party-of-one: do you own a home? do you have children to support? do you live in a suburban or rural area and use your car or truck for your work?

i ask these questions to illustrate that changing energy use behavior isn't as simple as saying: "change your behavior, average american, or pay higher energy prices: choice is yours."

people have homes upon which they are paying mortgages and can't just pick up and move to a more energy-efficient home or a home closer to public transportation. families have children in school whom they can't just dislocate at a moments notice to get to a more energy-efficient neighborhood. americans who use their car or truck for work purposes can't simply stop driving for work and expect to remain employed.

the kind of lifestyle changes you're speaking of take months and years to take hold.

and you're only focusing on changing the behavior of the user, but there are industry actors out there who's behavior also needs to be changed for them to begin being part of the solution to the energy challenges faces the nation and not just mere beneficiaries of rising prices. this is what implementation of a windfall profits tax is designed to do -- to be the 1st step in a collection of steps to begin reining in oil and energy companies exploiting the current energy situation.

if the congress can't pass a windfall profits tax as a means of funding a gas tax holiday, how does obama, pelosi, hoyer or anyone else supporting a windfall profits tax but opposed to the gas tax moratorium expect to pass such legislation? seems to me there is no better political strategy for getting otherwise obstructionist republicans onboard with such a profits tax than to link it to another tax cut.

but i, like hillary, am open to better suggestions but none of the critics seem to have any.

at the end of the day, changing energy behavior is a collective effort, citizens, industry, and the government all committing to doing their part to take small short-term steps to take us to our collective long-term goal: energy independence.

this is the beginning of the process, not the end.

Posted at May 3, 2008 9:48 AM in response to Hillary Airs Another Indiana Ad Hitting Obama On Gas Tax

it is often the case in life and definitely in politics that one is called upon to reconcile 2 seemingly contradictory pieces of information. we have such a challenge here:

on the one hand, polling suggest voters believe the continuing campaign is "harming" the democratic party.

on the other hand, we have the hard results of voter turnout in primary and caucus states that indicate voter interest and turnout are at all time historic highs.

so how do we reconcile these 2 pieces of information? how do we decide which has more validity?

well, since 1 data point (voter turnout) is hard and tangible evidence of affirmative voter expression of interest and enthusiasm, i would suggest that is the data point that should be given top priority in our analysis. that data point represents the core truth of voter opinions about this race.

now, we're not going to discard and ignore outright the polling data point, but we now analyze it not to determine what is the core truth about voter opinion -- we have that already by registrations and turnout. instead, we analyze the polling data point to learn more about what it is that voters are trying to communicate when they answer a polling question about harm to the party with a "yes."

my take: they're making a case about the tone of the campaign and not about continuing the campaign itself. they're not critiquing whether the campaigning should continue (it should), but HOW the campaign should continue.

a campaign that continues and focuses on the issues and has each candidate making their own case for president rather than trying to knock their opponent's case will likely not be seen as "harmful" by poll responders.

and, of course, having a media that repeorts on the campaigning as it actually is versus hyping it up as being more combative and negative than it is merely to try to boost ratings would help too.

Posted at May 3, 2008 8:34 AM in response to North Carolina Race In Single Digits, Another Poll Finds

chimpeach: 1. no one, least of which hillary, is offering the gas tax moratorium as a solution to the energy problem. hillary has consistently billed it as merely a temporary and admittedly modest effort to get some minimal relief to americans facing gas prices which are increasing a penny a day along with higher prices for every other basic necessity in their lives like food.

2. what economist and behavioral scientist alike will also tell you is that given the realities you site in you own entry about the stuggles of the middle class/working poor right now, there is very little such persons can do to change their patterns of economic behavior significantly, i.e. to avoid driving as much as they currently do, BECAUSE they are living on the margins now and do not have the flexibility in lifestyle choice that even slightly more affluent americans do.

so the question becomes, is it fair, reasonable, good public policy or good politics even to tell struggling americans, "these gas prices are high, but ultimately they're good for you and in your best interest because they will force you to make changes in your driving patterns" which is essentially what nancy pelosi, steny hoyer and 150 letter signing economists -- all of whom have exponentially greater "price elasticity" to modify their own behavior in light of increased gas prices than do the americans they piously talk down to -- are telling middle class and working poor americans.

or, does it make more sense to do what hillary's attempting to do, which is use this occassion of increasing gas prices to highlight the case for imposing a windall profits tax on oil and energy companies that continue to set new records for profit quarter after quarter.

that's her short-term strategy for achieving a long-term goal that obama allegedly supports -- to return to a regime where oil and energy companies pay their fair share to help support this economy that has so richly rewarded them for doing nothing more than minding the till as the price of gas continues to tick up. hillary's objective is to get approval for the windfall profits tax by linking it to a gas tax moratorium and then to CONTINUE THE WINDFALL PROFITS TAX once the moratorium expires, redirecting those tax revenues not to the transportation fund anymore but to financing long-term energy policy initiatives like investing in alternative fuels or green jobs or r&d for more fuel efficient cars...

i don't see why so many are having such difficulty seeing how the politics and the public policy here meld.

...and obama's alternative, or bloomberg's alternative, or pelosi's alternative or 150 economists alternative???

they offer none.

Posted at May 3, 2008 8:04 AM in response to Hillary Airs Another Indiana Ad Hitting Obama On Gas Tax

...and it's "pandering" why?

oh yeah, because the american voters who drive everyday and pay for gas are (1) "just too dense to discern" that something's being offered not as a replacement to longterm solutions for energy independence but merely as short-term aid to drivers feeling real financial impacts from rising gas prices, and are (2) "just incapable of understanding" that a savings of $.18 per gallon for 3 months of summer driving may only amount to $30+ dollars for the average driver or to determine whether they fit the average summer driver profile or perhaps qualify as above average, or are (3) "just unable to figure out" that suspending collection of the gas tax for 3 months will reduce funding for the federal transportation fund UNLESS another funding source like a tax on windfall oil profits is identified to make up the lost revenue...

as a lifelong democrat, i can look critically on my party's flaws, particularly the ones that cost us elections, and it is the mindset above, the mindset that "we know better" than the people whom we purportedly serve, know better what's "in their interest" -- this is what voters mean when they criticize the democratic party as being full of liberal "elitist."

"elitism" is not about the size of folks' bank accounts -- this country is founded upon "bubba billionaires" who relied upon nothing more than a strong will and a good idea to make their fortunes. "elitism" is about an ivory tower, faculty lounge, academician attitude that danes to tell voters that the analyst knows better than the subject what motivates the subject's behavior.

one of these days (maybe this election if we nominate the senator from new york), we'll grasp this key fact again as a party and maybe start winning the white house again.

until we do, we'll keep wandering in the netherlands while republican candidates continue to clean our clocks, win the white house and continue to lead this nation to its moral and financial ruin.

the choice is ours.

Posted at May 3, 2008 1:19 AM in response to Hillary Airs Another Indiana Ad Hitting Obama On Gas Tax

maybe it's just the way tpm keeps characterizing these 527 ads in its headlines, but isn't it suppose to be the case that a 527 can't put up an ad FOR a specific candidate, but instead only for ISSUES?

...or am i'm misunderstanding the purported limitations on 527s?

inquiring minds want to know.

Posted at May 2, 2008 4:22 AM in response to SEIU Plunks Down $500,000 On New Obama Ad In Indiana

husseintenax: you're wrong, but you already know you're wrong, don't you.

"yes," obama won the caucus contest, but "no," that contest doesn't have an official vote tally.

clinton won the primary contest which actual does have a certified vote tally that is just north of 2.8m votes cast.

obama did pull more delegates from the state, but that begs the question now doesn't it: how isn't the candidate that garnered more statewide votes pulls in less delegates than the candidate who did not? what is the core representational democratic principle being championed by that dynamic?

Posted at May 1, 2008 7:34 PM in response to Pew: Obama Losing White Working Class Dems To Hillary In Landslide

hey, obama-ites. your guy can end this contest at anytime by doing 1 very simple thing: winning something significant.

...but he can't. he couldn't win the texas PRIMARY, you know where over 2.8m voted versus the texas caucus where we don't have an official tally but estimates are at 1m voters, tops, despite outspending hillary 2-1.

he couldn't win ohio either despite outspending hillary 2-1.

he couldn't win pennsylvania despite outspending hillary 3 or 4-1.

he's increasingly looking like he won't win in indiana, his neighboring state, and may now only win narrowly in north carolina where the political demographics couldn't be more tailor-made.

don't cry. don't whine. and definitely don't come blaming hrc or her supporters for your candidate's self-inflicted wounds after all the misleading mail and daily press memos and tv advertising he's dumped in each campaign stop along the way.

just win something...

...if you can.
wink

Posted at May 1, 2008 7:05 PM in response to Pew: Obama Losing White Working Class Dems To Hillary In Landslide

don is seattle and dancinbear:

my only contention is that there is not going to be any announcement of super ds between now and may 6th sufficient to allow either candidate to say, "hey, i'm now over the top!"

and that's all the hillary camp is looking for.

as a hillary supporter, all i'm looking for is super delegates to make their assessment after all the votes have been casts and tallied.

i believe (although i acknowledge, i could be wrong), that it's going to be very difficult for super delegates to support the candidate who's (1) behind in national polls, (2) behind in head-to-head polls, and (3) behind in popular vote come june 3rd.

if they do, they do. i just think that if they do, dems lose in november.

Posted at May 1, 2008 2:32 PM in response to Former DNC Chairman And Super-Delegate Joe Andrew Defects From Clinton To Obama

dancingbear: the consistency is that i'm not trying to compare apples to oranges as you and your compadres are.

pledged delegates based on results from state primary and caucus results and delegate apportionment rules is 1 metric. obama leading in that metric at present.

popular vote tally based on recorded and certified votes casts for one candidate or another in state primaries and caucuses is a totally separate and distinct metric. if a state doesn't keep such a record it can't, by definition, be included in the popular vote tally. obama leading in that metric at present (not including michigan or florida) by his own oft repeated words, but will not be leading in this metric come june 3rd.

it's ok to consider the metric legitimate now when obama can include it as part of his 3 prong argument -- "i lead in pledged delegates, i lead in states won, and i lead in popular vote" -- but not ok to consider the metric legitimate on june 3rd when hillary will be leading in the metric (again, not even including michigan or florida)?

i implore you to be logically and ethically consistent in your argument.

Posted at May 1, 2008 12:21 PM in response to Former DNC Chairman And Super-Delegate Joe Andrew Defects From Clinton To Obama

hrebendorf:

riddle me this: how can a democratic process of vote gathering and counting called "caucusing" result in possible disenfrachisement of voters?

here's how: because it's not democratic.

a democratic process would actually endeavor to track and assure 1 man 1 vote, and to actually retain records that certify and ratify the actual amounts of votes cast for any one candidate, no?

if it's ok to argue that florida and michigan PRIMARIES don't count because those states "broke the rules," then should seemingly be equally ok to argue that not counting a popular vote that a state fails to count itself is legitimate.

no one's stripping them of their pledged delegates for the convention or nomination.

this is another metric called "popular vote" and, oddly enough, as its name would suggest, it only aggregates totals from states that maintain "popular vote tallies."

don't worry, you still have your religion of "obama" and pledged delegates to "cling to" to rationalize your intransigence to logic.

wink.

Posted at May 1, 2008 11:22 AM in response to Former DNC Chairman And Super-Delegate Joe Andrew Defects From Clinton To Obama