During the ongoing Compassion Forum, Hillary Clinton talked about "our great drug companies" in the context of a discussion about providing affordable prescription drugs to the poor. She was saying they're great because they invent new drugs which people can then make generics from, though she said that they needed to do more to work with the government to provide affordable drugs. I think it's really accepting a corporate frame to describe drug companies in that way when their sky-high prices continue to cause a lot of Americans to have to choose between drugs and other vital needs (like food).

Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini and I just released a new study that casts serious doubt on the use of the popular vote to provide legitimacy in the current Democratic nominating contest.

A major problem with using the popular vote as a measure of democratic will is that some states have held primaries while others have used caucuses, which have far lower turnout.

According to our analysis, an additional 4.1 million voters likely would have participated in the Democratic nominating process had every caucus state instead held a primary - people who are left out of current popular vote tabulations. Additionally, it is likely that the candidates' share of the popular vote would be different.

When we forecast the likely outcome of hypothetical primaries in caucus states by using their demographic profiles to project vote outcomes based on national demographic voting patterns, we find that Barack Obama's lead in the popular vote would increase from about 2.5 percentage points to about 3.5 percentage points. This translates into a lead of more than 1.3 million votes, up notably from the current number of about 717,000 votes.

A pdf of the study is available for download here.

"Politics have rarely been hotter." - The Rake Magazine on Glenn Hurowitz's new book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party.

Wharton professor Gregory P. Nini (the statistical whiz behind much of the number crunching in Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party) and I just authored this new paper showing that more than two million additional people would have voted in those primaries had they thought the results would be counted.

Among the proposed alternatives for seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan is to use the results of the primaries that already happened, based on the argument that doing so would avoid disenfranchising the 1.7 million Floridians and 600,000 Michiganders who already voted.  However, doing so would disenfranchise many people from FL and MI who did not vote in the earlier primaries because they did not expect their delegates would be seated at the convention.  Based on a statistical comparison with turnout in other states' primaries, it appears that roughly two million more people would have voted in FL and MI had they expected their delegates would be seated.  

Download the full study here.

Here's what "Santa Barack Obama" was up to over Christmas, according to this new ad by Democratic Courage, the political action committee I run.

It's running on television in Iowa during the holiday season (you can help keep it running by contributing here).

We decided to run this ad because we're concerned that Obama isn't the "progressive, courageous, and winning" Democrat we're looking for. Although candidates like John Edwards have offered sharp contrasts with Obama's accomodationist style, no one has really tackled Obama's accomodationist record, which provides the convincing evidence that could really persuade voters.

I'm on the second day of my book tour in Iowa for my book Fear and Courage in the Democratic Party and I'm seeing something amazing: John Edwards surging from conventional wisdom's forgotten candidate towards what seems to me an almost definite win on Caucus Day. Admittedly, I'm a bit biased: I'm personally a John Edwards supporter and the president of the Democratic Courage political action committee that ran this ad against Hillary Clinton.

But here's what I'm seeing. First - a taste of some big news: a major up-for-grabs statewide leader with a large and loyal following told me he is going to endorse Edwards in the next week. I'll report the person's identity as soon as I get the go-ahead. Second, Edwards supporters are super savvy about the caucuses. I remember attending a caucus in 2004 (as a Kerry campaign volunteer) and watching the Edwards folks, many of them union members, out-organize every other campaign to convince wavering voters to come to their side. Here's what one Iowa Dem told me when I asked her who she was supporting: "Well, I tell the pollsters Richardson so that he can stay in the debates and get his message out there, but really I'm going to caucus for Edwards."

Edwards is just about everybody's second choice (an observation echoed by this poll). This will have an impact for two reasons. First, support for Clinton and Obama is quite soft. As they tear each other apart, it will create a space for Edwards's positive message. On a more tactical level, candidates who don't get 15 percent of the vote have their supporters redistributed to caucusers' second choice: another Edwards boost.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton's campaign seems in free fall, with television news here repeating over and over again news of the Bill Shaheen scandal - news not likely to warm the hearts of Iowa voters who don't mind vigorous debate about the issues, but have a welcome aversion to this kind of cold, calculated personal attack.

On a deeper level, though, what we're seeing now is Iowa voters tuning into what the candidates are all about. And Iowa voters really do take these decisions extremely seriously and do a lot of their own research. And as they do, the progressive Iowa caucus goers reach beyond the media hype surrounding Clinton and Obama and learn more about the candidates themselves.

As part of his effort to limit the influence of corporate lobbyists and other big money scoundrels, John Edwards announced this weekend that, as president, he will invite one million people every two years to participate in a deliberative democracy forum to hatch and debate policy ideas as a way to put ordinary people front and center in the governing process. It's like having one million consultants, but instead of the consultants being hacks providing self-serving and often false advice, they're ordinary people finally getting a bit of access to the governing process. I'd caution that this kind of effort is a great incubator of ideas but doesn't substitute for developing the raw political power necessary to get laws passed - though it can help if the million participants act as ambassadors for the ideas they come up with.

Nevertheless, this kind of idea reflects something truly exciting about the prospect of Edwards as president: he really sees the presidency as a movement-building opportunity, believing that good government flows not so much from the quality of the people in government but from the competing strengths of the movements that put them there. He's constantly looking for ways to bring new people into the process and into the progressive movement. This is in such contrast to the more common Hillary Clinton transactional model of leadership:  you elect me, a really smart person, and I'll deliver for you. It largely leaves the non-elite out of it (except when they're invited to participate in artificial "conversations" where they're not really listened to).  Edwards's message, in contrast, is much more: elect me, and we'll work side by side for common goals - and build our movement all along so that we'll be stronger for future battles. It would be unique in the history of modern Democratic presidents; it's almost unique in the history of prominent national Democrats - and it's making me giddy just contemplating it.  

From The New York Times's Nicholas Kristof:

I ran into Al Gore at a climate/energy conference this month, and he vibrates with passion about this issue -- recognizing that we should confront mortal threats even when they don't emanate from Al Qaeda.

"We are now treating the Earth's atmosphere as an open sewer," he said, and (perhaps because my teenage son was beside me) he encouraged young people to engage in peaceful protests to block major new carbon sources.

"I can't understand why there aren't rings of young people blocking bulldozers," Mr. Gore said, "and preventing them from constructing coal-fired power plants."

Say it, Al! But it's not just young people who need to do it - everyone needs to join in, starting with you. Shutting down coal plants, blockading palm oil importers like Imperium Renewables and other rainforest destroyers, and stopping work at oil refineries could move the climate debate beyond just personal action and put the spotlight squarely on the big polluters who are the real culprits behind the problem.

This could be Al Gore's Gandhi moment (especially appropriate for a Nobel Peace Prize nominee). It would be great if you (in conjunction with say, Greenpeace, Rainforest Action Network and other civil disobedience-oriented environmental groups) announced a day of civil disobedience to confront polluters - and were the first one to get arrested. You'll find thousands of people (self included) to back you up.

If you're interested in being one of those people, click here to send Al Gore a fax letting him know you're ready to participate in civil disobedience on behalf of the planet.

Bill Richardson courageously acted this week to save the highly endangered wolves of New Mexico by calling for suspension of a brutal Bush administration policy that puts taxpayer dollars toward hunting down endangered species like the wolf.  

Richardson was spurred to act when a federal wildlife agent, acting under the auspices of the Bush administration policy, on July 5 shot and killed a female wolf pack leader in New Mexico (one of only about 55 mature wolves still alive in the wild in New Mexico).

According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the Bush administration sharpshooter pointed his gun at a New Mexico state biologist who objected to his shooting the wolf before he slaughtered the animal.