McCain leadin both Hillary and Obama in National poll

[HAL 9000 96]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

I googled Bush Tax Cuts and found this link:

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

No idea whether the "myths" and "facts" are true or false, but it's still interesting.

Thanks M-

As I have been stating, its not about Bush, its about moving on to a better taxation structure. Not a facts/myths analysis from Heritage...

Here's a better link:

What the Bush Tax Cut Means for You

According to the above,

27% rate goes to 25%

30% rate goes to 28%

35% rate goes to 33%

38.6% rate goes to 35%

The existing 10% and 15% rates remain unchanged

Without further action by Congress, rates will revert to 15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6% after 2010. The 10% rate would disappear altogether.

At Long Last: Marriage-Penalty Relief

For years people have griped about having to pay higher taxes just because they got married. The new law doesn't completely eliminate the so-called marriage penalty, but it does deliver meaningful tax savings to joint filers and married persons who file separately from their spouses. Relief comes in the form of expanded 15% brackets and larger standard deduction amounts. The standard deduction for joint filers is now exactly double the amount for singles.

Examples:

1. Single, age 60, $30,000 income including $3,000 of dividends

Old tax: $3,031

New tax: $2,681

Savings: $350

2. Unmarried head of household with one child under 17, $30,000 income

Old tax: $1,435

New tax: $1,035

Savings: $400

3. Married with two kids under 17, $50,000 income

Old tax: $2,678

New tax: $1,545

Savings: $1,133

4. Single, no kids, $50,000 income

Old tax: $7,686

New tax: $7,360

Savings: $326

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

6. Single, no kids, $100,000 income including $3,000 of dividends, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $18,813

New tax: $17,302

Savings: $1,511

7. Married with two kids under 17, $300,000 income including $10,000 of dividends, $50,000 of itemized deductions (before phase-out rule)

Old tax: $69,607

New tax: $62,687

Savings: $6,920

Looks like the Bush tax cuts affect everybody, not just the super-rich.

Much better. Again, its about being progressive and responsible with the tax structure, not punishing the middle class by rewarding the ultra rich.

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

To be saving "thousands" each year from Bush's tax cuts, you'd have to be rather rich (in or upwards of the 85th percentile of earners, i.e. making 154K-374K with an average of 217K a year). If you're making less than 75K a year, you don't even save 1K in taxes a year on Bush's cuts. I understand that you like all things Bush (with the exception of his stance on illegal immigration) but let's try and have an honest debate here.

I am being totaly honest here. If you like I can blank out my personal info and email you my tax returns. My taxes on about $80K went down almost $2000. I think you will agree that $80K for a family of 5 isn't rich.

This is the closest one that matches me from mawlsons list:

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

At the time I had 3 kids with a family income (my then wife and I) of about $80K. Mawlsons post isn't rep propaganda, it's reality. If the dems let the tax cuts expire it will effect everyone, not just the "rich".

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

No kidding. I mean, is this a McCain interview or is it not?

[HAL 9000 96]

Yet another hit piece from a far left web site. Lets look at who runs this thing.

I'm not sure what you define as a 'hit piece' but in any case, it proves that McCain is doing double-speak, waffling, selling-out to Bush's economic policies, which proves my point - that Americans will be putting a Democrat in office in November because 75 percent of them want us to change course.

Yes and I am sure 75% of Christopher Columbus' crew wanted to turn around and go back to Spain when they were about 3/4 the way across the Atlantic too.

Are you comparing voter's choice to the crew on 15th Century ship? Don, you can do better than that.

Sometimes the American public can be just about as naive. What about the $20 spot?

Call it naive or perhaps they're tired of the way the current administration has run things and they want somebody who's going to take this country in a different direction...either way you want to define their motivations, they're not going to be voting for more of the same.

I won't bet dollars, but perhaps something from our personal belongings. Let me think of something (small collectible or keepsake) and then you can see if you have something comparible...that'll make it more interesting.

I can only consider what direction we're headed right now... most definitely to TAX and SPEND in order to PAY for the reckless games the current administration has played with our kids' futures.

[GaryC 7]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

To be saving "thousands" each year from Bush's tax cuts, you'd have to be rather rich (in or upwards of the 85th percentile of earners, i.e. making 154K-374K with an average of 217K a year). If you're making less than 75K a year, you don't even save 1K in taxes a year on Bush's cuts. I understand that you like all things Bush (with the exception of his stance on illegal immigration) but let's try and have an honest debate here.

I am being totaly honest here. If you like I can blank out my personal info and email you my tax returns. My taxes on about $80K went down almost $2000. I think you will agree that $80K for a family of 5 isn't rich.

This is the closest one that matches me from mawlsons list:

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

At the time I had 3 kids with a family income (my then wife and I) of about $80K. Mawlsons post isn't rep propaganda, it's reality. If the dems let the tax cuts expire it will effect everyone, not just the "rich".

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

The rich already pay their "Fair share". 86% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. What you want is to punish the rich for being successful. Social engineering through taxation is very wrong. I want an across the board tax cut for everyone of 25%. That would stimulate the economy better than anything else. The government can just do with less.

[HAL 9000 96]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

To be saving "thousands" each year from Bush's tax cuts, you'd have to be rather rich (in or upwards of the 85th percentile of earners, i.e. making 154K-374K with an average of 217K a year). If you're making less than 75K a year, you don't even save 1K in taxes a year on Bush's cuts. I understand that you like all things Bush (with the exception of his stance on illegal immigration) but let's try and have an honest debate here.

I am being totaly honest here. If you like I can blank out my personal info and email you my tax returns. My taxes on about $80K went down almost $2000. I think you will agree that $80K for a family of 5 isn't rich.

This is the closest one that matches me from mawlsons list:

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

At the time I had 3 kids with a family income (my then wife and I) of about $80K. Mawlsons post isn't rep propaganda, it's reality. If the dems let the tax cuts expire it will effect everyone, not just the "rich".

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

The rich already pay their "Fair share". 86% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. What you want is to punish the rich for being successful. Social engineering through taxation is very wrong. I want an across the board tax cut for everyone of 25%. That would stimulate the economy better than anything else. The government can just do with less.

The government COULD do just that... by not wasting the funds on frivolous war campaigns and control games around the world. That wouldn't be social engineering, that would be talking sense by taking care of the citizens that maintain the economy. And preventing so many other issues that plague our nation. Its not about punishing anyone, its about being proportional to what is realistically supportive of the ratio of income to spending- thereby strengthening the economy from its biggest shoulders... the middle class.

Anyway... its my turn to do the dishes (whipped) and cook. Okonomiyaki tonight.

[kaydee457 13]

Taxation in the right areas, not the blanket, across-the-board maleficient increase the Reps are daydreaming of to come from Obama or Clinton. In the end of it all it will mean the upper 1% of the crust will earn (arbitrary number here) 98% of its profits instead of 100%. They will still continue to be the upper 1% of the crust. Not so bad now is it?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire is an across the board increase. My taxes went down after the tax cuts went into effect (and I am far from rich) and if the expire they will go back up by thousands each year.

To be saving "thousands" each year from Bush's tax cuts, you'd have to be rather rich (in or upwards of the 85th percentile of earners, i.e. making 154K-374K with an average of 217K a year). If you're making less than 75K a year, you don't even save 1K in taxes a year on Bush's cuts. I understand that you like all things Bush (with the exception of his stance on illegal immigration) but let's try and have an honest debate here.

I am being totaly honest here. If you like I can blank out my personal info and email you my tax returns. My taxes on about $80K went down almost $2000. I think you will agree that $80K for a family of 5 isn't rich.

This is the closest one that matches me from mawlsons list:

5. Married with two kids under 17, $100,000 income, $15,000 of itemized deductions

Old tax: $12,162

New tax: $9,820

Savings: $2,342

At the time I had 3 kids with a family income (my then wife and I) of about $80K. Mawlsons post isn't rep propaganda, it's reality. If the dems let the tax cuts expire it will effect everyone, not just the "rich".

We *can* re-legislate it to reward the middle class while making sure the upper crusts pay their fair share.

The rich already pay their "Fair share". 86% of all federal taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. What you want is to punish the rich for being successful. Social engineering through taxation is very wrong. I want an across the board tax cut for everyone of 25%. That would stimulate the economy better than anything else. The government can just do with less.

Of course they do Gary but I'm afraid you're wasting your time with this lot as they have minds like steel traps. Closed tight!

You're going to see a shamefull display of whining by them, even more so than they whine now about Bush when McCain takes the WH.

It's too bad the democrates keep fielding these losers and "novelty" candidates.

Edited March 31, 2008 by kaydee457

[dalegg 143]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

Edited April 1, 2008 by Mister Fancypants

[Dan J 277]

If everyone were to pay a equal and fair amout of taxes. Every single person in the US, would be responsible for about $10,000 every year. There are some who pay way more than this each year, and would see that as quite a deal.

We have a progressive economic structure, so the best way to pay for our goverment is with a progressive tax.

On top of that, you can cut taxes, but if costs rise, at rates greater than the cost of your salary growth, you are not gaining any wealth. While Bush has cut taxes, he has also borrowed billions to make up the difference, as well as pay for the war. This devauled the US dollar and made it more expensive to import comodities such as oil, and other products into the US. That difference is passed on to you.

In other words, when you consider the total economic impact, most people have gained nothing for Bush's financial/tax polcies and in some cases lost.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale,

Actually...this answers my question...

The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, will be a time-for-change election, one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms. There have been 16 such elections in the past century, with the incumbent party winning 7 times and losing 9 times. Since World War II, the track record of the incumbent party is even worse: 2 wins and 6 losses.

Reestimating the time-for-change model based on the results of all presidential elections since World War II, we obtain the following estimates:

V = 50.3 + .81*GDP + .113*NETAPP � 4.7*TFC,

where V is the predicted share of the major party vote for the incumbent party, GDP is the growth rate of real gross domestic product during the first two quarters of the year, NETAPP is the incumbent president's net approval rating in the final Gallup Poll in June, and TFC is the time-for-change dummy variable. TFC takes on the value of 0 if the president's party has controlled the White House for one term and 1 if the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms.

The estimated coefficient of -4.7 for the time-for-change variable means that once a party has controlled the White House for 8 years or longer, it is penalized by almost five percentage points. This obviously makes it much more difficult for the incumbent party to win another term. For example, if real GDP grows at an annual rate of 3.7 percent during the first two quarters of 2008, as it did during the first two quarters of 2004, and if President Bush's net approval rating in late June of 2008 stands at -1, as it did in late June of 2004, the Republican presidential candidate would be predicted to receive only 48.5 percent of the major party vote in the 2008 presidential election.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/don...del_and_th.html

[dalegg 143]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

Yeah, I'll buy that. That's why they call this the Democrat's election to lose. I've just heard people saying as a blanket rule that when the economy is the main issue Democrats win. That one doesn't hold water.

[GaryC 7]

Dale,

Actually...this answers my question...

The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, will be a time-for-change election, one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms. There have been 16 such elections in the past century, with the incumbent party winning 7 times and losing 9 times. Since World War II, the track record of the incumbent party is even worse: 2 wins and 6 losses.

Reestimating the time-for-change model based on the results of all presidential elections since World War II, we obtain the following estimates:

V = 50.3 + .81*GDP + .113*NETAPP � 4.7*TFC,

where V is the predicted share of the major party vote for the incumbent party, GDP is the growth rate of real gross domestic product during the first two quarters of the year, NETAPP is the incumbent president's net approval rating in the final Gallup Poll in June, and TFC is the time-for-change dummy variable. TFC takes on the value of 0 if the president's party has controlled the White House for one term and 1 if the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms.

The estimated coefficient of -4.7 for the time-for-change variable means that once a party has controlled the White House for 8 years or longer, it is penalized by almost five percentage points. This obviously makes it much more difficult for the incumbent party to win another term. For example, if real GDP grows at an annual rate of 3.7 percent during the first two quarters of 2008, as it did during the first two quarters of 2004, and if President Bush's net approval rating in late June of 2008 stands at -1, as it did in late June of 2004, the Republican presidential candidate would be predicted to receive only 48.5 percent of the major party vote in the 2008 presidential election.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/don...del_and_th.html

Oh brother!! You are grasping at straws. Do you have a formula to pick lottery numbers also?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Dale,

Actually...this answers my question...

The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, will be a time-for-change election, one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms. There have been 16 such elections in the past century, with the incumbent party winning 7 times and losing 9 times. Since World War II, the track record of the incumbent party is even worse: 2 wins and 6 losses.

Reestimating the time-for-change model based on the results of all presidential elections since World War II, we obtain the following estimates:

V = 50.3 + .81*GDP + .113*NETAPP � 4.7*TFC,

where V is the predicted share of the major party vote for the incumbent party, GDP is the growth rate of real gross domestic product during the first two quarters of the year, NETAPP is the incumbent president's net approval rating in the final Gallup Poll in June, and TFC is the time-for-change dummy variable. TFC takes on the value of 0 if the president's party has controlled the White House for one term and 1 if the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms.

The estimated coefficient of -4.7 for the time-for-change variable means that once a party has controlled the White House for 8 years or longer, it is penalized by almost five percentage points. This obviously makes it much more difficult for the incumbent party to win another term. For example, if real GDP grows at an annual rate of 3.7 percent during the first two quarters of 2008, as it did during the first two quarters of 2004, and if President Bush's net approval rating in late June of 2008 stands at -1, as it did in late June of 2004, the Republican presidential candidate would be predicted to receive only 48.5 percent of the major party vote in the 2008 presidential election.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/don...del_and_th.html

Oh brother!! You are grasping at straws. Do you have a formula to pick lottery numbers also?

...the model maintained its record of correctly predicting the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1988 and the 2.3 percent forecast error only slightly exceeded the average error of 1.9 percent for 14 national polls that were released in the last four days before the election.

That's a pretty good level of accuracy if you ask me.

[GaryC 7]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

Yeah, I'll buy that. That's why they call this the Democrat's election to lose. I've just heard people saying as a blanket rule that when the economy is the main issue Democrats win. That one doesn't hold water.

The thing that Steven and others are not factoring in is the fighting that is going on with the dems. They are also not factoring in the fact that Obama and Clinton are hard left while McCain is only a little right of center. There is more to take into account. The fighting between Clinton and Obama has gotten so bitter that a percentage of the losing side will either cross over or stay home. Add to that the uncommitted swing voters have a real choice with McCain that they wouldn't have if a hard right candidate were the reps choice. So many things are working towards an upset this year. It's the dems election to lose and they are doing a very good job of it.

Dale,

Actually...this answers my question...

The good news for Democrats is that 2008, unlike 2004, will be a time-for-change election, one in which the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms. There have been 16 such elections in the past century, with the incumbent party winning 7 times and losing 9 times. Since World War II, the track record of the incumbent party is even worse: 2 wins and 6 losses.

Reestimating the time-for-change model based on the results of all presidential elections since World War II, we obtain the following estimates:

V = 50.3 + .81*GDP + .113*NETAPP � 4.7*TFC,

where V is the predicted share of the major party vote for the incumbent party, GDP is the growth rate of real gross domestic product during the first two quarters of the year, NETAPP is the incumbent president's net approval rating in the final Gallup Poll in June, and TFC is the time-for-change dummy variable. TFC takes on the value of 0 if the president's party has controlled the White House for one term and 1 if the president's party has controlled the White House for two or more terms.

The estimated coefficient of -4.7 for the time-for-change variable means that once a party has controlled the White House for 8 years or longer, it is penalized by almost five percentage points. This obviously makes it much more difficult for the incumbent party to win another term. For example, if real GDP grows at an annual rate of 3.7 percent during the first two quarters of 2008, as it did during the first two quarters of 2004, and if President Bush's net approval rating in late June of 2008 stands at -1, as it did in late June of 2004, the Republican presidential candidate would be predicted to receive only 48.5 percent of the major party vote in the 2008 presidential election.

http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/don...del_and_th.html

Oh brother!! You are grasping at straws. Do you have a formula to pick lottery numbers also?

...the model maintained its record of correctly predicting the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1988 and the 2.3 percent forecast error only slightly exceeded the average error of 1.9 percent for 14 national polls that were released in the last four days before the election.

That's a pretty good level of accuracy if you ask me.

Well I guess we don't need to vote now. Call off the election!!! Stevens stats have already called it!!! Brother!!!

[dalegg 143]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

Yeah, I'll buy that. That's why they call this the Democrat's election to lose. I've just heard people saying as a blanket rule that when the economy is the main issue Democrats win. That one doesn't hold water.

The thing that Steven and others are not factoring in is the fighting that is going on with the dems. They are also not factoring in the fact that Obama and Clinton are hard left while McCain is only a little right of center. There is more to take into account. The fighting between Clinton and Obama has gotten so bitter that a percentage of the losing side will either cross over or stay home. Add to that the uncommitted swing voters have a real choice with McCain that they wouldn't have if a hard right candidate were the reps choice. So many things are working towards an upset this year. It's the dems election to lose and they are doing a very good job of it.

I think it would be interesting to look at what candidate ever won an election based on promises to raise taxes. Has that ever happened?

[Dan J 277]

Two issues will determine the outcome of this election - the war in Iraq and the economy, therefore whoever is the Democratic candidate will be our next president. History says so.

You can say Clinton was elected because of a bad economy, but what other Democrat was elected because of that?

Carter?- Nope, people were pissed about Nixon.

During Carter's administration, the economy suffered double-digit inflation, coupled with very high interest rates, oil shortages, high unemployment and slow economic growth. Productivity growth in the United States had declined to an average annual rate of 1 percent, compared to 3.2 percent of the 1960s. [33] The prime rate hit 21.5% in December 1980, the highest rate in U.S. history under any President.[34] Investments in fixed income (both bonds and pensions being paid to retired people) were becoming less valuable. The high interest rates would lead to a sharp recession in the early 1980s.

Carter=Bad economy=Reagan Election. Reagan was a Republican I think

Johnson?-Nope, he took over because people loved Kennedy.

Kennedy?-I don't so. The economy was not in that bad of shape in the early 60s. In fact, the odd thing is that Eisenhower expanded social programs and Kennedy cut taxes. Kennedy was elected more because he offered a nice fresh face with social changes as opposed to the grumpy face of Nixon.

Were not going back to the depression for comparison are we?

Reagan's election in 1980 and then Clinton's in 1992, both of whom were elected because the American people had lost faith in the incumbent president - that's what I'm talking about. In other words, look back at all the President's with low approval ratings and tell me how many times the incumbent Party won anyway?

Yeah, I'll buy that. That's why they call this the Democrat's election to lose. I've just heard people saying as a blanket rule that when the economy is the main issue Democrats win. That one doesn't hold water.

The thing that Steven and others are not factoring in is the fighting that is going on with the dems. They are also not factoring in the fact that Obama and Clinton are hard left while McCain is only a little right of center. There is more to take into account. The fighting between Clinton and Obama has gotten so bitter that a percentage of the losing side will either cross over or stay home. Add to that the uncommitted swing voters have a real choice with McCain that they wouldn't have if a hard right candidate were the reps choice. So many things are working towards an upset this year. It's the dems election to lose and they are doing a very good job of it.

Where people are on the poltical spectrum is a matter of point of view. That and about 41% of people consider themselves democrats, while its about 30% or so for Indpendents and Republicans.

I think the damage is less significant than you might think. This election cycle has generated much more interest in the Democratic party. Even if McCain wins, Repulicans will likely loose more senate and congressional seats. Making it much more difficult for McCain to push a Republican focused agenda like Bush did. If he wants to make it through office with any accomplishments, he will have to go the center or left on his policies.

Even if Republicans win the white house, Its likely that Democrats will essentially be in power.