Paul Krugman on what people don't care about.

[ProSense]

Nobody Cares About Process

Urk. I just gave up on the presidential press conference. When Obama declared that Americans rejected Democrats in part because “We were in such a hurry to get things done that we didn’t change how things got done,” I checked out.

Nobody cares about this stuff — they care about results. Nobody really cares about earmarks; they’re just code for spending less (less on somebody else, of course, not me). Nobody cares about civility and bipartisanship, which in practice are code for Democrats giving in to Republican demands. Nobody cares about parliamentary maneuvers: we can argue about the role of health reform in the election, but I bet not one voter in 50 knows or cares that it was passed using reconciliation (as were the sacred Bush tax cuts we must, must retain).

If Obama had used fancy footwork and 2 AM sessions to pass a big public works program, and this program had brought unemployment down, Republicans would be screaming about the process — and Democrats would have comfortably held control of Congress. Remember the voter backlash against the way Medicare drug benefits were passed? Neither do I.

Oh, by the way — nobody cares about the deficit, either.

Nobody cares about this stuff until Democrats do it. Look at all the hateful ads Republicans ran (even Fox), and the huge uproar that met Conway's Aqua Buddha ad and Grayson's Webster ad.

Nobody cares about reconciliation until Dems decided to use it for health care reform, then a lot of people, left and right, were crying foul. Did anyone even hear about Bush's use of reconciliation from the media? During the final weeks before health care passed, even the morning news clips on the Weather Channel were mentioning that Democrats planned to use the process. What about all the polling on reconciliation?

Again, the strength of the policies do not determing the outcome of mid-term elections, and Krugman claiming that somehow "fancy footwork" could have resulted in a significantly larger bill is completely unrealistic.

Does Krugman really believe that unemployment at 1 percent lower would have made a huge difference yesterday? Unemployment had climbed to 10.3 percent and is now at 9.6. Would 9 percent have made a big difference? What about 8.5 percent?

This is a good one: "Remember the voter backlash against the way Medicare drug benefits were passed? Neither do I."

Yet voters seemed to eat up Republican distortions that Obama cut Medicare.

Also, it's really interesting what Krugman takes away from the press conference and what Greg Sargent takes away.

Dear Paul, it's time to stop pretending the useless sniping at the President makes you more progressive.

On edit: Voters did care about process when Republicans shut down the government.

[Larkspur]

1. Krugman is right

Most voters don't care about the process. The reason they cared about the government shut down in the 90's was because they weren't getting their Social Security checks, etc.. The results of the government shutdown were bad for ordinary Americans, not good, despite what the Teabaggers say.

[ProSense]

3. Well

"The reason they cared about the government shut down in the 90's was because they weren't getting their Social Security checks, etc.."

How do you explain the fact that so many believe there have been cuts to Medicare, despite the checks mailed to 58 million seniors?

The fact is that none of this has anything to do with yesterday's vote.

The economy is in a weak recovery, but a sligthly better recovery was not going to make a difference. Did Krugman anticipate that the President could have reversed the economy at a pace that would have registered significantly with voters? Results are not equivalent to passing something. It was bound to take time for any results to register.

[ProSense]

2. Any comment?

Explain why a routine press conference deserves all the handwringing and condemnation, the attempts to twist it into something it's not?

[ProSense]

4. As if to prove the point, Krugman's follow-up

No, People Really Don’t Care About The Deficit

They sometimes say they do — but almost always it turns out that they really mean something else. Look at all the “fiscal hawks” who suddenly lose all interest in the budget balance when tax cuts are on the line.

Also, you really have to understand that voters don’t have any clear idea of how big the deficit is, let alone what makes it go up or down. Here’s my favorite (well, one of my favorite) Larry Bartels results, about views of the deficit in 1996, after Bill Clinton had already presided over a huge improvement in the budget picture:



Yep, a plurality of voters — including a majority of Republicans, and a third of Democrats — thought the deficit had gone up.

If Obama somehow eliminated the budget deficit over the next two years, not only would he get no credit, Republican voters would go to the 2012 polls believing that the deficit had continued to soar.

People don't care, but they are highly succeptible to GOP messaging during a campaign.