How the Democrats Lost This Election

In order to keep the campaign on message, Carville hung a sign in Bill Clinton's Little Rock campaign headquarters that read:
Change vs. more of the same
The economy, stupid . . . 


It's still about the economy, stupid--

How the Democratic Base Could Lose This Election for Obama - Clive Crook - The Atlantic:
"President Obama is prepared to veto legislation to block year-end tax hikes and spending cuts, collectively known as the 'fiscal cliff,' unless Republicans bow to his demand to raise tax rates for the wealthy, administration officials said." So reported the Washington Post on Thursday. The article assumes, plausibly, that nothing will actually happen until after the election, and points out that whoever wins, the tactical calculations will then look different. True. In the meantime, though, this veto talk gives Romney an opening. . . . The Democrats are so keen raise taxes on the rich that they're willing raise everybody's taxes in order to do it. Democrats apparently think Obama's position is more appealing to centrist voters than Romney's. They're wrong. . .  Romney can say he's prioritizing growth--that that's his overriding goal. The only way to read the Democrats' reply is that redistribution matters more. Their position looks all the more unreasonable if you agree with Democrats (as you should) about the economic dangers of an abrupt fiscal contraction. As good anti-austerity Keynesians, they should be more willing than Republicans, not less, to delay tax increases while the economy's so weak. Their zeal to raise taxes on the rich outweighs every other consideration: That's the message. . . . --but if Obama isn't careful, the base-pleasing hard line on the fiscal cliff could send Romney to the White House. Courtesy of progressives."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole