[lefthansolo]

I consider something to be an obsession when X wants to do Y, then it is obvious that the primary issue is Z but he continues to do Y.

X = Obama, Y = health reform, Z = economy

Think I'm wrong? If you agree the economy and jobs are the biggest problem in the U.S. and in the world right now as far as the majority of the U.S. is concerned, then look at: http://www.barackobama.com/plans/ and http://www.mittromney.com/jobs

Despite going off-the-rails during the primaries trying to sound uberconservative and building fences, and strong talk of military strength during the debates which would indicate the typical Republican massive $$$$$ sunk into the military, Romney's page appears to be more economy focused. Do I believe it will really be like that? Probably not. They both have their problems and so does everyone else.

Back to the OP, the answer is not that our voters are uneducated. Uneducated voters vote for both parties. People make fun of Palin and tea partiers, but I heard an Obama supporter answer "1" to how many senators there are in the U.S. government this morning and didn't know the VP's name, so let's call it even. The problem is that there is no incentive for real leaders to lead; there is only incentive for politicians to schmooze. That incentive doesn't change if the voters become educated. They can't vote for the right person when the right person won't run. You may disagree and think that we have strong leaders, but I've not had that much respect for a president in recent years.

[lmm]

I think you're wrong; it is by no means "obvious that the primary issue is economy". Do you mean that improving the economy would solve healthcare problems? Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment, and no amount of economic growth will provide healthcare for the unemployed without healthcare reform (although conversely, the number of people waiting until they're eligible for medicare to start businesses suggests healthcare reform ought to improve the economy).

Or are you simply claiming that it's more important? Economies go up and down, and on the whole the president seems to have very little influence on them. Introducing a proper healthcare system will, we know from other countries, be a major long-term improvement.

So I'm not seeing obsession in Obama's focus on healthcare. I'm seeing sense.

[lefthansolo]

"Capitalism depends on a certain level of unemployment"

What is the basis of this statement?

[lmm]

I was under the impression it was generally accepted; from a brief look e.g. Friedman's NAIRU concept. Are you arguing that it's practical to have full employment under capitalism?

[nollidge]

Health reform and the economy are not orthogonal. The less you have to worry about the paying for potential catastrophic health care events, the more freedom you have to make other financial and employment decisions.

> so let's call it even

Uh, let's not. Your single anecdote does not refute the statistical correlation between education and liberalism.

[lefthansolo]

Whether or not on average that is true on average, here you can see results that in 2012 those with only high-school/GED favored Obama in higher numbers than those with a bachelor's degree: http://blogs.payscale.com/salary_report_kris_cowan/2012/10/e...

also, from 2008: http://www.yelp.com/topic/new-york-zogby-poll-of-512-obama-v...

I understand that "let's call it even" implies average (50/50), but my point was that there are enough uneducated voters from both sides to call it a draw, imo.