Pollster.com

Articles and Analysis

 

US: Obama 50, McCain 42 (Zogby 10/18-20)

Topics: PHome

Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby
10/18-20,08; 1,214 LV 2.9%
Mode: Live Telephone Interviews

National
Obama 50, McCain 42

 

Comments
DCDemocrat:

Wow. Two weeks to the election, and a preponderance of polling data suggest that the people have made their decision and Obama is widening his lead.

____________________

vmval1:

As a rule of thumb, I completely disregard Zogby.

____________________

C.S.Strowbridge:

I'm expecting the race to tighten, but I'm happy to see these numbers.

____________________

bmrKY:

Zogby doesn't show republicans with 100% party ID advantage? Zogby needs to realize that this is a center-right nation and that the polls will have MUH-KANE tied by SUNDEE!

FAIL!

____________________

1magine:

Agreed. Zogby is garbage. Same with diaego and battleground.

Ras is good for tracking and Gallup is generally good all around.

____________________

mac7396:

Looks like Drudge will stop linking to Zogby. No longer fits his narrative of a tightening raise. Maybe he'll link to Daily Kos today.

____________________

vmval1:

I've decided that I was wrong in saying that Zogby's approach start with him asking for a dartboard and a blindfold.

____________________

mysticlaker:

As Nate said, you can use zogby for trends, but probably disregard for the horse race numbers. It actually makes sense. He showed movement to McCain last week, and now is showing movement to Obama. We'll see the rest of the polls today and if this theory works.

____________________

vmval1:

I'm pretty sure he asks one of his grandkids to pick a number between 1 and 10 each night at bedtime.

____________________

1magine:

Will there be a Drudge siren?

____________________

Word08:

Looks good to me!

____________________

Vokoban:

Okay, it's Zogby - so for what it's worth:

"Obama leads by 21 points among those who have already voted (...)"

Are there any numbers from other pollsters who can confirm this?

If so: That's a headstart McCain will find very difficult to overcome, especially given the high turnout in early voting.

That's a sign for excitement on Obama's side and lukewarm support on McCain's side probably even more alarming to the McCain campaign than the sheer polling numbers.

____________________

Joe Sixpack:

Did anyone else see this? Disturbing.

Dead bear covered with Obama signs found at school

CULLOWHEE, N.C. – Police at Western Carolina University and wildlife officials were investigating the discovery early Monday of a dead bear cub draped with a pair of Barack Obama campaign signs.

Leila Tvedt, associate vice chancellor for public relations, said Monday night that maintenance workers found the 75-pound bear cub shot to death in front of the school's administration building at the entrance to campus. The Obama yard signs were stapled together and placed over the bear's head, Tvedt said.

The bear had been shot in the head, Tvedt said.

"Western Carolina University deplores the inappropriate behavior that has led to this troubling incident," Tvedt said. "We cannot speculate on the motives of the people involved nor who those people might be. Campus police are cooperating fully with authorities to investigate this matter."

University police called in state Wildlife Resources officials to remove the body and help in the investigation.

Bear season is under way in western North Carolina.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081021/ap_on_el_pr/obama_dead_bear

____________________

sunnymi:

Politico/Insider Advantage Poll: Obama gains in key swing counties

Sen. Barack Obama has made new gains in two key counties that could tip the balance in the swing states of Nevada and North Carolina, according to the results of a new Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll.

Voters in Reno, Nevada’s Washoe County prefer Obama over Sen. John McCain by a double-digit margin, 50 percent to 40 percent. A previous Politico/Insider Advantage survey, taken October 9, showed the race deadlocked in Washoe with Obama ahead of McCain, 46 percent to 45 percent.

In Wake County, N.C., home to Raleigh and its suburbs, Obama leads McCain by nine points, 52 percent to 43 percent. As in Washoe, this new result represents a turn toward the Democratic nominee: Politico’s last survey of Wake County Oct. 9 had Obama on top by six points, 50 percent to 44 percent.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14785.html

____________________

Cho:

dKos still at O +8, last single day O +9

____________________

BarackO'Clinton:

Obama surge!

Where is Drudge????

____________________

boomshak:

Zogby surges 4 points in two days? Rasmussen shinks 2 points in same time? Hmmmm.

Well, we'll see if this move is confirmed. Very odd as Zogby showed the race VERY close while others saw Obama way ahead and now is showing Obama way ahead as everyone else is showing it close.

The strange thing is that Zogby had the lead shrinking, shrinking, shrinking, all momentum to McCain and then bamm, Obamasplosion.

It's possible, albeit unlikely IMHO.

____________________

boomshak:

BARNEY FRANK: "WE NEED LOTS OF NEW SPENDING AND HIGHER TAXES..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1Mazjm_A5k

____________________

jonny87:

@Vokoban

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

this is a useful site for keeping on top of early voting turnout.

____________________

vmval1:

@Boomshak:

One of the rare times we agree. See my earlier posts in this thread regarding Zogby's methods.

____________________

vmval1:

I'm waiting for the ras before I make any substantive claims

____________________

boomshak:

In Wake County, N.C., home to Raleigh and its suburbs, Obama leads McCain by nine points, 52 percent to 43 percent. As in Washoe, this new result represents a turn toward the Democratic nominee: Politico’s last survey of Wake County Oct. 9 had Obama on top by six points, 50 percent to 44 percent.

Well, I LIVE in Wake County and if the "yard sign test" is any indication, this is complete bullsh*t".

I drove around the other day just for that purpose, to check out yard signs. "McCain/Palin" easily on 4 out of 5 yards that had signs, if not more.

BTW, "Politico" is another place that is hard in the tank for Obama - take all with big fat grain of salt.

____________________

bmrKY:

"boomshak:
Zogby surges 4 points in two days? Rasmussen shinks 2 points in same time? Hmmmm."

Didn't you have a hard-on for this poll last week?

Oh boom****, what would we do with out ya?

(probably have reasonable discussion and not quite as many laughs)

____________________

zotz:

boom-
Thanks for the video!
Let's have fewer Lexuses and more education and health care!

Go Barney!

____________________

jonny87:

from the page...

'McCain to Barnstorm Pennsylvania Tuesday'

can we agree that whatever strategy mccain is following he has to win PA?

____________________

boomshak:

@vmval1:

I always am left scratching my head on these pollsters that are supposedly running "3 day moving averages" and then we see this huge moves in a short time.

Tracking polls are by their nature supposed to move slowly and show momentum. But polls like Zogby here and Hotline have shown moves of as much as 5 points in one day.

If you read Zogby yesterday, you will see that Obama had a HUGE night 2 nights ago and this move to 8 here may be overflow from that.

I sure as hell wish these tracking polls would also release their daily numbers :(

But like you, let's wait and see what Rasmussen says. Whether I like what he has to say or not, I still consider him the gold standard of National Polling. (His State Polling uses too small of samples for my liking.)

P.S., The "early voting advantage" to Obama is meaningless. Obama's troops have been encouraged to vote like mad early to give the impression of a landslide.

I fully expect to vote for McCain and have not yet voted. Wht satnd in line when I can wait a little while and stand in no line?

____________________

MDB1974:

This McCain surge is getting out of hand. I hope he has his cabinent in order.

Seriously though, there is going to be a Powell surge, it may not hold but things are going to trend up for O in the next day or so.

____________________

bmrKY:

"boom****:

BTW, "Politico" is another place that is hard in the tank for Obama - take all with big fat grain of salt."

Michael Smerconish is in the tank for Obama! Kathleen Parker is in the tank for Obama! Christopher Buckley is in the tank for Obama! The Chicago Tribune is in the tank for Obama! Those 61 Nobel Laureates are in the tank for Obama! Warren Buffet is in the tank for Obama! Colin Powell is in the tank for Obama!

Reality is, you guessed it, in the tank for Obama!

____________________

MDB1974:

McCain is in an an interesting perdiciament. Obama is enroute to see his dying grandmother (practically his mother). How does McCain respond. Maybe he could send a robo-condolence-call. Seriously though, is there presidence for this? Does he temper his attacks or exploit the absence?

____________________

boomshak:

@zotz:

My God man, you ARE a Communist, aren't you? No wonder Obama is your guy.

P.S., If you take away the rich man's Lexus through taxation, where is his motivation to build his business and hire people? Why shouldn't he just invest his cash in tax free munis or off-shore for that matter?

Everything in business is an opportunity cost. If taxes means that the rich man can't get the return he wants from investing in business, he will invest elsewhere and jobs will be lost.

You want a nation without the rich? I give you the USSR. You are welcome to it.

____________________

BridgeportJoe:

Well, I LIVE in Wake County and if the "yard sign test" is any indication, this is complete bullsh*t".

I drove around the other day just for that purpose, to check out yard signs. "McCain/Palin" easily on 4 out of 5 yards that had signs, if not more.

Ditto in reverse in an upscale, probably GOP-leaning part of Denver that I commute through. I think the results of the yard sign test are more dictated by whether the local campaign office has a big inventory and marching orders to get them on people's yards than anything else.

____________________

Louis:

Zogby uses Party ID based on previous election(2004) so his numbers are skewed toward the Republicans. Other than that there is no reason to ignore this poll as opposed to his internet polls which are garbage. Direction over time as opposed to the abosulute numbers should be as accurate as any of the polls.

____________________

MDB1974:

Communist? Seriously. Reagan and Nixon and W, and H.W. all had escalating tax brackets, were they communist?

Angry white conservatives called MLK a communist when they ran out of legitimate objections to the movement. This is no different.

____________________

boomshak:

Zogby makes this claim:

"McCain wins 84% of the Republican vote."

That's where he lost me.

____________________

Willem van Oranje:

boomshak: "If you take away the rich man's Lexus through taxation, where is his motivation to build his business and hire people?"

Poor little rich man just has to work a little harder then, just like the rest of us.

____________________

MDB1974:

Morning call is out for PA. Obama holding 53, his highest ever for that poll. If the leaks are correct McCain believes flipping PA is his only chance. That is a tough one.

____________________

DecaturMark:

Yea, I think McCain's strategy relies on taking PA. He can then afford to lose CO, NM and VA or NC. His problem is that he would also have to win FL, OH, MO, IN, ND, NV and WV. Not a likely scenerio, but probably the only one he has left.

____________________

jonny87:

@DecaturMark

it looks that way, although this could happen...

kerry-PA+IA+NM+CO+VA+NV=270...my numbers right?

____________________

mysticlaker:

Hi Boom! Nate at 538 has an article on this! Enjoy! Here is the summary...It's 85.3 across all polls!

Support within own party:Pollster DEMS GOPRasmussen 86 87IBD-TIPP 88 83Research 2000 87 89ABC/Post 91 84Zogby 87 84Battleground 89 85AVERAGE 88.0 85.32004 Exit Poll 89 932000 Exit Poll 86 91Among Democrats, Barack Obama is now winning 88 percent support, comparable to John Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000. And there are a couple of points' worth of undecideds left in there, so it's possible that Obama could scrape up against the 90 percent number on election day.

By contrast, John McCain is winning the support of just 85.3 percent of Republicans, well down from Bush's 93 percent in 2004 and 91 percent in 2000. There are some undecideds in there as well, so his numbers should improve some, but McCain is likely to underperform Bush by several points.

____________________

Rames1980:

"Oh boom****, what would we do with out ya?"

Picking on boomshak is a bit like masturbation: fun, but not very challenging.

____________________

Vokoban:

@ Johnny87
Thanks. But this page doesn't tell HOW these people voted. So if anyone finds some other polls carrying data on people who already voted - it would be welcome here.

@ boomshak: early voting in recent elections used to go to the GOP. If this is different this time it definitely means something. You cannot seriously deny that the level of enthusiasm is meaningless to a campaign - or the results.

____________________

vmval1:

The only way he can flip PA is by bringing up Wright. It will NOT be good for McCain to be bringing up Wright while Obama is visiting his very ill grandma. He may make inroads in PA but he'll lose VA CO IA NM NV by huge margins

____________________

eugene:

This poll is always off base,but i have been doing my own poll,and this is the way i see it,Obama 53%,Mccain 46%,i just dont see Mccain getting even close.but when i voted yesterday here in Florida my vote didnot register the right way.

____________________

zotz:

boom-
I am a Roosevelt-Krugman Democrat.
Let's Put Reagan on the ash heap of history where he belongs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kwA-CwFK5A&feature=related

____________________

jonny87:

@vmval1

i think if they use wright it wont be until obamas 30 min commercial

____________________

Vokoban:

@ boom: There's a saying in Germany, and I don't know if it exists in the US: "one intelligent word - and they call you a communist."

Guess who "they" are?

____________________

Thatcher:

@boomshak -

These numbers don't count yesterday ... however here is the early/absentee voter turnout for Wake County, NC:

White 18330
African American 8489
Latino 277
Native American 44
Other 1451
Total 28591

Democrats 16368
Republicans 6675
Unaffiliated 5544
Libertarian 4
Total 28591

PS: Yard signs don't vote ... people do.

____________________

DecaturMark:

Krugman would be a good Treasury Sec. He just won the Nobel in economics. Very knowledgable, understands global markets, domestic markets, capital and labor relationships and can relate to people on a non-intellectual scale.

____________________

MNLatteLiberal:

ah, there you are!

boomshack, I have a serious question for you.

What did John McCain said when he heard your plan to sink Obama in one question? I need to know if I should be wearing black today.

Black is so slimming, but I am very buff. So, you see my dilemma. I need to know what to wear.
Bueller? Bueller?

____________________

Viperlord:

I'm betting on Buffet for Treasury Sec personally.

____________________

Eternal:

While I am happy with the results, I have pretty much ignored Zogby due to their "last cycle" weighting so I must continue to ignore them to be consistent.


*Unless* they have adjusted their party ID to approx 2008 levels.

____________________

NCSUgrad204:

Boomshak:
I live in Holly Springs , NC in Wake county and in my subdivision we have only Obama signs so stop spreading lies that wake county will go for Mcshame becasue it will not. Wake, Orange, Durham counties will be heavy in the Obama Corner.

FAIL:

____________________

southern angler:

I was at the polls for over an hour yesterday in Charlotte. Counted approx. 200 people, 196 whites - 4 Blacks, really. The crowd was equally diverse in age. No Acorn or Obama people to be found, I know because I asked. A guy standing in line told me the minorities turned out early only on the firt day.

____________________

mysticlaker:

Rasmussen
O-50
M-46
Unchanged

The race is stable.

____________________

DTM:

A couple quick notes:

(1) It appears to be a common misconception that three-day tracking polls entirely eliminate volatility. This is incorrect. What tracking polls will do over time is display the full range of possible random shifts.

To slightly oversimplify, suppose we collapsed the full range of sampling error outcomes into three: +, 0, and - (meaning one randomly favorable for one candidate, to more or less neutral, to one randomly favorable for the other candidate). Over time, the three day mix will randomly "walk" between +/+/+ and -/-/-, covering everything in between.

So, for example, when the mix goes from +/0/0 to 0/0/- (with a - thus replacing a +), you will see a pretty big one day shift. And sometimes it will go from a +/+/0 to a 0/-/- over two days, and you will see an even bigger three day shift. And sometimes even it will go from a +/+/+ to a -/-/-, and you will see an even bigger three day shift. And so forth.

(2) Over the last several days we have seen a flood of Obama endorsements from prominent Republican newspapers and individuals, most notably but not exclusively Colin Powell. Meanwhile, there have been reports of extremists at McCain/Palin rallies, robocalls with harsh attacks at variance with McCain's public statements, and so on. Under the circumstances, it wouldn't be surprising if some moderate Republicans were starting to defect from McCain.

____________________

vmval1:

@mysticlaker:

Are you reporting or predicting?

____________________

mysticlaker:

reporting...

____________________

vmval1:

you're a premium member?

____________________

mysticlaker:

@vmval1

I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor.

____________________

vmval1:

I don't care if you're Puff the Magic Dragon's transvestite aunty. So long as you vote for Obama, you and I are fine.

____________________

Viperlord:

Thought I would show this very interesting post from GaMeS on FiveThirtyEight to you folks. Brace yourselves.....

"To keep the actual discussion going, here's a point a non-troll made earlier:


broberts said...

The lower income earner pays far more of their income, as a percentage, towards the essentials of life, however you may want to define them (typically food, shelter, clothing, health), than the higher income earner. This means that while their tax rate may be lower, it is actually a higher percentage of their income after essentials.


Nicely stated -- this is something the Repugs refuse to acknowledge in their specious flat-tax arguments.

Here's another way I would illustrate it: Imagine that a person has absolutely no possessions and no income, and there is no social network to provide aid. As long as this state persists, every waking hour will be spent on subsistence, i.e. acquiring basic sustenance and shelter.

Now, let's say that person finds a nice stash of food that provides more than necessary for survival, allowing some to be stored. He can now spend some time investing in himself -- building a better shelter, sharpening a new spear -- to make it easier to subsist. (You can also invest in yourself in the form of downtime, relaxing and recuperating both physically and mentally, making it easier to operate at peak capacity when needed -- ultimately, this is the origin of entertainment.)

This investment grows geometrically, making it easier and easier to survive while allowing a greater and greater share of his time to be spent on further investment. Put another way, investment is not directly proportional to income or wealth. A hunter-gatherer might spend 10% of his time on investment; a pastoralist might spend 20%; a farmer might spend 50%.

Now, it's pretty clear how this translates to modern life: The more money you have (in income and wealth), the greater percentage you're able to invest rather than simply spend on consumption (rent, food, car, etc.).

And where do taxes fit in? Well, by now it should be obvious: Taxes are investment in the nation. They pay for improvements in infrastructure, police, rescue, and so forth, making it easier to earn dividends in other pursuits. (For example, it's very hard to earn money in transportation if there are no good roads, and it's hard to keep your investments safe if there are no police.)

And before any of the right-wingers make a "free market" argument, even the dimmest free marketeer knows about economies of scale. It's not feasible to build just one lane of an interstate highway, or just enough military to protect your own house. (You either defend all the borders, or you're effectively defending none of them.)

So:
* We have the need to invest in public goods (i.e. nonexcludable, or nearly so) that are subject to economies of scale that make private ownership woefully inefficient.
* Individuals with greater resources spend a greater percentage on investment.
* Ergo, progressive taxation is the best way to handle these common needs. Since investment is nonlinear, so too must taxation be nonlinear.


And that's why the rich get larger tax bills. Any proposal for "flat taxes" is ultimately a case of either woeful lack of understanding or gross intellectual dishonesty.

Related note: This is also why the Reaganomics trickle-down concept doesn't work. Dollar-for-dollar, tax cuts given to the rich will be spent on things other than consumption. (Remember that my broad definition of "investment," in this context, includes luxuries and such.)

Since consumption drives demand, and demand is what makes suppliers willing to invest in greater capacity, tax cuts to the wealthy will have far less effect in a slow economy than tax cuts to the middle class and working class.

Now, why is it best not to give tax cuts to the wealthy in addition tax cuts for the middle and working classes? Well, you still need to pay the bills -- if you keep running up deficits, you devalue your currency (compare the US dollar to the Canadian dollar over the past few decades), and that is effectively a tax hike on everyone (and it disproportionately affects those who spend most of their income on consumption rather than interest-bearing investments).

Ah, but why not simply reduce spending and cut taxes for the rich? Well, that government spending creates jobs, closing a recessionary gap to reach full employment and efficiency in the economy. If you were to cut spending just to give a tax cut to the rich, unemployment would skyrocket, and now you have a real depression.

Proof?

Let's say that Y is the point at which you're in equilibrium (full employment, no recessionary gap from unemployment and no inflationary gap from overspending and scarcity). If you have an economy with, say, $2.5 trillion in fixed spending (essentially subsistence) and that spends 80% of discretionary income on consumption (the other 20% on savings), then you can solve for the point of equilibrium:

Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y)
Y = $12.5T

Now, let's add government -- let's say you take out $3 trillion in taxes and spend the whole thing (balanced budget):

Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $3T) + $3T
Y = $15.5T

See that? Even though you have a balanced budget, you're increasing the equilibrium income for the economy. If you're in a recessionary gap, this spending provides jobs and reduces structural unemployment.

Now, you don't want to overshoot or you create an inflationary gap, devaluing your currency. In fact, this is one reason that it's such a bad idea to run a really large deficit for a long period. Let's see what would happen if you only taxed $2.5 trillion instead of $3 trillion:

Y = $2.5T + 0.8(Y - $2.5T) + $3T
Y = $17.5T

See how that works? If your "full employment" level is less than $17.5 trillion, then your currency will devalue due to inflation; worse, you racked up $500 billion in debt, which will increase your necessary spending next year, accelerating the problem.

After a while, you have runaway debt -- which is pretty much where Bush & Co. have left us.

Now, it doesn't hurt to carry some debt, just as it doesn't hurt to have a mortgage ... if you can afford the payments. In fact, the best reason for deficit spending is to help pull out of a recession or depression -- but it has to be done carefully to avoid overshooting and wrecking your currency, and thus it's best not to cut taxes on the wealthy during such times. And if your debt is truly out of control, you must bring it back in line, even if it means raising taxes on the rich.


One last point that the Repugs love to overlook: Obama's budget costs $1.5 trillion less than McCain's, according to the Tax Policy Center. (Giving away $300 billion in tax cuts to the rich is essentially a massive earmark that provides welfare for the rich as the expense of a giant tax hike -- inflation -- on everyone else.) Therefore, Obama's plan results in smaller deficits (and thus less inflation) while simultaneously generating more jobs and higher employment rates with pay-as-you-go spending. Obama's plan is exactly what you should do during an economic downturn, and McCain's is a guaranteed trainwreck.


So, the next time some idiot right-winger starts spewing his talking points without having ever taken a class in economics, feel free to copy and paste this. =)"

____________________

triplio:

I am not an USA citizen, so I am not going to vote november 4th and probably I can't understand well all issues you're debating. I dared to sign in just to make a comment about the meaning you (Obama or Mc Cain supporter at the same time) made of the words "socialist" and "communist".
Here in Europe we still have a some communist or socialist party (not very much followed and therefore mostly harmless luckily)and I assure you that no one of them would ever think that raising taxes in order to "spread the wealth" is Communist or socialist politics.
That, on the contrary, is what the center right governement of France, Germany, Italy and Switerland have done in the last year.
Communist and Socialist politics, on the contrary, are inclined to influence the means of production (industries, banks etc)
Thank you and God bless America

____________________

BarackO'Clinton:

So now boomshak has dismissed all polls in favor of the "yard sign test."

Zogby, Rasmussen, R2000, Gallup - all crap!

The "yard sign test" has become the gold standard of presidental polling.

This, my friends, is classic.


I can tell you this about yard signs: I am a staunch Obama supporter, have given hundres of dollars to his campaign and do not have one yard sign, one button, one sticker on my car. None of it. Why? Because bumper stickers and yard signs do not win elections. On Nov 4th my wife and I will be in line early to vote and that's more powerful than 100 yard signs.

LOL...yard sign test....

____________________

smith4pres23:

hey everyone
i'm new to the site, but so far everybody seems VERY liberal... lol
everythings looking good for obama
and i really admire that boomshak guy that is like the only right-wing person on the entire site lol

____________________

boomshak:

RASMUSSEN HOLDS STEAD AT OBAMA +4:

Doesn't confirm this two day +4 move in Zogby.

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%. The race has remained very stable over the past month and Obama’s support has not dipped below 50% in nearly a month (see trends).

____________________

Thatcher:

Over 480,000 voters have voted in NC so far!!! That's an increase of 140,000 in one day!

Data is good as of 5:30 AM today:
DEM 269,592
LIB 235
REP 132,836
UNA 79,731
482,394 Total (per data from SBOE of NC)

Oh and @southern angler:

Charlotte total:

DEM 17,597
LIB 8
REP 7,047
UNA 5,300
29,952 Total

Those that voted "ONE STOP" on Monday in Charlotte (The day you said had low black turn out):
3,908 BLACK or AFRICAN AMERICAN
3,542 WHITE
10 AMERICAN INDIAN or ALASKA NATIVE
51 ASIAN
107 OTHER
35 TWO or MORE RACES
230 UNDESIGNATED
7,883 TOTAL

____________________

boomshak:

@smith4pres23:

I just enjoy exposing Obama's dearest supporters as what the really are, "spread-the-wealth-around" socialists.

There is already a way to "spread-the-wealth-around". It's called "CHARITY".

Both Obama and Biden, despite earning millions, have given FAR below the national average to charity.

The difference with charity is that I give it to whom I like. Taxation confiscates my money so the government can decide who to give it to.

In other words, Obama believes in "spreading YOUR wealth around", not his own.

____________________

boomshak:

Gee, all the socialists in Europe love Obama. Why am I not shocked. Maybe we can trade our economy for theirs?

____________________

smith4pres23:

@boomshak

Yeah, that's the impression I'm getting too. i realize Bush in many ways was a failure, but that's no reason to completely switch gears and have America led by a left-wing white house, House, senate, and even media.
and with Obama's election, possibly the supreme court as well.
it is downright scary.
I'm not exactly Republican, but the idea of total Democraic control is simply frightening.

____________________

southern angler:

Charlotte is about half black, kinda like Atlanta. In fact Mecklenburg Co. schools have offically tipped the minorities to the majority. I live in a white part of town, but minority neighborhoods are only a short drive away. If the AA did turn out, I sure didn't see them.

____________________

boomshak:

YOU MOONBATS NEED TO STOP GETTING WOOD OVER THE EARLY VOTING NUMBERS:

Statistically, those who vote early would have voted anyway, they are just "voting early". Obviously, this has been a big message from Obama for his minions to get out early and create and impression.

Republicans aren't as "activist" in our voting, but we vote.

____________________

smith4pres23:

Right, people who will end up voting for Obama are much more excited about their ticket than those who are going to vote for McCain. It is only natural that those early voters will likely be Democrat, because they are more energized to go out and vote.
This whole early voting thing is completely meaningless.

____________________

Thatcher:

@boomshak -

Yes, but once they have voted, their vote is in ... and ... the more people vote early, the more focused campaigns can be on getting the others out. Which benefits Democrats ... because as it stands today - if everyone voted ... Obama would win by 8-10% based upon the polls of RV. So the higher the turnout, the better for Democrats and the better for America.

____________________

modrat:

@Thatcher

Thanks for those numbers on early voting. Wow! This may be a blowout if this is representative of the GOTV.

____________________

DTM:

Just an aside, but Adam Smith was one of the first people to give such an argument for progressive taxation. He wrote in the Wealth of Nations:

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

And it definitely amuses me that some people are effectively suggesting that Adam Smith was a socialist. By the way, a modern variation on this argument is basically just that since there is a decreasing marginal utility to money, a tax that was constant in terms of disutility would show up as increasing in terms of money.

But interestingly, Obama's argument was even more pragmatic--and ultimately pro-capitalist--than Smith's. His basic point was that if the economy was working better for the middle class, it would end up working better for business owners as well, because the middle class ultimately provides business owners with their customers. This is also not a new argument for progressive taxation (it is part of Demand Theory), but again it is even more clearly within a capitalist framework than Smith's argument.

____________________

NorthernObserver:

@ triplio

No one here really knows what communism and socialism are. Here they're just dirty words to be used to scare people into voting one way or the other -- they're really just a form of name calling, their use meant to discredit one's political opponent. Unfortunately, many people get caught up in the rhetoric.

____________________

DTM:

I also think people tend to miss the point of the early voting statistics.

Traditionally, it has actually been the Republicans who had an advantage in early voting, which was correlated with an overall higher turnout rate. The fairly reasonable hope from Democrats is that the early voting statistics this year represent a reversal of this trend which will carry through the entire election (and even parity in turnout would be a significant improvement).

And of course the other point is that the more people voting early, the less any future events can affect the outcome. This obviously benefits the person who is currently ahead in a given state.

____________________

Nowukkers:

Boom
"In other words, Obama believes in "spreading YOUR wealth around", not his own."

An equal argument may be made with regard to Bush's lavish corporate subsidies, no-bid contracts riddled with corporate ullage, and his spreading your money to religious charities with whom I have fundamental disagreements.

Your point is taken though.

____________________

ginumber4:

Wow..great reading!

BTW - how exactly are you defining those republican yard signs?

Are you inluding the ones spelled:
"F-O-R-E-C-L-O-S-U-R-E"?

____________________

cinnamonape:

Southern Angler, Here are the 2006 Demographics for Charlotte

54.7% Caucasian
34.4% African American
11.0% Hispanic or Latino of any race
4.1% Asian - mainly Indian, Chinese, and Vietnamese
0.5% Native American
0.0% Pacific Islander
4.4% from other races
1.7% from two or more races.

Here are the early voter turnout %
3,908 BLACK or AFRICAN AMERICAN (49.6%)
3,542 WHITE (44.9%)
10 AMERICAN INDIAN or ALASKA NATIVE
51 ASIAN (0.6%0
107 OTHER (1.35%)
35 TWO or MORE RACES
230 UNDESIGNATED (2.9%)
7,883 TOTAL

So AA are up 15% above their population level and whites are down 10%.

____________________

Paul:

From the internals:
Obama 50.3, McCain 42.4
Dems Obama 87.2
Reps McCain 84.4
Inds Obama 50.1, McCain 34.5
Already voted: Obama 58.3, McCain 57.3
Males Obama 47.3, McCain 44.9
Females Obama 52.8, McCain 40.4
Whites McCain 50.5, Obama 42.1
Hispanic Obama 66.4, McCain 28.9
AA Obama 90.5, McCain 3.6
Asian Obama 55.6, McCain 36.4
Liberals Obama 85.8,McCain 6.9
Moderates Obama 62.4, McCain 33.1
Conservatives McCain 72.7, Obama 19

____________________

Paul:

Correction:
Already voted Already voted: Obama 58.3, McCain 37.3

____________________

mmoldenh:

Boomshak, do you happen to hang out at New World Coffee shop? There's this crazy Repub there and I'm wondering if you are him. :-)

btw, your yard sign test may be skewed since I have had my Obama sign stolen twice in a manner that was obvious they were not Obama supporters. Very American of these McCainiacs.

____________________



Post a comment




Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.

MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR