Krugman To Democrats - Stop Thinking Clearly

Paul Krugman fires up the base for Colbert's "Keep Fear Alive!" rally and  exhorts Democrats to give in to their amygdala:

So if the elections go as expected next week, here’s my advice: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Troubling.  As the First Psychologist observed recently:

"...[W]e're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared”.

So post-election we can look forward to a lot of fuzzy thinking from Democrats.  I am not sure how we will be able to tell the difference, but in any case, Krugman leads the way with this panic-stricken confusion:

But we won’t get those [good progressive] policies if Republicans control the House. In fact, if they get their way, we’ll get the worst of both worlds: They’ll refuse to do anything to boost the economy now, claiming to be worried about the deficit, while simultaneously increasing long-run deficits with irresponsible tax cuts — cuts they have already announced won’t have to be offset with spending cuts.

Those Evil Republicans!  If only there was a Democratic-controlled Senate or a President with veto authority to hold them in check.  Instead, we're all going to die!  Or at least, have our taxes cut.

Let's cut to Krugman's policy prescription.  He has been calling for a bigger and better stimulus since Obama's inauguration, so try to stay awake through this:

Today’s situation is completely different. The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Bush-era bubble, is in dire straits; deflation, not inflation, is the clear and present danger. And it’s not at all clear that the Fed has the tools to head off this danger. Right now we very much need active policies on the part of the federal government to get us out of our economic trap.

We need government to Do Something!  Sure, maybe.  Still, even some Dems have wondered whether Obama's agenda and tone have undermined business confidence; maybe having a recalcitrant House as a check on Obama's attempts to reform everything will help restore confidence.

Time will tell!  But as a supplemental data point, let's flash back to when Krugman was "terrified" back in March of 2003:

With war looming, it's time to be prepared. So last week I switched to a fixed-rate mortgage. It means higher monthly payments, but I'm terrified about what will happen to interest rates once financial markets wake up to the implications of skyrocketing budget deficits.

Conventional mortgages were at 5.61% and the ten year Treasury was at 3.65%; per the latest Fed release mortgages are currently at 4.21% and the ten year is 2.54%.

Well, that was 2003 and we've all passed a lot of water since then.  Still, I have no doubt that markets will react to all this red ink by driving up our interest rates any day now.  Or maybe Krugman was terrified and not thinking clearly.

OTHER GREAT BELLY-FLOPS:  Mark Hemingway goes Rambo and points out other moments of extreme Krugman fear and mental weakness.

Comments

[Neo]

It's the terror of knowing
What this world is about
Watching some good friends
Screaming 'Let me out'
Pray tomorrow - gets me higher high high
Pressure on people - people on streets
Turned away from it all like a blind man
Sat on a fence but it don't work

[mockmook]

How can this even be a debate?

Suppose you have two options:

-- Cut taxes by $500 billion
-- "Stimulate" with $500 billion extra spending

The first keeps $500 billion in the most efficient part of the economy. And, it keeps pressure on to reduce future inefficient spending.

The second option squanders $500 billion on "projects" with such low priority that even previous trillions of dollars of government spending "projects" never deemed worth while.

Also, the extra spending leads to pressure to raise taxes and leaves in place all the other inefficient spending.

[Porchlight]

OT,

Melinda R. posted a link to AJ Strata in the earlier thread that I think is a must read.

AJ Strata: Analysis of early voting in PA

If his data and breakdown are accurate, holy cow. Would love to hear what others think.

[Sue]

Is this the October surprise?

[hit and run]

Sue:
Is this the October surprise?

Krugman's column is not the October surprise.

[MarkO]

Hell. I'm already afraid.

[Rick Ballard]

Porchlight,

The 15% defection rate among Dems is a supposition unsupported by any data. There is a non-negligible chance that the sight of BOzo on the stump has turned Dem stomachs to the point where Aug/Sept polling regarding voter intent has shifted but I would not guess the probability to be higher than 1 in 10. I believe a no show result is more probable with Dem participation dropping towards 29% rather than Gallup's projected 31%. That would be in line with Gallup's typical 1-3% overestimate of Dem participation.

I'm anticipating a Gallup LV of +12 ('low' turnout) on Monday with Rasmussen coming up to 11%. Those percentages may still underestimate results due to independents shifting even harder against Dems in response to the ugliness of the cornered rat defense.

I'd say your 80 looks better than my 75 today.

[Jim Ryan]

The economy, weighed down by the debt that households ran up during the Frank/Dodd/WallSt Doucheoisie-era bubble

FTFY, Pauly.

[Porchlight]

The 15% defection rate among Dems is a supposition unsupported by any data.

Rick,

I may be misreading, but I think AJ is not saying that 15% of Dems are defecting, but that the number of registered Repubs who have already voted is 15% higher than the number of Dems who have already voted, a clear reversal of the pattern in PA in past years.

If I was unclear, I do think some of those Dems probably voted R. But not 15%.

[kenny]

Let's not forget - it no longer matters who casts the votes - what matters is who COUNTS the votes that have been cast. Dems have a 10% institutional advantage in the rules, the interpretations, the phony registrations, the media, the behind the scenes machinery, and the subsequent legal challenges.

You have to beat them by at 6 - 10% to even have a chance of winning. And now they're better at KNOWING how many votes they need immediately after the election and conjuring those up as well. Call me a pessimist, or better yet call me a realist.

[Porchlight]

kenny,

You are right. But the GOP won't take it lying down this year. Not like with Coleman in 2008.

The cheating machine might mobilize for Frank - that's worrisome - and Reid and certainly Murray. But there are too many races - they just aren't going to have the manpower to mobilize everywhere.

We will probably lose a couple of close ones due to cheating. But they won't all be close, and - even sweeter - many races are in deep blue districts where they simply don't have the fraud infrastructure set up, because Dems haven't been threatened there for decades.

[Rick Ballard]

Porchlight,

From AJ -

As I have done before, I can run two scenarios through these early voter numbers and estimate the GOP and Dem votes produced. The first model is the 60-40/95 scenario where each party holds 95% of its party’s voters, but the GOP take the independents by 20% (60-40). If that is how these voters voted, then the GOP would win by almost 16% (57.9%-42.1%).

But I do not believe that is an accurate model, because I do not think the Dems can hold their left of center base. Assuming a paltry 15% defection rate for the Dems we get the 60-40/D:85 scenario, where the Dems only hold 85% of their voters, the GOP does 95% of its party voters and the independents still go to the GOP by 20%. In this scenario Dems lose the early vote by 23.5% (61.8%-38.2%).

His "breathtaking" bit is based upon the assumed 15% defection (more properly called crossover). Pennsylvania, like Florida and Ohio was targeted by the Reps for an early voting drive. It's a tweak of the successful '00, '02 and '04 GOP GOTV drive and a response to the Dem successes in early voting in '06 and '08.

It looks to be successful and we can anticipate it being used again in the high value states in '12.

I don't see it as an indication of a super, super gigantic wave. I think we'll just have to settle for a regular once in a lifetime tsunami.

[Porchlight]

Thanks, Rick - I'm sorry I missed that from AJ.

Yes, I don't believe the super-gigantic prediction based on 15% crossover - just the normal early voting differential (as represented by his graph) is breathtaking enough for me.

Would you believe 5% crossover, though? I might.

[Rick Ballard]

Porchlight,

5% would be typical. I could buy 7-8% without much qualm but 15% is smoke. The registered Dems who don't like the President are going to stay home - and his juvenile antics are convincing them that they made the right decision.

This Krugman column may be the most enjoyable that I've ever read. The economic analysis is pure tripe but I do believe, given that he is writing for the bubble head elite, that his conclusion that they should be very afraid is correct. I sure hope the tanned guy from Ohio jacks their terror level to red - with sirens - in January.

[Thomas Collins]

October Surprise? I'd settle for Christine O'Donnell being the Early November Surprise.

[Porchlight]

I look forward to seeing what the tanned guy can do, too, Rick. I think he knows what he's up against.

[Jim Miller]

Actually, a 10 percent crossover vote is not that unusual. And, in most elections, Democrats are a little more likely to cross over than Republicans. I would expect the Democratic crossover vote this year to be somewhere between 12 and 15 percent.

[PaulY]

Biggest defection loss for Ds will be Ds not going to polls. Lots of Rs who sat out in 2008 will vote this year.

[Sue]

I posted on the wrong thread. I was referring to the planes, UPS and sniper in DC. It was wall to wall coverage and then our president shows up. The same president that couldn't be bothered when we had actual terrorist activity on a plane last Christmas. If this had been Bush, the airwaves would have melted with Bush taking advantage of a minor issue for political gain. But it isn't Bush, so we get wall to wall coverage and a president acting presidential.

[Jim,MtnViewCA,USA]

Krugman is WAY too easy of a target.
What has the guy ever done besides hate Bush?

[Rick Ballard]

Jim Miller,

I hope you're right but Presidential crossover and mid-term crossover ain't apples to apples. Gallup has crossover clearly defined and it hasn't budged since they went to the LV model in October.

If it's 15%, then Cloud really will take out Dicks.

[caro]

Remember that in the Blue Hells,conservatives register as dems to vote in primaries,even though they vote for the rep in general elections.My brother in Pittsburgh is an example.

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Krugman To Democrats - Stop Thinking Clearly

See "redundant".

[Charlie (Colorado)]

October Surprise? I'd settle for Christine O'Donnell being the Early November Surprise.

Hell, I'd settle for her agreeing to meet for a few drinks.

[Jim Miller]

In 2006, the cross over
rates in the House elections were 8 percent for Republicans and 7 percent for Democrats. Even in that big win for Democrats, 1 in 14 Democratic voters chose the Republican party.

(The Gallup results are interesting, but irrelevant because they are asking about abstract candidates. I can not recall seeing a national election in which actual cross over votes were that low for both parties. Not one.)

Cook rates Norm Dicks' Washington 6th at +5 D, so I suppose that an incredible upset is possible there, though Dicks has done less to annoy his constituents than most of our congressmen in this area.

(I am still hoping and hoping that James Watkins can upset Jay Inslee in my own 1st district, though I admit that's unlikely. But this district was a swing district not that long ago, so perhaps there is some reason for hope.)

[Rick Ballard]

I don't believe the West Coast is important to the '12 strategy. The Reps could have picked off Inslee and they could have easily picked off Farr and Garamendi in California. They could have taken out Wyden as well and they could be giving Rossi even more help than they have.

I'm not knocking the RNCC - resources aren't infinite and the strategy of finishing of Code Pinko/Emily Listers and Hispanomarxists across the Southwest and Mountain states makes much more sense, as does the consolidation of the southern tier and the very strong focus in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The GOP definitely doesn't need a lot more dependents to feed in the deep Blue Hells.