Single Payer: The Back Door (Part 2)

As I demonstrated before, there just isn't the political or popular will to implement an universal single payer health care system in the United States. To push for one could end up hurting the much-needed reform efforts. Even though the Democrats will soon control both the Congress and the Presidency, if they are attacked on both their left and right flank on health care, it could doom any bill.


What the supporters of single payer should focus on is making sure any bill contains a back door. Single payer health care advocates believe that government-run health care is inherently better than health care from a for-profit company. It is true that Medicare has only a fraction of the administrative cost of most health insurance companies. If government-run health care is better, all that is needed is to let people have the option to chose a government-run health insurance plan.

People will quickly flock to whatever insurance plan provides the best, easiest, and lowest priced care. If for-profit insurance companies can't provide the same level of service for the price, they will quickly lose customers. In 10 years, if the majority of individuals are choosing the government insurance plan, it would be much easier to convince the American people to adopt it for the whole country. On the other hand, if the insurance companies manage to provide a better quality of care than the government, they would be able to prove that a push for single payer reform is misguided.


Both Obama's and Senator Max Baucus's plans would allow individuals to buy health insurance from a private company or from a government program. By allowing individuals to choose Medicare (or similar program), they would be providing Americans with a maximum amount of choice. The health insurance companies are determined to prevent people from being able to choose a government-run program. They are afraid of the competition. In many ways this is the best free market solution: let the marketplace determine if government-run or private-run health care is better.

A Bit of Comedy - Guns

In Pennsylvania, it was inevitable for the Democratic presidential primary to turn to the issue of guns and the Second Amendment. Barack Obama believes that people facing tough economic times are "clinging to their guns," and Hillary Clinton is touting her childhood filled with hunting. Both candidates are feverously trying to convince voters that they respect the Second Amendment.

But for anyone who's watched Democratic politics, it should come as no surprise that the Democrats seem so fearful of gun ownership. If you were part of a group which had a strong habit of forming circular firing squads, you would be scared of guns, too.

The Fighter vs. The Winner

I’ve noticed that there is a strong narrative in the media that Hillary Clinton is a “fighter”. While I have no doubt that Clinton is a strong fighter, I have a problem with the implication that somehow Barack Obama is not a fighter. I’m shocked that no one seems to be examining this bizarre logic.

If Barack Obama isn’t “fightin back,” how come he is winning? He has won more votes, states, and delegates. If Hillary Clinton is such a good fighter, how come she can’t beat a candidate that doesn’t know how to fight?

There are only two possible explanations:

First, Barack Obama really is a lightweight, he has no idea what he is doing, and doesn’t know how to fight. If so, this is horrible news for the “fighter” Hillary Clinton. What kind of fighter can’t beat a weakling that doesn’t even know how to fight back?

Second, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are both great fighters with very different styles. Barack Obama is an equal skilled fighter, but he just makes it look easy.


I leave you with this wisdom from Sun Tzu’s Art of War

What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.

The Rich Irony, Part 3: Bill Nelson is a Liar

Senator Bill Nelson is a Clinton supporter and a Florida superdelegate. He has been making the rounds on all the talk shows pushing for a Florida re-vote, so that the Florida delegation could be seated at the convention. (Note: I do believe the people of Michigan and Florida are entitled to primaries in accordance with DNC rules.) His justification for why Florida should be able to hold a re-vote is that in Florida they "believe in the principle of one man one vote."

The rich irony is that Bill Nelson wants the Florida delegation to be seated so that he can cast his superdelegate vote. Each superdelegate vote is now worth about the same as 9,500 regular people's votes. Maybe what Bill Nelson meant to say was that in Florida they believe "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Forget Pennsylvania, Look to May 6th

Hillary Clinton's three victories last night ensure that the Democratic primary will continue. Both the Clinton campaign and the media as a whole seem to be ignoring Wyoming (Saturday, March 8th) and Mississippi (Tuesday, March 11th). The fact that everyone assumes it is impossible for Clinton to win in either of these states somehow makes them not newsworthy. That said, all the focus now seems to be on Pennsylvania.

This is good news for Hillary Clinton. History, political establishment, demographics, and primary rules all favor Clinton. Clinton has long vacationed in the state. She has the endorsement of the governor. The state's population is solidly white, blue collar workers, and it is a closed primary. Hillary Clinton does need to win Pennsylvania, and all indicators suggest that she will.

If the Obama campaign is smart it will steal a page right out of Clinton's playbook: redefining the battleground. Obama should embrace the idea that the Democratic primary is far from over. This is now a long fight, and there will be no knock-out blows. Make it all about winning states, votes, and delegates. The Obama campaign should fully admit that they do not expect to win Pennsylvania, just like Clinton does not expect to win Mississippi. They should try to shift the talk from Pennsylvania on April 22nd to Indiana and North Carolina on May 6th.

Focusing attention on May 6th shouldn't be hard. North Carolina and Indiana are the 10th and 15th largest states, respectively. They have a total of 187 pledged delegates up for grabs. With over 29% of the remaining unselected 611 pledged delegates, May 6th is now the biggest day left on the calendar. North Carolina's demographics should heavily favor Obama, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois should be very helpful. If the Obama campaign is smart, we will hear "wait until May 6th" from Obama as often as we heard "wait until March 4th" from Clinton.

Sloppy Reporting, Pushing the Race Narrative

The Hispanic vote has been one of Hillary Clinton's most important constituencies. In most contests she won them by large margins. It is a fact that Hillary Clinton has done better with Hispanics than Barack Obama. There are many reasons that could explain why Hillary Clinton has preformed better among Hispanic voters, yet those reasons are almost never mentioned. Overwhelming the story has been not "Why does Clinton do well with Hispanics?" but, "What is Obama's problem with Hispanics?"

The media decided that Obama's poor performance was based on race. When Sergio Bendixen, a Clinton pollster, said, "The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates," the MSM took the statement at face value. The "Black-Brown divide" became the prism through which the Hispanic vote has been viewed. A disturbing narrative was created; Hispanics were not voting for Hillary Clinton, they were voting against a black man.
There are some personal reasons why Hispanics may have voted for Senator Clinton. Years ago she did some work trying to register Hispanic voters in Texas. Her husband appointed several prominent Hispanic officials, and the Clinton presidency was seen by many as a very good time for the community.

While race or personal loyalty may have played a small role in how Hispanics voted, I do not believe that 45 million Hispanic Americans are driven by a strong sense of personal loyalty or are by racism. I suspect that Hispanic Democratic primary voters are just like all other Democratic primary voters. I think the Hispanic vote is based on the samesocio-economic patterns that have defined the Caucasian vote so far.

I say "suspect" because the exit pollsters do not report on the Hispanic vote based on income or education. They do break down the vote based on age, gender, and party affiliation. On these three criteria the Hispanic vote does follow the same pattern as the Caucasian vote. Males, younger voters, and independents voted more for Obama. Females, senior citizens, and Democrats voted more for Clinton.

Exit polls demonstrate that Clinton's support is strongest among low income voters and those with the least formal education. Across the board, Clinton has preformed best with those making less than $50,000 a year and those with the least education. In California, for example, she received 80% of the vote from those who had not graduated high school. This pattern holds true both in states that have almost entirely Caucasian electorates and in states with large Hispanic populations.

Given that nationwide, the median income for a Hispanic household is 30% less than that for a white household and that the Hispanic community has the lowest proportion of individuals with high school diplomas, one could assume that the Hispanic Democratic electorate would also tend to be lower income and have less education. It would seem that Hispanics are following the same income/education pattern as Caucasian Democratic voters.

Expect Fireworks, Prepare for Disappointment

Tonight's CNN Democratic presidential debate is likely to be the highest-rated cable debate in history. With Hillary Clinton significantly behind in pledged delegates, many are expecting her to point out very "sharp contrasts" between her and Obama. The traditional political wisdom is that she needs to go negative to try to blunt Obama's momentum.

Those expecting political fireworks should prepare for possible disappointment. Another debate is scheduled to take place just five days later on MSNBC. The Hillary Clinton campaign may plan to hold its fire until the next debate. By waiting until the MSNBC debate, the Obama campaign would have less time to address any of Clinton's criticisms before the critical March 4th primaries.

There is one important caveat. Early voting has already begun in both Ohio and Texas. Technically every day between now and March 4th can be seen as the day before the election. So maybe the time to drop the 11th hour surprise is now.

A Name Still Means Something

Barack Obama has now won 10 straight contests. Not only did Obama win, but he won every contest by large margins. Hillary Clinton has not come within 10 points of Obama since February 5th.

If Hillary Clinton was Hillary Smith or Hillary Jones, Wisconsin would have been the death knell for her candidacy. She is now down by more than 150 pledged delegates and needs to win the rest of the contests by large margins to catch up to Obama. The party elders would be calling her daily demanding she drop out of the race. But since her last name is Clinton, she is allowed to fight on.

The 11th Commandment

One month ago (or an eternity in politics), Obama and Clinton got into a spat over Ronald Reagan and his ideas. While the rival campaigns argued whether Reagan was actually a "transformative figure," they both agreed his ideas were bad. But now that the Democratic contest has started to turn nasty, it maybe time for the Democrats to remember Reagan's most important idea: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

Reagan's famous Eleventh Commandment has so far serviced his party well. When primary fights turn negative the result is usually bad for the party. Barry Goldwater in 1964, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and Walter Mondale in 1984 were all hurt by bitter primary battles.

The Democrats have a great chance of winning the presidency. The current Republican president and party have historically low approval ratings. Looking at primary turnouts and money raised, it appears the Democratic base is at an all-time high level of excitement. But the Democrats haven't won the presidency yet. Whoever the nominee is will be up against John McCain, a very formidable opponent. If the primary continues to get more negative, the Democrats may yet snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Rich Irony, Part 2, No Time for Wisconsin

Hillary Clinton ran two ads in Wisconsin attacking Barack Obama for not agree to a debate before the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday. The first ad claims that “Wisconsin deserves to hear BOTH candidates.”

The rich irony; the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports Hillary Clinton is scheduled to leave Wisconsin on Monday, a day earlier than originally planned. Senator Clinton has decided to not talk directly to Wisconsin voters the day before the primary. The people of Wisconsin do deserve to hear from both candidates, and Senator Clinton has chosen to deny them a last chance to hear from her.

This is Just Silly

The Clinton campaign produced this ad attacking Obama for not signing on to a debate in Wisconsin. Obama responded with this ad attacking the debate attack ad. Not to be out done, Clinton made a new ad, attacking the ad that attacked the original attack ad. And just today, the Obama campaign came out with yet another ad addressing the attacks in the new Clinton ad, which attacked Obama's ad attacking the original debate attack ad. We can only hope there are even more attack ads to come in this political equivalent of Russian nested dolls.

Spin Speak: Losing Grip on Reality

Political spin, half truths, cleverly phrased statements, and strategic omissions are all part of political campaigning. Spin is to be expected and hopefully ignored. The line between spin and lying can often be blurred. But we have crossed the point at which political spin has become so absurd that it is now outright fiction.

The Obama and Clinton campaigns are no longer trying to favorably shape the news narrative; they are now creating a fantasy world. According to the campaigns, we live in a magical universe in which both are the underdog, the establishment, the insurgent, the frontrunner, and the strongest all at the same time. Here are the most recent delusions which have overwhelmed the two Democratic campaigns:

Barack Obama has had an incredible month with eight straight wins. He now leads in pledged delegates, total delegates, states won, popular vote (even counting MI and FL), and money raised. Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe, yesterday even claimed that it is now "next to impossible" for Hillary Clinton to win more pledged delegates. Yet the Obama campaign is still claiming he is not the frontrunner. When you are the candidate with the most EVERYTHING, you are no longer the underdog.

From Bill Clinton comes an equally delusional statement, so utterly detached from reality that it can only be described as a "fairy tale." In talking about his wife's campaign Bill Clinton claims that, "we've gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring [budget]." Hillary Clinton has raised more than $120 million for her campaign! As of the last filing date, Hillary Clinton had raised more money than any other presidential candidate! There is nothing "shoestring" about her campaign!

Political spin this year has become almost metaphysical discourse. Words and ideals have lost relation to the facts. I think that the American Psychiatric Association needs to seriously examine if "spin speak" might qualify for inclusion in the DSM-IV list of mental disorder. The main cause of "spin speak": being part of a campaign that lasts for more than 365 days.

The Rich Irony: Speeches Can Pay the Bills

Yesterday in an attack on Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton said, "Speeches don't put food on the table. Speeches don't fill up your tank or fill your prescription or do anything about that stack of bills that keeps you up at night."

The MSM has simply reported this as an attack on Obama about his famous rhetorical gifts and lack of experience. It seems that everyone has missed the incredibly rich irony of Senator Clinton's statement. Since leaving the White House, Bill Clinton has made millions from paid speaking engagements. And we can't know until the Clintons release their tax returns, but all indications are that paid speaking engagements are the main source of income for the Clintons. The irony is that speeches are literally what puts food on the table, fills the tank, and pays the bills at the Clinton household.

*This is the first installment of what will likely be a long multi-part series.

The Party of Hypocrisy: The Race for the Title Continues

Over the years the Republican and Democratic parties have battled relentlessly, but not for control of the House, Senate, or even the presidency. The real battle has been for the title of the "Party of Hypocrisy." The fight has been underway ever since the Grand Old Party was just a not-so-grand new party.

Recently the Republican Party has made amazing strides to secure the title. In last seven years the party of small government has overseen one of the largest expansions in government spending in history. Earmarks have ballooned under their watchful leadership. And the Republican Party oversaw the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the largest new bureaucracy in decades. The Republicans also care so much about states' rights that they have fought tooth and nail to make the definition of marriage a federal matter. And after attempting to crucify Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual liaison, they all now seem to develop collective amnesia whenever they hear the phrase "weapons of mass destruction."

Of course, the Democrats refuse to sit idly by while their opponents try to secure the title. In 2006, the Democratic Party was swept to power by rallying against opponents mired in corruption. They ran on a platform of cleaning up Washington. Yet Congressman William J. Jefferson (who was caught with roughly a hundred thousand dollars in a freezer and has been charged with multiple felonies) is still a proud member of the House Democratic Caucus. It's OK-- the Democrats have only had about three years to take serious action against William J. Jefferson. I'm sure they will get around it eventually.
While the Republican Party currently still has a good hold on being the most hypocritical party, the Democrats are contemplating a bold move to steal the title. The Democratic Party has recently enveloped itself in ideals and language of the late 19th-early 20th century progressive movement. For those of you who don't know, one of the key platforms of the progressive movement at the turn of the century was direct elections. They successfully fought for the direct election of U.S. Senators and campaigned vigorously for direct primaries.

The Progressives believed that candidates should be selected based on the votes of the people and not by party bosses. Yet the Democratic Party (the party of progressive values) is poised to select their presidential nominee not based on the will of the people, but on the vote of the 795 super delegates (i.e. party bosses). The time to act is now! The Democratic Party has an amazing opportunity to win the title of the "Party of Hypocrisy."

What’s Wrong With Wisconsin?

After closely examining the demographics of the state and the election calendar I find myself asking: What’s wrong with Wisconsin?

Since Super Tuesday, February has turned out to be a bad month for Hillary Clinton. This string of defeats has arguably less to do with a fundamental flaw in her candidacy/campaign and more to do with an incredibly fortunate alignment of the stars in Barack Obama's favor. The Clinton Campaign readily admits that caucuses (Washington, Nebraska, and Maine, for instance) are advantageous to Barack Obama's campaign style. And the campaign in no small part plays into identity politics; it would be nearly impossible for Hillary Clinton to win in Louisiana, Virginia, Maryland, or Washington, D.C. African Americans make up more than 30% of the democratic electorate in these states and vote overwhelming for Obama. Since Hawaii is both a caucus and a former home to Obama, no one is surprised that the Clinton campaign has decided to write off this small state.

Clinton's problem with caucuses and African-American voters may explain why she did not campaign vigorously or perform well in the last eight contests. The question is now: Why is her campaign not aggressively fighting for Wisconsin?

Wisconsin's demographics indicate that it could be very competitive. The Clinton Campaign insists that they can win the "big states" when the contests are primaries. Wisconsin is a primary and the 20th largest state in the country with 5.6 million people. Exit polls also show that she does best with the less affluent, the elderly, white women, and Hispanics. Wisconsin is not a wealthy state. It has the 13th highest level of unemployment and the state's medium income is only barely above the nation's average (WI $48,903, nation average $48,023). Wisconsin is also a relatively old state with greater percentage of 65+ individuals than the national average (13.0% vs. 12.4%). With a 90% white population, the African-American and Hispanic votes are negligible.

Eight straight wins have given Barack Obama incredible momentum. It would be to Clinton's advantage to put a stop to his momentum as soon as possible. Trying to stop Obama's momentum on February 19th in Wisconsin seems wiser than waiting another two weeks until March 4th.

While I'm not privy to the campaigns internal polling, the demographics of Wisconsin point to it being a good state for Hillary Clinton. A failure there could be a sign that Clinton's coalition is unraveling. A poor performance in the state can't be spun like the last eight loses. I think both the Clinton campaign and the media should ask: What’s wrong with Wisconsin?

Clinton’s Giuliani Strategy, An Insult to Rudy

Ever since Hillary Clinton decided to basically secede the entire month February to Barack Obama, the pundits on TV and across the blogosphere have been referring to it as her "Giuliani Strategy." Frankly, this is insulting to Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani's Florida Strategy, while ineffective, was at least based on sound logic.

First, Giuliani was facing four viable candidates. And as he hoped, the early wins were spread equally among his competitors. Although he was not contesting for the early states, neither was he letting one candidate sweep them with huge margins. Allowing one single competitor to win 10 basically unchallenged victories was never part ofGuiliani's plan.

Second, the idea was to win the last contest before Super Tuesday to build momentum going into the day when half the delegates were at stake. By March 4th over two thirds of all the pledged delegates will already have been assigned. How did you use wins in Ohio and Texas to build momentum? The only other contests taking place later in March are the Wyoming caucus (March 8th) and the Mississippi primary (March 11th). It is then over a month until the next primary in Pennsylvania, on April 22nd. In this election cycle a month is an eternity.

Finally, Giuliani's Florida Strategy was actually a strategy. It had been planned out months ahead of time with a clear path to victory. The Clinton campaign has no strategy at this point. It never expected the race to go on past Super Tuesday and was caught completely flat-footed. A last-ditch effort on March 4th is not a strategy; it is a bloody hasty retreat.

Who Wants to be Walter Mondale or Al Gore?

Throughout the last month I have been hearing two analogies to describe the democratic primary. The race is often framed as the reincarnation of Walter Mondale vs. Gary Hart, or Al Gore vs. Bill Brady. The implication is that Barack Obama is Gary Hart/Bill Brady. They are insurgent youthful figures, who give soaring speeches, have enthusiastic young volunteers, and appeal to the wealthier liberal wing of the party.

Walter Mondale, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton are the experience and establishment candidates. They have slowly worked their way up the party ranks and appeal to the older traditional union/lunchbox voters. They are boring technocrats, who stress their complex plans to help Middle America with small incremental changes. Walter Mondale and Hillary Clinton also used their powerful political connections to give them an edge in the delegate count.

And while these analogies have some merit almost no one mentions that Walter Mondale and Al Gore went on to lose the general. Walter Mondale suffered the most crushing defeat in presidential history. Al Gore lost to a political neophyte with youthful indiscretions and a terrible business record. And Al Gore was part of a fairly successful and popular administration. There is no knowing how well Bill Bradley or Gary Hart would have done in the general elections. Of course it would have been basically impossible for Gary Hart to have done worse than Walter Mondale. And if the 2000 election really came down people voting for who they wanted to have a beer with, who does want to have a bud light while watching the game with a pro athlete? The point is the experienced, establishment, and boring candidates have terrible track records.

What a Difference a Few Days Make

It is amazing the difference that just three or four days make. It is very lucky for Hillary Clinton and very unfortunate for Barack Obama that there were five contests this weekend.

Despite all five contest (Maine, Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, US Virgin Islands) being massive landside wins for Barack Obama, the press coverage was minor. On Saturday CNN and MSNBC clearly had their B squad doing the coverage, and the Maine caucus went by on Sunday without any punditry and the usual hours of talking head spin.

Hillary Clinton really dodged a bullet in Maine. Maine’s demographics looked very favorable for her. So far she has done well in the northeast. Maine is also an all white blue-collar state with a high average voter age. The Washington Post even published an article (Women Could Give Clinton the Edge In Maine's Caucuses) the day before the caucus prediction a possible win for Senator Clinton. The Maine Democratic Party also allowed people to vote absentee if they could not attend their caucus, so Hillary Clinton could not level her common complaint against caucusing. Even with all the favorable indicators Hillary Clinton lost my 19 points. If the pundits had been talking about the Maine caucus the coverage would not have been favorable for Senator Clinton.

If the five contests this weekend had been just a few days earlier or later the impact would have been much more powerful. Had the four states voted on Super Tuesday they would created a clear victory for Obama. He would have won twice as many states as Clinton (17-8 instead of 13-8), and netted a positive ~60 pledged delegates instead of a plus ~5.

If this weekend’s primaries had been scheduled a few days later, the “Potomac Primary” it would be called Super Tuesday II instead. With 8 contests (4 primaries/4 caucus) representing a broad cross section of the nation. If Barack Obama had won all 8 primaries by double digit margins with the whole pundit universe watching results trickle in over several hours, I suspect Obama would be crowned the presumptive nominee that night. But fortunately for Hillary Clinton the loses will be spread over 4 days and the pundits are all looking to Texas and Ohio on March 4^th instead. The irony is that this weekend had 185 pledged delegates at stake more than Ohio (141) and basically as many as Texas (191). But it is amazing what a difference a few days make.