And its down to four....really.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

With Edwards (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22913001/) and Giuliani (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22903977/) both announcing they are dropping from the race today, the pack is down to 4 candidates.

Discuss :P

[Lord_Don]

Picture this, Obama running with Romney as his VP, a cross-party ticket. It would never happen but just the thought of the parties coming together like that makes me tingly in ways it shouldn't.

[joshkdmw]

Picture this, Obama running with Romney as his VP, a cross-party ticket. It would never happen but just the thought of the parties coming together like that makes me tingly in ways it shouldn't.

Go on. Slower.

[JediSanf]

The pretty-boy idealist fronting the used car salesman? That's... disturbed.

[fitbabits]

Fuck Ralph Nader.

[boratika]

So glad Giuliani is out. Sure he never really had a chance, but glad it's official.

I probably won't hear the words "nine" and "eleven" as many times again in my life as I have up to this point. Even if I become a statistician.

[IrishWhiskey]

Picture this, Obama running with Romney as his VP, a cross-party ticket. It would never happen but just the thought of the parties coming together like that makes me tingly in ways it shouldn't.So... you favor one party systems in which people have no choice at all? I mean Obama and Romney agree on almost nothing (although Obama and 'Romney from three years ago' agree on tons of stuff), so I'm not sure how that would work at all.

[baggle]

Well, to be fair to Lord Don, at one point in history the runner-up did become VP, so if Obama wins over Romney, and we time warp ~250 years into the past, his dream might become a reality.

[GreenIce]

you favor one party systems in which people have no choice at all?

I think he prefers a system where two parties draw lines in the sand an inch from one another and spew vitriol to defend them and entice folks to support them over the other.

[TheFlyingOrc]

So... you favor one party systems in which people have no choice at all? I mean Obama and Romney agree on almost nothing (although Obama and 'Romney from three years ago' agree on tons of stuff), so I'm not sure how that would work at all.

I don't really see how what you just wrote correlates to what he said.

[IrishWhiskey]

I don't really see how what you just wrote correlates to what he said.Unless I completely misunderstand him, he's suggesting it would be better if Obama and Romney formed a ticket together. That a Republicrat ticket would be a good thing. So.... what I said still applies.

[BlackPete]

I don't care who becomes the next president of the USA is as long as it's not Hillary.

Although Mitt "Double Gitmo" Romney kinda scares me... so I'm hoping for a Obama vs. McCain slapfight.

[Kielaran]

so I'm hoping for a Obama vs. McCain slapfight.

yep, same here

[Abash Alarmist]

I'll never vote for Romney, and McCain's flip flopping over the last couple of years has me disturbed. Clinton never tells a fact, and Obama is the only hope. Yay!

/Wishes Bloomberg to run as independent

[bKangy]

Well, Obama won't do a slapfight. It's not his way, and that's why he's the candidate I can't imagine not backing. McCain might do a bit of a slapfight, but I think if Obama plays it calm McCain will. It'd be a fantastic election if so.

[Grey]

Nice to see the US finaly wakes up :) Even I think both Hillary and Obama are likable.

I hope Obama wins, from what I know he stands for the right things like war and medical services and other things. Dont heard anything from him I didnt like in our local media.

[Schnoogs]

I don't really see how what you just wrote correlates to what he said.

That's pretty typical. He's useful for liberal kneejerk reactions and that's about it. Relevance or factuality are inconsequential to him.

[NationalKato]

If the DNC chooses Hillary as the candidate, I give up on America. :)

[baggle]

If the DNC chooses Hillary as the candidate, I give up on America. :)

If the DNC chooses Hillary, I give up on the DNC. If the GOP chooses Romney, I give up on the GOP, too. In the case of them both winning the nom, I'd probably just vote for a 3rd party candidate that doesn't stand a chance, and hope against hope for somebody legit to get serious about starting a 3rd party for the next election, Bull Moose style.

[Voodoo]

Is a Obama/McCain ticket possible?

[torrefaction]

Unless I completely misunderstand him, he's suggesting it would be better if Obama and Romney formed a ticket together. That a Republicrat ticket would be a good thing. So.... what I said still applies.

Wouldn't a ticket like that create a void that could potentially be filled by a newer party with fresher ideas?

[Oxonian]

hope against hope for somebody legit to get serious about starting a 3rd party for the next election, Bull Moose style.
Almost all of the Progressive candidates, including Albert Beveridge of Indiana, went down to defeat; the only governor elected was Hiram Johnson, who ran on the regular Republican Party ticket. Only seventeen Bull Moosers were elected to Congress, and perhaps 250 to local office. Outside California, there was no real base to the party beyond the personality of Roosevelt himself.

Roosevelt had scored a second-place finish, but he trailed so far behind Wilson that everyone realized his party would never win the White House. With the poor performance at state and local levels in 1912, the steady defection of top supporters, the failure to attract any new support, and a pathetic showing in 1914, the Bull Moose party disintegrated at the national level, although some state parties remained fairly strong.
That's your idea of a successful third party?

[CoachCrazyMcScot]

Have the Ron Paul supporters finished their diatribe yet?

[Banacek]

If the DNC chooses Hillary, I give up on the DNC. If the GOP chooses Romney, I give up on the GOP, too.

QFMFT. Please give us Obama, an candidate I can actually respect myself voting for. If the Dems nom Clinton they can kiss all southern and a lot of mid-west states goodbye.

[TheKeck]

I'm still voting for Voodoo.

[Arnold Darkshner]

That's pretty typical. He's useful for liberal kneejerk reactions and that's about it. Relevance or factuality are inconsequential to him.

How is it a liberal knee-jerk to not want to go from two parties to one? If anything there should be 3 in the states...but whatever you guys are fucked up

[Oxonian]

Is a Obama/McCain ticket possible?
Would the ticket be pro-life or pro-choice? Pro-war or in favor of withdrawing from Iraq? Would it want to close Guantanamo or keep it open? Tax cuts or tax hikes? Repealing the NCLB or reforming it?

[Zanzibar]

God, the rabid Hillary hate makes me sick.

"OMG Hillary is teh Satan!!1!"
"That cunt will ruin the country if we give her half a chance!"
"We're doomed if she wins!"
"She's going to tax us into a depression!"

I'd be stunned if anyone who spews this kind of vitriol has ever voted for a Democrat.

The truth is, she's got a better plan to get us the hell back on track than anyone else who's running. And she's more of a proven commodity than any other candidate, since you know what you're getting. If supporting a consumer-oriented economy scares you, then you need your head examined.

http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Performance_Index.jpg

You don't have to like her. You just have to know that she'll point the country towards recovery and respectability again.

[joruussuun]

God, the rabid Hillary hate makes me sick.

"OMG Hillary is teh Satan!!1!"
"That cunt will ruin the country if we give her half a chance!"
"We're doomed if she wins!"
"She's going to tax us into a depression!"

I'd be stunned if anyone who spews this kind of vitriol has ever voted for a Democrat.

The truth is, she's got a better plan to get us the hell back on track than anyone else who's running. And she's more of a proven commodity than any other candidate, since you know what you're getting. If supporting a consumer-oriented economy scares you, then you need your head examined.

http://www.ppionline.org/upload_graphics/Performance_Index.jpg

You don't have to like her. You just have to know that she'll point the country towards recovery and respectability again.
Good thing it's both her and her husband running then, huh?

EDIT: I'm for Obama, but I have to admit Bill did a good job with his terms.

[Achilles]

You don't have to like her. You just have to know that she'll point the country towards recovery and respectability again.By recovery I assume you mean economic recovery from this recession that might show up (right now the economy is just slowing, a recession would imply negative growth). What's her plan for this? I haven't been listening to too many of her stump speeches lately, but I know she wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which wouldn't help business. Does she have anything else she'd do to stimulate the economy?

[scythe]

You don't have to like her. You just have to know that she'll point the country towards recovery and respectability again.

Having the same name does not imply same policies.

[torrefaction]

Jesus Zanzibar. You're as bad as they are. As much as these people hate Hilary, you love her. Stop speaking in absolute terms about her fixing the country. You don't know that. Her voting record isn't all that great in terms of her platform.

That being said, she'd get my vote over almost all the republicans (Barring Paul, of course, but that's magical thinking). I'll actually have to strongly consider whether to vote for her or McCain, if he gets the ticket.

Obama probably won't get my vote at all.

[Voodoo]

I'm still voting for Voodoo.

I am Voodoo and I approve of this message.

Would the ticket be pro-life or pro-choice? Pro-war or in favor of withdrawing from Iraq? Would it want to close Guantanamo or keep it open? Tax cuts or tax hikes? Repealing the NCLB or reforming it?

Damn it! That would be the ultimate paradox ticket wouldn't it?

[Zanzibar]

By recovery I assume you mean economic recovery from this recession that might show up (right now the economy is just slowing, a recession would imply negative growth). What's her plan for this? I haven't been listening to too many of her stump speeches lately, but I know she wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts, which wouldn't help business. Does she have anything else she'd do to stimulate the economy?

Well, she's proposing a number of things to reduce costs for the middle- and lower-class workers, like health care tax credits etc:
Hillary will return to the income tax rates for upper-income Americans that we had in the 1990s – rates that were consistent with a balanced budget and economic growth. She will level the playing field when it comes to taxing the income earned in investment partnerships. Right now, some Wall Street investment managers making $50 million a year could pay just 15% on their earned income – while someone making $50,000 a year pays 25%. That is simply wrong, and Hillary will change it. In addition, Hillary will extend middle class tax relief, the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief, and reform the AMT to ensure people don’t face stealth tax increases.
By doing that, it cuts taxes on the middle classes on down, which gives them more buying power, which means more profits for businesses when people spend that money. Pretty sure more profits will 'help business.'

Anyways, yeah, I like Hillary, because I know she'll enact the same policies that Bill did. Any time you put more economic power into the hands of the middle class, you see incredible results.

I always loved the Republicans' mantra of 'trust the people' when it comes to tax cuts, but really what they mean is 'trust the rich people.' Can you imagine what would have happened if those monstrous tax cuts that Bush did for the top 1% were instead distributed to the other 99%? The economy would have SKYROCKETED.

[Bone]

Jesus Zanzibar. You're as bad as they are. As much as these people hate Hilary, you love her. Stop speaking in absolute terms about her fixing the country. You don't know that. Her voting record isn't all that great in terms of her platform.Agreed, and I also don't think she has the leadership skills and charisma that Bill had. He seems like a person people wanted to work with.

[bKangy]

I believe what Obama has said stands - Hillary represents a return to the divisive concept of trying to utterly destroy the opposition just for being not you. It's horrid, and she's willing to eat her own party in order to achieve the "honour" of being allowed to pull the trigger on that. Her campaign has been arrogant, assuming and Bill Clinton has outed himself as nigh on racist at points, and Hillary was for the longest time encouraging him to take that role. Her campaign cannot be allowed to succeed for the good of the America I want to live in.

[Laughing_Penguin]

"OMG Hillary is teh Satan!!1!"
"That cunt will ruin the country if we give her half a chance!"
"We're doomed if she wins!"
"She's going to tax us into a depression!"




Agreed on all above points.

[Zanzibar]

Agreed, and I also don't think she has the leadership skills and charisma that Bill had. He seems like a person people wanted to work with.

Well, the good news is that he'd be able to. Bill would gleefully take charge of any issue she asked him to.

I'm sorry, I have good memories of the Clinton Administration because I'm a pragmatist. Bill Clinton got the job done, and I firmly believe that Hillary understands how to make the system work.
I believe what Obama has said stands - Hillary represents a return to the divisive concept of trying to utterly destroy the opposition just for being not you.
Go check out what her fellow senators have to say about how she works with them. She's cordial, she's smart, she's respectful, she's tough, she's interested in finding solutions instead of being divisive.

The truth is, the people who are saying she's a divisive figure don't work in Washington, they're the pundits who already hate her.

Hell, even her Wikipedia page on her Senate career (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_career_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton) is loaded with results.

[joruussuun]

Well, the good news is that he'd be able to. Bill would gleefully take charge of any issue she asked him to.

I'm sorry, I have good memories of the Clinton Administration because I'm a pragmatist. Bill Clinton got the job done, and I firmly believe that Hillary understands how to make the system work.

Go check out what her fellow senators have to say about how she works with them. She's cordial, she's smart, she's respectful, she's tough, she's interested in finding solutions instead of being divisive.

The truth is, the people who are saying she's a divisive figure don't work in Washington, they're the pundits who already hate her.

She's a robot. Cold and distant. I remember reading about this lady in New Hampshire who attended both Clinton's and Obama's rallies. She got to shake hands with both and said Clinton was just shaking hands as an automatic reaction and didn't look you in the eye or say anything, while Obama sought out hands, smiled warmly, looked you in the eye, greeted them.

Also, there was a guy at a rally in South Carolina who shook Obama's hand. He told Obama this county/town or whatever was having some real problems. Obama called him personally later to find out what issues the town was facing.

Of course the above are severe paraphrasing... as there are thousands of articles to search through if I wanted to link them.

[bKangy]

Go check out what her fellow senators have to say about how she works with them. She's cordial, she's smart, she's respectful, she's tough, she's interested in finding solutions instead of being divisive.

The truth is, the people who are saying she's a divisive figure don't work in Washington, they're the pundits who already hate her.

Meanwhile Obama has actually made massive strides already, and is getting record votes amongst traditional red voters. Republicans everywhere, while disagreeing with his politics, struggle to actually criticise him as a politician.

On the other hand, Clinton has always been about "fighting Republicans" instead of dealing with them, and will see the Republican based worked up into a frenzy ahead of November. Her husband's achievements are often played down even by his own people, and his message of 1992 was so unfulfilled it almost rivals that of the current failure in the White House. He did well with what was given to him, but I hold no illusion as to what he achieved in there from his original work. This election has only driven me to look into it more, and the more he works to dismantle the Reality Distortion Field with his negative politics, the easier it is to see. You've not even tried to argue the incredible cynicism and negativity of the Clinton campaign in compared to Obama's.

[SuicideKing]

Well, looking more and more like the GOP side is going to devolve into a brokered convention. Assuming states continue to trend the way they did right right after Florida, and Romney's ad buys, and better debate performance don't convert people by super Tuesday, and as long as McCain can withstand coming under scrutiny on anything other than the war, it looks like after super Tuesday, McCain will have just over 500 delegates and Romney 325, Huckabee 230, with 1191 needed to be nominee. Hopefully, McCain will continue taking hits before then though, giving Romney a bigger percentage.

That's a doable comeback for Romney post-Tuesday, and if it comes down to a brokered convention I am 90% certain that McCain doesn't get to be the nominee. He's screwed conservatives over on too many issues and been too vitriolic about it to get the party leadership's nod IMO.

Meanwhile Obama has actually made massive strides already, and is getting record votes amongst traditional red voters. Republicans everywhere, while disagreeing with his politics, struggle to actually criticise him as a politician.


I'm not sure I'd agree with you there, the problem as I see it, is Republicans everywhere, in general have no freaking idea what exactly Obama would do, other than immdiately pull out the troops, because Obama essentially has no record, and speaks in vague touchy feely platitudes. The only think he has said he would actually DO for certain, as far as I can tell, is say he would order an immediate withdrawal.


I do have to say however, I'm loving the Clinton/Obama slapfight. It seems so rich to see the Democrats tearing themselves apart over what I consider to be identity politics. (cue instant denials by Irish and Zanzibar) It's really interesting that the media is pushing Obama, Chris Matthews getting teary eyed when discussing how wonderful Obama is, NBC News reporter Lee Cowan’s admission that “it's almost hard to remain objective” in covering Barack Obama, etc.

If after all this built up emotion Obama loses I think democrats are in for a rude awakening. When I think about how hard some people took Kerry's loss, I can't imagine how they would handle an Obama one, either in failing to get the nom, or getting it, and failing to win the general election.

[CoachCrazyMcScot]

I am Voodoo and I approve of this message.

Damn it! That would be the ultimate paradox ticket wouldn't it?

A real Fanny Dooley...

Speaking of which, are you thinking of a female running mate?

[Achilles]

Well, she's proposing a number of things to reduce costs for the middle- and lower-class workers, like health care tax credits etc:

By doing that, it cuts taxes on the middle classes on down, which gives them more buying power, which means more profits for businesses when people spend that money. Pretty sure more profits will 'help business.'I see what you're saying, and what she's saying in that quote, but if she repeals all the Bush tax cuts that'll raise my taxes, and it would have even raised my taxes back when I was making enough to be considered below the poverty line. That's right, I was one of the working poor with a 60" TV, cable, cable internet and a car. In addition repealing taxes on 'the wealthy' would also increase the capital gains tax which means it would be harder for me to earn money on stocks since I don't have a ton of money to invest, or a crazy adept investment firm like a wealthy person would have.

I don't like the fact that she'd repeal all the Bush tax cuts. I guess what I'm looking for here is for her to say "I'd keep the capital gains at 15% so that working people will still be able to make a buck investing, and I'd ensure that the Bush tax cuts would remain for anyone making less than $100k a year."

Right now the bottom 75 million people in the US essentially pay no federal income tax. I like that, and it wasn't true under Clinton.

[baggle]

That's your idea of a successful third party?
I never said successful, I said legit, and yes, it is my idea of a legit third party. I don't see the Greens or Libertarians taking 17 seats in Congress, getting 250 local officials elected, or fielding a presidential candidate that actually stands a chance.

[bKangy]

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there, the problem as I see it, is Republicans everywhere, in general have no freaking idea what exactly Obama would do, other than immdiately pull out the troops, because Obama essentially has no record, and speaks in vague touchy feely platitudes. The only think he has said he would actually DO for certain, as far as I can tell, is say he would order an immediate withrdrawal.

Everyone who's down on the ground for Obama right now seems to be posting up about how their Republican mother or grandmother, or uncles or whatever see the Obama speeches and wants to get behind a Dem this one time to do something big for once.

And the "immediate withdrawal" thing is wrong as well. He supports a well planned out exit that would start as soon as he got in. Immediate withdrawal implies leaving as soon as they can get out, but Obama's made it clear that the reason the war was so shitty in the first place was the abysmal planning, and that to do the same going out again would be a disaster for both the US military and Iraqis.

[baggle]

Obama's made it clear that the reason the war was so shitty in the first place was the abysmal planning, and that to do the same going out again would be a disaster for both the US military and Iraqis.

That's one of the qualities I really like about Obama. When asked a question about a complicated situation, rather than giving a stock answer to seem 'decisive' or 'presidential', he might say something like, 'well, first I'd put a committee together to study the issue', and I think that is very refreshing. Maybe it's just political maneuvering, but I can respect that kind of politicking more than I can respect the, 'here is what I would do!' kind of politicking, when the candidate really has no clue about the issue in the first place.

[SuicideKing]

Everyone who's down on the ground for Obama right now seems to be posting up about how their Republican mother or grandmother, or uncles or whatever see the Obama speeches and wants to get behind a Dem this one time to do something big for once.

I guess I wasn't clear, I meant that if that's happening and he's getting some of the moderate repubs, it's because no one actually knows what he would DO, they just feel good about voting for him, since he gives touchy feely speeches, at least as far as I can tell.

Obama has said he believes 'There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was"

Perhaps I wasn't clear as to the immediate withdrawal, Obama has said that he would immediately start a phased withdrawal, I didn't necessarily mean he would pull everyone out at once, maybe that's where the mis-communication was.

That's one of the qualities I really like about Obama. When asked a question about a complicated situation, rather than giving a stock answer to seem 'decisive' or 'presidential', he might say something like, 'well, first I'd put a committee together to study the issue', and I think that is very refreshing.

Really? Appointing yet another commitee to waste time and taxpayer money sounds refreshing to you? Or maybe since it's Obama doing the appointing, all the bureaucratic bullshit accompanying committees will simply cease to be a factor? It sounds like triangulation to me: "What would you do?" "Well, since I don't want to alienate any possible voters, I promise to get other people to tell me what to do, later on, once I'm safely elected."

Also, I remember the debate a while back where Obama claimed that the areas the British had packed up and headed home from, were better off, when the exact opposite was true. He phrased it along the lines of "since they've left, there have been fewer casualties." Really? Yanking your guys out of a troublespot results in you suffering fewer losses? Whodathunkit! Never mind that sectarian violence increased, and the areas were being taken over by insurgents running away from areas we still have forces...

[NationalKato]

And the "immediate withdrawal" thing is wrong as well.

That just the Fox News channeling through...

[Zanzibar]

I see what you're saying, and what she's saying in that quote, but if she repeals all the Bush tax cuts that'll raise my taxes, and it would have even raised my taxes back when I was making enough to be considered below the poverty line. That's right, I was one of the working poor with a 60" TV, cable, cable internet and a car. In addition repealing taxes on 'the wealthy' would also increase the capital gains tax which means it would be harder for me to earn money on stocks since I don't have a ton of money to invest, or a crazy adept investment firm like a wealthy person would have.

I don't like the fact that she'd repeal all the Bush tax cuts. I guess what I'm looking for here is for her to say "I'd keep the capital gains at 15% so that working people will still be able to make a buck investing, and I'd ensure that the Bush tax cuts would remain for anyone making less than $100k a year."

Right now the bottom 75 million people in the US essentially pay no federal income tax. I like that, and it wasn't true under Clinton.

It'd be suicide for her to raise taxes on the middle class on down. It might change HOW you check boxes etc on your 1040, but I seriously doubt she'd push for something that would result in a net increase of taxes on the middle class. They're the ones that have been hardest hit by health care costs and energy costs, thus they're the ones that are unfortunately relying on credit cards to help make ends meet (which in itself is a lie - you can't make ends meet if you're using credit cards to do it).

Believe me, she'll do more to help the economy than anything the Republicans can throw at the problem. They continue to think that giving businesses more tax breaks will help, when the problem is that those businesses are seeing fewer consumers because the consumers don't have money to spend.

EDIT: I suppose I should reiterate that I really do like Obama. I just don't think we'll be able to spend 2009 until 2012 with Obama trying to reinvent the wheel in Washington and instead getting NOTHING done, thus giving the GOP the White House in 2012.

What SHOULD happen is that Hillary should choose Obama as a running mate, and give Obama a top task force to eliminate the lobbyists and PACs that run Washington. By the time he succeeds, it'll be 2016, and he can run for President.

[PathMaster]

It is down to McCain, Romney, and still Huckabee on the Republican side and Clinton vs Obama on the democrat side.

Clinton is winning for the democrats by a good margin. McCain has the lead, with Huckabee a distant third, but he is still there.

Obama to me has too little experience. He is untested in my mind.

When has any president ever done everything they promised?

[baggle]

I think it is selling Obama short to say that people like him merely because he is vague and gives touchy-feely speeches. Sure, that's part of it, but I think a very large part of his popularity stems from the fact that he is such a fresh face, seems to be reasonable and competent, and that people are so freakin' tired of Beltway insiders running the dang country, rather than somebody who might actually represent the people they are elected to represent.

[bKangy]

Obama has said he believes 'There is no military solution in Iraq, and there never was"

Perhaps I wasn't clear as to the immediate withdrawal, Obama has said that he would immediately start a phased withdrawal, I didn't necessarily mean he would pull everyone out at once, maybe that's where the mis-communication was.

Well yeah, he was one rising figure in 2002/2003 who was willing to stand up and say that the war was a farce then and was lacking in planning. And lo and behold, he was right. Meanwhile, Clinton was for the war when it was popular, and very immediately against it when public opinion turned. A common theme with her, I hear.

Meanwhile, the media are reporting today on videotaped Wal Mart meetings where Clinton sat by silently while union busting went on, and in the New York Times, a seperate incident where Bill Clinton post-presidency used his influence to get a consistent donor of his massive uranium mining work which really got him going in Kazakhstan, in return for Bill Clinton later doing the Kazakh President some massive favours diplomatically.

How the fuck does anyone support Hillary, especially with the level of blurring she's done with her husband from the start? For me, it's a case of selling your soul for some grossly exaggerated promises of "experience" and the return of the 90s.

[SuicideKing]

By the way, Ron Paul might actually win a state come Super Tuesday, looks like he's the pack leader in Alaska, hope that cheers up torrefaction and Voodoo. ;)

But yeah should it come down to a brokered convention on the GOP side, (which is looking ever more likely) all bets are off, they could technically pull anyone back into the race, even Thompson or Hunter, and pick them.

[PathMaster]

For anyone looking at the current delegate count, try this site (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html).
There is also some interesting general elections polls on the left near the bottom. Showing who might win come November. McCain is barely winning against both Obama and Clinton.

[Banacek]

For the record, I'm picking up what bKangy is putting down.

And Zanzibar, I voted for Kerry in 2004, because I can't imagine anyone who truly loves this country and the ideals it was founded on could vote for Bush.

[torrefaction]

For the record, I'm picking up what bKangy is putting down.

And Zanzibar, I voted for Kerry in 2004, because I can't imagine anyone who truly loves this country and the ideals it was founded on could vote for Bush.

Go fuck yourself.

[Zanzibar]

For the record, I'm picking up what bKangy is putting down.

And Zanzibar, I voted for Kerry in 2004, because I can't imagine anyone who truly loves this country and the ideals it was founded on could vote for Bush.

Good for you. I stand corrected.

Just keep in mind, you'll get more of the same if whichever Republican candidate wins the general election.

[SuicideKing]

And Zanzibar, I voted for Kerry in 2004, because I can't imagine anyone who truly loves this country and the ideals it was founded on could vote for Bush.

HAHA, and us conservatives are accused of questioning people's patriotism. :rolleyes: So rich... So hyprocritical, so ..... liberal....

[Zanzibar]

But yeah should it come down to a brokered convention on the GOP side, (which is looking ever more likely) all bets are off, they could technically pull anyone back into the race, even Thompson or Hunter, and pick them.
I think it's more likely that the GOP will have a clear winner, since most of the GOP primaries are winner-take-all for the delegate count. If McCain is even slightly ahead nationwide, that pretty much nails it down for him.

The Dems are much more likely to find a brokered convention since they award delegates to multiple candidates, with more delegates going to the winner. Still, I'm doubtful either Obama or Clinton will have enough to win the nomination outright.

[joruussuun]

Good for you. I stand corrected.

Just keep in mind, you'll get more of the same if whichever Republican candidate wins the general election.

That's why Dems are gonna win in November, no matter what.

And for the record, I actually like McCain, he's been the only politician I've liked for years until Obama came on the scene in 2004 and especially last year.

But after Bush, it's gonna take a lot for the Republicans to build back the trust.

[Oxonian]

Everyone who's down on the ground for Obama right now seems to be posting up about how their Republican mother or grandmother, or uncles or whatever see the Obama speeches and wants to get behind a Dem this one time to do something big for once.
What is that "something big" that so inspires the Republican cross-overs? Is it his healthcare plan? His plan for the NCLB? His ethanol proposal?

Or is it the possibility of electing a black man to be President? His inspirational rhetoric about "leaving the old politics behind"? Those might be good reasons to vote for Obama, but I don't know that I would call them "policies."

And the "immediate withdrawal" thing is wrong as well. He supports a well planned out exit that would start as soon as he got in.
This is sort of a semantic argument.
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
It's a withdrawal, and it will start "immediately." Does that mean it's an "immediate withdrawal"? There's a plan for the withdrawal. Does that mean it's "well planned out"?

Also, how different is this plan from the most precipitous withdrawal theoretically possible? Military Sealift Command operates only about 110 ships, most of which are needed to supply troops around the world with food and supplies. Recall how long it took to build up the 200,000 troops to invade Iraq in the first place, or how long it took to send the surge forces over. 1-2 combat brigades a month may be pretty close to the maximum withdrawal rate possible, at least at first (obviously, as the number of troops in Iraq falls, fewer ships will be necessary to keep them supplied).

Moreover, a steady draw-down may not be a wise plan. It's not unreasonable to suspect that, as U.S. forces withdraw, Iraq may become more violent and start to disintegrate. Once the U.S. presence is around, say, 50,000 troops, there may well be anarchy. At that point, you don't want a slow and steady withdrawal. You want to flee as fast as possible.

[Sinistar]

If the DNC chooses Hillary as the candidate, I give up on America. :)

Funny, I said the same thing both times when Bush ran.

[Banacek]

Go fuck yourself.

Truth hurts doesn't it?

EDIT: Also for the record, I am a registered Republican.

[Banacek]

HAHA, and us conservatives are accused of questioning people's patriotism. :rolleyes: So rich... So hyprocritical, so ..... liberal....

Like I said, I'm a registered Republican. Sorry if I refuse to stay with a party that lets itself be hijacked by the Religious Right.

[Sinistar]

It is down to McCain, Romney, and still Huckabee on the Republican side and Clinton vs Obama on the democrat side.

Clinton is winning for the democrats by a good margin. McCain has the lead, with Huckabee a distant third, but he is still there.

Obama to me has too little experience. He is untested in my mind.

When has any president ever done everything they promised?

Um, you're pretty far off here.

First off all of the latest polls have Obama ahead in the DNC as of 2 days ago (since the FLA primaries where he lost).

Huckabee is not an issue any more and be thankful for that!

Obama has too little experience? Yeah, maybe if he was the GM of a baseball team (who traded Sosa away) maybe THAT would garner him better street cred?? Puhlease!

[SuicideKing]

I think it's more likely that the GOP will have a clear winner, since the primaries are winner-take-all for the delegate count. If McCain is even slightly ahead nationwide, that pretty much nails it down for him.

The Dems are much more likely to find a brokered convention since they award delegates to multiple candidates, with more delegates going to the winner. Still, I'm doubtful either Obama or Clinton will have enough to win the nomination outright.

Actually no they're not all winner take all. California, for example isn't.

California (173 delegates, divided by congressional district)
Arkansas? (34 delegates, allocated by district and who wins statewide)
Alabama? (48 delegates, mixed, somewhat proportional)
Illinois? (70 delegates, based more or less by district)
Minnesota? (40 delegates, a hopelessly complicated caucus system)
North Dakota? (26 delegates, winner take all if he gets more than two thirds, otherwise proportionally).
Oklahoma? (41 delegates, some to who wins each district, some to who wins statewide)
Tennessee (55 delegates, winner takes all if they hit 50 percent, otherwise based on who wins each district and 13 to who wins statewide)
West Virginia (30 delegates, but only 9 on primary day, 3 per congressional district)


I Don't know how the Democrat ones are working this year. But the above states aren't guaranteed winner takes all on the GOP side. like I said, a GOP broked convention is looking very likely IMO, especially since we don't have the 2/3rds rule the Dems do come the convention.


Like I said, I'm a registered Republican. Sorry if I refuse to stay with a party that lets itself be hijacked by the Religious Right.

I said conservative, not Republican. I'm a registered independent, yet am highly conservative. if for example the choice came down to a liberal republican like McCain vs, a conservative old school democrat like say, Zell Miller (yeah I know he's out of politics now) I want to remain able to pick a conservative dem over a liberal rep. Registration doesn't mean all that much.

McCain is a registered Republican, the only reason he isn't a dem is because the dems have been utter pussies on national security for the past couple decades.

If you look at everything Bush has done, tax cuts, national security etc, and other fairly conservative proposals, and they get outweighed by his opposition to embryonic stem cell research, and his support for a marriage amendment (only two issues i can think of that had anything to do with the religious right) then I think it might be fair to classify you as a liberal.

[IrishWhiskey]

That's pretty typical. He's useful for liberal kneejerk reactions and that's about it. Relevance or factuality are inconsequential to him.What the fuck is wrong with you? No really?

I suggested that I didn't want the two parties merging into one and reducing our choices, and thats 'non-factual' and a "liberal kneejerk reaction"??? Did you even read what was written, or did you just troll at the sight of my name? Because the fact that others said the same thing with no reaction makes me think its the latter.

[torrefaction]

Truth hurts doesn't it?

EDIT: Also for the record, I am a registered Republican.

No. FUCK YOU. You don't question peoples fucking love of their country because of the way they voted. That's as unamerican as it gets. I hope you choke.

[Oxonian]

Like I said, I'm a registered Republican. Sorry if I refuse to stay with a party that lets itself be hijacked by the Religious Right.
You know they let you switch parties, right? You can re-register as a Democrat or an Independent if you like.

Do you really think anyone who voted for Bush hates America? I mean, we're talking about 54 million people here. That's a pretty powerful conclusion to draw about so many people from a single data point.

[IrishWhiskey]

Um, you're pretty far off here.

First off all of the latest polls have Obama ahead in the DNC as of 2 days ago here in FLA (where he lost). I'm pretty sure he's referring to national polling and who is leading in the upcoming states, which is probably a more accurate measure. That Obama leads in delegates at the moment is pretty irrelevant when there is a tidal wave of primaries yet to be decided, in which he is gaining momentum, but still behind.
Obama has too little experience? Yeah, maybe if he was the GM of a baseball team (who traded Sosa away) maybe THAT would garner him better street cred?? Puhlease!The fact that we've elected far less qualified people doesn't invalidate legitimate questions about experience. Especially if he's being compared to Hillary or McCain. Of course the fact that he's not a Washington insider is part of why many people support him.

[torrefaction]

What the fuck is wrong with you? No really?

I suggested that I didn't want the two parties merging into one and reducing our choices, and thats 'non-factual' and a "liberal kneejerk reaction"??? Did you even read what was written, or did you just troll at the sight of my name? Because the fact that others said the same thing with no reaction makes me think its the latter.

I wondered this same thing when I saw his post. I feel bad for you. You get a bad wrap as the crazy liberal.

That's clearly Zanzibar's post.

[SuicideKing]

But so yeah, I'm curious Zanzibar, as I listed above, Super Tuesday is hardly winner take for all the states on the GOP side, is it winner take all for the DNC primaries?

BTW economy wise, I hate this stimulus package talk. The problem seems to really come down to people borrowing money they are unable to payback later to spend on frivolities. But no, since this is election year, let's have the government bail out the morons so they can feel good and vote. Frankly, if you abused the sub-prime lending market, they should just foreclose on your ass and auction off the property to pay their debts. Don't borrow and then spend money you don't have. It's really not all that damned complicated of a concept...

Instead, we essentially take "rich" people's money and give it to the poor. If you're not paying income tax, I fail to see how you can get an income tax "rebate". Redistribution of wealth is bad mmmkay?

[baggle]

[D]id you just troll at the sight of my name?

Don't feel so special, Irish. I'm pretty sure Schnoogs trolls at the sight of anyone's name ;)

[Banacek]

You know they let you switch parties, right? You can re-register as a Democrat or an Independent if you like.

Do you really think anyone who voted for Bush hates America? I mean, we're talking about 54 million people here. That's a pretty powerful conclusion to draw about so many people from a single data point.

Yes, that is what I believe. Of course, I could also be using extremes to convey my point, but then that would be impossible. I really do think that every single person that pulled the Republican level in the past two elections is really a communist in disguise.

I could change parties, but I would much rather see the Republicans get back to a smaller-government, fiscally responsible party that they used to be. I have no idea how to do that though.

No. FUCK YOU. You don't question peoples fucking love of their country because of the way they voted. That's as unamerican as it gets. I hope you choke.

Please, I am keeping with a tradition that has been in place since the founding of this country. If you can't handle it then stay away from political discussions.

[bKangy]

No, no Dem caucuses or primaries are entirely winner takes all (unless they actually do take it all), which makes the delegate counts far more variable.

[Zanzibar]

I wondered this same thing when I saw his post. I feel bad for you. You get a bad wrap as the crazy liberal.

That's clearly Zanzibar's post.

Harumph. I may be the most vocal Democrat and most vehement anti-Republican, but I'm far from the most liberal guy on these boards. Just because I believe that Republican policies are miserable failures doesn't mean I believe that we need to raise taxes on everybody and turn ourselves into a socialist state.

I'm pro-nuclear power, pro-death penalty, pro-lower taxes.

But, y'know, if that's a difficult concept for the right-wingers here, I'll gladly be the tin-hat liberal.

[torrefaction]

Please, I am keeping with a tradition that has been in place since the founding of this country. If you can't handle it then stay away from political discussions.

That wasn't political discussion. It was moronic drivel. I have plenty of political discussions without being an idiot, and saying the way you voted proves you hate the country.

Idiot.

*Edit*

And the funny part, is I agree with you about the religious right to some extent. But that doesn't excuse you from your stupid, inane comments.

[Voodoo]

Like I said, I'm a registered Republican. Sorry if I refuse to stay with a party that lets itself be hijacked by the Religious Right.

Are you aware of how out of touch a statement like this is in 2008? Have you been keeping track of the presidential election?

[torrefaction]

Harumph. I may be the most vocal Democrat and most vehement anti-Republican, but I'm far from the most liberal guy on these boards. Just because I believe that Republican policies are miserable failures doesn't mean I believe that we need to raise taxes on everybody and turn ourselves into a socialist state.

I'm pro-nuclear power, pro-death penalty, pro-lower taxes.

But, y'know, if that's a difficult concept for the right-wingers here, I'll gladly be the tin-hat liberal.

Ah, you know I love ya Zanzibar. It was primarily the vehement anti-Republican thing that pegs you as the "crazy liberal". Irish is pretty fair-minded about debates with Republican, whereas you are like "All conservative theories are failures" ;). I actually think that's an exact quote.

But at least you never questioned my patriotism.

[Oxonian]

But so yeah, I'm curious Zanzibar, as I listed above, Super Tuesday is hardly winner take for all the states on the GOP side, is it winner take all for the DNC primaries?
I'm pretty sure that the DNC requires all states that hold primaries to allocate their delegates proportionately with a 15% viability threshold.

[SuicideKing]

That wasn't political discussion. It was moronic drivel. I have plenty of political discussions without being an idiot, and saying the way you voted proves you hate the country.

Idiot.

I want back the good old days when Lincoln supporters tossed Douglas supporters of the trains for being Douglas supporters. ;)

[torrefaction]

I want back the good old days when Lincoln supporters tossed Douglas supporters of the trains for being Douglas supporters. ;)

This is exactly what kills me. The divisive bullshit. Just because it's existed in the past is no excuse to continue behavior. What a childish attitude.

[IrishWhiskey]

I do have to say however, I'm loving the Clinton/Obama slapfight. It seems so rich to see the Democrats tearing themselves apart over what I consider to be identity politics. (cue instant denials by Irish and Zanzibar) It's really interesting that the media is pushing Obama, Chris Matthews getting teary eyed when discussing how wonderful Obama is, NBC News reporter Lee Cowan’s admission that “it's almost hard to remain objective” in covering Barack Obama, etc.You do realize that the same thing is going on on the Republican side right? Did you see the debate at the Reagan debate last night? McCain and Romney were more aggressive than Hillary or Obama have been at any debate, and the media has about as much of a woody for McCain as they do for Obama. Its been well established for years how McCain gets along very well with the media.

Its the same in every race. The media 'anoints' a favored candidate, and then tries to create drama and conflict. More than the liberal or conservative bias, its the "sensationalist" and "storytelling" biases.

That's a doable comeback for Romney post-Tuesday, and if it comes down to a brokered convention I am 90% certain that McCain doesn't get to be the nominee. He's screwed conservatives over on too many issues and been too vitriolic about it to get the party leadership's nod IMO.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there, the problem as I see it, is Republicans everywhere, in general have no freaking idea what exactly Obama would do, other than immdiately pull out the troops, because Obama essentially has no record, and speaks in vague touchy feely platitudes. The only think he has said he would actually DO for certain, as far as I can tell, is say he would order an immediate withdrawal.

If after all this built up emotion Obama loses I think democrats are in for a rude awakening. When I think about how hard some people took Kerry's loss, I can't imagine how they would handle an Obama one, either in failing to get the nom, or getting it, and failing to win the general election.I don't agree with Zanzibar all the time, but I should point out that you aren't being any more objective or factual than he is here. Its mostly wishful thinking and incorrect statements. Obama has been clearly for a phased withdrawal and not an immediate pullout, in fact he's often criticized as being the least critical Democratic candidate on the issue. And if you don't know what his policies are, his website, Wikipedia and any number of other sources (preferably other than Malkin and Coulter) can tell you. He's been in politics for 11 years, which is only two shorter than Romney.


I'm pretty sure that the DNC requires all states that hold primaries to allocate their delegates proportionately with a 15% viability threshold.Except for Connecticut. Don't ask me why.

[Zanzibar]

But so yeah, I'm curious Zanzibar, as I listed above, Super Tuesday is hardly winner take for all the states on the GOP side, is it winner take all for the DNC primaries?

BTW economy wise, I hate this stimulus package talk. The problem seems to really come down to people borrowing money they are unable to payback later to spend on frivolities. But no, since this is election year, let's have the government bail out the morons so they can feel good and vote. Frankly, if you abused the sub-prime lending market, they should just foreclose on your ass and auction off the property to pay their debts. Don't borrow and then spend money you don't have. It's really not all that damned complicated of a concept...

Instead, we essentially take "rich" people's money and give it to the poor. If you're not paying income tax, I fail to see how you can get an income tax "rebate". Redistribution of wealth is bad mmmkay?

I'm looking into the Dem delegate distribution. I read something the other day that I thought wasn't 'winner take all' for California, but I can't find it.

I don't know where to start. Your line of thinking will put us in a depression. Housing values will drop like a stone as millions of mortgages (that were created by ACTIVE CAMPAIGNING by the banks to bilk millions out of the mortgageholders) go belly-up. We get stuck with the bill as we bail out billions of dollars worth of bad loans to keep the banks afloat, followed by millions of bankruptcies of the homeowners. Credit ratings are screwed. 10 years of economic failure because you don't want to spend a little tax money now to prevent it.

[Oxonian]

Yes, that is what I believe. Of course, I could also be using extremes to convey my point, but then that would be impossible. I really do think that every single person that pulled the Republican level in the past two elections is really a communist in disguise.
So, you said something which you don't believe (but which many other people apparently do). When I asked you to clarify your position, you respond sarcastically that you were "using extremes to convey [your] point." Since I apparently misunderstood you, you did a pretty shitty job of conveying your point, didn't you?

What was wrong with saying, "I very strongly disagree with people who voted for Bush"? Would that not have conveyed your point at least as well as hyperbole?

I could change parties, but I would much rather see the Republicans get back to a smaller-government, fiscally responsible party that they used to be. I have no idea how to do that though.
I recommend you start off by telling Republicans that they hate America. I always find that this warms up people to listen to my arguments carefully.

Please, I am keeping with a tradition that has been in place since the founding of this country.
You own slaves?

[SuicideKing]

You do realize that the same thing is going on on the Republican side right? Did you see the debate at the Reagan debate last night? McCain and Romney were more aggressive than Hillary or Obama have been at any debate, and the media has about as much of a woody for McCain as they do for Obama. Its been well established for years how McCain gets along very well with the media.


It seems you missed my point. My point isn't that the republicans aren't fighting. it's over what they're fighting, thus my mention of identity politics. Hillary and Obama both got into it and hav had prominent supporters get into it over gender and race. Romney and Mccain going at it last night were talking policy for themost part. Huckabee has been playing up the whole class warfare angle and earns my contempt for that.
Sure there's been talk over "leadership" and other such intangible qualities, but over nothing so innately twined to one's being as race or gender. Sure the repubs are all fielding white men, :p but that doesn't excuse the dems who have often accused repubs of being bigots in general to display what they constantly rail against.

I don't agree with Zanzibar all the time, but I should point out that you aren't being any more objective or factual than he is here. Its mostly wishful thinking and incorrect statements. Obama has been clearly for a phased withdrawal and not an immediate pullout, in fact he's often criticized as being the least critical Democratic candidate on the issue. And if you don't know what his policies are, his website, Wikipedia and any number of other sources (preferably other than Malkin and Coulter) can tell you. He's been in politics for 11 years, which is only two shorter than Romney.

As I clarified, and Oxonian pointed out as well, whether you consider starting an immediate phased withdrawal to be an "immediate withdrawal" or not is semantics. I stand by what I said. I've been by Obama's site and frankly his position lists aren't as detailed as what I like, remember those Thompson white papers I linked before? That sort of detail is what I consider substantive.

I don't see how any of what I said qualifies as "wishful thinking" the end part about what happens if Obama loses, was speculation and clearly labeled as such, which I consider different.

I don't know where to start. Your line of thinking will put us in a depression. Housing values will drop like a stone as millions of mortgages (that were created by ACTIVE CAMPAIGNING by the banks to bilk millions out of the mortgageholders) go belly-up. We get stuck with the bill as we bail out billions of dollars worth of bad loans to keep the banks afloat, followed by millions of bankruptcies of the homeowners. Credit ratings are screwed. 10 years of economic failure because you don't want to spend a little tax money now to prevent it.

Sorry for advocating personal responsibility. You think bailing them out now by giving people who made bad financial decisions money from people who made good ones is going to teach anyone to spend their money wisely in the future? I don't see that as the logical conclusion.

[Banacek]

Are you aware of how out of touch a statement like this is in 2008? Have you been keeping track of the presidential election?

In the early 90's, Newt Gingrich made a decree to the 'neo-cons' to win, no matter what the cost. At that moment the Religious Right saw it's opportunity to make a move to control the party. With the promise of votes that they brought with them, the neo-cons had no problem with that.

That leaves me, someone who believed in what the party used to believe in . Someone who can't really side with the Dems because of differences of opinions. Someone who knows that there is no viable third party, so voting for one is a waste. I know that there are others out there who are like me, and a lot of them stick with the Republican party, hoping that their candidates won't be as bad as a Mike Huckabee. So yes, I'm fully aware of my statement. I just don't know what to do.

[torrefaction]

I could change parties, but I would much rather see the Republicans get back to a smaller-government, fiscally responsible party that they used to be. I have no idea how to do that though.


Oh gee...So I still hate my country, even though I voted for Paul in the Primaries, primarily to influence my party to do exactly what you said? You are completely senseless.

[Zanzibar]

ROFL, Ox, that was fucking hilarious.

[torrefaction]

Someone who can't really side with the Dems because of differences of opinions. Someone who knows that there is no viable third party, so voting for one is a waste

You can't side with the Dems, but you voted for Kerry? You are the most inconsistent person I've ever had the displeasure of talking to. Trying to influence the political system in the long term by voting for a third party is a waste?

There's arguments that are extremely strong that my vote for Paul doesn't serve much to influence my party, because analysts don't recognize which policies I'm voting for because he's so divergent.

But the past has shown that voting for a losing candidate can influence future elections. It's about the long view.

[Voodoo]

In the early 90's, Newt Gingrich made a decree to the 'neo-cons' to win, no matter what the cost. At that moment the Religious Right saw it's opportunity to make a move to control the party. With the promise of votes that they brought with them, the neo-cons had no problem with that.

That leaves me, someone who believed in what the party used to believe in . Someone who can't really side with the Dems because of differences of opinions. Someone who knows that there is no viable third party, so voting for one is a waste. I know that there are others out there who are like me, and a lot of them stick with the Republican party, hoping that their candidates won't be as bad as a Mike Huckabee. So yes, I'm fully aware of my statement. I just don't know what to do.

So... Please label these candidates then.

Ron Paul
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Mitt Romney

As far as I am aware, all the other's have dropped out with Huckabee being the next most likely to drop out.

[PathMaster]

Um, you're pretty far off here.

First off all of the latest polls have Obama ahead in the DNC as of 2 days ago (since the FLA primaries where he lost).

Huckabee is not an issue any more and be thankful for that!

Obama has too little experience? Yeah, maybe if he was the GM of a baseball team (who traded Sosa away) maybe THAT would garner him better street cred?? Puhlease!

Look at the delegate count: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/

Clinton IS winning. Overall, the lead is insignificant, but is a lead. Huckabee is still in the race and has a fair amount of delegates. Not huge, mind you, but no one has such a large amount out of the big three that they can be discounted. Look at the above link and view the Republican side.

My opinion is that he does not have enough experience.

Super Tuesday is NOT a winner take all for the Democrats. Super Tuesday has 1688 delegates available. If Clinton took all of Super Tuesday, which is doubtful, and added up her current 258, she still does not hit the magic number of 2025, which a Democrat needs for the nomination.

[IrishWhiskey]

It seems you missed my point. My point isn't that the republicans aren't fighting. it's over what they're fighting, thus my mention of identity politics. Hillary and Obama both got into it and hav had prominent supporters get into it over gender and race. Romney and Mccain going at it last night were talking policy for themost part. Huckabee has been playing up the whole class warfare angle and earns my contempt for that.
Sure there's been talk over "leadership" and other such intangible qualities, but over nothing so innately twined to one's being as race or gender. Sure the repubs are all fielding white men, :p but that doesn't excuse the dems who have often accused repubs of being bigots in general to display what they constantly rail against.Yeah, again, you are doing exactly what you were mocking others for a few posts ago.

You ignore all the issues the Democrats talk about and simplify it down to "Well its all about their race and gender". Which is understandable seeing as a number of conservative pundits have been constantly trying to set the same message. In every debate, the mediators constantly ask questions on "identity politics" because it sells, it creates a narrative.

Fact is, you see Democrats debating and simplify it down to whatever allows you to comfortably dismiss it. And you aren't just being partisan, its for anyone who doesn't share your particular brand of conservatism. For Huckabee as well, if he talks about helping the homeless or making tax cuts more equal, then its just "class warfare". But if Romney and McCain spend 40 minutes arguing who is more like Reagan, and who is really a secret dirty liberal in disguise, well then that's substantive "policy".

[Banacek]

So, you said something which you don't believe (but which many other people apparently do). When I asked you to clarify your position, you respond sarcastically that you were "using extremes to convey [your] point." Since I apparently misunderstood you, you did a pretty shitty job of conveying your point, didn't you?

What was wrong with saying, "I very strongly disagree with people who voted for Bush"? Would that not have conveyed your point at least as well as hyperbole?

I could say that, but that doesn't convey the severity of my position. I am very upset that a certain group of people have hijacked my party to do things like add Amendments to the Constitution that would legalize bigotry. I apologize that I went too far and offending others (including you, torrefaction). I don't apologize for being passionate about my position.

I recommend you start off by telling Republicans that they hate America. I always find that this warms up people to listen to my arguments carefully.

I think that a portion of Republicans do believe that this country was founded by Christians, and think that God needs to get back into the government. I find that pretty offensive myself. So I guess I resorted to an 'eye-for-an-eye' attitude. It's something that they should find familiar.

You own slaves?

Yes, also a few plantations.

[Banacek]

You can't side with the Dems, but you voted for Kerry? You are the most inconsistent person I've ever had the displeasure of talking to. Trying to influence the political system in the long term by voting for a third party is a waste?

There's arguments that are extremely strong that my vote for Paul doesn't serve much to influence my party, because analysts don't recognize which policies I'm voting for because he's so divergent.

But the past has shown that voting for a losing candidate can influence future elections. It's about the long view.

The one and only reason I voted for Kerry was because of the Iraq War. I felt dirty doing it honestly, but it was a point that I felt too passionately about to vote for someone who I didn't agree with.

[Murtaug]

Next election we should start the "Evil" ticket. Our force of just over thirteen thousand would make it a shoe in. Shoo-in? Whatever.

That said, I lean McCain. I just dislike Hillary, and Obama bothers me, also his name triggers spell check, and that means he's not a real person.

[IrishWhiskey]

By the way, here's an interesting site that gets a few of the major political betting markets, and finds the average:

http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/

[Zanzibar]

Yeah, again, you are doing exactly what you were mocking others for a few posts ago.

You ignore all the issues the Democrats talk about and simplify it down to "Well its all about their race and gender". Which is understandable seeing as a number of conservative pundits have been constantly trying to set the same message. In every debate, the mediators constantly ask questions on "identity politics" because it sells, it creates a narrative.

Fact is, you see Democrats debating and simplify it down to whatever allows you to comfortably dismiss it. And you aren't just being partisan, its for anyone who doesn't share your particular brand of conservatism. For Huckabee as well, if he talks about helping the homeless or making tax cuts more equal, then its just "class warfare". But if Romney and McCain spend 40 minutes arguing who is more like Reagan, and who is really a secret dirty liberal in disguise, well then that's substantive "policy".

These is EXACTLY my thoughts as well. Democrats talking miniscule policy differences make terrible television, so it's up to the talking heads to promote a particular angle to keep people tuned in.

[SuicideKing]

Yeah, again, you are doing exactly what you were mocking others for a few posts ago.

You ignore all the issues the Democrats talk about and simplify it down to "Well its all about their race and gender". Which is understandable seeing as a number of conservative pundits have been constantly trying to set the same message. In every debate, the mediators constantly ask questions on "identity politics" because it sells, it creates a narrative.

Fact is, you see Democrats debating and simplify it down to whatever allows you to comfortably dismiss it. And you aren't just being partisan, its for anyone who doesn't share your particular brand of conservatism. For Huckabee as well, if he talks about helping the homeless or making tax cuts more equal, then its just "class warfare". But if Romney and McCain spend 40 minutes arguing who is more like Reagan, and who is really a secret dirty liberal in disguise, well then that's substantive "policy'.

Just so I can get this straight, Hillary talking about the only glass ceiling left in America remaining for women, the Obama camp taking offense at some innocuous comment regarding MLK and Johnson, Bill Clinton talking about voter suppresion against Hillary for Obama in Nevada, not to mention all the other incidents... Are all trumped up media narrative? Feel free to believe that I suppose, I don't. I'll be honest with you, I have tried to watch in their entirety all the democratic debates. The only one I was able to do so was the last one when Richardson was still in. (his being in has no relevance other than to place the debate in the timeline)

My dislike for everything I heard, not to mention the flat untruths (Obama's staement on how the regions the Brits pulled out of were doing for example) was very intense. I have a hard time sitting there listening to people say stuff I flatout disagree with/ or consider stupid.

Also, I have never claimed to be non-partisan, I fairly often refer to myself as a conservative. As for Huckabee, the flatout dishonest push polling being conducted by his supporters, which he gently chides them for disgusts me.

The class warfare angle is his continual question about whether the person you vote for should be the guy who works next to you, or the guy who fired you, his narrative against bosses and large business. His insistence on the fair tax despite the fact he has to know it'll never pass, so it's a harmless vote getter for him.

With a corporate tax at 35%... that's what needs lowering.

That lame stunt where he gathered a bunch of journalists to announce he wouldn't be airing the following negative ad, then proceeded to run it on three stations in Iowa...

My dislike for Huckabee goes far beyond him saying he'll raise taxes to take care of the homeless.

I'll give the guy that he's probably a social con, which I am, but one out of three doesn't make a general conservative IMO.

[Zanzibar]

With a corporate tax at 35%... that's what needs lowering.

I...I just can't let this one go.

(First, I'd like you to find me a corporation that actually pays 35%, but we'll omit that fact from this argument.)

When corporations are still making profits at a 35% tax rate, but the lower- and middle-classes are sliding further and further into debt because of energy costs and health care premiums, why exactly does the corporate tax need to be lowered???

Unemployment is still extraordinarily low. It's not that people need jobs, they need jobs that pay more.

Do you REALLY think that lowering corporate taxes will mean that their employees will get paid more? That's nice wishful thinking, but unless the business is employee-owned and they get a cut of the profits, there's no business model that inflates salaries. You pay the least amount of money to your employees that you can get away with.

What REALLY needs to happen is that we give more buying power to the consumers. Profits for corporations will increase if PEOPLE BUY MORE. Eliminate tax breaks for high earners and corporations, and lower taxes on the other 99% of the country, and what will happen? NO NET DIFFERENCE for the corporations, since their profits will increase as people exercise the economy back to health.

[Voodoo]

Next election we should start the "Evil" ticket. Our force of just over thirteen thousand would make it a shoe in. Shoo-in? Whatever.

I standby for nomination.

[IrishWhiskey]

Just so I can get this straight, Hillary talking about the only glass ceiling left in America remaining for women, the Obama camp taking offense at some innocuous comment garding MLK and Johnson, not to mention all the other incidents... Are all trumped up media narrative? Feel free to believe that I suppose, I don't. I'll be honest with you, I have tried to watch in their entirety all the democratic debates. The only one I was able to do so was the last one when Richardson was still in. (his being in has no relevance other than to place the debate in the timeline)

My dislike for Huckabee goes far beyond him saying he'll raise taxes to take care of the homeless.I'm sure that true. Its just that a matter of simplification and seeing what you want to see. Everyone does it to one extent or another, its just that you were mocking others for it while engaging in it at the same time. I tend to see a difference between Hillary mentioning a glass ceiling and Obama supporters getting angry over a benign comment by Hillary in between candidates arguing over healthcare and foreign policy, and that 'for Dems this is all about race and gender'. Its a factor, and always will be on any side, but I don't see the Democrats as being any less policy oriented than Republicans.

I cringe when they get asked "identity politics" questions, and I cringe when Republicans get asked "How are you the new Reagan" or "Raise your hand if you don't believe in evolution". Like I said, its all about the media narrative, and only seeing the faults of your opponents (either with Huckabee and Paul, or Hillary and Obama), leads to bad decision making. Like, for example, thinking that McCain doesn't have a shot at the nomination.



Also, from Fox News: Republican pollster Dick Morris talking with Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes.
Colmes: Could Edwards right now have an effect on the outcome of this race if he wanted?
Morris: He might, but at the moment his voters are those that can’t decide which they don’t like more—a black or a women getting elected. And..
Colmes: Wait, wait, you’re saying his voters are bigots?
Morris: I’m saying a lot of his voters are there because they don’t want a women and they don’t want a black.
Colmes: So his voters are bigots is what you’re saying.
Morris: No, I said what I just said.
Morris: And if Edwards withdrew God only knows where they’d go.Its not just Democrats who talk identity politics.

[Ultima Thulian]

You own slaves?

I cast my five slaves three votes for Obama!

[Ultima Thulian]

As for the topic...well, the choices in candidates this time ain't too bad I think. It seems McCain vs. Obama could happen, and they ain't too bad. Very different and interesting if nothing else. I'm also glad to see Edwards and Guiliani go. I wasn't a fan of either.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I think that a portion of Republicans do believe that this country was founded by Christians,

Well, it was, with the exception of Jefferson and Franklin - and Jefferson at least took a large portion of his moral philosophy from the bible, even though he cut out the parts he didn't like.

[SuicideKing]

Also, from Fox News: Republican pollster Dick Morris talking with Alan Colmes on Hannity and Colmes.
Its not just Democrats who talk identity politics.

But.. they're talking about what they perceive to be the case among the Democrats... I don't quite see what you're trying to get at there.

I...I just can't let this one go.

(First, I'd like you to find me a corporation that actually pays 35%, but we'll omit that fact from this argument.)

When corporations are still making profits at a 35% tax rate, but the lower- and middle-classes are sliding further and further into debt because of energy costs and health care premiums, why exactly does the corporate tax need to be lowered???

Unemployment is still extraordinarily low. It's not that people need jobs, they need jobs that pay more.

Do you REALLY think that lowering corporate taxes will mean that their employees will get paid more? That's nice wishful thinking, but unless the business is employee-owned and they get a cut of the profits, there's no business model that inflates salaries. You pay the least amount of money to your employees that you can get away with.

What REALLY needs to happen is that we give more buying power to the consumers. Profits for corporations will increase if PEOPLE BUY MORE. Eliminate tax breaks for high earners and corporations, and lower taxes on the other 99% of the country, and what will happen? NO NET DIFFERENCE for the corporations, since their profits will increase as people exercise the economy back to health.

See we apparently have different views on how to fix this. Having an unusually large corporate tax compared to industrialized nations, prompts people to move their business overseas. For small business a 35% tax rate hurts... a lot... I'm not necessarily talking about people having jobs, I agree completely, I still consider 95% employment to be full employment. The problem is whether we remain competitive.

If business starts moving overseas, that means we stop putting the money back into our economy. I also think it's erroneous of you to assume that there would be no pay increases and the tax cut would simply go towards a higer profit for the top person in the business. (seemed to be what you were implying) If there's more money, then there's added incentive to pay people more as long as they are sufficiently qualified, so as to get the good employees, so to speak. You refer to "corporations" as if they were separate entities which is absurd. Who hires people? The corporations, i.e., other people. Middle class people are part of the so called "corporation." I think it erroneous to assume that a group of people with more disposable money on hand won't spend it to hire better people to make them even more money.

If you're good enough at your job, and you don't feel you're being paid enough, and some other company agrees, in all likelyhood they'll use the extra money from the tax cut of the 35% rate to hire you on for more.

If no one considers you to be worth the money, work harder to convince them, go into business on your own to test out your theory of your own personal worth, or cut back on your lifestyle and keep the same average work ethic. Individual responsability is a beautiful thing.
I still believe that if someone works hard, they can be successful in America.

We just have different base assumptions that color how we view the economy it appears.

[Oxonian]

Well, it was, with the exception of Jefferson and Franklin - and Jefferson at least took a large portion of his moral philosophy from the bible, even though he cut out the parts he didn't like.
It saddens me to report that you hate America.
http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/5429/glurgepv7.jpg
This post is just an excuse to post this picture.

[PathMaster]

I am sure there is many, many reasons why companies move overseas. The tax is more then likely up there, but I am also sure cheap labor is up there as well.

[Bone]

Next election we should start the "Evil" ticket. Our force of just over thirteen thousand would make it a shoe in. Shoo-in? Whatever.Brilliant. Then, during our primaries, we would eat each other's young while fighting to elect someone among us as the leader. Kinda like a deathmatch for Presidential candidate.

Hmm... writing it out, it seems like a better idea than I thought.

[IrishWhiskey]

But.. they're talking about what they perceive to be the case among the Democrats... I don't quite see what you're trying to get at there.Uh, if I said that Republican voters picking Romney are doing so because they hate Mexicans and brown people, would you find that objectionable? Even if it was just "what I perceive"?

Morris: He might, but at the moment his voters are those that can’t decide which they don’t like more—a black or a women getting elected. And..
Colmes: Wait, wait, you’re saying his voters are bigots?
Morris: I’m saying a lot of his voters are there because they don’t want a women and they don’t want a black.
Colmes: So his voters are bigots is what you’re saying.
Morris: No, I said what I just said.There's no basis of support for that. There are tons of means in which Edwards voters are differentiated for the others, with the most dominant one being age and union membership. This guy said people are voting for Edwards because they are bigots. Its not supported by the data, but trying to suggest that the only reason anyone would vote for a Democrat is based on race or gender, is a narrative many conservative pundits (and their followers) are trying to push.

[TheFlyingOrc]

There's no basis of support for that. There are tons of means in which Edwards voters are differentiated for the others, with the most dominant one being age and union membership. This guy said people are voting for Edwards because they are bigots. Its not supported by the data, but trying to suggest that the only reason anyone would vote for a Democrat is based on race or gender, is a narrative many conservative pundits (and their followers) are trying to push.
This is true, as the only reason to vote for Edwards is if you want a man in office who, as far as I can tell, is actually very stupid.

Friggin' ambulance chaser running for president.

[Zanzibar]

SK, conservatives say they want to trust the people with the economy, but then make sure that they only trust the RICH people with the economy.

Your idea relies on a lot of trust. There's a lot of variables to see results, any one of which going wrong (profit taking, CEO bonuses, overseas investments) means there's less money in our economy.

My economic philosophy relies on a wacky idea that people spend money, and when they have more money to spend, they actually spend it. You see, ordinary people make investments too. It's called 'buying.'

[TheFlyingOrc]

SK, conservatives say they want to trust the people with the economy, but then make sure that they only trust the RICH people with the economy.

Your idea relies on a lot of trust. There's a lot of variables to see results, any one of which going wrong (profit taking, CEO bonuses, overseas investments) means there's less money in our economy.

My idea relies on a wacky idea that people spend money, and when they have more money to spend, they actually spend it. You see, ordinary people make investments too. It's called 'buying.'

You really do treat corporations like a boogeyman, not a collection of people, don't you?

[Heretic Machine]

You really do treat corporations like a boogeyman, not a collection of people, don't you?

...Which is how you should treat them when the general attitude I get is, "Corporations have a responsibility not to have consciences, and to only think in the best interest of the corporation."

[Zanzibar]

You really do treat corporations like a boogeyman, not a collection of people, don't you?

C'mon, how about some actual retort? Care to tell me why my idea is wrong?

Find me a time when we lowered the taxes on the middle class (or lower) where the economy didn't recover.

Look, the investing class does not represent most of the country.

[SuicideKing]

Uh, if I said that Republican voters picking Romney are doing so because they hate Mexicans and brown people, would you find that objectionable? Even if it was just "what I perceive"?

There's no basis of support for that. There are tons of means in which Edwards voters are differentiated for the others, with the most dominant one being age and union membership. This guy said people are voting for Edwards because they are bigots. Its not supported by the data, but trying to suggest that the only reason anyone would vote for a Democrat is based on race or gender, is a narrative many conservative pundits (and their followers) are trying to push.

I'm not saying Morris was right. TBH I don't care what he says, and you cherry picking one comment by him as evidence doesn't do much for me.

But your analogy regarding Romney hating brown people simply doesn't carry water. There have been actual statements on the gender and race issues by the dem candidates and prominent supporters of the candidates. The same can't be said for your Romney analogy. Can you point me to some big discussion between him and another candidate accusing him of that? I don't agree with Morris on a lot of things, including that, personally I think Edwards supporters were really receptive to his "big corporations are bad and out ot get you" message, which was pretty much uniquely his as far personally articulated major platforms go.

Obama or Hillary might through in a pasing reference to the man keeping the little guy down, but that's essentially all Edwards ran on.

I get that you feel that the media is playing this all up for ratings and it has no basis in reality, but looking at what the actual candidates, or semi-official candidate mouthpieces have said, I simply disagree with you, so I guess it's agree to disagree on this one.

as to the corporations bits zanzi and whiskey just said. i already stated that corporatiosn are people. if morgan stanley does well, everyone investing with them does well, if Joe-Bob's barbecue and grill down the road does well, the dishwasher there also does well.


I never disagreed with you Zanzibar on whether people would spend more moeny if they had it, I disagreed about the best way to get them more money. So you're essentially saying just for the record, that being better at something doesn't get you more money than someone worse at it, and that the people hiring are too short sighted to spend any extra money they might have as an investment in a higher salary for a better employee? So instead we should take money from the rich, piss off the people who end up actually giving most of the money to the rest, and give it to someone who doesn't necessarily deserve it, just so he'll waste it on products that send that money outside of our economic macro-cosm?

If you actually believe that then I'm afraid there's no use discussing this anymore.

You talked about trust, and my having too much of it. The only thing I trust 100% in is people's desire to further their own interest. If you're smart, you realize that in some circumstances, you'll make more money by spending more in a certain area (salaries for better workers), that being the case, I trust you to act on that knowledge.

[TheFlyingOrc]

C'mon, how about some actual retort? Care to tell me why my idea is wrong?

Find me a time when we lowered the taxes on the middle class (or lower) where the economy didn't recover.

If I was criticizing your plan, I would have said so. I am criticizing your attitude. I am very against the word "corporation" to be used to conjure images of the love child of Snidely Whiplash, Dick Dastardly, and Gargamel.

[baggle]

If I was criticizing your plan, I would have said so. I am criticizing your attitude. I am very against the word "corporation" to be used to conjure images of the love child of Snidely Whiplash, Dick Dastardly, and Gargamel.

You obviously never watched Captain Planet. That show taught me all that I needed to know about corporations.

[Zanzibar]

SK, we learned from Trickle-Down. Twice, now.

The original idea for Trickle-Down is that when the people at the top get their pockets filled with money, then the money trickles out of their pockets and down to the next guy in the chain, et cetera, until the lowest people finally get more money.

In practice, when rich people get their pockets filled, they go get bigger pockets.

This is the second time it's happened - short-term recovery, followed by long-term recession. As people run out of money, they stop spending, causing profits to decrease. Whenever you take the working poor for granted in terms of their spending habits, you continually get surprised when their cost-of-living outpaces their income, and the economy suffers.

Who provides the backbone for our economy, the corporations, or the people who BUY from the corporations?

[SuicideKing]

SK, we learned from Trickle-Down. Twice, now.

The original idea for Trickle-Down is that when the people at the top get their pockets filled with money, then the money trickles out of their pockets and down to the next guy in the chain, et cetera, until the lowest people finally get more money.

In practice, when rich people get their pockets filled, they go get bigger pockets.

I don't think the facts support that. Lets be clear though, you don't automatically get more money simply because the boss has more to go around, you get it by being comparatively better at your job than someone else, and thus being worth a higher salary.
You mentioned before in a post lauding what you expect to be Hillary's economic prowess that you think trickle down doesn't work, I didn't agree with you then, afraid I still don't now.

[baggle]

New Gallup national poll says McCain beating the snot out of Romney(37% vs. 22%), Obama nearly even with Clinton(43% vs 39%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104071/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

[Zanzibar]

I don't think the facts support that.

You mentioned before in a post lauding what you expect to be Hillary's economic prowess that you think trickle down doesn't work, I didn't agree with you then, afraid I still don't now.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4686
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/robert_frank_tr.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0411-29.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07099/776331-192.stm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003543225_peirce29.html
http://www.justpeace.org/structures/squeeze.htm
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4354
http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010410/taxcut.shtml
http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04pr.pdf

EDIT: I should clarify - I'm saying that the income divide shouldn't be WIDENING anywhere near the rate that it is if trickle-down was working as intended.

It's really a question of who you trust to fix the economy - the few, or the many. I say the American consumers have a better idea and are much better equipped to solve the nation's economic problems.

[PathMaster]

New Gallup national poll says McCain beating the snot out of Romney(37% vs. 22%), Obama nearly even with Clinton(43% vs 39%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/104071/Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Just to be sure: Poll does not equate to Delegates won.

[SuicideKing]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/04/robert_frank_tr.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0411-29.htm
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07099/776331-192.stm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003543225_peirce29.html
http://www.justpeace.org/structures/squeeze.htm
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4354
http://www.wpi.edu/News/TechNews/010410/taxcut.shtml
http://www.ctj.org/corpfed04pr.pdf

Sigh..... I'll try to wade through it, but when the sites you cited label themselves as "breaking news and views for the progressive community," or list stories headlined "US Bishops guilty of material cooperation with unjust war" on their front page, forgive me for being very sceptical. When the most objective piece there seems to be from the renowned economic authority, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial page, forgive me from being less than impressed.

[DaXIthR]

In some countries, you're not forced to narrow the candidates down to two. Having 200 candidates is probably less than ideal as well, but surely there must be a middle ground.

There are six people who want to stay in the race at this point - why not let them all have a go?

[Oxonian]

It's really a question of who you trust to fix the economy - the few, or the many. I say the American consumers have a better idea and are much better equipped to solve the nation's economic problems.
But the nation's current economic problems are high energy prices and a credit crunch. Tax cuts -- whether for the rich or the poor -- won't fix that.

[Zanzibar]

But the nation's current economic problems are high energy prices and a credit crunch. Tax cuts -- whether for the rich or the poor -- won't fix that.

I don't disagree, but a helluva first start will be a tax cut for the poor and middle classes. The working classes don't have any disposable income anymore due to the higher costs of energy and health care. If they're given tax breaks to help cover those costs, they will have more to spend.

[Zanzibar]

Sigh..... I'll try to wade through it, but when the sites you cited label themselves as "breaking news and views for the progressive community," or list stories headlined "US Bishops guilty of material cooperation with unjust war" on their front page, forgive me for being very sceptical. When the most objective piece there seems to be from the renowned economic authority, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial page, forgive me from being less than impressed.

Okay, why has the income gap exploded every time trickle-down is enacted, while the gap has remained somewhat constant during consumer-friendly administrations?

[bKangy]

Just to be sure: Poll does not equate to Delegates won.

No, but the old percentage difference used to come from the Clinton lead in places like California, New York and New Jersey. It's collapsing in all three, the real question is can Obama's train keep steaming through such rapid shift in support til Tuesday? I think so, and if Edwards endorses I think it may be as good as over. He's never going to win in New York or New Jersey, but limiting Clinton to a 60/40 split and winning California by even a few percent could spell the end, especially if his support is rocketing through the south.

But that's just optimism, I have hope but it's never that simple.

[torrefaction]

Okay, why has the income gap exploded every time trickle-down is enacted, while the gap has remained somewhat constant during consumer-friendly administrations?

I think it's highly unfair to judge the Clinton administrations income gaps. Almost everyone was fucking rich because of the dot-com boom (Which was way before it's time.) If anything, I blame Clinton and Greenspan for not recognizing the overinflated values of companies that didn't make any money or have any profits, and not urging investors to be more careful (It's important to note that I don't think they should have actually taken any sort of regulatory action...but all Greenspan had to do was speak and investors would jump off a bridge.)

It's hard for me to be sure of what pushed up the income gap there...

[PathMaster]

No, but the old percentage difference used to come from the Clinton lead in places like California, New York and New Jersey. It's collapsing in all three, the real question is can Obama's train keep steaming through such rapid shift in support til Tuesday? I think so, and if Edwards endorses I think it may be as good as over. He's never going to win in New York or New Jersey, but limiting Clinton to a 60/40 split and winning California by even a few percent could spell the end, especially if his support is rocketing through the south.

But that's just optimism, I have hope but it's never that simple.

One problem, no body wins on Tuesday. There will not be a Democratic Nomination stemming from that day. More delegates will be needed to secure that.

[Zanzibar]

Tonight's the California debate. We'll see what happens after that.

I saw somebody on CNN say this after the Nevada debate, but I can't remember who.

People who make up their minds after watching the debates substantially prefer Hillary. People who don't watch the debates prefer Obama.

Obama has great presence, but not a lot of substance. Watch him in the debates and you'll see.

[SuicideKing]

Here's (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/25/60minutes/main3752515_page3.shtml) an article I was remembering Zanzibar.

"But you knew this was a big decision, right? You were borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars," Kroft remarks.

"I didn't really look at it like that," Fontenot says.

"How did you look at it?" Kroft asks.

"I looked at it as far as my family. I can get my family off of this block," he replies.

"And that we could pay the payments that she said that we could pay," Fontenot's wife Kim adds. "But after it was all said and done, and the paperwork was drawn up, it was something different."

But Matt and Stephanie Valdez say they knew exactly what they were doing when they bought a small two-bedroom for $355,000. They could afford the initial payments and planned to refinance the mortgage before the interest rate jumped to 11 percent. But they couldn't do it because the value of the house had fallen below what they owed on the mortgage. They say they can afford the higher payments, but see no point in making them.

"The house keeps going down, payments keep going up. Where's the logic in that? And how can we fix it? I mean, that's what this whole thing's about for us is how can we fix this? And if we can't fix it, then what do we do?" Matt Valdez asks.

"Why pay a $3,200 payment on a 1200-square-foot home? It makes no sense," Stephanie Valdez adds.

"That's what you agreed to do when you bought the house," Kroft points out.

"Fine. If the value is going up. But we're not going anywhere. The price or the value is going down. It makes no sense because we will never be able to refinance and get a lower payment. There's no way," Stephanie Valdez replies.

"You're saying, essentially, that you're going to stop making payments on it? You're just gonna let it go into foreclosure?" Kroft asks.

I do not think it is the government's job to bail out irresponsible asinine people like that. If you give that couple more money, you really think they'll use it wisely?

[Oxonian]

Okay, why has the income gap exploded every time trickle-down is enacted, while the gap has remained somewhat constant during consumer-friendly administrations?
Let me respond to your question with a question: why did I get laid more often during the Clinton Administration than I have during the Bush Administration? Is it because trickle-down failed?

No. Federal tax policy is a relatively minor influence on how often I get laid. Federal tax policy has more influence on income inequality and economic growth, but it's still a pretty minor influence when you compare it to the business cycle, terrorist attacks, consumer confidence, energy prices, interest rates, and the like.

This is why simply comparing the economy under, say, Reagan and Clinton, is fruitless. To take just one factor affecting the economy, the fed funds rate hit 18.35% in 1981, and it didn't drop out of the double digits until 1983. By contrast, at no point during the Clinton Administration did the fed funds rate exceed 6.00%. Do you think this might possibly have influenced the economy more than the EITC?

Moreover, if cutting taxes for the middle class is all you care about, then Bush should be your hero. While the 2001 tax cut was most generous to the rich, it also significantly cut taxes for the lower brackets. The old 15% bracket was cut to 10%. It expanded the EITC and dependent child credit, as well as expanding eligibility for these credits. Student loan interest deductions were increased to a maximum of $2,500 from $2,000.

[Beelzebud]

Cutting taxes while we're at war isn't a good idea.

We're just borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia so our grandkids get to pay it back with, you guessed it, high taxes.

[Zanzibar]

Ox, he bankrupted us in the process by cutting taxes on the people who make the MOST money. If he had kept the top-tax bracket rate where it was and instead cut taxes even MORE on the middle class, our economy would not be in the shitter today. As it was, the tax cuts you're describing for the middle class didn't even outpace the energy costs nor the health care costs. It's a net loss for the economy, because the buying power of the consumer still shrunk, leaving all these wealthy investors investing in companies that are vying for a dwindling pool of disposable income.

[TheFlyingOrc]

Moreover, if cutting taxes for the middle class is all you care about, then Bush should be your hero. While the 2001 tax cut was most generous to the rich, it also significantly cut taxes for the lower brackets. The old 15% bracket was cut to 10%. It expanded the EITC and dependent child credit, as well as expanding eligibility for these credits. Student loan interest deductions were increased to a maximum of $2,500 from $2,000.
Hey, buster! If it helps the rich AT ALL, it's wrong. :mad:

[Beelzebud]

Hey, buster! If it helps the rich AT ALL, it's wrong. :mad:

Why do the rich need help? Seriously.

[Bone]

Those 50 foot yachts and houses in the Hamptons aren't going to buy themselves, dammit.

[Oxonian]

We're just borrowing money from China and Saudi Arabia so our grandkids get to pay it back with, you guessed it, high taxes.
Actually, not really true. Of the $9 trillion or so of federal government securities, the federal government and Federal Reserve banks hold $4.7 trillion. State and private pension funds and depository institutions hold about $450 billion. U.S. state governments hold about $500 billion. Only about $2.2 trillion of the federal debt is held abroad. About a quarter (http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt) of that is held by Japan, and another $315 billion is held by the UK -- two of our closest allies. China only holds $386 billion, and the nations of Saudia Arabia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Gabon, Libya, and Nigeria together hold a mere $127 billion.

[IrishWhiskey]

I'm not saying Morris was right. TBH I don't care what he says, and you cherry picking one comment by him as evidence doesn't do much for me. ...How is quoting a guys exchange and taking issue with it "cherrypicking"? It would be cherrypicking if it were out of context, or if the rest of his comments all said something different, but thats not the case (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/25830/1/HC-Morris-Bigots.wmv). I'm not sure you know what that word means.

But your analogy regarding Romney hating brown people simply doesn't carry water. There have been actual statements on the gender and race issues by the dem candidates and prominent supporters of the candidates. The same can't be said for your Romney analogy.Again, What? Dems have said something about gender, therefore its okay to say that people who vote for Edwards are bigots?

Romney has said he wants to kick out illegals. Therefore, according to Dick Morris logic, anyone who votes for him does so because they hate Mexicans. Of course it doesn't make sense, but it makes as much sense as saying "anyone voting for Edwards hates women and black people."

Obama or Hillary might through in a pasing reference to the man keeping the little guy down, but that's essentially all Edwards ran on.Well, more about healthcare and affordable education, which most Americans would consider important issues, but its no more dismissive than usual.
I get that you feel that the media is playing this all up for ratings and it has no basis in reality, but looking at what the actual candidates, or semi-official candidate mouthpieces have said, I simply disagree with you, so I guess it's agree to disagree on this one.I never said that at all. I specifically mentioned statements the candidates had made invoking those issues. When I say "The media is doing a lot to fuel the emphasis on identity politics" how is it you hear "there is no basis in reality"?

as to the corporations bits zanzi and whiskey just said. When did I say anything about corporations? How is it you keep hearing things I never said?

[PathMaster]

Hulk Hogan as endorsed Obama. Take that for what you will, but it is over.

[Xerxes]

I think it is selling Obama short to say that people like him merely because he is vague and gives touchy-feely speeches. I like those speeches better than anything anybody else is saying.:o

[SuicideKing]

When did I say anything about corporations? How is it you keep hearing things I never said?

On that, it appears I was wrong, I could have sworn you had posted a small blurb responding to Zanzibar right above my post, but looking back through the thread I can't find it. I think it's also an exageration to claim that I keep attributing things to you that aren't yours.

Well, more about healthcare and affordable education, which most Americans would consider important issues, but its no more dismissive than usual.

Right.... We were watching the same debates right? Edwards when he mentioned healthcare ranted against pharmaceutical companies so much it seemed integral to his healthcare plan. I don't recall him touching education too much in the debates.

...How is quoting a guys exchange and taking issue with it "cherrypicking"? It would be cherrypicking if it were out of context, or if the rest of his comments all said something different, but thats not the case (http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/25830/1/HC-Morris-Bigots.wmv). I'm not sure you know what that word means.

We're talking about different contexts here, I didn't mean you cherry picked one out of many Morris statements, I meant you picked one pundit statement out of many. Morris is the only pundit I've ever heard saying that people were voting for Edwards because they didn't like women or blacks. Other than questioning my grasp of vocabulary, try not being deliberately obtuse.


Romney has said he wants to kick out illegals. Therefore, according to Dick Morris logic, anyone who votes for him does so because they hate Mexicans. Of course it doesn't make sense, but it makes as much sense as saying "anyone voting for Edwards hates women and black people."

I never said that at all. I specifically mentioned statements the candidates had made invoking those issues. When I say "The media is doing a lot to fuel the emphasis on identity politics" how is it you hear "there is no basis in reality"?


First off, associating illegals with Mexicans is profiling ok? Stop it. :p

Again we seem to be talking about entirely different things here. My contention was that in the Democratic race, not only the media, but the candidates and their mouthpieces seem to focus an awful lot on the gender and race issue. To which my understanding of your reply was, it sucks, but it's not the candidates choice, it's the media forcing them to.

Sure the media eggs it on, but the candidates and others make the original statements.

Also I don't see how you can conflate not wanting to vote for someone based on something they can't change (race, gender) with not voting for someone because they favor a certain policy. (kicking out lawbreakers i.e. illegal immigrants)

[Zanzibar]

When did I say anything about corporations? How is it you keep hearing things I never said?
There's an echo in here.



There's an echo in here.

[Oxonian]

Ox, he bankrupted us in the process by cutting taxes on the people who make the MOST money. If he had kept the top-tax bracket rate where it was and instead cut taxes even MORE on the middle class, our economy would not be in the shitter today. As it was, the tax cuts you're describing for the middle class didn't even outpace the energy costs nor the health care costs. It's a net loss for the economy, because the buying power of the consumer still shrunk, leaving all these wealthy investors investing in companies that are vying for a dwindling pool of disposable income.
Your argument keeps changing, which makes it difficult to respond to you. A little while ago, you asked "Find me a time when we lowered the taxes on the middle class (or lower) where the economy didn't recover." I did that (actually, the economy did recover in 2002-2003, but whatever). Now you say that no, it's not really taxes that matters, but disposable income.

I've looked around for some numbers to see if you were right or wrong about the Bush tax cuts being outweighed by rising energy and healthcare costs. I can't really find anything dispositive. If you actually have a source for this assertion, go ahead and post it. The best I could find was this (http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/dpi.htm) chart of real disposable income, which seems to indicate that real disposable income has grown slowly over the past two years.

Ultimately, your economic model is bizarre. "Wealthy investors [are] investing in companies that are vying for a dwindling pool of disposable income"? Have you forgotten about trade? The world is getting richer, not poorer, and thanks to falling trade barriers (credit where credit is due, your hero Bill Clinton is responsible for a fair amount of that), American businesses have a very large pool of consumers to sell to. At the same time, high energy prices tend not only to squeeze households, but also to create powerful inflationary pressures. Offering a large demand-side stimulus at this time virtually guarantees inflation. If inflation spikes, Bernanke will have no choice but to jack interest rates. What do you think will happen to the housing market and the working class then?

[Xerxes]

I standby for nomination.

I'll challenge you...

[Xerxes]

You obviously never watched Captain Planet. That show taught me all that I needed to know about corporations.

OMG me too...

Hoggish Greedly and Looten Plunder were what running in business was all about. This paper I wrote in economics class about CEOs kind of confirmed that. :rolleyes:

[Zero]

I standby for nomination.
I'll challenge you...

Where do you two stand on hatin' Mexicans?

[Zanzibar]

Ox, I'm outta time, but here's (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lkilian/ek052407b.pdf) a .pdf that shows energy costs growing from 4% of average monthly income in 1999 to almost 7% in 2007.

[Xerxes]

Where do you stand on hatin' Mexicans?

Irritating Mexican Kids (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42995&highlight=mexican) gotta go. I can't stand by and let them be a drain on society with their sitting down and drinking coffee and doing nothing. If you are in America, you better stand for doing things the opposite way than the rest of the world and kicking ass. Hell, I created the thread on Kick Ass (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31944). Check my record. There's a drunk thread (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33785) in there. I stand behind kicking ass and drunk posting, responsibly. Nothing more American than that.

A vote for Xerxes is a vote for kicking ass
2010

[Schnoogs]

Where do you two stand on hatin' Mexicans?

This is sig worthy for all the wrong reasons.

[Oxonian]

Interesting, Zanz.

The overall energy share was stable at about 6.5% in the early 1970s. It rose to a peak of 9.6% in 1980, but fell steadily throughout the 1980s and 1990, reaching a low of 4.1% in 1999, only to rise back to its initial level of about 6.5% by 2006.
It is useful to put the changes in purchasing power documented in Figure 3 in perspective. A simple example helps assess the economic significance of these fluctuations. In February 2003, the average household’s nominal expenditure share for energy was 5.20%. In March, energy prices rose by 4.89%, reducing households’ purchasing power by about 0.25 percentage points, and the nominal expenditure share fell to 5.17%. As energy prices fell by 5.64% in April, households’ purchasing power increased by 0.29 percentage points. Since the average household’s annual expenditure in 2003 was $40,817, or $3,401 per month (see Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005), in effect, the rise in energy prices left households with $8.50 less to spend on non-energy goods in March. The subsequent decline in energy prices in April slightly more than reversed this loss. This exercise demonstrates that an increase or decrease in monthly energy prices has only a small direct impact on a household’s resources available for consuming other goods and services.
The paper goes on to conclude that, at least in terms of the effect on household consumption, energy price shifts mainly impact people's willingness to buy cars rather than their willingness to spend money per se. So high gas prices are bad news for Ford and Ford's employees, but not very important for the rest of the economy.

It does, however, ignore the effects of high energy prices on the supply side: businesses need to purchase energy too, and energy is often a very large part of their total expenses (much higher than it is for typical households).

[Church42]

Picture this, Obama running with Romney as his VP, a cross-party ticket. It would never happen but just the thought of the parties coming together like that makes me tingly in ways it shouldn't.

You'd see a Obama/McCain or McCain/Obama cross party ticket before you saw a Obama/Romney (and vice versa) ticket

[Zanzibar]

Interesting, Zanz.

The paper goes on to conclude that, at least in terms of the effect on household consumption, energy price shifts mainly impact people's willingness to buy cars rather than their willingness to spend money per se. So high gas prices are bad news for Ford and Ford's employees, but not very important for the rest of the economy.

It does, however, ignore the effects of high energy prices on the supply side: businesses need to purchase energy too, and energy is often a very large part of their total expenses (much higher than it is for typical households).

Perhaps, but that money comes DIRECTLY out of disposable income, which really wipes out a significant portion of your buying power:

Suppose, for example, that gasoline prices unexpectedly and permanently increase by 25 cents per gallon (which translates into a 6.85% increase in the overall price of energy, assuming all other energy prices remain unchanged). If a typical household spends $200 a month on gasoline at the January 2007 price of $2.29 per gallon, this would raise the household’s gasoline bill by almost $22 a month, if the household continued to consume the same amount of gasoline. In response to such a shock, a typical household with about $4000 to spend per month will have cut back its expenditures one year later by $35 based on the full-sample estimates (or by $17 based on the post-1987 estimates). Most of the adjustment will take place in the first six months following the gasoline price increase. Given a share of consumption in GDP of about 72%, this implies that, all else equal, real GDP will have fallen by 0.63% one year after the shock. This example illustrates that it takes repeated surprise increases in gasoline prices to generate large effects on household consumption.

Here's an example. According to the above example, where the typical household spends $200 at $2.29 per gallon. That divides into 87 gallons used per month. We'll use that as our constant, since by and large gasoline usage is constant.

Gas prices nationwide went up (http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_history.html) from $1.26 per gallon in 2000 to over $3.00 per gallon as of December 2007.

So, the typical household went from paying $109.62 per month to paying $261.00 per month for gasoline ALONE. That works out to paying an additional $1800 per year. I don't know what additional refund you got from your Bush tax breaks, but if you got more than $1800, then you're ahead..for GASOLINE.

THEN you take into account the HOUSEHOLD energy costs. And additional health care costs. Are you still ahead?

[torrefaction]

OH NOEZ! Clinton is corrupt too!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

*Edit*

LOL @ Kazakhstan

[Zanzibar]

I love that story. Clinton goes on a mission to show off his charitable foundation's works to potential investors, and...they invest! OMG!!

Definition courtesy of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy):

Philanthropy is the act of donating money, goods, time, or effort to support a charitable cause, usually over an extended period of time and in regard to a defined objective. In a more fundamental sense, philanthropy may encompass any altruistic activity which is intended to promote good or improve human quality of life. Someone who is well known for practicing philanthropy may sometimes be called a philanthropist. Although such individuals are often very wealthy, people may nevertheless perform philanthropic acts without possessing great wealth.

[torrefaction]

I love that story. Clinton goes on a mission to show off his charitable foundation's works to potential investors, and...they invest! OMG!!

Definition courtesy of Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philanthropy):

Not that I entirely disagree, but I don't think that was as much the point as this:

Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

[Slack3r78]

I've never understood the attacks on Obama not having anything substantive policy wise. He's actually got a fairly well rounded policy platform, if you take the time to actually look into it. I know that his transparency in government proposals sold me on him, personally:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071114-obamas-innovation-plan-a-christmas-list-for-the-geekerarti.html

I think the fact that he is a very charismatic black man who has demonstrated that he has the ability to inspire has tended to overshadow the fact that he does have some very solid policy positions.

The experience thing seems a little silly to me, as well, given that Obama's time in elected office right now is comparable to that of people like JFK and Reagan prior to their election to the presidency and greater than that of George W. Bush.

[torrefaction]

I've never understood the attacks on Obama not having anything substantive policy wise. He's actually got a fairly well rounded policy platform, if you take the time to actually look into it. I know that his transparency in government proposals sold me on him, personally:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071114-obamas-innovation-plan-a-christmas-list-for-the-geekerarti.html

The experience thing seems a little silly to me, as well, given that Obama's time in elected office right now is comparable to that of people like JFK and Reagan prior to their election to the presidency and greater than that of George W. Bush.

To be fair, it's just as silly as criticizing Hillary for not instigating change.

[torrefaction]

HILARY EATS BABIES AT WALMART!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

[Zanzibar]

HILARY EATS BABIES AT WALMART!

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

I love THAT story, too. I'm sure it would have gone over much better for her if she had leapt out of her chair and throttled the guy who was speaking out against the Unions.

Funny, how many Log Cabin Republicans at the RNC charged up and denounced the gay-bashers? Oh, right. None.

When you work for a company, you change whatever you can overtly, and change as much as you can covertly. The fact that she didn't risk her job by speaking out for unions when the owners HATE unions should surprise no one.

But, y'know, go for it, folks. Hate your hate.

[Slack3r78]

To be fair, it's just as silly as criticizing Hillary for not instigating change.

Well, not to employee a Clintonism, but I think it depends on what your definition of 'change' is. I think anyone who would say Hillary doesn't represent change from a policy perspective is likely a fool. That said, what she does not represent, to me and many others, is a turn away from the kind of underhanded cynicism that's absolutely dominated American politics since Bill's time as president. Obama has demonstrated to me that he can have policy disagreements (http://obama.senate.gov/letter/060206-sen_obama_and_sen_mccain_exchange_letters_on_ethic s_reform/) without resorting to demonifying his opponents. Meanwhile, Hillary has Bill running around making comments like "even Jesse Jackson could win South Carolina."

I'm just tired of politics in this country being more about who can get the best personal slam in than discussion of policy, and while Obama is not perfect in this regard, he does represent a significant improvement there, to me personally.

[BlackPete]

Wow... I come home to find that this thread has ballooned to 9+ pages.

Someone (I forget who, sorry) asked why Hillary was getting so much hate. I personally find her to be extremely fake and willing to say/do anything to get into power. Which is NOT the kind of person I'd want to see in power. There's been enough of that over the past 8 years.

Want a recent example? Florida.

[Xerxes]

I've never understood the attacks on Obama not having anything substantive policy wise. He's actually got a fairly well rounded policy platform, if you take the time to actually look into it. I know that his transparency in government proposals sold me on him, personally:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071114-obamas-innovation-plan-a-christmas-list-for-the-geekerarti.html

I think the fact that he is a very charismatic black man who has demonstrated that he has the ability to inspire has tended to overshadow the fact that he does have some very solid policy positions.

The experience thing seems a little silly to me, as well, given that Obama's time in elected office right now is comparable to that of people like JFK and Reagan prior to their election to the presidency and greater than that of George W. Bush.

Smart man... Did Hilary claim this one too.

In contrast with the wonderful but idealistic transparency proposals outlined above, Obama's proposal to create the nation's first Chief Technology Officer is not only practical, but it's desperately overdue. Even Louisiana has a state CTO, and the US as a whole has needed one for the better part of a decade.

Obama proposes that the CTO focus on transparency issues, technological interoperability of government agencies, communication infrastructure for emergency response, and populating government agencies with people who have a technology background.

[PathMaster]

Tonight's the California debate. We'll see what happens after that.

I saw somebody on CNN say this after the Nevada debate, but I can't remember who.

People who make up their minds after watching the debates substantially prefer Hillary. People who don't watch the debates prefer Obama.

Obama has great presence, but not a lot of substance. Watch him in the debates and you'll see.
I watched parts of the debate last night. Obama was just talking about what he has done. I heard no clear plan or point to any of his speeches. Clinton on the other hand said exactly what she was going to do.

Obama is very good at rhetoric, but I saw nothing in that debate that would sway me his way.

Mr. Clinton’s public declaration undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
On this issue, Hilary condemned the poor human rights actions four years ago. If she is elected there will be some issues arising from his foundation, but his foundation does a good deal of good, and will continue to do so.

[Oxonian]

We'll use that as our constant, since by and large gasoline usage is constant.
Ummm... wasn't the whole point of the paper to point out that gasoline usage is actually much more elastic than we typically assume?

In particular, you're talking about a rise in gasoline prices over seven years. Many households will trade in their automobile(s) in that time, particularly in the face of rising gasoline prices.

But don't take my word for it -- let's go to the experts:
Contrary to conventional wisdom, gasoline consumption responds immediately to unanticipated purchasing power losses. The impact response is -0.57%. Most of the adjustment takes place on impact. The response is highly significant at all horizons with a maximum impact of -0.73%. In contrast, the consumption of heating oil and coal takes somewhat longer to adjust fully, but is more elastic in the long run in response to purchasing power losses. After half a year, the response reaches its maximum impact of about -2.28%.
Consider a loss of purchasing power corresponding
to an unanticipated 1% increase in energy prices in a given month. First, taking account of the response of fuel consumption to higher energy prices, the effect of the resulting changes in discretionary income after one year can be bounded by -0.04%.
Gasoline prices rose from $1.26 in 2000 to $3.00 in 2007, a real increase of 97%. Because people will rationally respond to this price increase by cutting consumption, the actual effect on discretionary income is less than 4%.

[bKangy]

Rasmussen today has Clinton leading Obama nationally by just 2% in the last two days of polling. I really think it might go and cross over in the next few days, especially if Edwards or Gore endorse.

[Zanzibar]

Ummm... wasn't the whole point of the paper to point out that gasoline usage is actually much more elastic than we typically assume?

In particular, you're talking about a rise in gasoline prices over seven years. Many households will trade in their automobile(s) in that time, particularly in the face of rising gasoline prices.

But don't take my word for it -- let's go to the experts:


Gasoline prices rose from $1.26 in 2000 to $3.00 in 2007, a real increase of 97%. Because people will rationally respond to this price increase by cutting consumption, the actual effect on discretionary income is less than 4%.

Are you saying that people are driving about half as much as they were in 2000 as a result? How did you come up with that number? I'm curious to see how prices more than doubling has such a small effect on income.

I'm driving exactly the same amount I was in 2000. I have to. I commute 25 miles every day. Most people who drive have jobs that they have to drive to. I somehow don't see how you can explain away gas prices more than doubling this way, and I'm pretty sure the study isn't implying that it's been a non-issue.

EDIT: Apparently US gasoline consumption hit a record (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/us_gasoline_con.html) last April.

EDIT 2: And this (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm) shows a steady increase of gasoline consumption since 2001, to where we're using almost 10% more over that period.

[Zanzibar]

Rasmussen today has Clinton leading Obama nationally by just 2% in the last two days of polling. I really think it might go and cross over in the next few days, especially if Edwards or Gore endorse.

Rasmussen sucks. They picked Bush in 2000 by seven points nationally, when he actually lost the popular vote.

'We're better now! We fixed the problems!' they said.

Then they picked Obama by 7 in New Hampshire, which he lost by 3.

[Venkman]

Wow... I come home to find that this thread has ballooned to 9+ pages.

Someone (I forget who, sorry) asked why Hillary was getting so much hate. I personally find her to be extremely fake and willing to say/do anything to get into power. Which is NOT the kind of person I'd want to see in power. There's been enough of that over the past 8 years.

Want a recent example? Florida.

I think the world has seen enough of the rich old white guys (or "good old boys") in the white house.

Hillary Clinton comes off as one of the "good old boys". Different gender (perhaps), but the same crap we've seen before.

I think having someone like Obama as the face of our country would go a long way towards changing perceptions of the US abroad.

Who knows, though, he could get elected and just totally suck. Time will tell. ;)

[bKangy]

Rasmussen sucks. They picked Bush in 2000 by seven points nationally, when he actually lost the popular vote.

'We're better now! We fixed the problems!' they said.

Then they picked Obama by 7 in New Hampshire, which he lost by 3.

Obama's support actually matched what polls gave him in NH, in reality the difference was that he faced the whipping up of Clinton's idiot fan base, who really came out for her. That fan base is significantly eroded now thanks to the work of Bill, and if the public respond as focus groups have to the debate last night, it could well be even right now. Every day this goes on, the better Obama does, and if Hillary doesn't win Super Tuesday I can see why Obama will run on and take the whole thing.

[Oxonian]

Are you saying that people are driving about half as much as they were in 2000 as a result?
Not quite. People are reducing their driving as much as possible and switching to more fuel-efficient cars. It doesn't do much good to look at total U.S. gasoline consumption, because (a) a lot of gasoline is used by businesses, not consumers, (b) the total U.S. population has increased in the past seven years, and (c) people are richer on average than they were seven years ago.

Most people who drive have jobs that they have to drive to.
Sure, but as the study points out, a lot of car trips are discretionary. You can carpool. You can choose to make a bunch of little trips to the grocery store or make one big trip every month. You decide whether to go to the movies or stay home and order something through Netflix. Where are you going for summer vacation? When you drive, do you drive at 55 mph or 80 mph? That works out to a lot of gas, even before we start talking about trading in the Hummer for a hybrid.

Maybe you haven't reduced your driving at all, but I've reduced my driving by a huge margin in the past few years. Do the sum total of Zanzibars outweight the sum total of Oxonians? Judging from this study, the answer is no.
I'm pretty sure the study isn't implying that it's been a non-issue.
I'm pretty sure the study is explicitly saying that the discretionary income effect of gasoline prices is surprisingly small. It does, however, suggest that price shocks increase precautionary saving because people are afraid high gas prices will hurt the economy and they'll lose their jobs. Is it bad if more ordinary Americans save? Yes and no. It certainly reduces consumption, which will have negative demand-side effects on the economy in the short run. But on the other hand, many economic analysts -- including many Democratic ones -- have long fretted that Americans spend more than they earn and save far too little. If Americans are frightened into saving a little rather than spending all their money, that might not be all bad for the economy.

[Beelzebud]

The people who say it's bad to save money, and it's bad to run up a huge credit debt, are the ones who profit from you spending all your cash and running up a huge line of credit.

[Isamura]

QFMFT. Please give us Obama, an candidate I can actually respect myself voting for. If the Dems nom Clinton they can kiss all southern and a lot of mid-west states goodbye.

Ya, because clearly the mid-west and south want to see a black man in office right? :rolleyes:

Aside from New Mexico, I doubt the Democrats are banking on any mid-west and souther states to all of a sudden start voting democrat.

[Voodoo]

Ya, because clearly the mid-west and south want to see a black man in office right? :rolleyes:

Aside from New Mexico, I doubt the Democrats are banking on any mid-west and souther states to all of a sudden start voting democrat.

Last I heard, Tiger Woods is quite popular in the very places you mentioned. And, ethnically, him and Obama have quite a lot in common.

[CoachCrazyMcScot]

Last I heard, Tiger Woods is quite popular in the very places you mentioned. And, ethnically, him and Obama have quite a lot in common.

Voodoo and Tiger in 2008..

[Zanzibar]

Let's say you've cut your driving in HALF since 2000. That's STILL an increase of $900 yearly over what you were paying in 2000. My tax break from Bush's tax plan was around a thousand bucks.

Notice that we're still talking about gasoline, and gasoline alone. We haven't touched on higher household energy costs (up nearly double (http://www.chicagofed.org/publications/fedletter/cfljune2006_227.pdf) since 2000) and increased health care premiums (increasing between 7% and 10% yearly (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w4.354/DC1), to a total of 73.8% more (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=40512)) over the same period of time.

Jesus, Ox, I give up. We started talking about this to try and nail down whether these costs have outpaced the Bush tax cuts. I think I've plainly shown that they MUST have, unless everybody else in the country had some secret $3000-4000 write-off that I wasn't aware of.

[Isamura]

Last I heard, Tiger Woods is quite popular in the very places you mentioned. And, ethnically, him and Obama have quite a lot in common.

Tiger Woods is an athlete, he's not in a position to hold power over people living in those states. People like him because he's a freak of nature when it comes to Golf, and he's exciting to watch. But they really could care less about his thoughts on how our country should be run.

After watching the debates last night, I realized a couple things about Clinton. Her delivery is flat, because she speaks with an authority in her voice which sounds like she's not really interested in what you think. I found the content of her message to be greater than Obama's however.

[Oxonian]

Let's say you've cut your driving in HALF since 2000. That's STILL an increase of $900 yearly over what you were paying in 2000.
I don't know why you insist on using nominal figures instead of real ones. Adjusted for inflation, you would actually be paying very slightly less today (if you cut consumption in half) than you did in 2000.

I'm not coming into this with some preconceived notion about whether discretionary incomes have risen or fallen since 2000; indeed, I'm pretty surprised to discover the effect of gas prices is so low. But I'm going by the sources you've given, and those sources are not painting the picture you think they are.

The funny thing is, I agree with you that consumer spending is looking likely to decrease: my only dispute is why. Consumer spending has been buoyed for the past decade or so by inflated asset prices: first the stock market, then the housing market. This created a powerful wealth effect that permitted and encouraged consumers to spend all or even more than they earned. Now that the housing market is declining, that wealth effect is going into reverse and people are going to start to save much more. This wealth effect will (if it hasn't already) swamp any positive contribution from the Bush tax cuts, and quite possibly any remotely plausible tax cuts in the future.

[joruussuun]

I say an Obama/Oxonian ticket!

[Zanzibar]

I don't know why you insist on using nominal figures instead of real ones. Adjusted for inflation, you would actually be paying very slightly less today (if you cut consumption in half) than you did in 2000.
Stop right there. I'm tired of chasing down your math. Post it for me, because I simply do not see how inflation has doubled prices in 7 years.

This link that I posted earlier (http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=40512) shows that median income in 2006 had gone up a measly 11.6% since 2000.

[Oxonian]

I'm tired of chasing down your math. Post it for me, because I simply do not see how inflation has doubled prices in 7 years.
That's a fair request.
As you calculated earlier, in 2000 an average household bought 87 gallons of gasoline a month at $1.26 a gallon, for a total monthly expenditure of $109.62.

If gas prices rose to $3 a gallon, the household might cut consumption by half, to 43.5 gallons. Total expenditure would be 43.5 * 3 = $130.50 per month.

But seven years of passed, which means the price of everything has gone up, including wages (the price of labor). How much was this increase in real terms? According to the BLS's inflation calculator (http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), $109.62 in 2000 was the equivalent of $131.99 a month in 2007 dollars. As I noted in the previous paragraph, this is slightly more than the current expenditure of a household that managed to cut gas use in half.

I'll readily admit it's possible I made an error here, but I haven't found it yet.

By the way, so far as I can tell, the link is reporting that median incomes rose 11.6% in real terms between 2000 and 2005. It's not super-clear on that, admittedly. According to the Social Security Administration (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html), nominal median compensation (I believe this excludes non-cash compensation) rose about 19% between 2000 and 2006.

[Zanzibar]

Okay. I misread you. Fair enough, if you were one of the lucky few who managed to cut your gasoline consumption IN HALF, then you managed to keep pace with inflation, so that you're paying the same - real, adjusted for inflation, not nominal - amount of money for gasoline. Congratulations.

It's an awful lot of work to argue with you, Ox. You managed to find one point within my argument, conveniently ignore all the other data about health care costs and household energy costs, and then put in the additional caveat that I had to cut gasoline consumption IN HALF in order to comply with your suggestion that additional gasoline costs aren't a drain on disposable income. *sigh*

Again, I give up. There's not a soul on these boards who doesn't understand the extra costs they're paying out-of-pocket, and how their disposable income has evaporated, yet we're arguing over a miniscule subset of people who cut their gas usage in half as evidence that disposable income is alive and well.

I still stand by my assertion that the tax cuts were outpaced by rising energy costs and health care costs.

[Xerxes]

I say an Obama/Oxonian ticket!

Is Oxonian going for Obama? He writes too many words and hurt my brain. I think I would flip out if he ever replied to one of my post. Luckily he ignores me.

[baggle]

Oh that Matt Drudge. So precocious. What lengths will he go to to stop the wife of the man he hates from becoming president?

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080202/capt.4d60ef88bf194dd79f28dd38eca9e78a.clinton_2008 _cajc104.jpg?x=216&y=345&sig=2bPxvVzzhoDyRMwymLSB8w--

[Xerxes]

Oh that Matt Drudge. So precocious. What lengths will he go to to stop the wife of the man he hates from becoming president?

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080202/capt.4d60ef88bf194dd79f28dd38eca9e78a.clinton_2008 _cajc104.jpg?x=216&y=345&sig=2bPxvVzzhoDyRMwymLSB8w--

Things really aren't going well for Hilary.:rolleyes:
She's a naaazi..

[Zanzibar]

Oh that Matt Drudge. So precocious. What lengths will he go to to stop the wife of the man he hates from becoming president?
Drudge must be feeling a little nervous. Hell, if I were a GOP supporter, I would too.

Once the laser-beam of Republican failure over the past 7 years gets focused squarely on McCain before the general election, we'll see his poll numbers start to nosedive against the Dems.

[IrishWhiskey]

Things really aren't going well for Hilary.:rolleyes:
She's a naaazi..She's still doing quite well against Obama. He's got a long way too go for the nomination, and is polling behind in all the big states.

Besides, now that she has Ann Coulter's endorsement, she's an unstoppable Juggernaut!

[baggle]

Drudge must be feeling a little nervous. Hell, if I were a GOP supporter, I would too.

Once the laser-beam of Republican failure over the past 7 years gets focused squarely on McCain before the general election, we'll see his poll numbers start to nosedive against the Dems.

Drudge has been pretty pro-Obama, if I've read him correctly. I don't think he is crazy pro-Republican per se, just crazy his-pet-issues, and he tends to lean to the right (understatement). He just freakin' hates the Clintons, especially. He wouldn't mind seeing a Dem in the White House as much as he would hate to see another Clinton in the White House, I think. So yes, he's probably nervous, but because Clinton is doing so well, and not because Democrats are. That's only my opinion, of course. It's not like he posts his own opinions on the site, and I don't listen to his radio program (if it's even on any more), but those are the things I detect from the way he phrases stories on his web page.

[mkelehan]

Picture this, Obama running with Romney as his VP, a cross-party ticket. It would never happen but just the thought of the parties coming together like that makes me tingly in ways it shouldn't.

Obama: Mitt, can I ask you a question?

Romney: Who let the dogs out? Who? Who?

Obama: No, really, it's important.

Romney: You've got some serious bling-bling there, black American.

Obama: Nevermind.