10.27.2008

Today's Polls, 10/27

John McCain is making no progress in his pursuit of the White House. Our model now projects Barack Obama to win 351 electoral votes to John McCain's 187, and to win the Electoral College 96.7 percent of the time to McCain's 3.3 percent. Both numbers are unchanged from yesterday.

Let's take a look at the polls, and then run through a couple of big-picture themes:



Theme #1. If the national polls are tightening, there is no evidence of it in the state numbers. If the national tracking polls moved at all today, they moved slightly in McCain's direction, as he gained ground in the Rasmussen and Research 2000 polls, whereas the other six trackers were essentially flat. However, there has really been no sign of tightening in the state polls.

Our model places more emphasis on state polling, and there's a pretty good reason why: they give us a lot more data to look at. Today's for instance, there were 3,539 "fresh" interviews conducted (e.g. those that were not already accounted for in previous' days tracking polls) between eight national polls that we added to our database. By contrast, there were 22,881 fresh interviews conducted between 31 new state polls.

If the state polls aren't showing movement toward McCain, then it is probably the case that any perceived movement in the national polls is sampling noise. If anything, in fact, the state polls are showing movement toward Obama on balance, not just in battleground states like Virginia, but also in non-battlegrounds as diverse as New York, Oklahoma, Oregon and Arizona.

Theme #2. Obama has begun to run up the score in some non-battlegrounds. Polls in states like Washington, New York and California are now showing very large leads for Barack Obama. As some of these states have large populations, they are providing a bit of cushion to Obama in his popular vote margin. To a lesser extent, Barack Obama has also gained ground in some red states like Arizona and Georgia. As a result, whereas for the past several weeks we had shown Obama as being more likely to win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote, those probabilities have now begun to equalize themselves -- his popular vote was not quite as efficiently distributed as it was before.

Theme #3. We are approaching a pollster consensus in some battlegrounds. In certain states, the range of the polls has narrowed. Missouri and North Carolina now look like true toss-ups. Florida looks like a toss-up, leaning Obama. Ohio and Nevada lean clearly toward Obama, but McCain remains within striking distance. Colorado and Virginia lean more strongly toward Obama, and McCain may or may not be within striking distance. Pennsylvania has failed to tighten materially, and is probably not within striking distance. Likewise, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa appear safe for Obama.

States where there is a bit more disagreement are Indiana and New Hampshire. The former can be described as a toss-up and the latter as a lean Obama state, but the range of polling is wider than in most other states. Meanwhile, there has been relatively little polling of New Mexico, and it is hard to tell whether McCain is viable there or not.

362 comments

Jason said...

first! just had to.

tek said...

Yay. for Stevens

Darío said...

second!

Darío said...

third.

Akonuche said...

Nate, do you think that many of these white Americans claiming they will pull the lever for Obama actually will? Or will Obama need a specific percent in each state PLUS heavy turn out by Jewish, black, and Hispanic voters to take him over the edge?

olinthusp said...

Wow. That's some consensus in the Old Dominion. We flipped the Senate with Jim Webb and now it looks like we'll put Obama over the top. Fingers crossed.

JC said...

I worry about these reports of churches sending buses of their congregation to early vote, presumably for McCain. How will this effort compare to Obama's GOTV?

Jason said...

@Akonuche - speaking as a middle class white American who already has pulled the lever for Obama, yes I believe it will happen.

www.democratz.org said...

Well I still will wait until the votes get counted before I celebrate the end of 28 yers of Republican party economic and social terrorism.


Looking for Watches, Jigsaw puzzles, Dinner plates, Liquor flasks, mugs, mousepads and more?



Visit http://www.artscafe.com/maximus7 and



http://redsemporium2.zlio.com and



http://store.democratz.org

Andy JS said...

I don't believe Obama will win Virginia by more than 5%. Anyone agree?

Also, I'm disappointed by the lack of polls from New Mexico. I hope we have some in the next day or so.

Douglas said...

Mule Rider [the REAL Mule Rider], please come back and entertain us on this thread! We've missed you since your untimely death:

http://crittendenpress.blogspot.com/2008/09/mule-rider-dies.html

www.democratz.org said...

Please answer a poll on health care at http://poll.democratz.org

You can watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann at http://liberal.democratz.org

You can watch The Young Turks Liberal talk show after you watch Countdown by clicking on the link that reads Watch the Young Turks, near the top of the page.

akoolromeo said...

As far as the state pol not reflecting eh kind of tightening the National polls are shoowing, they say the state polls tend to run behind the National polls, so if that is true, one probably wouldn't see the tightening in the state polls until a few days or so after the National polls.

Gwen said...

Lookin' good....

kimmy said...

Ted Stevens being found GUILTY is GOOD NEWS for John McCain, because his veep was palling around with the crook ...

www.democratz.org said...

Please answer a poll on health care at http://poll.democratz.org



You can watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann at
http://liberal.democratz.org



You can watch The Young Turks Liberal talk show after you watch Countdown by clicking on the link that reads Watch the Young Turks, near the top of the page.

OryJTgun said...

I'll be interested to see how/if the polls move a little later in the week, based on the Ted Stevens' stuff today, and McCain's appearance on MtP yesterday. Good God, he looks/acts *old*.

David said...

Every post from here until voting day should finish with the words:

GET OUT THE VOTE!

You take your vote as urgent and sacrosanct, which it is. Imagine if you could talk someone into taking a ride with you to the polling place or encourage someone to take someone else, one more soul, to the polls?

Do it and you're enlarging the power of your vote by 2 or 3 hundred per cent.

Please. Do it.

unertl said...

If a candidate has a 95% or higher chance of winning a state, then you label it as Safe GOP/Dem. So by your own classification, the entire country is Safe Dem.

chrisready said...

I updated my Trends slideshow on Flickr.

I do have one question - how come the EV distribution model peaks at around 380 EVs but your model "only" predicts 351 EVs for Obama? Is there a correlation between the two?

chrisready said...

Following on my previous, I didn't see this in the FAQ but I apologize in advance if I'm asking a FAQ :)

Real Joe said...




Marc Ambinder:

RNC Goes Up In Montana

The state and its three electoral votes are now competitive?

A Democratic media buying source says -- Republicans won't yet confirm -- and Republicans now confirm -- that the RNC's independent expenditure arm has bought television ads in the state.

The ads begin Wednesday.

In 2004, George W. Bush won Montana by 20 points.

Ron Paul is on the ballot. And Ron Paul supporters aren't happy with John McCain...

A Republican congressman from Texas could throw the state to Barack Obama.

Developing....


http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/10/rnc_goes_up_in_montana.php


Cossack said...

Nate, as the race is headed towards an Obama landslide, why does the tipping point state map not take this into account?

Wouldn't, as Obama's lead grows, there be no states that have any significant chance of "tipping" the election?

tek said...

I can't wait for the 2010 midterms. The Republicans picked up about 5 formerly democratic seats in 2004. I am hoping we get some of those back to pad the lead in the senate

Real Joe said...

Texas ??

Hot Damn.

Derbydeano said...

www.democratz.org said...

Well I still will wait until the votes get counted before I celebrate the end of 28 yers of Republican party economic and social terrorism.

LOL, it's like being with a hot, beautiful woman, doing the dirty, and imagining anything BUT sex! I see your point democratz, but I am the true optimist and ordered a keg of Molson and a party platter from Bristol Farms. It's time to flush the GOP down the fucking toilet!!!

JaxFLDesi said...

Nate: it was interesting to see Chuck Todd (we trust) make the point in the Morning Joe that BO can easily reach to 270 without FL, OH & PA by getting VA, CO, NV. The PEROT model here gives that probability of 1.96%. How come?

RedHawksO4 said...

But Zogby and TIPP show movement toward McCain, oh my! (snark)

This race has been amazingly stable for the last couple weeks.

Race, Ethnicity, and The Electoral College

Eric said...

WTG Nate!!!

Your review of the battleground was (close to) perfect and concise:

no mention of New Mexico and Michigan, I assume those are considered safe Obama to you.

Luke C said...

Oh no! Indiana has turned slightly pink!

Josh said...

I don't like the Zogby #s in WV or Indiana but all the other state numbers look alright.

I'm digging that Obama is going with this Voter Protection Center thing. Obama is really fighting back hard on the GOP's dirty tricks.

Matthew said...

If you look at the Virginia polls, not only does Obama lead in all of them, he has over 50% in all of them.

With all the polls in the past month showing Obama up, how can Obama lose Virginia?

And if he wins Virginia, how can he lose the election?

Eric said...

JaxFLDesi said...
Nate: it was interesting to see Chuck Todd (we trust) make the point in the Morning Joe that BO can easily reach to 270 without FL, OH & PA by getting VA, CO, NV. The PEROT model here gives that probability of 1.96%. How come?

I'll answer for Nate.
Pennsylvania is bluer then Colorado, Virginia, and Nevada. This is apparent in virtually all the polling and past elections. For Pennsylvania to end up in McCain's column and yet he lose the other (CO, NV, VA), would be very surprising. Chances are remote.

Richard Whittall said...

Just thought I'd point out, to echo Mr. Obama's remarks earlier today, that power does not concede.

In that spirit, any lawyers registered to vote in Pennsylvania, please go to dailykos.com asap.

I'm sorry, but certain Republicans care more about power than about democracy. Now is NOT the time to be naive on this point.

Eric said...

Matthew said...
If you look at the Virginia polls, not only does Obama lead in all of them, he has over 50% in all of them.

With all the polls in the past month showing Obama up, how can Obama lose Virginia?

And if he wins Virginia, how can he lose the election?

This is dead on. He is also likely building a lead in Nevada, Colorado, and North Carolina. If hewins any of the 3, he probably can't lose.

Frank said...

Nate, Sean or anyone:

Are there any studies/references to the effect of caller id on polling data? It seems unlikely there would be a big skew to the R or D side.

Thanks.

TSVictoriaBC said...

Go McCain, goooo!!! Oklahoma! Ooooo Hooo!!!

On a serious note, I have gut feeling that places like LA, MS, AL are under-polling potential AA turn-outs. Those races are much closer in reality than they look in polls. Sooo, I wanna see 430 EVs for Obama. Is that too much to ask? Given the voting machine problems and voter purge issues ALREADY reported elsewhere, I'd like to see a decisive win for Obama, and don't want a cliff hanger dependent on one state re-count type of situation.

Obama 396 (or more)!!!!

Eric said...

Nate: it was interesting to see Chuck Todd (we trust) make the point in the Morning Joe that BO can easily reach to 270 without FL, OH & PA by getting VA, CO, NV. The PEROT model here gives that probability of 1.96%. How come?

Likely, because at this point for Obama to lose PA would require a dramatic change in the national polling averages (and the demographics that Nate's using in his regression model), which would then predict that VA especially would be unlikely to be winnable.

Which makes sense, in the same way that Obama could win without winning Connecticut - sure, it's easily possible mathematically, but the only way he could lose PA would be a dramatic closing of the race that would likely cause him to lose VA as well

mlnmatt said...

McCain's last hail mary to stem the flow of bad news in the last week: tell his supporters via a televised rally that they should respond to any pollster who calls that they are supporting Obama, even if they aren't.

nick said...

I wonder if Obama's big 30 minute pitch is going to move any of these variables in Indiana, Montana, etc, or if things are pretty much going to be this flat from here on out.

Eric said...

Re: Ealry voting in virginia. It was discussed earlier that it's limited. We can see early voting tallies in many states. does anyone know if early voting in Ohio is limited in a similar way to Virginia. It seems that it may be.

Josh said...

Hey TSVictoriaBC - I have the same feeling regarding MS etc... but I assume the Obama campaign would be trying harder there if they thought they had a real chance.

I saw some early voting results in LS that said 36% of the early voters were AA. It's hard for me to see how McCain can win with 36% AA turnout. Whites there can't be THAT racist - they have an Indian Gov. right?

PorridgeGun said...

Shitty polling day for Obama.



How much are the buffoons in the MSM covering Alaskan coot Ted Stevens being found GUILTY? The FReeptards aren't exactly chuffed with the "old pork fiend" 7 days before the election.



Not all FReeptards are down on Tubes, though...





All the media needed to revive the “culture of corruption” narrative...just in time for the election.

Of course, Sarah Palin gets no credit for fighting corruption in Alaska. NONE.




LOL, she''s fucking corrupt.

Benjamin said...

This election is going to be a lot closer because of vote purging, caging and electronic voting problems.

Expect some unlikely on election day.

Benjamin said...

expect some unlikely results on election day

shma said...

Cossack: The answer to your question lies in a link from the FAQ

Chrisready: You are confusing mean(351) and mode(380).

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

Would any of you libs who continue to call people names and question the intelligence of those speaking against Obama's policy of government like to explain why taking money from one individual and “redistributing” it does not qualify as socialism?

Please do not embarrass yourselves by saying that these are taxes because it is broadly accepted that we are discussing distributions to many people who do not pay federal payroll taxes.

And for all you geniuses out there, FICA does not qualify as a payroll tax, as it is placed in a fund for you to draw from when you retire. (lol, another long debate)

Please keep any comments on subject as the constant mindless drivel that has been coming from the liberals is making you all look imbecilic.

McGhee said...

Help those of us from outside the States figure this out: what on earth is going on in Oklahoma? I am struggling to understand how the rest of the country has realised there is nothing for them in the McCain/Palin message (even large numbers in their own states) but Ok seems hell-bent on being the standout. Can you give a little background?

mlnmatt said...

I do have one question - how come the EV distribution model peaks at around 380 EVs but your model "only" predicts 351 EVs for Obama? Is there a correlation between the two?

~380 is the mode (most frequent), while 351 is the median. (I think?)

Josh said...

Ben - I understand where you are coming from on that. But I'm hopeful that the Dems are doing a good job of fighting all of the GOP dirty tricks this time. And I really think the polls may be undercounting Obama's registration/GOTV efforts. Plus there's the cellphone effect and the reverse-bradley effect. OK... that's a lot of wishful thinking, I agree. But I think it's possible that the results on Election Day are actually way better than our wildest dreams. Like Obama doing 5 pts better than in the polls.

Clarissa said...

Jax:

[i]Nate: it was interesting to see Chuck Todd (we trust) make the point in the Morning Joe that BO can easily reach to 270 without FL, OH & PA by getting VA, CO, NV. The PEROT model here gives that probability of 1.96%. How come[/i]

Pennsylvania is polling significantly ahead of any of the rest of states that you mentioned. Nates model adjusts such that nationwide changes in demographic leans are similar across states especially regionally close states. The demographics that have to turn to McCain in order for him to win Pennsylvania doom Obama most of the time in the other states and I think most heavily in VA.

We are talking about a really small subset (102 of 10,000 results have BO losing all three;only 2 say that BO wins in that case so basically 1% that McCain wins by taking OH, FL & PA - the other 2.3% happen when he loses one of them). And one of those 102 scenarios must be the McCain Landslide.

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

Any of you libs wanna answer my tough question?

CameronsCrusaders said...

Does Zogby leak his next days polling to Drudge? Or is the flaming Fedora just being an ass?

LAT said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Derbydeano said...

Montana will go blue.

If you look back to Clinton in 96 he lost to Dole in a head to head. However, with Bush 41 and Perot, Clinton won that state. The fact that Paul is on the ballot and Montanans are fairly true people, I expect Obama to eek out MT.

BY the way, MT is the only state to vote against Clinton the second time around after voting for him in 92.

Josh said...

mcghee - there are radically different types of people living in different parts of this country.

the folks in Oklahoma are (by and large) radically different (in not such a good way.) but they did produce The Flaming Lips - so they aren't all bad.

Even the reddest places tend to have pockets of blue inside them.

SkyDog said...

jf, looking at today's numbers, it looks like you were in fact correct yesterday that the "Obama loses OH/FL, wins election" line should be "Obama loses OH/PA, wins election". Now we've just got to get ahold of Nate somehow so the problem can get fixed! He hasn't answered either of my e-mails, and I'm not quite sure what the "fix" should be anyway.

Should the percentage be changed to the correct number reflecting "Obama loses OH/FL, wins election"?

Or should the line be changed to read "Obama loses OH/PA, wins election"? And if so, should the McCain line and percentage be changed to reflect him losing OH/PA and winning the election as well?

Or should there be both "loses OH/FL, wins election" AND "loses OH/PA, wins election" for BOTH candidates?

Whatever the fix is, I hope it gets made soon.

TSVictoriaBC said...

@Josh and others especially in Deep South...

I have NO idea what Obama's ground operations are like in Deep South. (I can only see Washington from my front porch---literally!) Anyone with any info?

LAT said...

porridgegun, we love you here but you really are on some alternative universe if you think today was a bad day for Obama. Didn't you predict Nate would say it was the best polling day for McCain? Nothing like that from Nate, quite the opposite.

I guess you wanted Obama's percentage to be 99% today.

Rillion said...

@JaxFLDesi: "Nate: it was interesting to see Chuck Todd (we trust) make the point in the Morning Joe that BO can easily reach to 270 without FL, OH & PA by getting VA, CO, NV. The PEROT model here gives that probability of 1.96%. How come?"

I suspect it is because the model out of 10,000 simulations only has Obama losing those three states 102 times. And when the model has Obama lose all three of those states it is because he is underperforming across the board. Therefore only twice does it find him losing all three states but still winning the election.

So basically the model is saying that there is only a 1% chance he is going to lose OH, PA, and FL. And if he losses those three states he is most likely losing in all the other toss up states.

Simeon said...

@PorridgeGun

"Shitty polling day for Obama."

Yeah, it was so shitty that he went from a 96.7% chance of winning yesterday all the way down to a 96.7% of winning today! If the next 8 days are just as shitty, hello President Obama!

zzyzx said...

Is Drudge reporting tomorrow's Zogby? Must be great for McCain if he is :/

Real Joe said...

benjamin said...
expect some unlikely results on election day


Surprise is coming !!

come here on election day to find out

C said...

I hope after this is all over Nate can make an animated GIF of every Electoral Vote Distribution graphic the model produced.

I think it would be an interesting illustration of the way the race (and the possibilities for each candidate) evolved over the course of the general election.

Frank said...

RWC: Guess I am not too sure why you want to argue if you already know the answer.

Anyway, I have no problem with calling our form of government a social democracy (like most of those European countries that McCain seems to think are so bad.) Clearly, we use money from taxes to build infrastructure that is used at rates not necessarily in line with taxation. Similarly, social programs are used at rates that are often at odds with the taxes to support them. Is this bad? If we were all individuals acting in a vacuum, yes. That is not the case so my answer is that such spending is desirable.

The deeper discussion of such policies should be the focus of discussion rather than partisans taking another term ("socialism") and using it to promote fear.

Heather Nordquist said...

@lat
I wanted 99% today. I won't lie to you. :)

Jack-be-nimble said...

Let me first to say that todays polling numbers are:

GREAT NEWS FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!

Simeon said...

351.1 is the mean, not the median. You can tell it's not the median, because it's a fractional number. The only way you can get a fraction of EVs is to take the mean.

380 is the mode.

justin32099 said...

"Would any of you libs who continue to call people names and question the intelligence of those speaking against Obama's policy of government like to explain why taking money from one individual and “redistributing” it does not qualify as socialism?

Please do not embarrass yourselves by saying that these are taxes because it is broadly accepted that we are discussing distributions to many people who do not pay federal payroll taxes."

You're clearly a troll, but this is a legitimate question so I'll bite. Yes, Obama's proposal (and, in fact, the tax system as currently designed) does allow some people to pay negative income taxes. However, these low-income Americans do still pay more in taxes to the government than they receive in credits, due to payroll and sales taxes. See

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_welfare.html

Obama's tax credits are intended to offset these taxes that they pay. I agree that if there are people who receive more in credits than they pay in (overall) taxes, they are receiving welfare, but the GOP talking points have (conveniently) ignored the fact that there are other taxes besides federal income taxes.

lordbuckeyejohn said...

Early voting in Ohio is wide open. The SoS and local BOEs project at least 30 percent will vote early.

In my small (red) county:

38,865 registered voters
9,500 voted early or requested absentee ballots by today.

Francis said...

Looks like my first post got eaten...

"BY the way, MT is the only state to vote against Clinton the second time around after voting for him in 92."

GA and CO also went against Clinton in 96.

Badgerhair said...

Blogger C said...

I hope after this is all over Nate can make an animated GIF of every Electoral Vote Distribution graphic the model produced.


Someone already has, and updates it fairly regularly. Someone else might remember who it is.

Heather Nordquist said...

Despair sets in. National Review front page:

100 days with President Obama

LOL

Drowzee said...

RWC:
So, by your overly broad terms, we shouldn't have a military?
We pay taxes, which then go into military salaries.

Are you calling supporting our troops by patriotically paying taxes... socialist?

Or should we expect our armed forces to fight and die for free without compensation?

sugerfunk said...

Derbydeano,

I agree that MT is very much in play this year. But you have a slight mistake in your post:

BY the way, MT is the only state to vote against Clinton the second time around after voting for him in 92.

This is not accurate. Colorado, one of this year's star swing states, and Georgia voted for Clinton in '92 but backed Dole in '96.

PorridgeGun said...

The 538 model doesn't tell the story of what's going on right now. After the week McCain has had, the drop in Obama's numbers in the trackers and some states is pretty shocking, not to mention ridiculous. And so far, nobody has any idea as to why, other than conventional "tightening" before election day?

Problem is, there's still 7 days left and presumably an October surprise or national security thingy to get the Rrepublicans within stealing distance.

Steve_OH said...

@chrisready:

The graph peaks at 375, but it has a much longer tail on the low side than on the high side, so the mean value (351.1) is considerably less than 375.

@Cossack:

The tipping point and ROI maps are normalized; that is, the state with the highest tipping point will always be shown in red, even if the tipping probability today is much less than it was a couple of weeks ago. (I don't know if that's actually true or not--I don't remember what the probabilities were back then.)

@JaxFLDesi:

The Model includes demographic state-to-state correlations. If Obama loses OH, FL and PA, The Model figures that he will also lose several other close (and maybe not so close) contests.

Francis said...

real joe, what did you mean with your comment about TX earlier?

shadowguidex said...

"Would any of you libs who continue to call people names and question the intelligence of those speaking against Obama's policy of government like to explain why taking money from one individual and “redistributing” it does not qualify as socialism?"

You mean, like how a company takes your money and redistributes it to their stockholders in the form of dividends?

There isn't a nation on earth today that doesn't have socialistic principles built into their system, including us. There is a fucking massive difference between Socialism, and Communism or Marxism.

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

Wealthy people already pay more than poor people, you moron libs. Always have, always will, regardless of whether the Messiah wins next week. The only critical difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama will start taking money directly from those who he decides have too much, and give it directly to people who he decides need it.

That is Marxist, and that is Obama. But you're too ignorant or lazy to understand that.

STepper said...

November surprise:

Real Joe is actually Poblano.

(My word verif. is "tringl." Wowser.)

Heather Nordquist said...

Whoa!!!

RedState Endorses Mark Begich, Democrat For Senate, and Ethan Berkowitz, Democrat for House At Large in Alaska

Sorry not a link. Their website sucks and the link is broken. Try the front page.

ScottGA said...

@Right Wing Conspirasict

It's a moderate form of socialism. Which means that both of our major party candidates support socialism in a way. If this is your major issue this year, I assume you'll be voting Libertarian?

sugerfunk said...

Nate,

The top reason why I am going down to Virginia for Obama's GOTV operation during the last 4 days leading into Election Day is because it ranks top on your list of Tipping Point States.

P.S. It also doesn't hurt that it is about 4-5 hours driving distance from Brooklyn whereas Colorado, Florida and even Ohio is definitely a long drive or a plane fare away. ;-)

Simeon said...

Oops... I said 380 was the mode, but the mode is actually 375 (per teh distribution graph).

NC_voter said...

These polls are great news!!! For Barack Obama!!!

Wow, look how BLUE that map is!

On this day, October 27th, in 2004, George Bush led John Kerry 49.0% to 46.4%.
For Final results, please see presidential inauguration, January 2005

John Kerry never again led in any major tracking poll



(47) days since the Fundamental Shift towards McCain/Palin as described by PeteKent

You 'Cons should be getting really nervous!

Congratulations to President Barack HUSSEIN Obama Jr. Get used to saying it, rethugs.
(emphasis placed on middle name to spite race-mongerers who tried to use it politically)

Cowardly Trolltards MIA:

Midpoint Man
Oz Johnny
Greg
Jack Black
CTPEM
CTSTW

GayIthacan said...

The ignorance of many who post here is breathtaking.

SOCIALISM refers to a state system where the MEANS OF PRODUCTION are owned by the STATE.

It utterly amazes me that so many people cannot seem to understand that fundamental part of the definition.

For Christ's sake some of you morons - READ A BOOK!!!!

engstudent said...

facinating - the Rasmussen polls have the spread with 4points in virginia and colorado are they really reliable for Obama, Zogby has Nevada at a little more than 4.2, are these outlyers or the suspect closing/tightening of polls towards the end? I think in a senario where McCain can close the gap and pull off a miracle in Pennsylvania - Obama maynot be able to rely on the west.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
Nevermind - not going to happend. (:

Khalil said...

Right Wing Conspiracist,
Using your definition of socialism, taxing oil companies and giving the money to voters is socialism, as practiced by prominent socialists Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, and Sarah Palin (she brags about "taking on the oil companies and giving money to Alaskans").
Also using your definition of socialism, progressive taxation is socialistic (the rich are paying more money and are getting a lower share of government goods and services such as welfare payments). That's a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. None of the four candidates has spoken out against the progressive tax system in the U.S.
And of course, nationalization of banks is socialism by your definition, which is something George Bush, John McCain, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin supported.

jason said...

RWC: You call it socialism, I call it progressive taxation. I'm fine with that. Call it whatever you want, the old bogeymen of the Cold War years that the Right keeps trotting out just don't have the same bite to them.

Marco said...

The state polls not tightening is GREAT NEWS...FOR JOHN MCCAIN!!!

RWD said...

"That is Marxist, and that is Obama. But you're too ignorant or lazy to understand that."

No, you are the lazy ignorant one. Go read Marx, and find me the part where he advocates any income tax rate over another, or where he discusses refundable tax credits.

Marxism is about who controls the means of production. Which of Obama's tax proposals change that?

chrisready said...

@C, @Badgerhair,

I maintain a series of screenshots on Flickr. Hope that helps.

Sonia said...

STOP REPLYING TO THE TROLLS. PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE.

That's the only way they'll go away.

STepper said...

Socialism - where the means of production are owned by the state. In Alaska, for example, where the state owns the oil production and distributes the profits of that production to the people through its socialist governor.

Er.

[gadesse]

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

One of the planks Marx advocated was a system of progressive taxation and a death tax.

Sound familiar?

jason said...

RWC = pwned

Eric said...

There is no white America or black America, nored America or blue America, there is the United States of America...that happens to be blue.

Khalil said...

Given that McCain and Palin are openly calling Obama socialist, I kind of wish Obama would buy just $200,000 of ads in Arizona (a paltry sum compared to his war chest).
If Obama is coming within 5 points in Arizona according to Rasmussen, which has a Republican lean, a few ads might make the state interesting and energize the (apparently) large number of Obama supporters not being engaged.
If anything, doing something as audacious as that would drive a knife through the heart of conservative morale.

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

Sarah Palin is required by the Constitution of Alaska to do that. She didn't write the Constitution, don't blame her, she's just executing the law.

prairiecomm said...

ABC Anchor to Biden: Deny Obama's a Marxist!!!

great 1 1/2 min summary at http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

gotta love the guy

fansessw

RWD said...

"One of the planks Marx advocated was a system of progressive taxation"

Wow, you're opposed to progressive taxation then. Maybe you and McCain can build a bridge back to the 1880s.

Publius said...

Worst-case scenario right now, at least the way I see it:

Kerry + IA + NV + CO + NM - NH = 274 EV = McCain FAIL.

Barry doesn't need FL, VA, or NC to win, but he DOES need NM, CO, and NV, none of which are locked down right now. IA seems to be in the tank, though.

Sue D. Nymme said...

Blogger Right Wing Conspiricist said...

"Would any of you libs who continue to call people names and question the intelligence of those speaking against Obama's policy of government like to explain why taking money from one individual and “redistributing” it does not qualify as socialism?"

I am not calling anyone names, nor questioning anyone's intelligence. But I'll take a crack at it if you like.

We have a progressive tax system in the US. Always have -- well, as long as we've had income tax. I understand the arguments for a flat tax, and many of them are sensible, but for now it is out of the picture and we have a progressive tax structure.

Obama wants to adjust the percentages so that people with higher incomes pay more, and people with lower incomes pay less. McCain wants to adjust the numbers so that people with higher incomes pay less, and people with lower incomes pay less (but not as much "less" as Obama). These plans are both "wealth redistribution", as they both adjust the sources of revenue.

Why is Obama's plan "socialism" and McCain's not? Beats me. If you consider one of them to be socialism, you gotta consider the other one that as well.

Here's my personal take: We can't just cut revenue and keep going deeper and deeper into debt. We need to pay our bills. Everyone agrees that the middle class needs a break, so let's give it to them. But we gotta get revenue from somewhere. Why not from those who have the means to support it?

Obama is not proposing making the increases astronomical. Just rolling the top tiers back to what they were under Clinton. The economy wasn't exactly anemic under Clinton, and we had a budget surplus.

I am for smaller government and less taxation. Obama's plan gives a larger tax break to most people, and it hurts the federal government less. [The Tax Policy Center estimates that Obama's plan would cost $2.9 trillion over ten years; McCain's would cost $4.3 trillion over ten years.]

McGhee said...

@Josh - I guess I am trying to figure out what makes them so radically different. I mean, income wise, OK is in the poorer half of states, so you would have to think more would qualify for O's tax cut. Religion? Sure, but there are plenty of religious people in other states turning blue. Don't they get anything besides Fox? Have they a particularly good Repub representative?

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

I don't like progressive taxation either, but thank God at least McCain doesn't want to take from those that pay income tax to give to those that don't.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" sound familiar? It's what Obama is doing with his welfare hand out, so called "tax cut".

FICA IS NOT A TAX!

gigamonkey said...

I figured I'd delurk to post this since it was inspired by Randall Munroe's page which he announced here. I've put together a page (Firefox only, sadly) for watching the Intrade.com data in more or less real time with a bit more eye-candy than Munroe's page. It should be fun to watch (it's got a color coded map) on 11/4 when there will presumably be more volatility in Intrade markets. It's at http://www.gigamonkeys.com/election/election.xul. Cheers.

jason said...

RWC: Progressive taxation traces its origins back to the well-known commie Adam Smith, who said in Wealth Of Nations:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion"

pwned. Are you even trying?

Geoff said...

Gosh, I've been waiting ages for new polls from Oklahoma! At long last I can stop worrying about McCain going below +25.

Francis said...

Fascinating that Red State endorsed Begich and Berkowitz. What's next, Obama?

fred said...

RWC-

FUCK YOU LIAR! Rich people and corporations pay the lowest percetage of income in taxes as any developed nation in the world. If the rich continue to get rich richer, and the poor porrer we wil become Mexico and all that is America will be lost.

VOTE OBAMA!

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

If you think we need to "pay our bills" why don't you write the checks to the IRS yourself instead of forcing others to do it. You libs can pay higher taxes voluntarily anytime you like! What's keeping you? You donate to your Messiah, so donate to the IRS!

Bradley Effect said...

Great point right wing conspiracist!

GayIthacan said...

ster:

Good point Re: ALASKA and profiting at state expense.

ALASKA is the 3rd RANKED state in terms of the amount of money it RECEIVES from the government in tax benefits as opposed to what it PAYS into that tax pool.

In other words, only TWo states have more money REDISTRIBUTED TO THEM FROM TAXATION than ALASKANS.

Sarah Palin is the LAST person to be dissing 'redistribution' - since Alaska thrives on it.

Sue D. Nymme said...

Right Wing Conspiracist said,
"Wealthy people already pay more than poor people, you moron libs. Always have, always will, regardless of whether the Messiah wins next week. The only critical difference between Obama and McCain is that Obama will start taking money directly from those who he decides have too much, and give it directly to people who he decides need it.

That is Marxist, and that is Obama. But you're too ignorant or lazy to understand that."

I thought you were against name-calling or intelligence-questioning?

Or was that just a prelude to trolling?

Francis said...

RWC, perhaps you and your friends would like to pay for that Iraq War thing, then. The rest of the country doesn't want to.

LAT said...

Heather--si yo tambien quiero 99%

but I am just making the point that the little movement in the trackers does not mean McCain is surging.

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

National defense is one of the few legitimate functions of government, libs.

Why don't you start paying higher taxes right now? Huh? Go ahead. I hear the IRS accepts checks or money order.

peter c said...

all governmnet spending is redistributive...even a flat tax is....but the difference is mccain and Bush have been subsidising rich types, all Obama wants to do is put back the tax rates to Clinton levels for the rich- which was when the economy was in a better shape than now, for sure....meanwhile the republicans are nationalising banks - which is more socialist than anything the democrats have done for decades...

Geoff said...

Zogby didn't have a bad show in this round! He could obviously give some thought to increasing his paltry 600-strong sample when he's in battleground states, but otherwise his results aren't loopy.

The polling from AZ would be much cooler if it didn't sample only 408 people???

ScottGA said...

@rwd, they reason why the argument is such BS is that McCain isn't running against a progressive tax.

I wish Republicans would stop using scare words without meaning against the electorate. If the Republicans really stood behind the crap they say, they would really run for lower taxes, a flat tax, and cutting all of the "entitlement" programs they so hate. Let's see how many people would be against "socialism" then. They just cut taxes to pander to voters, but don't cut the programs because people actually want those. That's how we've ended up with a $10+ trillion dollar deficit.

dsalkovi said...

Right Wing Conspiricist,
Wow. Your "embarassing" post reeks of hypocrisy and red herrings. "Libs who continue to call people names" followed by the insult "don't embarass yourselves.." How sad and desperate.

Your insults aside, you fail to understand the fundamentals of the American economy. I will make it very simple for you: There are elements of capitalism and elements of socialism in the economy, as has been the case for many decades. One of the most recent examples of socialism (government handout) is the staggering amount of *corporate* handouts that the Republicans and Bush gave out in the name of tax benefits to oil companies despite their astounding profits. Over the past eight years, we have seen without a shadow of a doubt that the trickle-down method failed. Miserably and disasterously. The Republicans have utterly failed in their economic plans and in their economic leadership. The income gap has never been greater and the economy is terrible. The idea that anyone would want the current Republican economic policies to continue is simply horrible.

Red herring: "We are distributing to many people who do not pay federal payroll taxes." Yeah, sure. The fact is that the middle class will receive a far better tax return under Obama's plan than under McCain's. I've got news for you: The middle class pays the most on a percentage basis.

"(T)he constant mindless drivel that has been coming from the liberals is making you all look imbecilic." Ah, so you can make "imbecilic" insults but no one can insult you. Riiight! How defensive. I do have some excellent news though: There will be dancing in the streets on Election Night. And, to quote Gerald Ford, "Our long national nightmare will be (almost) over."

Francis said...

I don't know about those OK polls. Who is this "TvPoll" outfit? What is their track record? Why are they polling OK so frequently? OK is NOT going blue now or maybe ever--so why are they spending their money? Is it some kind of ARG thing where they're polling other stuff and throw some political questions in?

Joey said...

If Zogby has OH +4.6 for Obama, that sounds pretty good to me!

Bradley Effect said...

How long before we go the way of Russia and other socialist/communist states under Obama? Look how spreading the wealth worked for them! Like RWC, if you have extra money to donate to Obama you must not be doing that bad, so pay more than your share of taxes. Hell, pay mine!

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

How many of you libs are going to pay extra money to the IRS voluntarily?

Joel said...

RWC --

If you don't like how democracy runs, why don't you move to a country where they don't have one?

jason said...

RWC: You don't get it. The *rich* should pay more in taxes, not all of us. I'll likely get a bit of a cut under Obama's plan. If I make a bit more, then those additional monies will be taxed at the higher rate. I'm fine with that. I'm guessing most people are. So asking us all to pay more is missing the point, but you knew that.

Step up your game if you want to troll here. 538 has too many of your intellectual superiors to get away with this kind of drivel.

Gosh Darn Independent said...

Instead of bitching and moaning over how socialist or un-socialist taxes are, we should all be concerned with things that are truly "hard-core" ideologies - be they right or left - that really will kick us in the back side.

Take Proposition 2 in California, for instance. I realize Prop 8 is getting all the press in these pages, though. But Prop 2 is a legislative train meant to plow over the animal agriculture industry in the state of California. It's most prominent piece will be to eliminate confined space animal units for laying hens.

It's been documented that this will essentially shut the egg industry down in the state and drive it to other locales. But for how long? How long will it be before the extreme animal rights wing nuts push their ideology into the law of every state and dictate their will for food production?

THey will handcuff agriculture and drive up costs ezponentially as we continue to increase our population to an unsustainable level. We won't be able to feed ourselves. Not without breaking the bank, anyway.

That's a scenario thanks to your far out liberal nuts in California. Vote NO on Proposition 2.

PorridgeGun said...

@LAT



The national polling drop-off for Obama is pretty fucking unexpected. For the past week, Battleground and IBD/TIPP have screamed OUTLIER. Now even R2K is down to 5% for Obama, and I'm expecting it to get worse across the board in the coming days, and nobody has a clue as to why??? Let me put it this way, I fully expect Obama to drop below 50% in Rasmussen tomorrow for the first time in over a month. That's encouraging to the scum, and troubling to me.




An WTF is up with Missouri? The state was breaking heavily for Obama just a week ago. Are those people that soft in the head?

sprlpgcn said...

How much extra money did you give to the war effort, RWC?

Bradley Effect said...

I here Rev. Wright is getting a pretty hefty retirement from TUCC! Wonder is Obama going to make his "mentor" pay more taxes or are there going to be special loopholes!

Francis said...

"How many of you libs are going to pay extra money to the IRS voluntarily?"

No way. My plan is, make you and your family work for a few grains of rice a day. Hey, it was enough for the VC! Then we'll use the surplus value you generate to fund forced abortions for Christians.

Sound like a plan?

fred said...

RWC-

Are you going to bring back to life all the people you killed in Iraq - both Iraqi's and Americans?

Eric said...

Has anyone noticed how flat Rasmussen's numbers are?????

It'a almost like they make them up. Anyone a stats guru like Nate out there?

I'm being completely serious. It's almost too coincidental that their numbers are as consistent as they are. so much so, that they seem fishy to me.

I mean I could tell you on any given day that they have the race at 50-45 Obama and be almost dfead on. Two months ago, I could've said Obama 49 McCain 48. Almost dead-on every day. Polling is more random than that. Thier polling should not be that consistent. The state polling reflects the exact same thing. If you look at any battleground state, you can find identical numbers from one of the last 3 or 4 polls they've released in the last month to match up with the most recent one. It's bizarre and almost can't be a coincidence. I know Nate knows Scott Rasmussen and would never call him out, but I think it's too fishy to not be a valid question.

washerdreyer said...

Any thoughts on what caused the Obama landslide percentage to drop from 48.25% yesterday to 42.73% today? That's a pretty substantial change for a day with state polling this good. Looks like North Carolina and Indiana got a little better for McCain, are those changes driving that?

Drowzee said...

RWC:

We returned our Bush "Tax cuts" and "economic stimulus checks" to the IRS.

Did you?

zakany said...

Would any of you libs who continue to call people names and question the intelligence of those speaking against Obama's policy of government like to explain why taking money from one individual and “redistributing” it does not qualify as socialism?

Socialism is when the government owns businesses (e.g. Wall St. Bailout). A progressive tax policy is not socialism. It simply does not fit the definition of the word. At all.

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

" RWC: You don't get it. The *rich* should pay more in taxes, not all of us. "

Who are "the rich"? "The rich" are the productive members of society that keep the economy humming. If they do well we ALL do well. Taxing "the rich" ends up hurting US ALL.


Ask the Soviet Union about how well taxing "the rich" and SOCIALISM worked out for them! Stupid libs with your mindless drivel...

Bradley Effect said...

jason--Why should the rich be punished for getting off their respective asses and working for a living instead of collecting welfare checks and looking for government handouts?

InkStain said...

""The rich" are the productive members of society that keep the economy humming."

We've all read Atlas Shrugged. Most of us were smart enough to laugh it off.

justin32099 said...

"Now even R2K is down to 5% for Obama, and I'm expecting it to get worse across the board in the coming days, and nobody has a clue as to why??? Let me put it this way, I fully expect Obama to drop below 50% in Rasmussen tomorrow for the first time in over a month. That's encouraging to the scum, and troubling to me."

I think you're reading too much into oscillations. The trend in the national trackers has hardly been uniform. R2000's tracker is mostly just correcting itself (it was subtracting an O+14 day) and is mostly just coming back to the average. Rasmussen has been remarkably stable for a full month now.

JRS said...

RWC,

Does McCain Think Ronald Reagan Was a Socialist?

When the Earned Income Tax Credit was expanded in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 by President Reagan, he called the EITC "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job-creation measure to come out of Congress."

John McCain, who claims to emulate Reagan, insists that tax breaks exceeding an individual's income tax liability are "welfare," and Palin even claims that they are socialism. Since McCain's own health care plan includes a refundable tax credit, it is difficult to understand his hostility towards Obama's tax plan or his praise for the "one true conservative"president who supported similar policies.

Robin said...

For whoever asked about the deep south...

SO, here I am in Tennessee (not quite the Deep South, but it'll do) and things are hopping. I know we are not in play, but the Obama campaign is alive and well in middle Tennessee--Nashville and environs.

People are driving to Indiana to knock on doors and there is heady early voting everywhere.

It's hard to overemphasize the excitement of the African American community for Barack Obama. It's fun to wear my Obama buttons out in public and get high-fives from perfect strangers.

LAT said...

porridge you are obviously immune to thinking anything other than today was horrid for Obama. So go ahead and think it. I on the other hand am pretty happy with today this is a great position to be 8 days out.

jason said...

BE: They aren't punished. They earn money for their hard work. And every dollar they earn past the final tax bracket gets taxed at that rate. That rate will be a little higher under Obama, a little lower under McCain. I'm fine with that.

You guys have a strange notion of what "punishment" is.

Joey said...

CNN poll of polls:
OH:
O 50
M 46

FL
O 48
M 46

VA
O 51
M 44

WV
M 50
O 42

Simeon said...

@porridgegun

"I'm expecting it to get worse across the board in the coming days, and nobody has a clue as to why???"

I have a clue - it's because you are a concern troll. Why else are you spamming the comments today, not about what the polls show, but about what *you* expect them to show in the coming days?

You expected today to be "McCain's best day" in I-don't-know-how-long, but it didn't move the needle his direction even a tenth of a percent.

Joshua said...

ELECTION PROTECTION

Know Your Rights on November 4th

With less than two weeks before the election on November 4th, it's more important than ever for voters to understand how they can make their voices heard in this historic election. That's why Election Protection is dedicated to empowering voters, answering their questions, and helping them overcome any obstacles to having their ballot counted.

Election Protection is the nation's largest nonpartisan voter coalition, led by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Through its 1-866-OUR-VOTE Hotline (1-866-687-8683) and dedicated team of legal experts and trained volunteers, Election Protection helps all American voters, including traditionally disenfranchised groups, gain access to the polls and resolve election issues through live, immediate assistance. The coalition has more than 100 partners at the national, state, and local levels, and is providing live voter protection services now through Election Day for all 50 states. Help with the voting process is just one phone call or a couple of clicks away. For more information about Election Protection and the 1-866-OUR-VOTE Hotline, please visit: http://www.866ourvote.org.

Bradley Effect said...

Socialism in itself is flawed because it punishes innovation and hard work while rewarding laziness! Is this what you liberals want?

Francis said...

You know what's going to be so weird? When the US does NOT go all socialist under Obama. What will the nutjobs do? I guess they'll keep on muttering to themselves and urinating in teh newspapers they have stuffed down their pants like they are now.

jason said...

BE: I think I said earlier, I want progressive taxation. Your side is the only side talking about socialism.

toreyluvullo said...

successful troll is successful

Eric said...

Rasmussen Florida:

10/26 50-46 O
10/19 51-46 O
10/16 52-45 O
10/05 51-45 O

Rasmussen Virginia

10/26 51-47 O
10/12 50-47 O
10/05 50-48 O
9/28 50-45 O

Rasmussen Colorado

10/26/ 50-46 O
10/19 51-46 O
10/16 52-45 O
10/05 51-45 O


How could it be that consistent?

lanboyo said...

Okay right wing dickhead.

Lets look at the he 10 planks of Marxism and see who they apply more to.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

Nobody. But take a look at who is behind eminent domain.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Depends on the definition of Heavy. Progressive taxes is definitely a democratic party thing. It is also part of the tax plan of every party in the US since 1910.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

All rights. Nobody is for this.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Republicans are for the confiscation of the property of drug dealers, who are in a sense rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Lets see, what is Paulson? So the Republicans are the true communists here.


6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Hmmnn, what party uses eminent domain to help political cronies build shopping malls?

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Eminent domain?

8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Yessss. Nobody is for this.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.

How quaint. I suppose the green party is for this. Maybe. The republicans foster the most sprawl into the rural areas... Okay, nobody is for this.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

I think everyone is for this one.

So really, the Republican party stands for more of the policies of the communist manifesto than the democratic party.

So if you honestly are calling Obama a Marxist, then I suppose I can honestly say that Republicans are all unconstitutional fascist dictators. I wouldn't because, unlike yourself, I am not an asshole.

John David said...

Blogger washerdreyer said...
Any thoughts on what caused the Obama landslide percentage to drop from 48.25% yesterday to 42.73% today?

Right now, Indiana is the tipping point state for a landslide so the new Zogby poll in Indiana with McCain ahead by 6.2 hurt Obama's landslide chances considerably.

Bradley Effect said...

jason--Do you make over 250K?

sprlpgcn said...

They'll just keep redefining socialism rightward, Francis. Meanwhile, they lose more and more hard working Americans. It'll be fun.

shadowguidex said...

"One of the planks Marx advocated was a system of progressive taxation and a death tax."

The death tax was designed to eliminate the permanent Aristocracy that loomed over Europe for hundreds of years, where the wealthy landowners lands and titles passed on from generaltion to generation, so that even though those people did 0% of the work, they maintained 80%+ of the wealth. The estate tax is designed to make it so that EVERY generation has to work for their lot in life. Also, it only really applies to very wealthy estates worth upwards of a couple million. If your grandmother dies and leaves you $90,000 - that won't get hit with an estate tax. If she leaves $5,000,000 - it will - because you need to get your lazy ass out therr and work for a living, not live off your Grandmother's success you lazy bitch.

Income taxes are FAR superior to the prior system we had, the tariff system. The reason it's a progressive tax, is twofold - first, the American mareketplace is strongest when their is a large consumer class who buys things. If that class has only enough money for food and shelter, our economy collapses - hence it's a GREAT idea to give the low and middle class tax cuts, because they are the ones who spend and generate revenues for companies who sell things. It's not enough for companies to have things to sell if the people can't afford to buy them. Taxes too higth on the lowest class, or too low on the highest class are both truly destructive to the marketplace - currently our problem is taxes too low on the highest class. History clearly shows our greatest economic boomtimes (1920s, 1950s) also had the highest upper class tax rates (70%+ in both eras). Also, history clearly shows that our worst depressions occur when the wealthiest have the lowest taxes. The reason behind this - the wealthy don't spend the money they hoard it. We need the money to circulate, not stagnate. The middle class spending is better than the upper class hoarding. Sorry bro, it's just the truth.

Francis said...

"They'll just keep redefining socialism rightward, Francis."

Yes, and peeing in their pants-newspapers!

ScottGA said...

@bradley effect: Is that why America has historically been the most innovative country in the world under this "socialist" system? A system that has been supported by both major parties and candidates btw.

sprlpgcn said...

Meanwhile, Marie Antoinette Effect calls Paris Hilton and failed execs with eight/nine figure golden parachutes 'hard working'. In another time, he'd be fleeing back to Britain along with the rest of the Tory lackeys.

Francis said...

HEY REAL JOE--

if you're still around, you had a throwaway comment about TX is didn't understand, what were you referring to?

Rodney Peterson said...

Wow. One poll showing Barack Obama within two points of John McCain in McCain's home state Arizona. And now the Strom Thurmond of the North, at 84, bringing for Sarah Palin by association even more bad news.

It always bothered me that Al Gore would not campaign with Bill Clinton and of course he lost his home state of Tennessee, which right now is a small possibility for John McCain. Sure, Clinton was an embarrassment-but arguably at those times your friends are in trouble, that's when true character counts and you stand up for your friends.

The HBO movie Recount is a terrific film about the 2000 Florida election scandal and highly entertaining, for those of you who have yet to see it.

Cutting Confessions is the bizarre and funny fate driven love story between a midwestern man and an abused and artistic Beverly Hills girl full of high drama and cutting edge comedy set in Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Lake Havasu and the Las Vegas Strip-see the story here:

www.cuttingconfessionsfilm.blogspot.com

www.myspace.com/370392338

Samuel Catalfamo, a longtime Los Angeles Homicide Detective who happens to be Sicilian has two sons who are convicted felons and drug dealers. Now internal affairs will examine Catalfamo and answer the question of just how far does the apple fall from the tree. See the story here:

www.myspace.com/370392338

David said...

For what it's worth, I've been doing a weighted average of all the state consensus numbers (from electoral-vote.com, since this site doesn't seem to have that downloadable)

Without going into detail of the methodology, and why it's meaningful, especially from day to day, here are the results from the days I have processed (the day of the latest poll result)

oct 26 -- +7.9 obama
oct 24 -- +7.8
oct 22 -- +6.9
oct 21 -- +6.2

So there is a definite trend toward Obama in the state polls, where there is that enormous amount of data that Nate refers to. That trend has slowed at this point, but has by no means reversed. So, by the figures, Nate is correct -- still looking good for Obama at the state level, where it counts!

Drowzee said...

Eh, RWC is actually helpful, because this gives us good arguments to use in meatspace, should we encounter people of the same mindset.

You'll note RWC keeps shifting around as each of his points is sealed off, rather than offering counterarguments to defend his position.

It shows that RWC is at least rational, which makes him a better (in terms of utility) troll than most.

Bradley Effect, however, is a straight-up moron troll. I hope his irrational statements are intentionally trying to get irate responses, because otherwise, well, same mindset that gives us "OBAMA IS A MUSLIM". Willful ignorance should be a sin.

jason said...

BE: Bumping up close to it, yeah. Fingers crossed in '09! And once I cross it, each additional dollar I earn with my hard work will get taxed an additional few cents. Current bracket is 33%, next one is 35%, so I'm only looking at 2 more cents each dollar afterwards, that's with current brackets. If that goes up a bit higher under Obama, no big deal to me. The country has been good to me, I don't mind paying a bit more back.

SkyDog said...

publius said:
"Worst-case scenario right now, at least the way I see it:

Kerry + IA + NV + CO + NM - NH = 274 EV = McCain FAIL.

Barry doesn't need FL, VA, or NC to win, but he DOES need NM, CO, and NV, none of which are locked down right now. IA seems to be in the tank, though."


VA is "locked down" as much or more as the 3 states you say are "needed".

If you take the states with numbers of 96% and above right now, you get 273.

That's Kerry + IA + NM + VA - NH.

If he gets NH (94%), then he can lose NM and still be at 272. So he really doesn't "need" any of NM, CO or NV if he gets VA and NH, and vice versa. There are a lot of routes to victory at the moment.

Liam Hedge said...

Hey guys, I tried to see if anyone had actually discussed this in previous posts. If it's been covered I apologise.

I've been looking over early voting numbers, which look incredibly promising for Obama. The most comprehensive state data available is NC, where the early voting has already surpassed that of previous years. This is due in large part to One Stop Voting. The really good news it that this early polling, if partisan divides is any indication, is going massively in Obama's direction. The current margin between Dems and GOP is in the vicinity of 27%, which is up from a margin of 11% in previous years.

The stats are all available:

http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2008.html

Also I found this site:

http://www.earlyvoting.net/blog/

Which gives a breakdown of comparing previous NC early voter stats with current ones available on a timeline. The basic trend is that Dems are turning out in bigger margins relative to 2004, playing into the idea of a massive dem turnout.

If someone else could have a look at the stats and confirm this for me that'd be great. It's certainly interesting, and I think will end up being a very nice buffer for Obama come election day if these numbers hold.

Also worth considering, most early voting peaks the week before the actual election, so even though more people have voted early in NC than did in 2004 it is not even close to over. If we take the assumption that dems are voting mostly for dems and GOPers are voting for GOPers then NC may already be taken before Nov4th.

Francis said...

@david--

are you correcting for things like landslide #s in NY?

Gosh Darn Independent said...

Obama is not socialist, in my opinion, but he will not in any way be able to provide tax relief the way he is portraying it on the campaign trail, especially to everyone making <250k, or "95%" of Americans.

His current plan will balloon the deficit, as will McCain's.

Obama will be unable to cut spending with a left-leaning Congress that will refuse to reduce the federal budget in a meaningful way.

Thus, taxes will probably go up on more people than just those making 250k+.

Likely, they'll also go up on people making 125k+ per year, and he may even go as low as 50 or 75k+ per year.

He won't be able to stick at 250k+. That's a fact. He will raise taxes on "upper" middle class families. That's a fact.

dsalkovi said...

The complete failure of right-wing trolls to understand what "socialism" is (as evidenced by their red-herring posts here) exceptionally embarrasses them. You'd think someone would first understand a basic concept before showing everyone they don't. And when pushed, of course they resort to insults...a sure sign they can't deal with the facts.

Bradley Effect said...

sprlpgcn--Do hard working Americans agree that everyone should be given the same treatment regardless of what they actually contribute? That is the problem with you libs. You want to give everyone a fair shake--which is great, but the government is only obligated to go so far and people must take responsible for themselves. So essentially with libs you get a welfare state--come one, come all, it doesn't matter that you aren't trying to do shit, we'll take care of you!

bizkid23 said...

TSVictoriaBC said...

"@Josh and others especially in Deep South...

I have NO idea what Obama's ground operations are like in Deep South. (I can only see Washington from my front porch---literally!) Anyone with any info?"

I live just south of Shreveport, LA which is over 50% black. Not only have I not heard a peep from Obama, I have not seen the first local ad or any political signs around.

I was as the state fair Saturday, over half of the crowd was black and I didn't see one single Obama shirt out of thousands of people.

I can't see the ground game being much better. Even with the black candidate we have been ignored again. :(

Francis said...

"Obama will be unable to cut spending with a left-leaning Congress that will refuse to reduce the federal budget in a meaningful way."

>>>>

"Bush will be unable to cut spending with a right-leaning Congress that will refuse to reduce the federal budget in a meaningful way."

FIXED

PorridgeGun said...

Yeah, it was so shitty that he went from a 96.7% chance of winning yesterday all the way down to a 96.7% of winning today! If the next 8 days are just as shitty, hello President Obama!


IMO, Obama is down to his firewall. If it keeps up like this for the next 7 days, the Republicans will be close enough to flip enough states through caging and voter suppression. All they need is cover.

http://www.bradblog.com/

justin32099 said...

"He won't be able to stick at 250k+. That's a fact. He will raise taxes on "upper" middle class families. That's a fact."

No, that's an opinion. Facts are accompanied by evidence, that statement is not.

Matt W said...

AGosh darn indi,
You should learn the difference between "facts" and "opinions". That is an opinion!

Oh yeah, I think your entire argument is wrong also.

Gosh Darn Independent said...

Fixed?

That's only going to be the case for 3 more months. It's all Obama, Pelosi, and Reid from here on out. It's their show.

Don't be an ingnorant ass. We know what Bush HAS done. We're talking about what Obama WILL do.

jason said...

BE = RWC
RWC = pwned
ergo BE = pwned

G'night folks.

Roger said...

Would any of you libs who continue to call people names and question the intelligence of those speaking against Obama's policy of government like to explain why taking money from one individual and “redistributing” it does not qualify as socialism?

Because every government since the founding of the US, including every Republican one, has done that. That's called "taxes", not "socialism". And it's a constant of any modern government -- death and taxes are the two things you can rely on.

(And, by the way, for most people, rich or poor, the tax rates Obama wants us to return to are still lower then the tax rates under Reagan. So if taxes were really "socialist", Reagan would have been a bigger socialist than Obama... if you believe that, I have Bridge to Nowhere to sell you.)

"Socialism" is a style of government that used to be popular in Europe, characterized by things like the government taking ownership of major companies that are important to the economy. A government that took over ownership of the utilities, or the banks, could fairly be called socialist. (Like George Bush's administration is doing now with the banks... but on a bigger scale.)

Bradley Effect said...

jason--Well I'm happy for YOU, but the majority of Americans can't afford Obama! I don't even make 1/2 of what you make and many people in my family are in the same bandwagon! Obama is going to tax the living hell out of my employer which could potentially cost me my job. He can't afford Obama either, and says if Obama gets into office, "cuts" will have to be made! It may or may not affect me, because I've been there a while, but it just goes to show that Obama is bad for everyday Americans!

shadowguidex said...

"-Do hard working Americans agree that everyone should be given the same treatment regardless of what they actually contribute? That is the problem with you libs. You want to give everyone a fair shake--which is great, but the government is only obligated to go so far and people must take responsible for themselves. So essentially with libs you get a welfare state--come one, come all, it doesn't matter that you aren't trying to do shit, we'll take care of you!"

WELFARE is giving money to people who do NOT work. Obama's plan is to give tax cuts to people who DO work. He is giving jack shit to lazy bitches who don't work.

Listen, just cuz some dumb motherfucker who can't spell or do simple math works as a janitor for $8 an hour, doesn't mean he's lazy. It might just mean he lacks the ability to perform any other jobs. He deserves a tax cut so he can buy more than just food and rent since he works as hard or likely harder than most people.

Eric said...

Gosh Darn Independent said...
Obama is not socialist, in my opinion, but he will not in any way be able to provide tax relief the way he is portraying it on the campaign trail, especially to everyone making <250k, or "95%" of Americans.

His current plan will balloon the deficit, as will McCain's.

Obama will be unable to cut spending with a left-leaning Congress that will refuse to reduce the federal budget in a meaningful way.

Thus, taxes will probably go up on more people than just those making 250k+.

Likely, they'll also go up on people making 125k+ per year, and he may even go as low as 50 or 75k+ per year.

He won't be able to stick at 250k+. That's a fact. He will raise taxes on "upper" middle class families. That's a fact.


You would be incorrect. George HW Bush has an 85 IQ. In 1988 he promised no new taxes and raised them and suffered considerably for it in 1992. Barack Obama has a 130+ IQ and knows better than to offer up a proposal that ends up changed drastically. It would be read as a politically expedient lie and damage his brand forever. He wil not do what you say with a Dem Congress to help him pass his agenda that he truly believes in. Sorry you are wrong, but you are!

kittles93 said...

porridgegun,

I don't know if you are a concern troll or a McCain supporter in disguise, but you really need to relax a bit. Let the week play out. One day of polling is simply not enough of an indicator.

Also, I expect the race to tighten. Think 51-48 or 50-47 on Election Eve.

The voter suppression sounds like Oliver Stone stuff. The Republicans will have to supress in an awful lot of states. Voter suppression could probable mean one-tenth of one percent.

Matt W said...

I am lazy and don't want to go and look for it, but whoever said redistribution is socialism is an IDIOT

Right Wing Conspiricist said...

Are there any non-defense programs that you libs would eliminate? Just one? Or even cut?

tomthress said...

"Would any of you ... like to explain why taking money from one individual and “redistributing” it does not qualify as socialism?"

Because that's not what "socialism" means. Merriam-Webster (m-w.com) gives a definition of "socialism" that is as good as any:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.


The federal government acquiring equity in AIG or Fannie Mae or some banks would be a move toward "socialism" because the government would be making some (limited) acquisitions into "the means of production" within certain industries (insurance, mortgage, banking).

A progressive tax policy, on the other hand, leaves "the means of production and distribution of goods" in the private sector and leaves the fundamental existence of "private property" intact.

I hope that helps.

sprlpgcn said...

Hard working Americans believed you and your ilk for the better part of the last thirty years, Marie Antoinette Effect. Look where its gotten them.

Shout 'socialism' all you want. They ain't believin' you over their lyin' eyes anymore.

Mason said...

FICA IS NOT A TAX!

SHOUTING DOESN'T MAKE FALSEHOODS TRUE!

Drowzee said...

Bradley Effect:
Your position assumes that there are always sufficient jobs and means by which to reach them.

You Lose.

You also assume everyone is fit to work, discounting mental incapacity and physical disability.

Unless you're mandating killing people who cannot work:
You Lose.


Are there lazy people who don't work at all and get paid by the toil of the taxpaying public?

Of course.
Some of them are very rich, too. Oil company subsidies, anyone?


If you've never been on welfare, you might want to give it a try, and see how much of a handout you get, and how much effort you have to put in to get that handout.

Joey said...

Shadow is my hero.

and winerom is my word verification

and Charles Barkley is apparently "a big gay marriage guy".

Matt W said...

I think there is a pattern developing here...
Whoever thinks government should reduce spending during an economic recession is an IDIOT.

Concern Troll said...

I hope America doen't have to put up with more years of "My Friends." Hopefully Arizona will kick MCCain out of the Senate in 2010.

Gosh Darn Independent said...

Ha! Maybe I'm stating my opinion. But my "opinion" is based on an amalgam of opinions from leading tax experts at the Tax Policy Center and other non-partisan think tanks on taxes.

They all say Obama can not pay for his cuts the way they are presented now without drastic cuts in spending. They said that if the spending cuts were made to where he could actually cut taxes the way he says, we would have a whole slew of new problems.

Those are facts. Do your research.

dsalkovi said...

gosh darn independent,

More red-herrings. For starters, learn the fundamental difference between the words "fact" and "opinion". I realize that is a vocabulary problem that many Republicans have. You posted a hypothetical and an opinion. Got news for you: It was a Democrat by the name of Bill Clinton that gave us budget surpluses (subsequently thoroughly destroyed by Bush/Cheney, despite decades of the Republican mantra that we needed to cut the budget deficit!).

Your post reeks of fear and is disingenuous re: the Obama tax plan. The non-partisan Tax Policy Institute has a lot more credibility on the issue than you do.

MysticLaker said...

does anyone know the schedule of national polls to be released this week?

Bradley Effect said...

Call me crazy, but I'd much rather create my own wealth rather than to have the money I and others have earned redistributed! That is the difference between McCain and Obama!

Concern Troll said...

LAUREL, Del. - State police say they are looking for a Laurel man who drove his car off a tow truck around 12:30 a.m. Saturday as a repossession worker tried to tow it away. Police said a 37-year-old man came out of his home as a worker from Complete Auto Recovery was putting his car on a tow truck.

I don't think this will have any effect on the election.

Steve_OH said...

@Bradley Effect:

I'm in the same boat as Jason. I'm not quite at $250,000, but close. And no, I don't mind one bit the prospect of the highest tax bracket going up by 3%. I wouldn't mind it going quite a bit higher, in fact.

Why? Because wealth distribution in the US is badly skewed, and getting worse. Historically, economies are most stable when the wealth distribution is more even. I'd rather have a little less money in my pocket if it means a more stable economy.

[I wonder what a "haritmak" is? A piece of clothing of some kind?]