On Nov 15, 2010, at 9:55 PM, SA wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 9:32 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
>> There was some potential for realignment that he let evaporate.
>
> First you said the midterm shellacking was structurally overdetermined by the economy. Now you're saying Obama might have carried out a generational realignment if only he'd said the right things.
It was, which is why I said "some potential." I really doubt that the election would have at all been affected by letting the $250,000+ expire, if the move had been accompanied by some aggressive politicking.
But the original quote was about bipartisan cooperation now and next year. What is he thinking, really? The Republicans have no interest in cooperating with him at all. He could sign onto their entire agenda and it wouldn't be enough - they'd just push for more. They're attacking QE2 now, even though the idea comes out of Milton Friedman and Bernanke himself is a Republican. They attacked a health care plan that was Republican in origin. What does it mean to cooperate with people like that?
> This doesn't address the question of why Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray pleaded with Reid not to do the tax issue before the election.
Can they read public opinion better than Stanley Greenberg? I'm not sure of that.
Doug