Friday, January 18, 2008

Obama's Narrowing Path to the Nomination

On the eve of the Nevada Democratic caucuses, I see one of three scenarios playing out for Barack Obama.

Ideally, Obama wins Nevada. Even a slim margin of victory should give him enough momentum to steamroll over Clinton in South Carolina. Those two back-to-back wins should then generate enough positive media coverage to make him competitive in Florida, maybe even enough to win. With two or three solid wins under Obama's belt (remember, he's the underdog in Nevada and Florida), he'll be virtually unstoppable come "Tsunami Tuesday" (Feb. 5th) when 24 states, representing over half of the convention delegates, vote in their primaries. In this scenario, whatever John Edwards does would be largely irrelevant. Barack Obama should coast to the nomination.

If Clinton's lead in the current Nevada polls holds up (current RCP avg. = +3.7), Obama will come in a close second, and his candidacy will be teetering. With a strong performance on CNN's Tuesday night debate, he should be able to pull off a decisive victory in South Carolina. As the presumed SC frontrunner, though, he won't gain much traction from that win, and he would likely lose the Florida primary. However, an embarrassing defeat on his home turf might—might!—cause John Edwards to rethink his political calculus, finally drop out of the race and perhaps endorse Obama in the name of their mutual change agenda. Even if Edwards doesn't endorse Obama, polls show that Edwards voters would swing overwhelmingly to Obama. That may tilt some of the Feb. 5th states (maybe Florida as well!) to Obama and finally create that unstoppable juggernaut we've all been waiting for.

Scenario #3: Clinton trounces Obama in Nevada. In this case, Obama will bide his time, but it will probably be game, set, match. "Welcome to the White House, President John McCain."

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

Mike Huckabee's Fatuous "FairTax"

Mike Huckabee's tax plan lies somewhere between The Ice Cream Glove and The Stadium Pal in terms of unworkable absurdity. As columnist Jonathan Chait of The New Republic put it:
It is difficult for me to find the words to explain just how crazy this idea is. The national sales tax is crazier, by an order of magnitude, than any other crazy idea I've seen at the national level. It's so crazy that even really crazy right-wingers think it's pretty crazy.
Lest I leave any doubt, the so-called "FairTax" plan has been thoroughly debunked in the following article by conservative economist Bruce Bartlett. Main conclusions: it's not enactable, not enforceable, and clearly unfair.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/files/bartlett_fair_tax.pdf

As one of the points of greatest deception, the proposed sales tax rate is 30%, not 23%. That's the tax-inclusive rate they're quoting. Sales taxes are usually presented tax-exclusive. Example: While you'd expect the price of a $1.00 good to rise to $1.23 after the Fairtax, it'd actually be $1.30 (23% of $1.30 is $1.00, HAHA gotcha!).

Anyway, I can't believe this garbage is given any legitimacy at all. Final parting shot from the Jonathan Chait column:
So how did Huckabee come to support the fair tax? He was asked about the idea by fair-tax supporters on the campaign trail, bought the book touting it, and was persuaded. Lord help us if he gets his hands on a copy of Das Kapital.