Economist and Mayor Bloomberg endorse Obama

[Sheilbh]

The Republican Intramural Bloodletting that will happen if Obama wins again and the dems take back the senate will be entertaining. I suspect the blame will fall on those who Teapartiers were attacking all cycle.

Agreed.  My suspicion is that they'll point to 2010 and say the reason they lost was because they weren't conservative enough.

As an aside this is the first time the Economist's endorsed an incumbent.  If Obama wins it'll also be the first time there's been three consecutive two term Presidents since Jefferson-Monroe-Madison.

[Queequeg]

Edit:  Incidentally I can't stand Yglesias.  Him, Klein and Sorkin make the American left almost unelectable

I can understand the hatred.  Both him and Salaam are almost pure Technocrats, and I'm half-convinced the entirety of your political convictions is " So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth."

[Sheilbh]

I love a good technocrat.  I wish every country had a Monti

[derspiess]

We never lost the Senate. 

You sorta did until August

[Count]

He we are running in to conflicting usages of the term Liberal.  To my mind, the American usage of the term implies a degree of hostility-or at least skepticism- of lightly regulated capitalism that is almost entirely at odds with The Economist's positions dating back to the Corn Laws.

But I think the NRO is using 'liberal establishment' to mean sneering, elitist, DC & NY cocktail party-goers - not the the Liberal Establishment.  I think it's liberal establishment as a cultural judgement not as a political elite.

Edit:  Incidentally I can't stand Yglesias.  Him, Klein and Sorkin make the American left almost unelectable

Klein's solid. Yglesias can be interesting but's a prick. Sorkin is a huge asshole (though very talented)

I'm not really a fan of The Economist. The "omniscient voice" combined with being just a bit wrong all the time- whenever they write about an issue where I'm familiar they say dumb shit. I don't mean just their political perspective, which unsurprisingly I don't share. I mean in terms of their reporting.

Even in their endorsement they made charges against Obama that don't make sense. How do you criticize Obamacare from the perspective that he surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats while at the same time praising Obamacare for getting universal coverage? The bill gets coverage through a relatively conservative mechanism; the left-wingers wanted single payer. And I am not sure who they are referring to when they say "bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Obama."

[celedhring]

He we are running in to conflicting usages of the term Liberal.  To my mind, the American usage of the term implies a degree of hostility-or at least skepticism- of lightly regulated capitalism that is almost entirely at odds with The Economist's positions dating back to the Corn Laws.

But I think the NRO is using 'liberal establishment' to mean sneering, elitist, DC & NY cocktail party-goers - not the the Liberal Establishment.  I think it's liberal establishment as a cultural judgement not as a political elite.

Edit:  Incidentally I can't stand Yglesias.  Him, Klein and Sorkin make the American left almost unelectable

Klein's solid. Yglesias can be interesting but's a prick. Sorkin is a huge asshole (though very talented)

I'm not really a fan of The Economist. The "omniscient voice" combined with being just a bit wrong all the time- whenever they write about an issue where I'm familiar they say dumb shit. I don't mean just their political perspective, which unsurprisingly I don't share. I mean in terms of their reporting.

Even in their endorsement they made charges against Obama that don't make sense. How do you criticize Obamacare from the perspective that he surrendered too much control to left-wing Democrats while at the same time praising Obamacare for getting universal coverage? The bill gets coverage through a relatively conservative mechanism; the left-wingers wanted single payer. And I am not sure who they are referring to when they say "bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Obama."

Being fashionably balanced means you have to take shots at both sides, no matter how irrelevant or nonsensical they are.

[MadImmortalMan]

And I am not sure who they are referring to when they say "bashing business seems second nature to many of the people around Obama."

Seems fairly straightforward. Would you have preferred they provide a list of names? They're making a broad and general point about the tone of the communication that exists there. Some people take the occasion of bashing business excess/corruption/whatever and use it to bash business in general. Been part of our politics forever. Always will be, and business mags will still be complaining about it when our descendants are bashing businesses hundreds of light years from here.

[Admiral Yi]

Klein's solid.

Klein is a DNC spokesman posing as a journalist.

[Martinus]

Why is The Economist referred to as "liberal" by some people. They are pretty much toeing the line of the new tories under Cameron. 

[Martinus]

I think the Economist is the definition of the liberal establishment, in both the UK sense and the US sense.  I can't think of a more bien pensant paper.

I disagree. I would describe them as modern centre-right. They are pro-free market and free trade, pro-Atlanticist and neutral on religion (but religious conservatism makes them uneasy). I think they actually are very much like the Languish majority, of people like Berkut or Richard Haykluyt.

[Martinus]

I think this is the first time the Economist's endorsed an incumbent since Dole - maybe even earlier.

They endorsed Dole it looks like.

Checking their endorsement history, it actually looks like it's the first time The Economist endorse an incumbent, indeed.

http://www.economist.com/node/12499760?story_id=12499760

Yes. Furthermore their endorsement history shows they are as likely to endorse a Republican as they are a Democrat (and in the UK they seem to be overwhelmingly pro-Tory).

I think this is really a testament to how shitty a candidate Romney is. Reading the Economist's editorials for the last few months, I thought they were itching to support Romney.

[Razgovory]

Why is The Economist referred to as "liberal" by some people. They are pretty much toeing the line of the new tories under Cameron. 

So they can ignore it when it says things they don't like.

[Josephus]

The Democratic Party and the "Liberal Establishment" is a creature of tribal affiliation and class interest before policy, so I don't think The Economist falls in that at all.

The Economist's first love is the free market and free trade.

This.

They do favour some government regulation, and gov't involvement, they're no libertarians, but for the most part they tend to be pretty fiscally conservative.

[derspiess]

Why is The Economist referred to as "liberal" by some people. They are pretty much toeing the line of the new tories under Cameron. 

Those two thoughts aren't as far apart as you think.  I love my cousin David, but this is not the party of Thatcher, sadly.

[crazy canuck]

The Democratic Party and the "Liberal Establishment" is a creature of tribal affiliation and class interest before policy, so I don't think The Economist falls in that at all.

The Economist's first love is the free market and free trade.

This.

They do favour some government regulation, and gov't involvement, they're no libertarians, but for the most part they tend to be pretty fiscally conservative.

Yep,

They reflect my view of the world rather well.