tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post773364674405080591..comments2024-01-09T03:52:43.027-08:00Comments on The Abstract Factory: Why I Do Not Trust The EconomistKeunwoo Lee (Cog)http://www.blogger.com/profile/05577836853536292311noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post-19234542594322172452008-03-15T16:04:00.000-07:002008-03-15T16:04:00.000-07:00That's a good point. Now that I've had a chance to...That's a good point. Now that I've had a chance to look at some old news stories, it also appears that John Edwards's apology on the Iraq war occurred before Octboer 2006. So the shape of the Clinton/Edwards contrast probably should have been obvious to the Economist by then.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post-44926337427157067152008-03-15T15:54:00.000-07:002008-03-15T15:54:00.000-07:00Perhaps I should not have excised this from the or...Perhaps I should not have excised this from the original Crooked Timber quote, which provides more hard data:<BR/><BR/><I>Now, we don’t have any really decisive evidence on this – the only surveys that I know of which try to figure out what “liberal activists” want are the <A HREF="http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/240topline.pdf" REL="nofollow">Pew survey</A> (which focuses on Howard Dean supporters) and the <A HREF="http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/15/125046/110" REL="nofollow">Blogpac survey</A>, which draws from a sample of MoveOn email list subscribers. Neither is definitive – but Pew finds that Clinton polls number 4 or number 3 among former Dean activists depending on which question you look at, while the Blogpac survey finds her to be joint fifth with Joe Biden, and to have higher unfavourable ratings than any other listed candidate. Given that Clinton has specifically tried to position herself as the centrist alternative over the last couple of years, this is about what one would expect.</I><BR/><BR/>Clinton has not been the "darling of the party's liberal activists" since... well, <I>ever</I>, as far as I know.Keunwoo Lee (Cog)https://www.blogger.com/profile/05577836853536292311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5621024.post-64114604506828898002008-03-15T15:31:00.000-07:002008-03-15T15:31:00.000-07:00I think you might be projecting a little bit. It's...I think you might be projecting a little bit. It's obvious <I>now</I> that HIllary Clinton is the centrist candidate and Obama/Edwards are the more liberal candidates. But I don't think that was necessarily obvious in October 2006. Obama hadn't yet entered the race, and while Edwards had adopted generally populist themes in 2004, his 2004 stumps speeches had been so vague that he could easily have tacked to the right for 2008 if he had thought that's the direction the political winds were blowing.<BR/><BR/>Keep in mind, for example, that HIllary Clinton and John Edwards had virtually identical positions on the Iraq war circa 2005. Only after the 2006 elections made it clear that the Democratic base was pissed off about the war did the candidate begin tacking more seriously in the anti-war direction. Edwards tacked further left, apologizing for his war vote and attacking Hillary for being too hawkish. But IIRC, that all happened after October 2006. Based on the information it had available to it, I don't think there was anything obviously wrong about the Economist's take.<BR/><BR/>Remember that in the 2000 primary, George W. Bush started out as the centrist alternative to Steve Forbes, only to find himself outflanked from the center by John McCain. Candidates re-fashion themselves in the opening months of a campaign all the time, and while the Economist's analysis here isn't the most astute thing you were likely to read in 2006, it's wasn't obviously wrong, either.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com