Election 2008, United States

[Misty]

Does anyone think that Palin may help Obama? Bear with me on this.

In 2004, Bush and Kerry ran a "base" election, designed to turn out each others' bases while largely ignoring (and in Bush's case, alienating) independents. It was the first time in history that the winner LOST the independent vote (albeit by a 1% margin) - Bush won mostly by winning a large number of Democratic defectors (Southern Democrats, most likely.) This is especially strange seeing as Bush was fairly popular in 2004.

Now, fast forward to 2008. Notice that Obama's core strategy has been to run AGAINST BUSH - running against partisanship, running on populist notes, and such. The problem here is that his opponent is NOT Bush, and attempting to tie McCain to Bush has always rung a little hollow for center-right and centrist independents. McCain hijacks Obama's message and adds a track record to boot, so Obama's strategy was highly flawed. Of course, McCain has had a share of flip-flops that Obama seized on, but Obama weakened his ability to exploit those with his own flip-flops.


Now add Palin to the equation. Palin goes out there with a speech that excites the base, uses divisive rhetoric, and her record is decidedly right-wing. Palin is a lot more like Bush than McCain is - and that gives Obama the chance to reclaim the "change" mantle. Obama's goal should be to make people vote in the proportions they did in 2004 - because if they do, he wins comfortably.

 

[aROARah VyePer]

I think Palin strengthened McCain's ticket because it ensured those far-right conservative voters who had second thoughts about McCain. Far right conservatives were going to do something stupid and vote for Ron Paul or some other third party candidate that has no chance of winning. I think Palin has ensured many far-right conservative votes as well as women voters. Women will vote for women, plain and simple. The McCain/Palin ticket has so far attracted:the male white voters, the female white voters, and some black female voters. That's over 50% of the American population. McCain is definitely going to win.

 

[Misty]

lol if you think Palin will attract black women, you are deluded. In fact, Palin rather annoyed white women, whose first instinct was that McCain was pandering to them. I don't know if they'll come back - it's hard to tell in the middle of a convention bounce - but in general, Palin's appeal has been strongest with white men, the most conservative group in America.

Palin is certainly strong with social conservatives, I will grant that - but independents may start to wonder where their maverick hero went, and they may get turned off and vote for someone else.

On the Ron Paul thing, consider that most Paul voters are disaffected Republicans, unhappy with Bush. Why would they move into McCain's camp over someone who is, in most respects, just like Bush?

 

[akuchi]

It really worries me that people think women as a homogeneous whole will be stupid enough to completely ignore the actual politics and switch from what would have been a Hillary vote to a Palin vote.
I'm sure there are a few that do so [though I'd contend they should lose the vote by virtue of severe mental retardation].

 

[misdreavus79]

Does anyone think that Palin may help Obama? Bear with me on this.

In 2004, Bush and Kerry ran a "base" election, designed to turn out each others' bases while largely ignoring (and in Bush's case, alienating) independents. It was the first time in history that the winner LOST the independent vote (albeit by a 1% margin) - Bush won mostly by winning a large number of Democratic defectors (Southern Democrats, most likely.) This is especially strange seeing as Bush was fairly popular in 2004.

Now, fast forward to 2008. Notice that Obama's core strategy has been to run AGAINST BUSH - running against partisanship, running on populist notes, and such. The problem here is that his opponent is NOT Bush, and attempting to tie McCain to Bush has always rung a little hollow for center-right and centrist independents. McCain hijacks Obama's message and adds a track record to boot, so Obama's strategy was highly flawed. Of course, McCain has had a share of flip-flops that Obama seized on, but Obama weakened his ability to exploit those with his own flip-flops.


Now add Palin to the equation. Palin goes out there with a speech that excites the base, uses divisive rhetoric, and her record is decidedly right-wing. Palin is a lot more like Bush than McCain is - and that gives Obama the chance to reclaim the "change" mantle. Obama's goal should be to make people vote in the proportions they did in 2004 - because if they do, he wins comfortably.

If the Obama campaign plays up the "It wasn't sexism when it was all directed at Hillary" card, then this will definitely help him.

 

[Expert Evan]

Whomever wins in November, there will either be a first black President, or the oldest elected President and a first female Vice-President.

Blacks: about 90+% of all blacks vote democrat, but in the past their turnout at elections have not been so high. This election will be different, and even traditional conservative black Republicans are intending to vote for Obama mainly because of the historical significance, including Colin Powell.

Women: I read somewhere the former VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro whom is a liberal Democrat may support the McCain/Palin ticket for sympathy reasons. Other traditional liberal Democrats such as Barbra Streisand certainly will not.

No matter whom wins, either one will inherit a mess that needs to be cleaned up.

 

[Caelum]

Blacks: about 90+% of all blacks vote democrat, but in the past their turnout at elections have not been so high. This election will be different, and even traditional conservative black Republicans are intending to vote for Obama mainly because of the historical significance, including Colin Powell.

Women: I read somewhere the former VP nominee Geraldine Ferraro whom is a liberal Democrat may support the McCain/Palin ticket for sympathy reasons. Other traditional liberal Democrats such as Barbra Streisand certainly will not.

Did Colin Powell officially endorse yet? I thought it was just speculation.

And Geraldine Ferraro has hinted she was considering. She just keeps saying that she has to look at both tickets or something along those lines. Probably means she's voting for McCain since I can't see why she wouldn't endore Obama being Democrat.

 

[Expert Evan]

I don't see anything that said that Colin did, but only speculation he would. I see where Obama is calling McCain's speech from last night as "Out of touch".

 

[Lexite]

Has anyone noticed that Obama wants to raise income taxes. Can someone please tell me how that is going to help anyone. I already lose a crap load of my paycheck to taxes. Lets take a look at my last check.
I made 771.38 in two weeks. Taxes took out 145.03 of that check, leaving me with only 563.72 after my health insurance was taken out. 145 out of my paycheck to taxes. How much more can taxes go up before I run out of money and I am pretty much working just to pay off the gov. Come on people, this is just stupid. Rasing taxes doesnt fix anyhting, why, cuz teh taxes they already get taken out get wasted on stupid shit and pay off the gov so that they can do all the sit they want. Fix where the tax money we are already paying goes, dont raise taxes. How are people suppose to live?
Lets take a look at my expencises.
Rent 900 (i pay half 450)
Utilities 30
Car insurance 78 ( i was paying 100 till i found a new one)
Phone bill 15 a month (paied to my mom for my portion)
food
toiletries
Petfood

Now if income taxes go up, who can pay for all of that with a big chunk of your pay missing. I payed about 20% of my paycheck to taxes. 20%, how much more do i have to pay?

Can someone please tell me how this is a good idea.

and

The genius thing is the rumours that the spaz kid isn't actually hers, it's her 16 year old daughter's...
http://menstrualpoetry.com/pregnant

I can't find the news website with it on, but this makes a fairly reasonable case!

How awful of you to call it a spaz kid. You have no heart. None. It's not the kid's fault it has downsyndrom and its not her's either. It is a genetic thing. How can you be so cruel to say something like? I bet you are one of those people that would kill your own child if it was downsyndrom. I would still be capable of loving and caring for it.

Deck Night, I love readign what you have to say, I really do, you have some of the smartest comments in this thread.

 

[Misty]

Lexite >> You don't make nearly enough for Obama's tax plan to raise your taxes. You would have to make over SEVEN TIMES your current income in order to see a tax rise under an Obama administration.

I do have to ponder, though - what state are you from? I looked up Woodland Hills but I see a couple of them; if you happen to be the Los Angeles one, then it's more likely that your high taxes are the result of a tax-and-spend California legislature.

 

[Kira]

First of all it is Deck Knight not Dark Knight.

Do you honestly think the government raises taxes just for the fuck of it? Judging by your post it seems that you do in fact think that.

Also while I can't really speak for akuchi, by spaz kid I am pretty sure she meant it as "the child was the product of that sixteen year old girl deciding to get wild." I am positive she did not mean spaz kid as "retarded baby." If I am correct then there is no reason for you to take offense at her calling the baby a spaz kid.

 

[Lexite]

Lexite >> You don't make nearly enough for Obama's tax plan to raise your taxes. You would have to make over SEVEN TIMES your current income in order to see a tax rise under an Obama administration.

I do have to ponder, though - what state are you from? I looked up Woodland Hills but I see a couple of them; if you happen to be the Los Angeles one, then it's more likely that your high taxes are the result of a tax-and-spend California legislature.

No it is not, the California portion of my taxes only took 20, the other 125 is all federal taxes. Californaia pays a higher sales tax because of the CA legislature.

First of all it is Deck Knight not Dark Knight.

Do you honestly think the government raises taxes just for the fuck of it? Judging by your post it seems that you do in fact think that.

Uhhhhhh hell yeah they do go look some of the taxes up.

 

[Syberia]

Do you honestly think the government raises taxes just for the fuck of it?

Yeah, that's exactly what they do. They raise taxes to line their own fat pockets. We still pay a tax on tires that dates back to World War II. When that tax was proposed and approved, it was under the condition that it would be repealed once the war was over. Guess what? It never was, because the government is unwilling to give up free money.

 

[billymills]

Governments do not raise taxes for the heck of it. There is a reason to each tax, whether you support the cause or not. If they do raise taxes, they are corrupt, however that is no better than calling a war to create business for your personal company. Democrats are not anymore or less corrupt than republicans if they raise/lower taxes. Corruption is on both sides and is a person by person problem.

 

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

20%, how much more do i have to pay?

Can someone please tell me how this is a good idea.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

 

[Ancien Régime]

Simple.

The top 1% of earners are the people who provide the jobs, goods and services of our economy. While taxing the rich sounds nice and appeals to populism, in reality, taxing the rich would cripple the ability of businesses to create jobs and increase wages. Furthermore, taxes would likely get passed along to the middle classes, via higher costs of goods and services.

So under Obama's plan, if you were a business owner, what would you do? Start packing for India and lay off some Americans! Job loss will accelerate under Obama's tax policy. McCain's might not stop it, but it won't provide an incentive to outsource or cut payroll.

 

[Misty]

to be honest imo the rich have enough money - which is why Bush's tax cuts had very modest effects on the economy. i think it's more important to lower barriers to investment so we're more attractive than developing economies.

 

[Bluekikatana]

Simple.

The top 1% of earners are the people who provide the jobs, goods and services of our economy. While taxing the rich sounds nice and appeals to populism, in reality, taxing the rich would cripple the ability of businesses to create jobs and increase wages. Furthermore, taxes would likely get passed along to the middle classes, via higher costs of goods and services.

So under Obama's plan, if you were a business owner, what would you do? Start packing for India and lay off some Americans! Job loss will accelerate under Obama's tax policy. McCain's might not stop it, but it won't provide an incentive to outsource or cut payroll.

$700 loss from a 2.87 million+ pay check is not going to mean hardly shit. Same goes with a $115 loss from a 600k+ pay check. The rich can afford it, the ones who are trying to live on minimum wage and have to often ponder if they're going to live on the street soon are the ones who actually need that tax cut more than anyone.

If that is not enough common sense, McCains VP pick is a *crazy, radical, Christian. I really don't know how anyone can vote McCain just for that fact alone knowing that he would be the oldest president, and one illness away from making her president if he wins. The majority of the rest of the world also actually likes Obama, and they look at McCain as an old warhawk, I mean really the rest of the world will just look even more down on us if we vote in McCain.

Any how to me it looks like Obama will have this wrapped up. http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has been showing a nice lead for Obama now ever since McCain picked Palin, if anything that will be his down fall. McCain, Palin combo mostly appeal to the far right now like White men, and really hardcore Christians, that won't be enough of the over all population in November.

 

[McGrrr]

The top 1% of earners are the people who provide the jobs, goods and services of our economy... taxing the rich would cripple the ability of businesses to create jobs and increase wages.

The basis of the trickle down theory; I mostly agree with you up to this point.

Furthermore, taxes would likely get passed along to the middle classes, via higher costs of goods and services.

However, the implicit suggestion that the social outcome is for all intents and purposes constant, is conjecture. It is fair to comment that a proportion of the tax will likely be passed to the consumer, but the overall outcome is ambiguous (dependent on competition, elasticities etc.).

So under Obama's plan, if you were a business owner, what would you do? Start packing for India and lay off some Americans! Job loss will accelerate under Obama's tax policy. McCain's might not stop it, but it won't provide an incentive to outsource or cut payroll.

Taxation on income has no (direct) bearing on the cost of labour. Wages are not determined by the size of the employer's wallet, but by productivity (or trade unions... but I digress). A businessman faces the same incentive to outsource regardless of taxation. Therefore, your assertion has no merit.

 

[Misty]

Any how to me it looks like Obama will have this wrapped up. http://www.electoral-vote.com/ has been showing a nice lead for Obama now ever since McCain picked Palin, if anything that will be his down fall. McCain, Palin combo mostly appeal to the far right now like White men, and really hardcore Christians, that won't be enough of the over all population in November.

Be careful with polls. The first debate is still coming, and that could produce a gamechanger.

 

[Caelum]

Adding onto Misty, you always have that annoying 10% - 20% of people who claim they are undecided up until the day before the election that throw off the entire polling results.

 

[tea_and_blues]

The top 1% of earners are the people who provide the jobs, goods and services of our economy. While taxing the rich sounds nice and appeals to populism, in reality, taxing the rich would cripple the ability of businesses to create jobs and increase wages. Furthermore, taxes would likely get passed along to the middle classes, via higher costs of goods and services.

Yeah, but have you noticed how the rich would often rather cripple their business than take a paycut themselves? I never understand that, it's so obvious that rich people should just live more modestly, it's not their right to glory in excess. I come from a very affluent background (although I am incredibly poor myself, nowadays), my father owns a friggin' yacht, spends far too much on luxuries, and still has the gumption to complain about how much he is taxed. FFS. For someone so wealthy (note this qualifier) my father even lives reasonably modestly, but still well outside the boundaries of what I would call 'modest'. The vastest majority of the weathly people that I know have NOT worked particularly harder than anyone else, and have a HUGE sense of entitlement.

I'm sure your theory, however popular it is (and it is, I hope you realise, the prevailing theory of today, not an under-dog theory) really stacks up properly.

 

[McGrrr]

Yeah, but have you noticed how the rich would often rather cripple their business than take a paycut themselves?

In economics, we call this the principal-agent problem; where the owners of a company (shareholders/principal) are separate from the people who run the company (manager/agent). It follows that if the interests differ between the principal and the agent, (i.e. shareholders want to maximise profit, but the managers may prefer to pursue personal ends), then undesirable outcomes will result.

Taxation of the rich is in itself a principal-agent problem, because when the state (principal) reduces top band taxes, it is providing extra capital just like shareholders do. However, this does not mean the wealthy (agent) will always use this capital for the benefit of society. Therein lies the conflict, and is where the trickle down theory falters.

 

[Misty]

So, we're now past the convention bounces and the Palin effect has pretty much disappeared from the tracking polls.

The Wall Street crisis has been a major boon for Obama, killing McCain's bounce while forcing McCain to engage in some rather tortured logic about something which he doesn't understand (Obama isn't strong on the economy either, but at least his message is consistent). Given the gravity of the news, I don't expect Obama's lead to evaporate any time before the first debate (which is Sept 26). As for that, anything is possible, from a "There you go again" moment to a "You forgot Poland" gaffe. I tend to put it slight advantage McCain barring a gamechanger.

 

[You can call me X]

I dunno if this is random in the thread or not... but i thought McCain would drop palin after he showed the women of america that he had optomism to get their votes.
anyways, i can't vote, but if i could i would vote for obama because of his opinion on natural energy, fuel independence, etc...