Paul Krugman: Obama and the Democrats' Chances

"If you were going to design a presidential campaign from the Democratic side so as to minimize the chances of actually winning, what would you do?" Economist Paul Krugman has doubts about Obama's chances.
This is an excerpt from a Carnegie Council talk on April 4, 2008. For the full video, audio, and transcript, go to http://www.carnegiecouncil.org

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• commentary
• analysis
• Paul
• Krugman
• Barack
• Obama
• Democratic
• Party
• Election
• race
• economy
• health
• care

[AtticusRebma]

Well, but for McCain's insane reaction to the economic crisis and his nomination of the Caribou Barbie as his running mate, I think Krugman's prediction *would* have come true.

[KyndestKid]

This is the first time I've heard him say something that didn't come true! :)

[baronmorris]

fair enough, on both counts.  ;-)

peace.

[Slimdawgc]

Politics doesn't subsume economics. It's like saying that economics subsumes mathematics - economists use mathematics, but mathematicians don't use economics.

I agree with you: Obama is a leader, and Clinton is a manager. If I had to, I'd choose Barack over Hillary, but neither candidate really appeals to me. Clinton's flaws are obvious, but I'm glad Krugman reveals Obama's.

[baronmorris]

nice retort. Lewis Carroll rocks.

but u r still wrong. ;-) Politics does subsume Economics. Politicians have Economic advisors, not the other way around.

A LEADER is someone that does the right things; a manager is someone who does things right. Obama is a leader for positive change & will surround himself with competent managers & experts (ie, Economists) who WILL get it done. Hillary, conversely, is the ultimate bureaucratic manager, mos def NOT a leader.

OBAMA 08!

[Slimdawgc]

But I'm right. Obama is an authority figure and all politicians are by definition. Politicians are SUPPOSED to be informed, but sometimes aren't, and Obama isn't an economist. Krugman is, and when it comes to economics, I trust him over Obama.

Politics doesn't subsume economics. They're separate disciplines. The consumption function has nothing to do with politics. Neither does axiomatic choice.

A stopped clock is more accurate than a clock that loses a minute every day. Ask Lewis Carroll.

[baronmorris]

aha! ur just happy to hear Obama get bashed. probly makes ur day.

ur statement:

"I can claim Obama as an authority as well, an authority that people blindly follow."

is ridiculous. Obama is a politician. Politicians r supposed to be informed on a wide range of social and gov't issues, of which economics is but one. Politics subsumes Economics, not the other way around. & some people follow Obama blindly perhaps, but then even a stopped clock is right twice a day. it's not ur time yet. ;-)

[Slimdawgc]

Yes, but using your argument, I can claim Obama as an authority as well, an authority that people blindly follow. I don't agree with Krugman concerning Hilary ( I dislike Clinton), but I do agree with his views concerning Obama.

[baronmorris]

ever heard of the Milgram experiments? scandalous but very insightful. worth checking out for anyone who is unfamiliar.

6 of 10 people will blindly follow authority. the problem here is that Krugman's deserved authority in Economics may translate for some as authority in politics. Sure he has the right to spout his unfortunate views on this subject, but then so do I.

6 of 10 are lemmings. hmm. that kind of explains Bush and Clinton, now that I think about it.

PEACE!

OBAMA 08 & WE CAN'T WAIT!

[Slimdawgc]

It's a free country - he has the right to give his opinion on politics. Who are you to tell him not to speak? You should respect his opinion; he raises some good points after all. And quite frankly, I think he's right.