Re: So I Admit Party Discipline Is More Important Than Protest Voting (Although The Two Aren't Incompatible)

1

What did the five get to make it worth their while? Is that clear yet.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
2

... But given the typical level of voter awareness, it seems implausible that a majority of their constituents realized that voting for the Democrat on the ballot meant handing the State Senate to the Republicans.)

This is sort of irrelevant since they didn't have a plausible alternative at that point. And the Senators in question did get some policy concessions in return for aligning with the Republicans so they aren't exactly the same as actual Republicans.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 7:53 AM
horizontal rule
3

Aw jeez, Diane Savino? She seemed like one of the good ones. (Based on not much info, I will grant.)


Posted by: Mister Smearcase | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
4

For Klein, I'm close enough to go knock on doors for be a challenger.

I'm sure we could write a votebot between now and then powerful enough swamp the competition.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 8:17 AM
horizontal rule
5

The article about this in today's Times seems to give credence to the idea that this has a significant racial element to it. Does anyone who's following NY state politics more closely than I am know whether that's a fair characterization? It's pretty disturbing.


Posted by: widget | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
6

Yeah, Diane Savino was a great hero of the state senate when she gave a very moving speech for marriage equality during the failed effort of two or three years ago. And she is mostly progressive and pro-union, but she and her pals founded this "Independent Democrats" caucus a year or more ago.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
7

Malcolm Smith, who jumped ship to the IDC last, is African-American. This is pretty much directly about venial power grabs -- this is the last outpost of Republican patronage in the state -- and Cuomo's juggling act of keeping Republicans in control of a veto point without cluing off national voters that he's a Joe Lieberman Democrat.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 9:02 AM
horizontal rule
8

5: I really, really don't understand NY state and local politics. But there's an old-school ethnic politics element that complicates things; you get minority voters/politicians organized along ethnic lines, which under some circumstances can leave white politicians looking as though they're organized in opposition by default. I am less comfortable with getting involved politically in my neighborhood than I might be, because there's a Dominican/Latino organization that I'm not naturally a part of, but getting involved with the not-Latino local politics also feels unseemly.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 9:16 AM
horizontal rule
9

While I'm talking about my blinding ignorance of local politics, does anyone know how you'd find out, sometime between now and next year, who the likely primary challengers are for these guys? I suppose I could call the office of my state senator, who seems decent, and ask if they know anything.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
10

Huh. OK, thanks.


Posted by: widget | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 9:56 AM
horizontal rule
11

Smith is probably also potentially positioning himself for a party switch and mayoral run, because what New York City Republican wouldn't want to vote for the former Democratic Senate Majority Leader? Klein, as far as I can tell, is just a schmuck.


Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
12

9

While I'm talking about my blinding ignorance of local politics, does anyone know how you'd find out, sometime between now and next year, who the likely primary challengers are for these guys? ...

It seems pretty Quixotic to donate money to candidates who are too obscure to easily locate.


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
13

First they can't locate you. Then they ignore you...


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 7:11 PM
horizontal rule
14

9: If I'm following things correctly, the linked article suggests that the New York State Working Families Party (headed by Dan Cantor) and/or the DLCC, Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, would be places to look for information.

On a more informal note: man, I feel for you all! This is fucking nuts, bullshit, and so on.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
15

That makes sense, and I should have thought of it -- the WFP is the place to go to identify a good primary candidate. Thanks.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 12- 7-12 8:27 PM
horizontal rule
16

Yeah, it's hard for all but the most connected to do better than the WFP. They pull the occasional shady deal, but in general it's worth talking to them, and if you have time doing some volunteering for them.


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 12:54 AM
horizontal rule
17

Apparently it is almost only NYC where there are significant votes left to be counted (or reported anyway). From extrapolations it looks like the national margin will fall just short of 5M. Late-counted votes almost always skew more Democratic, but in this case the "base level" is already 70-30 Dem. Still a chance though. So LB's selfless sacrifice might literally result in the vote that gets it to 5 million.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
18

5 million would be great, unless it means that Romney didn't get 47% of the vote. I'd really like him to finish with 47% because irony.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
19

Huffington Post says Romney has 47.4%. Good enough for me!


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
20

||
Bleg: if someone with JSTOR access were to retrieve this for me, I would be most appreciative.
|>


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
21

19: All possible scenarios have Romney's share rounding to 47%. These last votes should push him into 47.1-47-2 territory. Ohio's margin (now certified) turned out to be 160K, just a hair under 3%.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
22

||
Apropos of nothing, Unfogged seems like the right place to pass on this tweet from Cassie Sneider: "It took a 3 year-old on the subway eating an apple while taking an obvious dump for me to understand that I will never truly know freedom."
|>


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
23

||

When people go back to work on Monday, everyone's going to be talking about the recently translated videos from 2002 and 2004 of PSY calling for the slow and painful death of US soldiers and their families.

This article provides some very good context. The first and most important thing, that no one in the US will probably talk about, is that in 2002 US soldiers ran over two 13 year old Korean school girls. When Koreans asked to put the soldiers on trial in Korean courts, the US said "Fuck you, we're America."

There is also really good stuff in there about protest culture in democratic South Korea and the various controversy's of PSY's 10+ year music career.

|>


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
24

20: Done.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
25

Thanks, you're a prince.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
26

||

First there was MIT style, now Stanford style. What next?

|>


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
27

26: Yankee go home style.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
28

OT: Has anyone been following the odd meltdown by Jon Chait over raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67?

Here Chait makes his initial case for doing so; here he replies to his critics.

Ed Kilgore has weighed in with, roughly, a "why can't we all get along?"

My question is really this: isn't Chait the guy who, a mere month or so ago, was explaining that Obama could, and presumably should, buckle down and 'go over the cliff', if only he has the guts to ride it out? It took me a while to find a link, but it's toward the end of a lengthy Nov. 7th piece by Chait that quite a few people took note of. What's the deal with Chait, then? In favor of caving, or not?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
29

I should clarify: I don't care one way or the other whether Chait is in favor of caving. I don't know him. But jesus, man, get your story straight.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
30

in 2002 US soldiers ran over two 13 year old Korean school girls. When Koreans asked to put the soldiers on trial in Korean courts, the US said "Fuck you, we're America." they're going to be on trial in military courts because that's the jurisdiction established in the Status of Forces Agreement.

FTFY. Wasn't hard to find as it's pointed out in the article you linked.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
31

The SOFA is a mostly just long, intricate way of saying "Fuck you, we're America."


Posted by: Bave | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
32

Happy SOFAs are all alike; every unhappy SOFA says "Fuck you, we're America" in its own way.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
33

23 30

Actually they have long since been tried and acquitted .


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
34

Yggles

What are low-income seniors in the South supposed to do when Medicaid isn't expanded to cover them, they're not eligible for subsidies, and now Medicare's been yanked out from under them? Turning around and saying in response "at least rich people are paying more taxes!" doesn't cut it.

For a motherfucking 2% rate rise?


Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
35

in 2002 US soldiers ran over two 13 year old Korean school girls. When Koreans asked to put the soldiers on trial in Korean courts, the US said "Fuck you, we're America." they're going to be on trial in military courts because that's the jurisdiction established in the Status of Forces Agreement.

Yeah just out of interest how many US 13 y.o are killed by Korean soldiers who handily escape any punishment? Oh. Yeah. Um.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 4:27 PM
horizontal rule
36

(Me. And while this whole thing may hurt PSY in the USA, if he were to play Okinawa and the Philippines he could do a lot for East Asian unity.)


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
37

34: Also from the Yglesias piece:

In my piece I propose a different kind of swap. Something like raising the Medicare eligibility age in exchange for the creation of a strong public option or a Medicare buy-in of some kind.

That would be great, but I don't even remotely see it happening, as Yglesias appears to acknowledge.

As far as I can tell, Chait's argument -- any argument for trading higher taxes on the top 2% in exchange for raising the Medicare eligibility age -- is insupportable.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
38

As far as I can tell, Chait is arguing that any change in the Medicare age would be short-lived. Either because forcing seniors to rely on the ACA strengthens the ACA, or because changes like that to Medicare are going to end up getting reversed before they go into effect.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 6:02 PM
horizontal rule
39

I believe that argument to be wrong.

Dave Dayen's reply to Chait seems pretty convincing: it won't work.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 6:11 PM
horizontal rule
40

I think Chait is wrong as well. Pissing off seniors isn't very good politics. It's like poking a bear: you can't really use it as a tool to accomplish other ends, it's too chaotic.

I'm writing to my senior Sen on this subject every day this month.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 6:22 PM
horizontal rule
41

Yep. Old people are really cranky especially in traffic around here.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 6:28 PM
horizontal rule
42

Yes, I'm thinking that those of us who think it's a very bad terrible idea should be writing to appropriate representatives.

The fact that the idea has only been floated in the blogosphere, and not officially, is absurd: I do hate to harangue my representatives about something that might not actually be on the table in the first place.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
43

They pay a staff to be harangued for them. It's job creation to use them.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 6:53 PM
horizontal rule
44

Also, Charley: it's not just bad politics, it's bad policy!


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 7:00 PM
horizontal rule
45

||

This zombie movie filmed at CERN is really wonderful.

|>


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 7:03 PM
horizontal rule
46

Happy Chanukah, everyone!


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 7:48 PM
horizontal rule
47

Right. My senior senator is running for his 7th term in 2014. I can't imagine he really wants people now 60-65 pissed off at him. He'll have some power wrt the cliffdive, and so is worth engaging on this. I may have an opportunity to harangue him in person in the next few days too.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 7:53 PM
horizontal rule
48

46: My uncle was a Seleucid, you insensitive rat.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 7:56 PM
horizontal rule
49

48: You must be older than I thought.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 7:58 PM
horizontal rule
50

More of a great uncle.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 7:59 PM
horizontal rule
51

||
"She threw it in reverse and tried to run over the deputy,"African-American person, don't let the sun set on you here" said Thomas Gilliland, a Harris County sheriff's spokesman.

Capitalism
|>


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 8:00 PM
horizontal rule
52

Death to Hellenizers!


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 8:03 PM
horizontal rule
53

Oops. 52 -> things before 51.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 8:05 PM
horizontal rule
54

Yeah, that was fairly clear from context.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
55

The Seleucids totally shot shoplifters, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 8:22 PM
horizontal rule
56

He feels threatened because the car is backing up, so he shoots the passenger who won't get out of the car, rather than the driver.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
57

Hammer time!


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 12- 8-12 8:29 PM
horizontal rule
58

He feels threatened because the car is backing up, so he shoots the passenger who won't get out of the car, rather than the driver.

She was in the front passenger seat. He probably fired at the driver and it missed and hit her. My guess from the article description is that the getaway car with the driver waiting was pulled nose first into a parking space and that's why she was going backwards.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:31 AM
horizontal rule
59

42.2: As I mentioned a couple of times in previous threads, the idea of increasing the Medicare retirement age was floated 'officially' by the Obama White House during the 2011 budget negotiations. It has gotten some official play since. But Obama seems to have toughened up a bit on the budget front since the election and I'm hopeful that it won't be part of any deal. I think it's unconscionable; the availability of Obamacare for people in their 60s is a good thing but it's no excuse for rolling back Medicare, which offers better benefits at lower cost.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:50 AM
horizontal rule
60

The Seleucids totally shot shoplifters, though.

Especially during early December with the upsurge of Jews shoplifting for Hanukkah gifts.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
61

59

... and I'm hopeful that it won't be part of any deal. ...

Erza Klein thinks otherwise .


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 8:38 AM
horizontal rule
62

I think Pelosi and Durbin have both said it's never gonna happen.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 10:00 AM
horizontal rule
63

On the subject of progressive taxation more theoretically, I've been wondering if in addition to social equity, it might provide better incentives for long-term thinking. We know that high marginal rates don't in practice limit businesspeople's activity and investment, no matter what theory might say (per Warren Buffett, you can always make more money than you already have), but to the extent some people will want as much money as humanly possible, high enough marginal rates might change their calculus so it makes more sense to build out in duration rather than intensity: business models characterized by a drive for stability, infrastructure development, and R&D.

Is this an old idea? I feel like I heard something like this in relation to corporate tax rates in the past.

For economists, it could be described as counteraction of hyperbolic discounting by entrepreneurs.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
64

61: that piece seems highly speculative. With top marginal rates automatically resetting to 39.6 on January 1st anyway I certainly hope Obama will not be settling for 37!


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
65

With top marginal rates automatically resetting to 39.6 on January 1st anyway I certainly hope Obama will not be settling for 37!

For some reason, I briefly tortured my self last Sunday by flipping between a the beginning segment of a couple of the Sunday shows. Thus I was able to catch both David Gregory and George Stephanopoulos plaintively asking Tim Geithner whether tax rates on the wealthy needed to go "all the way up" to the Clinton levels.

Twin dickheads of different mothers.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
66

59: the availability of Obamacare for people in their 60s is a good thing but it's no excuse for rolling back Medicare

Right, but it's objectionable not just for the principle of the thing, but pragmatically as well: 65- and 66-year-olds would be shifted from the Medicare risk pool to the pre-Medicare risk pool(s). The former loses its relatively healthier members while the latter gains relatively sicker members; rates would go up for the latter, leading the public at large to conclude, once Obamacare kicks in, that it sure as hell isn't reducing insurance costs, is it? It's a trap! in other words, a gift to Republicans in their quest to keep public antipathy to Obamacare alive and well. Very stupid idea for Democrats to accede.

the idea of increasing the Medicare retirement age was floated 'officially' by the Obama White House during the 2011 budget negotiations

Ah, sorry -- I can't keep the stories straight on what the 2011 negotiations contained. Between Bob Woodward's account of the seekrit goings-on, and that WaPo account of the behind-the-scenes proceedings, and what we heard from the media at the actual time ... I haven't managed to keep the story straight. Oops.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
67

This Krugman post on inequality is interesting not because of any new ideas advanced in it, but because it suggests Krugman is just now coming around to the possibility that technology has shifted the balance from labor to capital, still isn't considering the similar consequences of globalization, and doesn't acknowledge that, even by his chart, the problem had been going for a decade before the time when he dismissed it as not "a big issue".


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 11:41 AM
horizontal rule
68

I certainly hope Obama will not be settling for 37!

I dunno. He says he wants $1.6 trillion in revenue; how much revenue would 37% rather than 39.6% gain? It'd need to be a number-crunching exercise first of all. Boehner offered $800 million, half of what Obama wants. Maybe they compromise on $1.2 trillion -- if 38% or 37.5% or whatever accomplishes that, well, maybe that's okay. It would be a face-saving measure for Boehner; he gets to show that he's a tough guy who battled the President down from his outrageous demand even as he caves on raising rates at all. Depends on how much trouble he'd have bringing his caucus on board on raising rates.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
69

The President's people misunderstood deficit politics in 2010 and 2011, thinking, apparently, that concern over the debt, outside the Village, was real. Or, rather, that it overrode anything else at all. Surely they now see (after Ryan was able to campaign on Obama's Medicare "cuts") that there is no interest in the public in this sort of thing. Well, even if the Admin doesn't get it, I think we can be very sure that members of Congress know exactly what the consequences are. Even if they might be willing to go along with it as part of a deal, no one -- including Boehner -- can afford to be seen as the godfather of this rollback (and indeed, his 12/3 letter to Obama doesn't mention it). No one but Obama can afford the political heat -- and surely even his political people aren't dumb enough to think that they'll win some kind of measurable credibility for taking the lead.

(Obviously, people should be pounding on their reps on this this anyway.)


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
70

68's "$800 million" s/b "billion"

69: Right, I just don't see any reason the administration needs to offer a rise in Medicare eligibility age in exchange for raising top marginal tax rates. There are a myriad of things the admin. can compromise on instead, like raising the top marginal rate to just 38% (or whatever). I forget what's happening on corporate tax rates, capital gains & dividend tax rates, and whatnot. Maybe there's room for maneuvering there.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
71

Everyone in the Village thinks it's a good idea. But it reminds of of instances where one hears that 'we' ought to rearrange boundaries in the Middle East, or get rid of the Senate, or any of a myriad of things that (a) don't cost 'us' anything and (b) can't be done without participation from the people who are paying the cost. 87.3% of all punditry is crap.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
72

The Medicare age rise may be just a head fake. I suspect that Obama really wants a permanent debt-limit fix and will be willing to surrender quite a lot to get one. This sort of politics is largely symbolic, so it doesn't matter how much a cut actually saves. Arguing that raising the Medicare eligibility saves only $100B misses the point. It's a cut that the left hates. If instead Obama gives up cuts that the left hates but not as much as it hates raising the Medicare age, then the specter of the Medicare cut will have done its work.

Bad news for NEH, PBS and Amtrak, though.


Posted by: Jim | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
73

Everyone in the Village thinks it's a good idea.

Who?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
74

I suspect that Obama really wants a permanent debt-limit fix and will be willing to surrender quite a lot to get one

Tim Geithner's rhetoric on this has surprised me: he's pretty serious about it. As is Obama, with his 'I will not play that game'.

I've found it unsettling that Pelosi et al. have been disinvited from fiscal cliff negotiation talks.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
75

I don't know who Jim is, but he gets it right in 72. Unless, that is, we're talking about a Grand Bargain, in which case all bets are off.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:51 PM
horizontal rule
76

I wish I had said "a so-called Grand Bargain". Larding one's comments with extra disdain is very important.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
77

Since this is now the politics thread, will someone please tell me if there's any substantive reason that I should reevaluate my disdain for Cory Booker? I mean, on the one hand, I understand that he's handsome, African American, well spoken, and possessed of enormous physical courage (though he's never had to deal with a persistent limp, so I'm not sure why people make such a big deal about him dashing into burning buildings and whatnot). But on the other hand, his non-stop panders to Wall St. are icky, and he's more willing to deprecate the role of government than is, in my view, appropriate for someone who calls himself a Democrat. And yet, I'm willing to be persuaded that I'm missing something.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
78

It's looking like grand bargain territory again: Obama and Boehner in private talks.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
79

African American, well spoken

Also clean.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
80

I avoided "articulate" on purpose, but some people are never satisfied.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
81

77: No, you're still right. Booker is very charismatic, but he's also very much a member of the centrist sell-out wing of the Democratic Party and always has been.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:19 PM
horizontal rule
82

I'm not sure why you're raising the question of Cory Booker. He's doing a 30-day experiment now in living on the food allowance of someone on SNAP, food stamps -- $30/week, I think. There's been some good commentary on whether such experiments are actually just exercises in the privileged speaking for the other, and what it takes to expand such an exercise to more productive and inclusive policy. People are watching Booker, sure, to see what he does with this.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:22 PM
horizontal rule
83

81: thanks. That was my strong sense. But it's helpful to hear from people (you, oud, maybe some others) who know the local politics better than I do.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:24 PM
horizontal rule
84

I'm not sure why you're raising the question of Cory Booker.

Because, as I said, this seems to be a politics thread now, and because I'm interested in Booker and wanted to hear from people who know more about him.


Posted by: Von Wafer | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
85

hope he becomes the next obama even if just to spite von wafer with his ironic "articulate and clean" jokes, what's with this need to insult first if one is interested in him
he leaped once into a burning building? that makes him more than qualified to become a prez, maybe he "panders to" the wall street types to bring funds to develop newark or whatever are his motives, they are must be not dishonest, if he is able to leap into the burning buildings, shows someone who is, that, true to his nature


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:33 PM
horizontal rule
86

He's more (Bill) Clinton than Obama. I doubt he'd be my first choice in a primary, but he's a real talent and there aren't so many presidential-level talents out there.


Posted by: Unfoggetarian: "Pause endlessly, then go in" (9) | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:50 PM
horizontal rule
87

Here are the betting odds for the 2016 presidential winner. You can get 150 to 1 on Cory booker. My favorite is Nate Silver at 538 to 1.


Posted by: beamish | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 1:57 PM
horizontal rule
88

67: That did look to me like a new tack for him as well. I sometimes suspect his (and others) thinking (or public writing anyway) has been possibly constrained by the fact that if you mention that anything is truly new under the sun, the intellectually dishonest gobshites use it as ammo against applying classical Keynesian solutions.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
89

That's probably true, and I shouldn't have suggested that his thinking is wholly reflected in his blog. It was certainly an uphill battle to convince people of a demand induced recession, as opposed to, say, structural unemployment. That said, I think Krugman, DeLong, et al, have a reluctance to consider non-skills based causes of inequality because they have advocated policies that have worsened it.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 12- 9-12 5:51 PM
horizontal rule
90

If Ezra Klein is to be believed, it really is time to be contacting your representatives regarding raising the Medicare eligibility age.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 12-10-12 11:29 AM
horizontal rule