Amen, brother.

The question is -- what do the voters want when they select certain candidates?

I think a vote for Obama is a vote for a "let's just stop the bickering and start healing" stance. It's the way Obama has structured his campaign. A vote for Clinton is, just as likely, a "Let's just get back to the 90s and the way things were before Bush fouled things up." I don't think the votes are making a partisan, populist statement unless they break for Edwards.

As for the GOP -- until the media stops dancing the Hucklebuck, it's hard to tell what's going on with that primary electorate.

I don't see where Krugman is implying that he's doing anything other. It is, after all, his opinion.

Geebus.

I do love this "cop" role you keep trying to play with the blogosphere. Kind of funny. Wonder if there's some pretty interesting psychology we can start looking into.

There is already a well established term for the phenomenon where a pundit believes that his preferred policy also just coincidentally happens to be politically the best as well. It's called the Pundit's Fallacy.

The unhighlighted last paragraph in the quote is likely to prove more true, for Obama or anyone else elected next year, than the rest of what Krugman says.

Truth is, an awful lot of Americans do want repose right now. They want bipartisanship, agreement, a rest from bad news, and a rest also from the necessity of facing up to uncomfortable decisions. A lot of other Americans want a rest from having to deal with people with whom they disagree. They also want a rest from bad news, but are fine with decisions that make other people uncomfortable. There are even a fair number of Americans who want both, so any pundit claiming that average Americans share his perspective on our politics is assured of being able to find some Americans who do.

Democrats seeking undiluted repose are attracted to Obama; if they prefer confrontation, they prefer Edwards. If they want both -- a candidate with a strong stated desire to bring Americans together, who will treat opposition with contempt and suspicion -- Sen. Clinton is their candidate.

Great post, thanks. The Krugman-Obama debate has been interesting.

I thought "Let’s be blunt..." was Krugman's (somewhat vague) way of self-awarely pointing out that he was talking about a group of people that included himself.

... pundits who imply that what voters want is a full-throated, partisan, populist candidate

I missed the part where Krug-man says that voters want a full-throated partisan populist candidate. It reads to me more like he is saying that we need FTPPC, and that he wants one, but I don't read that he is projecting this want onto the public at large.

Krugman's evidence that many voters want a populist candidate is contained in the following paragraphs:

There’s a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what’s wrong with the country was “Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington.”

And there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week’s Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.

This is rather thin evidence, but I think that if Drezner is going to suggest that Krugman is projecting Krugman's desires onto the electorate, Drezner should at least take a stab at explaining why he doesn't think that Krugman's opinion is justified by the evidence.

Krugman's evidence that many voters want a populist candidate is contained in the following paragraphs:

There’s a strong populist tide running in America right now. For example, a recent Democracy Corps survey of voter discontent found that the most commonly chosen phrase explaining what’s wrong with the country was “Big businesses get whatever they want in Washington.”

And there’s every reason to believe that the Democrats can win big next year if they run with that populist tide. The latest evidence came from focus groups run by both Fox News and CNN during last week’s Democratic debate: both declared Mr. Edwards the clear winner.

This is rather thin evidence, but I think that if Drezner is going to suggest that Krugman is projecting Krugman's desires onto the electorate, Drezner should at least take a stab at explaining why he doesn't think that Krugman's opinion is justified by the evidence.