John McCain is now faced with a campaign consistently lagging behind Sen. Obama. While it is still possible for the polls to tighten as we get closer to election day, he hasn’t led in a single major poll since near the end of September. Even in the polls that have the most favorable turnout models (the IBD/Tipp poll, for one), he has not had the lead. And anyone who thinks that Democratic/Republican turnout is going to mirror 2004 is in a dream world.
And yet, McCain has the nerve to say that the polls are all over the place.
Look, I don’t expect him to say “I and my campaign suck eggs.” But come on.
Related
Of Rats & Sinking Ships
Oblivious, In Denial, Dangerous
links for 2008-05-08
Publicly McCain is in “denial.” Privately – maybe he’ll tell us how he really felt after the election.
I’m still concerned. Historically, the Republicans get out early. taking advantage of early voting has been a hallmark of their Religious Right strategy for years. Get them all in a bus and force march them to the polls. We’re still playing catchup.
My biggest concern is “youth” voting. I’m 62 – Ive worked in elections and observed elections VERY CLOSELY for at least 30 years and I’ve NEVER seen an expected “youth” vote materialize.
My “great white hope” this election is that AA’s INCREASE their % that ACTUALLY VOTES. Historically, the “registered” AA vote is slightly below “white” turnout – 62% to 60% (roughly). In places like Georgia an AA turnout of 77% to 82% – even it it split just the “historic” Democratic split of 80 % would be huge. It would also help if AA’s and Hispanics increased their %’s that are registered.
I really want my fellow white Democrats to KNOW that “we (Democrats)” won because AA voters voted in historic numbers and Hispanic voters voted in Historic numbers. It would be really HEALTHY for ending poverty, and promoting education, IF “we” Democrats KNEW that our bread is buttered by GUARANTEEING that we re-build the “America Dream” from the BOTTOM UP, not from the “Trickle Down.”
OK fellow assh*les, get out there and keep working! This isn’t over till the fat lady sing’s – and right now she isn’t even in the house yet!
There’s also an interesting historical denial going on in the McCain/ Palin campaign and among their supporters. For example, John Kass in the Chicago Tribune today says,
The casualty will be the entrepreneurs, those on the outside, the ones who create the spark and offer up the products or the ideas that fire the economy. The entrepreneurial mind isn’t willing to settle and wants to make more than $250,000 in salary or whatever the federal government deems proper. They don’t want proper. What they want is to take risks and reach the American Dream.
Such men and women will be on the outside for decades now. When they get close to victory they’ll get whacked with tax increases and the rug will be pulled out from under them. The rich will have their wealth. But new entrepreneurs will be hamstrung and without that creative spark, no government-administered economic system can survive. History has taught us this over and over again.
History has taught us that a 39.5% marginal federal income tax rate on incomes over $250k will hamstring entrepreneurs and lead to the failure of an economic system? Kass appears to be one of those folks who regarded the Clinton years as a long national nightmare of peace and prosperity. One of the biggest entrepreneurial booms of the 20th century happened with tax policies very similar to Obama’s tax plan.
But Kass and the rest of the conservatives chanting SOCIALIST! don’t want to remember that eBay, Amazon, Google and the other multibillion dollar companies that didn’t exist 15 years ago all somehow managed to struggle to success under the heinously oppressive yoke of OMG A 39.6% MARGINAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX RATE OH NOES!
Kass appears to be one of those folks who regarded the Clinton years as a long national nightmare of peace and prosperity. One of the biggest entrepreneurial booms of the 20th century happened with tax policies very similar to Obama’s tax plan.</i
Except Clinton inherited an economy that was already in full growth mode and was able to absorb the higher marginal tax rates. In addition, while Clinton was in office, the GOP forced his hand on capital gains tax reductions (Which Obama wants to increase despite admitting he knows the government collects more revenue when those taxes are decreased. All in the name of “fairness” for The One) and other tax cuts. Obama wants to raise taxes all over the place and “cut taxes” for a good percentage of people that already don’t pay income taxes and wants to do so in a time of economic uncertainty.
That’s the difference. The economic situation in 1994 was nowhere near what it was today. Learn a little.
Damned tags.
Jay wants to lecture PG about history and economics. Hilarious.
I just wanna sit back and watch this one.
The Panthers are losing again anyway.
No, it was two years after a crippling recession, not six months before one.
The polls are all over the map – they range from McCain just losing to McCain getting his ass handed to him with a B carved into the cheeks. And if by battleground states, McCain means Indiana and N. Dakota, then he is very competitive there. Turnout is key, why if 100% of Republicans turn out, and only 50% of Democrats, then McCain just might win this thing. Of course he’s very happy with where he is – his nightmare of a campaign is almost over – and soon he can return to AZ for some much needed R&R.
Regarding the John Kass column – I think wingnuttia has convinced itself that Obama is planning on confiscating all income in excess of 250K a year – little else could explain their hysterics. Considering the shape of the economy – “socialist” approaches to everything from health care to pension guarantees to executive pay caps are probably looking more attractive to many Americans than at any time in the last 70 years. I think this is what the wingers really fear- not Obama’s plans – but an American public that demands actual redistribution of wealth if things get really bad, hence their pathetic attempts to portray the progressive tax system we’ve had for decades as some sort of Marxist welfare plan.
“Except Clinton inherited an economy that was already in full growth mode and was able to absorb the higher marginal tax rates.”
Liar. Average income was still declining when Clinton took over. If you consider that ‘full growth mode’ then you and I are speaking different languages.
And speaking of denial…
http://www.qtau.com/contents/20081020-prediction-mccain-wins.html
This guy thinks McCain will win 322 – 216.
What a fucking joke.
Well, his only other option would be to *shudder* CREDIT CLINTON WITH SOMETHING.
“Well, his only other option would be to *shudder* CREDIT CLINTON WITH SOMETHING.”
I guess he assumes we are not going to do any research to prove him wrong. That he can lie, because no one will call him on it.
I’m hoping for the sort of Landslide reagan had in 1980.
McCain has the nerve to say that the polls are all over the place.
Well, they are all over the place. They’re everywhere from Obama by 4 to Obama by 14.
Strowbridge has corrected the “full growth mode” claim. I’ll just give a brief history of the top federal capital gain tax rate.
Originally capital gains were treated the same as any other income and were taxed at the same rate. That changed in 1921, and capital gains were taxed at a lower rate than other revenue for the next 65 years. Then Reagan’s Tax Reform Act of 1986 was able to be relatively revenue-neutral, despite decreasing the top marginal federal income tax rate to 28%, because it went back to treating capital gains like any other form of income. I.e. the top capital gains tax rate under Reagan’s reform was 28% — 8% MORE than the 20% Obama recommends for the top rate. 20% was the rate prior to the ‘86 Reform. Once again, entrepreneurs did not crumble into dust despite Reagan’s evil, oppressive, communist (hey, it’s higher than the “socialist”) capital gains tax rate.
Oh, and that decrease that occurred with the 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act? It dropped the rate from 28% to 20%. Yes, the capital gains rate that Jay is crowing about Republicans’ having forced on Clinton is… the exact same rate that Obama wants to have. That’s because Obama wants to let some of the Bush tax cuts expire. Of course, all of the budgeting that Bush did was premised on letting those tax cuts expire in 2010, even though McCain is proclaiming that allowing the tax cuts — which he opposed in the first place — to expire will turn us all into socialists. The 2010 expiration is one of the more delightful pieces of obfuscation in predictions about deficits and the national debt.
Seriously, if you are discussing Obama’s tax plan with anyone and want to keep it short and sweet, just say, “The rates will be the same as they were under Clinton, with sole exception that Obama may have FICA (Social Security/Medicare) taxes on income over $250k. Otherwise, it’s the same as under Clinton. If you didn’t feel like you were living under socialism with Clinton’s taxes, you’ll probably feel OK with Obama’s.”
Look at that. Jay ran away. He’s a coward and a liar.
From the link;
Well, there’s an understatement. You should probably get that looked at.
I’m thinking it’s gonna look like Clinton/Gore ‘92.
“I’m thinking it’s gonna look like Clinton/Gore ‘92.”
I’m going with 364 / 174 with Obama getting 66 million votes, more or less.