Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Waking up to the leftyness
Health care stocks have been getting hammered since late February, when the details of the Obama administration's health care budget and related policy proposals "became public." The reason for the scare quotes follows.
In the day job, I had dinner last night with two or three other medtech executives, a well-regarded "sell side" analyst in our industry, and six or eight portfolio managers who specialize in health care investing. Today I met with another eight portfolio managers or "buy side" analysts. On three separate occasions (including the group dinner) somebody brought up the big sell-off in response to the Obama administration's health care reform proposals. I served up my company- and device industry-specific responses, and then expressed surprise that health care stocks sold off so steeply now, as opposed to in November, insofar as Obama was not proposing anything more radical than promised during his campaign. In every case -- and this was the consensus at the dinner -- people said that investors had not believed the campaign promises and were surprised that he was actually following through.
Oops.
9 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Mar 11, 08:00:00 PM:
Same explanation, I believe, that you would hear if you asked independents who voted for Obama what they think now. My college roommates and my wife are both in that camp. Boy, are they scared now.
By , at
Wed Mar 11, 09:06:00 PM:
1. Whenever you hear Obama use the word 'change', mentally substitute the word 'revenge'
2. Note the improved clarity of the message.
The the hard left cracked the code over a year ago.
Your dinner companions, apparently, are still spinning the dials.
Ken in Ann Arbor
By 
Escort81, at
Wed Mar 11, 09:07:00 PM:
people said that investors had not believed the campaign promises and were surprised that he was actually following through.
Oops.
I didn't vote for him, and I didn't think he'd actually be able to follow through, not because of lack of effort, but because there would be some legislative brake on him (enough moderate Dems plus Republicans). Maybe the Blue Dogs are starting to wake up.
But maybe this is a deliberate tactic. The Obama administration gets all of its wild lefty stuff out of the way early, and maybe even gives credit/blame to Congress for some of it. Then, by early 2012, the tack back to the middle starts happening, and President Obama runs as a centrist against someone (at least some part of the ticket) guaranteed to be painted as a right-wing nut. And all of the legislation in 2009? "I inherited an extraordinary crisis that called for extraordinary measures; now that the crisis has passed, things can return to a more normal style of governance."
In reality, we can expect that President Obama's 2012 campaign will be very well funded and very well organized, as was his 2008 campaign. For a Republican to emerge out of what is essentially a broken party right now to defeat President Obama in Nov. 2012 would be a remarkable accomplishment, at least as remarkable as forecasting at the end of Gulf War I that George H.W. Bush would lose to Gov. Clinton in 1992 (thanks in part to Ross Perot). A couple of million independents will have to flip their votes in key states, and that's assuming the turnout of the Democratic base does not increase too dramatically and the Republican turnout does not decrease. For President Obama to be a one termer -- to go Carter or Bush I on us -- the lay of the land in 2012 would have to include some combination of economic distress (in this case, of a nature that he could not plausibly or fully blame it on his predecessor) and major foreign policy failure (which, oddly, his base might regard as a success). That's not a backdrop I would want to root for.
By Unknown, at
Wed Mar 11, 11:33:00 PM:
I remember Instapundit linked to someone who summed up the Obama election quite well. To wit: "Those on the left are confident that he's not going to do all those things he promised to do during the campaign. And those on the right are afraid he might."
By , at
Thu Mar 12, 09:43:00 AM:
Obama wants to effect a radical makeover of America, I'm convinced. To stay in power to do this, he'll find ways to put checks in the mail for his constituents, and buy their support. The checks for the masses will be small, the checks for the players will be huge. The bill for this will be backdated, and will be disproportionately borne by the hardworking and the young. Thus, he'll try to use the public purse to buy his way to victory in 2010 and 2012.
If Obama can create some momentum in the economy in 2010 and 2012, and can keep the Democrats in Congress on his side, he may get away with it. The problem with Obamanomics is that it'll drag down longer-term growth to nothing, or worse.
The Republicans need to create a platform that focuses on economic growth, and how Obama is leading us to a lost decade of economic growth. This might win back independents, and small business. They have to win back seats in Congress in 2010, like the way they did in 1994 ... or it's over.
Link
By MTF, at
Thu Mar 12, 10:15:00 AM:
Good comments from E81 and Link here. Clinton's ambitions were clear early and he was organizing early. Obama is going to be weaker than Bush 1 was at the time of his second term election, I believe, but stronger in political organization and execution. But to take advantage, competitor will need to emerge relatively soon (as Clinton did) and start getting organized soon, in order to take advantage of Obama's political weakness.
By , at
Thu Mar 12, 02:54:00 PM:
Get ready to sign your company over to the Democrats. Hope your not planning on the ESOP for retirement.
By Murray, at
Thu Mar 12, 03:40:00 PM:
funny and pertinent:
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/03/brilliant.html
By , at
Thu Mar 12, 06:10:00 PM:
In reality, we can expect that President Obama's 2012 campaign will be very well funded and very well organized, as was his 2008 campaign.
I'm sure we can expect just as much illegal foreign money funding it, too. His election was financed by Islamic terrorists, and he knows it. No wonder he's being so conciliatory to Syria, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, and Iran.
