As I believe I've mentioned, I am the daughter of The Swing Voter: my mother's vote does remarkably well at predicting the outcome of presidential elections. Unsurprisingly, then, she's for Barack Obama, though due to apparently hereditary stupidity, the entire McArdle clan missed the deadline for transferring their voter registration to DC, and therefore will not actually be voting in the election.
My mother's reason: Sarah Palin. She liked the convention speech, but said she wanted to see more . . . and now that she's seen more, she's an Obama supporter. I find it hard to believe that she's the only one. I mean, I already disliked McCain, but Palin hasn't exactly improved my opinion of the campaign.
Even more shocking is that my grandmother, a rock-ribbed Republican who to my knowlege has never voted Democratic and will not let a bad word be spoken about George W. Bush in her hearing . . . that GOP-lovin' granny almost voted for Obama. At the last minute, she decided that since she lives in Western New York, and there's no chance of Obama losing the state, she could safely support her party. But that she even thought about voting for the Democrat augers dire things for the McCain campaign.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Augurs. Unless through the power of her thought, your grandmother actually drilled something into McCain or one of his flunkies.
Except that there are also innumerable "Palin voters for McCain" out there. She's a bigger draw than he is right now.
Funny how different reactions can be.
"Except that there are also innumerable "Palin voters for McCain" out there. She's a bigger draw than he is right now."
Right, but the thing is, virtually all of those Palin voters were Bush voters who didn't think McCain was conservative enough. His strategists seem to think they still have the 2004 electorate of party parity; there are a lot more disaffected moderates right now to be turned off by running to the hard right (see the McArdles). McCain really had to assume he'd win 90% of Republicans anyway (which he likely would have) and then figure out how to win independents.
Let me get this straight. You can't vote because you moved, but ACORN can bring spanish-speaking folks in and register them that day AND get them voting as well?
Isn't anyone else looking at who controls Congress in all this? Swing voters are often fans of divided government, and it looks like the Democrats will control both houses. This is the decisive factor for me. I favor McCain on somewhat less than half the issues and Obama on somewhat less than a third, but I'd probably go with Obama (just for the fun of voting for the First Black President) if the R's had a firm grip on one house or the other. As it is, however, no.
But then, I'm not one to be swayed by campaign tactics. I don't really care how McCain ran his campaign. I'm looking at his resume and stated issue positions, not his speechifying. But I don't watch TV.
virtually all of those Palin voters were Bush voters who didn't think McCain was conservative enough.
Right, so he had the problem of getting them to turn out. Winning is a combination of base turnout and convincing moderates/undecideds/I-vote-for-the-taller-guy types. These two goals are often at odds.
McCain may have miscalculated in the base/moderate stakes, but that's not obviously the case simply from talking to a squishy crypo-liberal and her female relatives.
Personally, I strongly dislike McCain but like Palin, so it helped him with me. Obama never had a chance with me, but Bob Barr did.
"McCain may have miscalculated in the base/moderate stakes, but that's not obviously the case simply from talking to a squishy crypo-liberal and her female relatives."
Well, correct, it's clearly an anecdote. What we should be looking at is Palin's favorables/unfavorables among independents, which are, to put it mildly, brutal.
The main point is that it was an epic miscalculation. From all accounts a minimal amount of research was done, he knew nothing about her views on policy, and took the advice of people like Kristol and Lowry who'd been pushing her for a long time, without much thought at all of the consequences besides "she's a maverick who can win disaffected Hillary voters".
And then when it's revealed what an utter farce her candidacy is, the thought of many independents is something like: "This is how McCain makes big important decisions?" People don't vote for the reckless candidate in a time of crisis. And to be honest, that's the main reason he's losing.
"Swing voters are often fans of divided government"
I really doubt this is true at all. Unless you voted for Gore and Kerry using the same logic, that's pretty disingenuous. You're trying to say a significant amount of people vote with the express purpose of having a government in gridlock, so that everything that gets passed does so by being loaded with enough pork to buy enough votes?
Many actual swing voters are the ones who just don't follow politics at all, watch 10 minutes of a debate and say "I like the way that guy looks, the other guy looks angry/old/whatever" (remember Nixon/Kennedy?). Spend some time with people who don't know what blogs are sometime. It's scary.
From www.merriam-webster.com:
The word that you're thinking of is auger
Me neither, the last time I actually watched a “debate” or a convention was 2000. In 2004, I read the transcripts from a couple of the debates and a few of the speakers (Zell Miller’s “spitballs” speech was the only one I watched online). As I’m someone who votes based on policy issues, it dawned on me that there is almost nothing in convention, the commercials, or a “debate” that would provide me with any new or greater information about the candidate’s policy stances that I couldn’t find in a minute by looking at their website(s) or a half-hour going through their voting record.
Funny and true statement, Half Canadian. Placing a vote for the leftist illuminati but you've forgotten the deadline? A simple call to ACORN (just say you're from Guatemala and don't speak English) should put things to rights.
Me neither, the last time I actually watched a “debate” or a convention was 2000.
Same here.
"Unsurprisingly, then, she's for Barack Obama, though due to apparently hereditary stupidity, the entire McArdle clan missed the deadline for transferring their voter registration to DC, and therefore will not actually be voting in the election."
May god grant that many other obama-squish voters be equally stupid.
I've coined a phrase. You can use it if you want:
"If Sarah Palin is the future of the GOP, the GOP has no future."
To be sure, Holdfast, we hadnt any urgency, because here in DC, the question is whether Barack Obama will break 90%--or do really well, with third-world dictator popularity levels. And we were moving our votes from New York, which is nearly as in the tank.
Lost votes for Obama? That's too bad...
Consider it a blessing in disguise!
Don't get me wrong, I don't think McCain is the best choice for President, however, Obama is by FAR the worst choice for President! Even his own running mate has told us over and over again that he is too dangerous for the country! When are you going to listen? After we invade Pakistan like he said he would do during the debates?
We Americans have to take responsibility and work through this hard time! We can't spend or tax our way out of it! We must elect McCain if we stand a chance at all of heading off a depression and further world conflict!
Come on, even you Democrats have to admit, there are far more qualified people in your Party than Obama. The one trait that got Obama his nomination was his RECORD of voting obedience to the Party. So for you who can't see what is happening, the Democratic Party is making a bid for the Oval Office, it's not just Obama. He will only be a puppet for the Democratic Party, doing their bidding.
Remember now, the Democratic Party has controlled Congress for the last 2 years and has an approval rating that is 1/2 of President Bush's! Just look what they've done to our country in those two short years! And that's fighting against an opposition Administration! Think what will happen to the country if these same chukleheads gain control of it all!
They will long for President Bush's approval ratings! And you and I will pay the price for decades to come!
CatCube: Check out the word Megan actually used in her post and you'll see where Eriver is coming from.
It's interesting to see so many "libertarians" supporting someone who's probably never had a libertarian thought in his life. That's especially interesting considering that many of his supporters are clearly fascists and the Soviet Union could have learned from his campaign.
In the case of some, it's a matter of following the money (google the word Kochtopus).
In the case of others it appears to be simply another manifestation of them being unable to figure things out.
Swing voters, in New York or DC?
Yea, right.......do DC ballots even list the Republican candidates?
The only reasons for me to bother with voting in NYS are downticket.
Democrats are, at this point, probably more 'libertarian' than the Republicans are. They're more favourable towards civil liberties and they're socially liberal, which both point towards the "less government interference" that libertarians like. Both Dems and Republicans are promising tax cuts - the difference is that the Republican ones are slanted towards the richest members of the population and the Democratic ones are slanted towards the other 80%. And they've got a better track record of fiscal responsibility and cutting the deficit.
Nothing the GOP has actually done over the last four years has been in any way favourable to the libertarian point of view.
They're more favourable towards civil liberties
Yeah, who needs gun rights or freedom of speech over the airwaves, anyway?
But I'm sure the D's will be quite vigilant in protecting amendments 3-8. I am soooo sick of ChimpyMcHitlerburton quartering troops at my house.
Question for folks who cite Palin as the reason they're voting Obama:
Really? After all the downright bizarre and inexplicable things that have fallen out of Biden's cakehole in the last couple of months, he's your preferred "one heartbeat away" guy?
Man, the world makes no sense to me sometimes...
I don't know if Megan - or her relatives - read the comments, but - sigh - here goes:
1. Sarah Palin won a tick over 120,000 votes in her first statewide race in a three way contest, running as an outsider. Joe Biden got a bit more than 140,000 votes in a his last election, running for a sixth term, in a two way race.
Sarah Palin has an approval rating of over 75% in her home state.
2. A "Bridge to Nowhere" can become "The Road to the Ferry" by simply not building the bridge itself. Also, the monies/earmark issue as a whole lends itself to more thought and consideration than Palin critics tend to be able to muster.
3. Any argument made against Palin can be made more persuasively against Obama - other than the pregnancy thing.
If you're going to vote your conscience - vote Nader.
-
There are no accidents, as Freud said. I detect a bit of premature buyer's remorse on Ms. McArdle's part. Also a clever device to forestall anyone's saying over the next four years "You voted for this."
Also, Senate chairmanships are based on seniority, not ability.
What evidence is there that Joe Biden has *any* expertise?
To be fair, RC, McCain is considered to be more likely to die in office than Obama. McCain would set the record for oldest person ever to be elected President, previously set by Reagan. Given that, many voters find themselves comparing Palin and Obama, rather than Palin and Biden.
many voters find themselves comparing Palin and Obama
Turns out I like Palin better in that contest too, but I'm just an outlier...
I sincerely doubt Megan's having premature buyer's remorse. Given her past history, I imagine she's well aware of some of Obama's weaknesses and McCain's strengths, while her cost-benefit analysis winds up in Obama's favor even so.
BumperStickerist: I'm inclined to trust McCain over Biden on foreign relations due to their backgrounds and underlying motivations, but I'd be very surprised if Biden hadn't acquired considerable experience in foreign relations as a result of both Iraq and Bosnia.
In every election since I've been old enough to vote, the Republicans have won if I have felt even the slightest urge to vote for them. This year, that test predicts an upset. Not that I'm actually going to vote for those people, but I'm tempted.
I prefer Palin over Obama, too, Rob, and I suspect we're both outliers. :-) Granted, Palin's answers to foreign policy questions - unfavorable editing aside - portray someone for whom consideration of these issues is a relatively new experience, but then, so do Obama's. (It still bugs me that media tone with regard to Palin's experience is critical, while for Obama's experience, it's defensive.)
My mother also had an uncanny ability to pick out the next president. It didn't mean she'd vote for them but she really did predict each and every one.
When Obama gave his famous Convention speech as a young unknown in, when was it?, 2000 or so--I got a call from my Mom. I hadn't seen it and wasn't really paying attention but here she was saying, "I've seen the future President of the United States. His name is Barack Obama!"
I thought she was off her rocker. "Ba-Who??"
"BARACK OBAMA!! You just mind my words!" Nowadays I'm scratching my head thinking, damn she was good!
I wonder, if you move between states, how does the state you left know that you've gone and to purge you from the voter rolls?
I ask because in 2000 I moved out of my parents' house but stayed in the county. Due to a DMV SNAFU with motor voter, my registration wasn't changed and I was turned away from the polls. I was furious! Then I realized that if I wasn't registered at my new place, I was probably still registered at my parents'. So after work I trucked over to their precinct and voted. Maybe the same trick would work for you. It's illegal, I realize, but I don't think it's really THAT bad, since you are still only voting once.
Obviously true that many are comparing Palin to Obama instead of Biden. And it's a fair comparison that reasonable people could differ on.
It's not the *right* comparison, though.
And look at it this way - surely Palin as VP would at least have a few weeks or months of OJT before McCain's barely-pumping heart, disease-shriveled kidneys, or some other on-its-last-legs vital organ finally works its last shift.
As opposed to giving the kid who just got his learner's permit the keys to the Ferrari...
She liked the convention speech,
Speaks volumes.
Explains much.
All I can say after reading this thread is that I'm very, very glad Megan's readers aren't symbolic of the country.
"Any argument made against Palin can be made more persuasively against Obama"
"It still bugs me that media tone with regard to Palin's experience is critical, while for Obama's experience, it's defensive."
"What evidence is there that Joe Biden has *any* expertise?"
"many of his supporters are clearly fascists and the Soviet Union could have learned from his campaign."
"Just look what they've done to our country in those two short years! And that's fighting against an opposition Administration! Think what will happen to the country if these same chukleheads gain control of it all!"
I mean, seriously. This is how people with college degrees really think? These statements are all blatantly, clearly factually untrue, to the point where arguing them is absurd outside of an echo chamber. And in fact, that's pretty much the only place they're being pushed: Limbaugh and Hannity and FreeRepublic.
There are actual, good arguments to be made for McCain, and not a single one has been here. It's all stuff that just completely turns off anyone with a brain. I'm honestly baffled that this is what some seemingly intelligent people are thinking at this point in the election. It's like you just create your own reality and keep screaming that it's the correct one. It isn't. I don't know what it would take to convince you of that, but thank god we're a better country than that.
"It's like you just create your own reality and keep screaming that it's the correct one. "
Adam, you do realize that this phrase pretty much describes your post, don't you?
Ow, raf, the classic "I know you are but what am I" comeback.
Seriously, on topic, *this* is why you're losing all the swing voters, independents, and moderates. Read this thread from the point of view of someone like that. The views expressed here are far, far out of line of the mainstream now. The country has judged Obama and found him to have the experience, temperament, and intelligence necessary, while McCain and Palin both fail on two out of the three. Every single poll shows it. Every. Single. Poll. And in a week the voters get to demonstrate it.
And the response of the people this thread? To deny reality. To say "he's clearly not experienced or a suitable leader". That's fine if you think that, even if you can't support it. But don't extend it to the rest of the country, because it's *simply not true* that very many people think that. And Rove's strategy of simply repeating a falsehood over and over just isn't working this time. I'm sorry.
Looking over your five selected quotes, Adam, #4 is a total load of crap, and #5 overstated in a particularly silly way. #3 - well, Biden's been around for years, so he's bound to have picked up some "expertise" in there somewhere, even if it's only in maneuvering the ins and outs of political Washington without stepping in anything.
As for #1, while I'd replace "more persuasively" with "as persuasively", it's mostly right. And #2 is obviously true to any honest observer.
So no, they're not "all blatantly, clearly factually untrue". Sorry. But I do apologize for standing athwart your vision of a "better country".
Twit.
But your entire arguement is the same as you are denouncing: you said it and I know it isn't so, so you are wrong. I have never seen an actual defense of Obama's experience which seems credible. I have only seen attacks on those who raise the issue. And this is not a partisan thing: the Hillary crowd had the same experience.
I just think it is really, really amusing that those who denounce others' fantasy worlds insist in living in their own. Simply repeating that something is a falsehood over and over doesn't make that true either. Where is the logic/evidence to refute it? Apparently all anyone can do anymore is loudly assert and decry.
By the way, even if Obama wins in a landslide, that will not prove him to be an "experienced or a suitable leader." Nixon won in a landslide.
Fine, I'll play along.
"I have never seen an actual defense of Obama's experience which seems credible."
Obama is clearly, without question, the younger, more inexperienced candidate. For this to hurt him, you need to explain why experience is relevant. Studies have shown that there is essentially a zero correlation between experience and effectiveness as a president (as measured by historians). Cheney and Ashcroft were among the most experienced people in the White House recently. Lincoln and JFK had essentially the same resume as Obama. Buchanan had a resume comparable to McCain. Yes, single data points etc, but you take it as a given that if someone hasn't been a Senator or Governor for at least 10 years that's automatically a negative on their record, when there doesn't appear to be any evidence that's the case.
"I have only seen attacks on those who raise the issue."
Mostly those are attacks are coming because McCain is a blatant hypocrite by spending two months expressing how serious these times are and then picking by any measure the most unserious, unready running mate in a very long time. Obama is unserious and unready too? Okay. But don't expect anyone to take you seriously after the Palin pick. You can't in any seriousness convince anyone to vote for the ticket with her backing up a 72-year-old cancer survivor on the experience issue. He shot himself in the foot and largely took the issue off the table himself. And the fact that you won't admit that is why you get attacked over raising the issue.
"By the way, even if Obama wins in a landslide, that will not prove him to be an "experienced or a suitable leader." Nixon won in a landslide."
Nixon was by any definition experienced, if nothing else. And Reagan won in a landslide too. Silly arguments. What I meant by the comment was that voters have judged Obama to have passed that mythical "commander-in-chief threshold". There are polls all the time asking just this question: go look at them.
Once voters are comfortable with a candidate, as they clearly are with Obama, it's just *not relevant* whether he has five or thirty years in politics. You just seem to want to keep yelling that it should be relevant when voters have made up their mind that it isn't. It looks to me to be tilting at windmills to keep going with that argument when it's been established that it's not very important. Your call though.
I'm no historian, but I'm pretty sure that neither Cheney nor Ashcroft were ever the President of the United States, effective or not.
Glorious,
The point was that the people that engineered the Iraqi war all had decades of foreign policy experience. So you'll have to excuse Americans if they don't see that as all that great a qualification this time around.
Ah yes, the hypocritical hypocrisy argument.
If Obama's inexperience is irrelevant, so is Palin's. Your argument is: McCain was hypocritical first, so it's okay for his opponents. You are hypocritical about hypocrisy.
I have no quarrel with the argument that Obama is winning the rhetorical/public image contest. Mere popularity seems like weak evidence, the kind that I imagine you would sneer at if it were in favor of a creationist televangelist.
The notion that this constitutes blanket validation seems unserious. Unless winning is the only thing that matters. Which may, of course, be true for a whole lot of folks.
"If Obama's inexperience is irrelevant, so is Palin's."
Correct. Palin's inexperience is largely irrelevant. I do not consider experience to be an issue in any election, barring some absurd situation like Joe the Plumber running.
What is relevant is her rather jarring lack of knowledge on virtually every issue imaginable despite weeks of preparation. I am fairly sure that over half my office, many of whom are under 30, know significantly more than her on nearly every subject. And yes, Obama's had years to prepare. She should have had the judgment to say no and do the same and start preparing for a 2012 run.
What is also relevant is the rampant cronyism and abuse of power in her administration that reminds one a great deal of the current one.
"The notion that this constitutes blanket validation seems unserious."
I apologize; I did not mean to imply that the validation of a large victory inherently makes him a suitable president. What I did mean was that the people on this thread, and much of McCain's surrogates, are pushing arguments based on experience that simply ring hollow and don't matter to very many people, and that I found the constant repetition of the argument somewhat whimsical. Everyone's already made up their minds about experience one way or the other. What's the point?
I do not consider experience to be an issue in any election, barring some absurd situation like Joe the Plumber running.
In all probability, I'd prefer Joe the Plumber to Obama on a wide variety of issues. Obama's experience is 100% poverty vulture and very very liberal lawmaker. Having an actual, useful job now and again is pretty valuable experience (in fairness, Biden and McCain suffer from a similar problem, which maybe why both of them seem more clueless on the economy than I'd like).
"Biden and McCain suffer from a similar problem, which maybe why both of them seem more clueless on the economy than I'd like"
Disagreements aside, you're certainly onto something here. There's a reason Senators rarely become Presidents, particularly Senators for life like Biden and McCain: when you've been in Washington for 30 years, you are simply far out of touch with the needs of average Americans.
It's how Obama has gained a lot of traction with the "McCain doesn't care about the middle class" line - McCain honestly probably doesn't. Why would he? Obama, if he doesn't, is at least able to make a more convincing case. I'm pretty sure Obama and Biden are actually the two poorest Senators. When you were actually paying off your student loans a couple years ago it makes you come off a lot more down-to-earth.
But yes, "Having an actual, useful job now and again is pretty valuable experience" was pretty much the entire appeal of the Palin pick, if I'm not mistaken. I would have just refused to do any non-Fox interviews at all if I were her, and she might have been able to go with that shtick long enough.
Oh, and Joe the Plumber said today, at a McCain rally of course, that a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel, and Obama's tax plan (36% back to the 39% of the 1990s for the top tax bracket if you've forgotten) is pure socialism.
I'm not sure if you can honestly say you agree with those sentences of his. If you can, then I think it's safe to say you'll never vote for a Democrat in your life.
1) I already have voted for a Democrat in my life, although admittedly for governor,
2) I'm suspicious of Obama's approach to foreign policy generally, including with respect to Israel, and
3) The socialism comment is idiotic with respect to taxes, but Obama certainly has shown a consistent enthusiasm for handouts over self-help starting in his community-organizing days and continued right up to his meeting with our friend Joe.
And interestingly, just as you don't care about experience, I don't care about "caring." I want somebody who acts in my interests and in accordance with my beliefs. If they do it from a cynical desire to get my vote, a blinkered ideological commitment, because they're too old know better and just sign what's put in front of them, or because they care deeply about me, personally, doesn't make much difference either way. I think they're all a bunch of sociopaths and liars anyway.
Adam is on fire. But I get the feeling you are wasting your time dueling with the folks here. Some of them might pretend to be libertarians/independents, but these guys are solidly in the tank for the GOP. They are class warriors – upper class that is.
Rob, all I can say in response to that is that a whole lot of people believe that just this one time, someone isn't a sociopath and a liar, and does things because he actually believes they're the right thing to do.
Most people here, and especially you, will disagree strongly. That's fine. It's cool to be cynical I guess, or at least safer. Megan's board is tailormade for people like that.
But I sure hope I never grow up to be you.
Good day.
whole lot of people believe that just this one time, someone isn't a sociopath and a liar, and does things because he actually believes they're the right thing to do.
They are welcome to their comfortable delusions. And in fairness, most politicians at least occasionally do things because they think it right. Sometimes something is true even though a politician utters it.
Okay your point is that Obama will win because out of three Obama supporters none of them actually voted (or will vote) for him? Do I have that right?
Re: divided government -- both parties have extremely annoying activist wings. Divided government checks both sets reasonably efficiently. Some of us don't want the federal government to be putting its nose into new areas without a great deal of deliberation and public scrutiny. Slowing the rascals down is often a good idea.
Agree regarding the "sociopath" comment, although I would tone it down to "narcissist" in many cases. Anyone who isn't puking into the toilet constantly at the thought of taking on the presidency in the current climate is not made of the same stuff as normal people. This doesn't necessarily mean they are evil, but it does mean that they don't see cause and effect, costs and benefits, the same way the rest of us do. All the more reason to keep a critical eye on them, and to hire them to keep critical eyes on each other.
Do. Not. Put. Faith. In. Professional. Politicians.
Ever. Regardless of rhetorical talent. The Founding Fathers knew this, and they WERE politicians with considerable rhetorical skills.
Oh, and for the record, I did vote Gore in 2000. I'm not sure what I would have done if McCain had been on the ballot that year. It's hard to tell, because we didn't know about 9/11 on Election Day. It's hard to get back into that mindset to do the thought experiment.
I sat out 2004 in disgust. The one thing that pleases me this year is that both candidates in this election are better than either candidate in that one. I just wish I could, you know, take an ideological average of the two. And, on a few issues, support a position entirely different from either.
There really are voters who don't match up well with the party platform of either party. We're real, and we get tired of being told we're working some strange hidden agenda.
"Oh, and Joe the Plumber said today, at a McCain rally of course, that a vote for Obama is a vote for the death of Israel, and Obama's tax plan (36% back to the 39% of the 1990s for the top tax bracket if you've forgotten) is pure socialism.
I'm not sure if you can honestly say you agree with those sentences of his. If you can, then I think it's safe to say you'll never vote for a Democrat in your life."
The problem, as Joe knows and you apparently don't, that a handout is being (not even thinly) disguised as "tax relief". Do you take medicine for a headache you don't have?
Fact is that a large percentage of the people in this country who paid NO taxes will be collecting a check in the form of OTHER people's taxes. Plain and simple. It't not the rates it is (using one of Obama's favorite words) the "redistributive" nature of it that has people angry.
The claim that 95% of Americans will get a tax break is factually inaccurate. Just because it is part of the tax return process (the legal method for redistribution of income in the USA), it is not relief or a break. It is a CREDIT, paid for by others. He should have said "A tax HIKE for 5% of Americans, a tax BREAK for 53% of Americans, and a tax CREDIT (giveaway) for 42% of AMericans". At least that would be genuine...
Re: Fact is that a large percentage of the people in this country who paid NO taxes
Stop right there.
Apart from infants and children, the utterly and totally destitute, and the institutionalized there is no such thing in the USA as "people who pay no taxes". EVERYONE who has income above the destitution threshhold or who purchases taxable merchandise pays taxes. (And there are many other taxes that are paid indirectly) This rightwing meme that there are hordes of non-taxpayers in the country is one of the more barf-worthy lies the toxic right has invented over the last few years.
EVERYONE who has income above the destitution threshhold or who purchases taxable merchandise pays taxes.
Are you lumping payroll taxes in with income taxes? Because I'm told that the payroll taxes go into a special lockbox from which pensions will someday be paid, so we can't count them the same way. And there are certainly many, many people get get 100% (or more, with refundable credits) income tax refunds.
Upon further review, I find this post incomprehensible. Ms. McArdle told some weeks ago that she had rethought her entire belief system, and registered as a Democrat. Today she says that, due to mistakes on her part, she isn't a registered voter at the moment. It really seems that some of her statements are, shall we say, metaphorically true, i.e., false.
Because I'm told that the payroll taxes go into a special lockbox from which pensions will someday be paid, so we can't count them the same way.
Actually, they don't. Which is why Al Gore said lockbox ~7000 time during the 2000 elections. He wanted to put them in a lockbox. As things go now, the overage on payroll taxes go to the general budget.
Why is it that the most whining about higher taxes comes from the people whose income is below US average? Well below average, actually, in places like western PA, VW, etc. Could it be that against all odds income is still correlated with education? This may explain why the "liberal media" types, who generally earn well into six and often seven figures support Obama wholehartedly without eulogizing their own paychecks. Being able to see a bigger picture is always a plus. In this context such an ability would help one to figure out that (a) Obama is not going to raise taxes across the board and (b) there is absolutely nothing remotely socialist in his plan to save capitalism in the US after it's been nearly destroyed by the current administration.
Megan,
Compliments to your grandmother! Hope she remembers to reprimand the rest of the McArdle clan for their forgetfulness.
Yeah, I didn't go back and inspect the post closely before commenting. I misread Eriver's comment as questioning the use of the homophones augur/auger, not as correcting Megan's spelling. Sorry, Eriver.
I know 2 voters who decided to vote for Obama, because of Sarah Palin. I can't say I know anyone who decided to vote for McCain because of her. I'm just adding to the anecdotes.
Half Canadian, A, Irreverent Comment, Megan's Family Doctor.
The young lady is quite seriously infected with economics. A symptom of the condition is feeling it is only worth investing an infinitely small effort to vote.
Rob hits upon the primary reasons I would never support either McCain or Obama: they are useless Americans who have done nothing more in their careers than try to acquire more power. That is, they are at the very least narcissists and very well could be sociopaths.
McCain has worked for the government his entire career, with an eye on the Presidency for most of it. Automatic disqualification.
Obama, when he had a real job, accomplished nothing. My dad was a civic volunteer in Chicago for many years. That is, he had a real job (which was very demanding) and volunteered in addition to that. My dad managed to reform the city of Chicago more than Obama did as full-time job! And my dad wasn't the darling of local aldermen, either. Obama has never been about positive change, but personal gain. He left Chicago in the same state it was before he showed up, there is no reason to think his Presidency would be any different.
Ron Paul at least has a real vocation that he performs admirably, and pursued the Presidency as a part of a larger return to liberty movement. Obama and McCain are all about Obama and McCain. Hell they don't even respect their Oaths of Office as Senators, why on earth should I expect either of them to be better as President?
...a whole lot of people believe that just this one time, someone isn't a sociopath and a liar...
What is that definition of Stupidity again? Doing the same thing every four years and expecting different results...?
Are you lumping payroll taxes in with income taxes? Because I'm told that the payroll taxes go into a special lockbox from which pensions will someday be paid, so we can't count them the same way.
ROFL...
Adam, you can be sleep well; it is quite likely that you will never grow up. Obama is lying to you right now, in a very blatant way, and you can't even begin to notice it. Do you really think that the events of the last seven weeks or so have not rendered every single promise of these two men essentially null and void? Have either of these two men altered their rhetoric significantly? Sheesh, are you in some kind of coma?
These two jackals are lying their asses off because they have, not unreasonably, concluded that lying their asses off is the more safe method of being slected. The vast majority of the electorate of this country is less interested in being told the truth by their Presidential candidates than it is in eating sensibly and getting it's exercise.
As to the candidates on the bottom of the tickets, I'm no Palin supporter, but good grief, anyone who thinks the ill-disciplined dolt that is the Sage of Delaware, is clearly superior to Annie Oakley of Alaska, really isn't paying attention, either.
Will Allen, your oh so strong "a pox on both their houses" assertions would really benefit from concrete examples. Otherwise, it comes off as nothing more than the vapid false equivalences one expects from the Milford High Objectivist Club. Please show your work.
I don't have a dog in this fight - I'm doing a write-in for Fred Thompson, the one least interested in the job, and therefore the best qualified - but Megan's post and most of the comments remind me of cheers at a football game: "yay for our side, boo for your's".
Gloating from the Ob folks and sour grapes from the McC ones oozes from almost every word.
ed, if you think political promises of Presidential candidates from July still hold after the events of the past seven weeks, then "vapid" would be a charitable description of your intellect. Here's a clue, genius: the U.S. Government's balance sheet is now TRILLIONS of dollars worse than a few months ago. Absolutely nothing which was promised a few months ago can be promised now, even if one was so stupid as to think those promises made a few months ago were made in good faith.
Gosh, how many gallons of Kool-Aid do you consume daily?
Mm-hm. I'll take those concrete examples now. Thanks in advance.
ed, Mn-hm. The examples are easily available at Obama's website, or on McCain's. I assume you know the address of at least one. Every promise made which entailed increased spending, or having to do with tax rates, which is unchanged from late August, is a lie. Every last one.
Of course this may not be true, if one assumes that our dear candidates are the two most stupid people on the face of the Earth. Have your pick.
I say this in the spirit of civility, and without the use of profanity:
Megan admits to having inherited her stupidity. But like Howard Hughes, Megan has added greatly her family's legacy.
It's good to have a smart grandmother. Perhaps Megan's grandmother knows how Obama has treated his Kenyan grandmother (used her for political purposes, but did not help her get out or her hut), his impoverished half-brother in Kenya (put him in his book, but ignored him since), and his poor Boston aunt (got her to shut up until the election, but did nothing to help her).
If that's how he treats his own family, how will he treat the rest of us?