-03T20:10:00.000-04:002008-05-03T20:10:00.000-04:00Anon:17:49 Every tax increase on my business in th...Anon:17:49 Every tax increase on my business in the last 25+ years I've had to pass on to my customers, otherwise I'd be bankrupt.Can only speak for myself but taxes "cost" me! Anyway, I don't think our minds will meet on this but I enjoyed the civil back and forth.2 quick questions though, can you site some info on "reduced refinery" output? I was under the impression demand was the problem(China et. al)and I wasn't aware the oil industry was "shrinking"? any #s there? ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-73067342917451710422008-05-03T18:23:00.000-04:002008-05-03T18:23:00.000-04:00Do you really believe that Barack can win in Novem...<I>Do you really believe that Barack can win in November?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes. I believe either Obama or Clinton can win in November.<BR/><BR/>If it's one thing Obama has shown, it's been his ability to mitigate the damage of the past two months by pointing out to voters what should be important to them and what should not. Kerry lost last time because he failed that exact test. He allowed the contest to become about his and Bush's Vietnam service. The whole thing was absurd, and instead of getting dragged down into it he should have said that the issue isn't about what happened 30 years ago (where he comes out ahead in any case) but about the last 4 years and the next 4 years. And you didn't have to go back more than 4 years to see how the Bush administration had bungled everything it touched. But Kerry let the voters get distracted. (He could also easily have justified his "I voted for it before I voted against it" line and simultaneously painted Bush as the one who didn't "support the troops" by giving people like himself a tax cut instead of paying for the war, all in a 30 second spot. Why he let it slide is an absolute mystery to me.)<BR/><BR/>Obama is willing to call the distractions what they are. He can (and I think will) argue that when Republicans talk about Reverend Wright, it's because they don't want to talk about Iraq. When they talk about flag pins, it's because they don't want to talk about the economy. When they talk about the Weather Underground, it's because they don't want to talk about health care. These are the issues that matter to the lives of the American people, and the public favors Democrats overwhelmingly on each of them. And these are issues that require a Democrat in the White House if they're to be addressed.<BR/><BR/>I think either Democrat should be able to make that kind of argument. And Obama has shown with his speech on race that he can take a distraction and elevate the discussion in a way few anticipated and many admired. Moreover, he won't be as easy on McCain as he has been on his fellow Democrat; he has said so himself, and I see no reason to doubt him.<BR/><BR/>So I do believe he can win. I also believe that the problems that face us today require Americans to take responsibility for their government again. I do not believe that it will happen with McCain or Clinton, neither of whom seem to be willing to ask Americans to actually do something on the issues they say are important. And I'm not sure it would happen with Obama--but I think it might.<BR/><BR/>However, I will support Clinton if she is the nominee because of the issues I noted above. The Clinton-McCain choice is a clear one for me. I'm just skeptical as to whether Clinton has the leadership skills to get the public thinking about the long-term problems we face, and the ability to rally the public to create the political support necessary to address them. Because if we're serious about becoming more energy independent, or fixing Social Security, or getting big money out of politics, we can't pretend that it won't require something from us.<BR/><BR/>Apologies for the extended post, but thanks if you've read this far!<BR/><BR/>Oh, and robert_v, thanks for your "concise and studious arguments" comment. I know that many people after a day at work, a commute, and only then limited time with their families probably don't have much appetite for dense policy discussions with the little time they have left. But I think we can still believe in the power of good ideas to make a difference. European governments decided to have extremely high taxes on gasoline because they knew it would be beneficial in the long term, and their citizens didn't vote them out of office; since they still have those taxes, there must be some public support. So with the right leadership, such things are possible.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-87117377679985714422008-05-03T17:49:00.000-04:002008-05-03T17:49:00.000-04:00MPD Taxation on profit is not a cost, period. Eith...MPD Taxation on profit is not a cost, period. Either you pay to pull out profit or you reinvest. If you raise more revenue, you pay more tax. The key to maintaining and growing a business is to reinvest and not pay taxes. The oil industry is shrinking by pulling out profit. Reducing capacity raises prices. Forcing reinvestment by taxing profit, grows business. Reduced refinery capacity is to blame for high gas prices. Punish profit taking to solve the problem. A three month penalty is just a threat to make permanent. It's really not that complicated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-50975656163380523712008-05-03T17:35:00.000-04:002008-05-03T17:35:00.000-04:00dsimon, an honest question here. Do you really be...dsimon, an honest question here. Do you really believe that Barack can win in November? I am not being argumentative, but evidently you support his bid, and I have had serious doubts since day one. To quote from Finding Nemo of all things; "you never know when they are ready, but when they are ready you will know" LOL!! Are we ready? I assure you the GOP will run the most destructive, vicious, abrasive, racist and personal campaign in history, simply because, that is all they have. Is this a Jacky Robinson moment? Is this the man and the time? I reckon we will now in November. For our sakes O hope he is, because otherwise, a supreme court packed with Antonin Scalia clones is all we will see until the day I die. And that is the crux of the matter. You make concise and studious arguments for the candidate you support. Point in case, I am absolutely sure I will support Barack if he is nominated. On the other hand, my wife, a long life democrat has such antipathy for the man that is almost pathological. Scares me sometimes!! To me all boils down to electability. Can he win? Will the GOP turn him into a caricature like Michael Dukakis? Can he win? I just don’t know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-13751773429547958372008-05-03T17:16:00.000-04:002008-05-03T17:16:00.000-04:00Anon 16:10, Is there some law I'm not aware of tha...Anon 16:10, Is there some law I'm not aware of that keeps a company from passing on it's costs or taxes? If I make 10 dollars profit on each widget I sell and the gov. says I'll have to pay a 5%(windfall profit) tax for @, I guarantee you my widgets just went up 5%+ in price.It's not a fallacy that business passes on costs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-3425610680623233172008-05-03T16:47:00.000-04:002008-05-03T16:47:00.000-04:00I just read that Obama was a staunch advocate for ...I just read that Obama was a staunch advocate for the gas tax holiday back in 2000. Does that mean he's a flip-flopper now? That doesn't look good. The RNC will make great hay with that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-11028183766547740142008-05-03T16:21:00.000-04:002008-05-03T16:21:00.000-04:00if your logic was correct, we would had never elec...<I>if your logic was correct, we would had never elected GW Bush. But we did.</I><BR/><BR/>That's because Gore and Kerry ran a couple of the most awful campaigns I've ever seen. It wasn't because Bush pandered to every interest group that came along. As I recall, Gore's "populist" stance came across as fake and deterred some people for voting for him; he just never defined himself or had a clear message. And Kerry just didn't go after Bush's credibility until it was way too late. He also learned nothing from the Clinton campaign about responding quickly to attacks; as I recall, the Swift Boat ads ran for half a week before Kerry answered back. It's clear that neither Obama nor Clinton will make that mistake; it takes them less than 12 hours to respond to each other.<BR/><BR/><I>All we are saying is this: gas prices are killing a lot of people, it should be a winner issue for the democrats</I><BR/><BR/>Except that cutting the gas tax won't lower gas prices. Isn't that just a bit of a problem? What if that proposal actually passed--and then consumers saw no relief at the pump? Would it still be a winner? Or would it confirm some people's views that Democrats can't be trusted?<BR/><BR/>If a politician is going to pander, it had better be a pander that actually works. I'd love to see Obama debate McCain on this issue because I think Obama would take McCain (who supposedly doesn't understand economics) apart--Mr. "straight talk" and "I don't pander."dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-59475784680447526962008-05-03T16:10:00.000-04:002008-05-03T16:10:00.000-04:00Mpd the company cannot just add cost to cover prof...Mpd the company cannot just add cost to cover profit taxed. That is a fallacy. They can only shift to reinvestment over profit taking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-66671155840372316042008-05-03T14:30:00.000-04:002008-05-03T14:30:00.000-04:00If the government raises the taxes on the company ...If the government raises the taxes on the company profits ("windfall" or not) the company just adds that cost to the product, they don't take it out of their own pocket(shareholders)In the end the consumer ALWAYS pays. It's called "the free market". But I agree simplistic gimmicks sell.Some say Obama should abandon principle and join the pandering just for votes, but that would belie what he claims to stand for.I also agree most Americans don't and can't understand anything beyond bumper sticker slogans. God help Us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-38341629278580190682008-05-03T13:52:00.000-04:002008-05-03T13:52:00.000-04:00dsimon, if your logic was correct, we would had ne...dsimon, if your logic was correct, we would had never elected GW Bush. But we did. Never underestimate the capacity of the American people for self-delusion and for the quick fix. You are making a reasoned argument, that I am afraid will wash like waves against the rocks of economical uncertainty that many folks are feeling now. Perception is important. I remember in 1988 the image of GHW Bush campaigning with his shirt sleeves rolled up and how that played against Michael Dukakis studious college professor looks! Guess who won? All we are saying is this: gas prices are killing a lot of people, it should be a winner issue for the democrats, and the great unwashed do not want to hear long dissertations in macroeconomics. This is what sometimes I am afraid Obama does not understand. Sometimes politics can be like trench warfare. And it is also about enacting policies. You only get to do that if you win. Glorious defeat does not enact policy!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-60061501497155086532008-05-03T12:45:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:45:00.000-04:00you're confirming that you'd lose the GE to "get t...<I>you're confirming that you'd lose the GE to "get things done" ?? Thanks but no thanks we'd rather win to get things done.</I><BR/><BR/>No, I'm saying Democrats can win in a way that also allows them to get things done. You need to do both.<BR/><BR/>If you win but do so in a way that makes it impossible to accomplish anything, then what's the point?<BR/><BR/>You can fool the people into thinking you can have low gas prices, drive lousy cars, and reduce our dependence on oil. You can fool people into thinking that universal health care is free. Heck, why not even promise everyone more tax cuts if it can get votes?<BR/><BR/>Then in four years we'll be worse off. The economy will be a wreck, and there won't be money to fund anything. People will be furious that Democrats didn't deliver, and they'll be booted right out of offices nationwide.<BR/><BR/>I don't call that getting things done. I call that a disaster.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-57649494728145748722008-05-03T12:42:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:42:00.000-04:00I would appreciate it if commenters refrained from...I would appreciate it if commenters refrained from gratuitous insults and postings that contain nothing but disparaging remarks. In the interest of keeping a lively comment section in which all can participate, I will not hesitate deleting comments that go against these simple rules. Also, it could be all be much more civil if "anonymous" commenters who are regular posters identified themselves with an ID.Tanielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17333289018970623022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-39804831843877788122008-05-03T12:36:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:36:00.000-04:00Get real hereIt is real that McCain was popular in...<I>Get real here</I><BR/><BR/>It is real that McCain was popular in part because people thought he wasn't a panderer. And it is real that some people who weren't turned off by Clinton before are turned off by this blatant pander. Some people may like her proposal; the question is whether those people are ones that wouldn't have voted for her anyway.<BR/><BR/><I>Getting to the WH is more important now and Obama just can't make it.</I><BR/><BR/>Some people say that over and over again, but never provide data to back it up. I could say the same thing about Clinton, or McCain for that matter, but my saying it wouldn't make it true.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-78175715046893705262008-05-03T12:32:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:32:00.000-04:00dsimon-you're confirming that you'd lose the GE to...dsimon-you're confirming that you'd lose the GE to "get things done" ?? Thanks but no thanks we'd rather win to get things done.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-90481098954575258662008-05-03T12:30:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:30:00.000-04:0056% of Americans now think Obama shares Rev. Wrigh...<I>56% of Americans now think Obama shares Rev. Wright's views! That's a condemning figure!</I><BR/><BR/>Come on, provide all the data. (And provide a reference while you're at it).<BR/><BR/>The Rasmussen poll says 56% say it's at least <I>somewhat</I> likely that Obama shares <I>some</I> of Wright's controversial views. Only 26% said it was very likely, and I'd assume that the vast majority of those are people who wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-52631680360019716572008-05-03T12:29:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:29:00.000-04:00Yeah, and that's why fiction sells at the box offi...Yeah, and that's why fiction sells at the box office and documentaries are relegated to public broadcasting. Get real here, we watch PBS instead of sit-coms, but the general population doesn't have the attention span to sit through one segment of Nova. I like Obama and agree with his ideas but I'd rather win so I can put my ideas to work in an administration that listens. Getting to the WH is more important now and Obama just can't make it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-63094104470988183442008-05-03T12:22:00.000-04:002008-05-03T12:22:00.000-04:00Just tell the voters whose help you want that it's...<I>Just tell the voters whose help you want that it's their own fault and they're screwed. You can try if you want but it sure isn't a vote getter.</I><BR/><BR/>The question is whether you want to get elected to get elected or whether you want to get elected to get things done.<BR/><BR/>Telling the voters that it's within their power to create change can be a powerful message. Telling them that we can act together to achieve great things can be inspirational.<BR/><BR/>The truth is that we are responsible for our own situation. We live in a representative democracy, and so we are accountable not only for our individual decisions but for our national policies. And unless we get back to that basic principle, we're going to wonder every four years why "the government" didn't solve all our problems for us.<BR/><BR/>McCain has a decent reputation because people felt he was being honest with them (some of us wondered where that person went). Because of that, some people would still vote for him even if they didn't agree with him on everything.<BR/><BR/>Clinton has a reputation as a policy wonk, and now she adopts a proposal that no policy wonk thinks is a good idea. Yes, it may attract some voters. But others may see it as confirming the sense that she really will say anything to get elected. She already has a credibility problem; this won't help.<BR/><BR/>And when it comes to the general election, Obama could say that McCain offered "relief" that would be bad for energy independence, bad for global warming, and wouldn't actually happen anyway. The real subsidy that would help would be one that gets us into fuel-efficient vehicles which would protect us against high gas prices, be good for energy independence, and good for fighting global warming. Obama could say we can go for the cheap fix that will make things worse, or, if we're serious, we can act together to make things better. I think that's a winner in November.dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-8561883717214275392008-05-03T11:55:00.001-04:002008-05-03T11:55:00.001-04:0056% of Americans now think Obama shares Rev. Wrigh...56% of Americans now think Obama shares Rev. Wright's views! That's a condemning figure!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-58792535888657045432008-05-03T11:55:00.000-04:002008-05-03T11:55:00.000-04:00If Zogby is polling voters that are not likely Dem...<I>If Zogby is polling voters that are not likely Democratic primary voters, then his model is too flawed to be useful.</I><BR/><BR/>But they're not, at least by the responses of those polled.<BR/><BR/>The first question asked is probably "Are you a likely Democratic primary voter?" If the person says yes, then the person is asked the rest of the questions and is included in the sample.<BR/><BR/>As long as there aren't a substantial number of people lying about whether they're likely voters, then the poll should be valid; it doesn't matter which party they belong to as long as they represent the likely voting population. (And the problem of people lying could exist with any poll, so it wouldn't make these polls any less valid than the others.)dsimonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01997716795133693794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5027045200173644956.post-84781342548613691952008-05-03T11:43:00.000-04:002008-05-03T11:43:00.000-04:00Folks, specially you Mike, dsimon, and Mark, you j...Folks, specially you Mike, dsimon, and Mark, you just don't get it! You are absolutely right. It is a shameless exercise of pandering and economic misinformation. It is also simple, easy to sell, and very, very effective. Just open your ears when you go to the gas pump. Not everybody is as well informed as you are. Perception reigns supreme here. If Barack lose in NC, a very unlikely possibility, lay the defeat at the feet of reverend Wright and the gas tax. If there is anything that can motivate the good old boys to come to vote, beside guns, are their beloved trucks and the fuel they put in them. Hillary last stand: an unlikely victory in NC combine with GOP wins in MS-01 and LA-06. You will hear the stampede of SDs from miles away. Many of these SDs have move to the Obama column on the believe that he will be less of a drag for them come November. If that perception change……Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com