Isnt that a bit of a problem for McCain though given in the past he has bucketed the religious right?
Better to just get Obama to tell everyone what a wonderful thing Smoot Hawley is in combination with tax rises.
Obama v McCain -- Closest to the Pin
- Thread starter Palmer Stoat
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Isnt that a bit of a problem for McCain though given in the past he has bucketed the religious right?
Better to just get Obama to tell everyone what a wonderful thing Smoot Hawley is in combination with tax rises.
Eh, I don't know, there are alot of conservatives who, while wanting social conservatism, wouldn't focus on that so much as to not vote for the GOP if McCain went "soft" on conservative issues, not to mention the conservatives who focus more on economic not social conservatism, I think the emphasis on GOP candidates playing the homophobia/pro-life card is overemphasized. not every republican is a religious conservative, or even religious at all, so I think he still has enough right votes to win. If McCain loses this election it wont be because he lost to many votes, it will be because Obama gained too many votes from his formed base, Clinton's base and undecideds. Both candidates have a good chance of winning it IMO, this aint an easy Obama victory like some have been painting it.
- Thread starter
- #28
Funnily enough, most people don't share your obsession with Smoot Hawley. They can generally distinguish between higher top income-tax rates and socialism too.
Regular person: 2
Medusala: 0
Diesel_2000
Cancelled
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the number of battleground states in this year's election have been enourmously understated (ie. Green Depicting those states that are in play):
Reasons for the Larger Battleground Map
Wisconsin (10) - I'm tipping Obama to finish strongly in this state and win it 56-44. Has been included as a battleground by many pollsters, but any campaigning here by Republicans may be simply a diversion tactic. I'm tipping the Obama campaign will be well aware of the Republican's strategy, but will easily match it by pouring large resources into Wisconsin.
Montana (3) - Clinton carried this state back in 1992, and with an abundance of resources Obama could possibly flip this one to a Blue State. With a popular Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators, there is strong local support for Obama. If there is a massive national swing on for Obama, this Western state could be a casualty for the Republicans.
Mississippi (6) - With a population that is 38% African-American, a strong voter turnout for the Democrats could put this state in Obama's column. Obama needs only to bring some of the white vote across to his side, a task John Kerry was unable to pull off in 2004. I'm tipping that there will be large field operation here to bring young people and minorities to the polls. This factor, along with the swinging Independents voters puts this state in play for Obama.
Arkansas (6) - This state remains loyal to the Clintons and had would have been one of the first states to be placed in Hillary's column (had she been the nominee). Polls show that Obama is currently trailing McCain by a large margin, but with Clinton on the ticket this state could be brought back to the Democrats. If Obama can bring Hillary onto the ticket and have her campaign strongly in Arkansas, then this state could be his (the consequence of this tactic is the possibility of not winning other states such as Virginia without Kaine or Webb on the ticket).
I will post further reasons why other states are in play soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by fighting_fury86; Today at 21:02.
I think the number of battleground states in this year's election have been enourmously understated (ie. Green Depicting those states that are in play):
Reasons for the Larger Battleground Map
Wisconsin (10) - I'm tipping Obama to finish strongly in this state and win it 56-44. Has been included as a battleground by many pollsters, but any campaigning here by Republicans may be simply a diversion tactic. I'm tipping the Obama campaign will be well aware of the Republican's strategy, but will easily match it by pouring large resources into Wisconsin.
Montana (3) - Clinton carried this state back in 1992, and with an abundance of resources Obama could possibly flip this one to a Blue State. With a popular Democratic Governor and two Democratic Senators, there is strong local support for Obama. If there is a massive national swing on for Obama, this Western state could be a casualty for the Republicans.
Mississippi (6) - With a population that is 38% African-American, a strong voter turnout for the Democrats could put this state in Obama's column. Obama needs only to bring some of the white vote across to his side, a task John Kerry was unable to pull off in 2004. I'm tipping that there will be large field operation here to bring young people and minorities to the polls. This factor, along with the swinging Independents voters puts this state in play for Obama.
Arkansas (6) - This state remains loyal to the Clintons and had would have been one of the first states to be placed in Hillary's column (had she been the nominee). Polls show that Obama is currently trailing McCain by a large margin, but with Clinton on the ticket this state could be brought back to the Democrats. If Obama can bring Hillary onto the ticket and have her campaign strongly in Arkansas, then this state could be his (the consequence of this tactic is the possibility of not winning other states such as Virginia without Kaine or Webb on the ticket).
I will post further reasons why other states are in play soon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by fighting_fury86; Today at 21:02.
Wisconsin - was Kerry's narrowest victory (49.7% to 49.3%). Gore's second narrowest victory (47.8% to 47.6%). Whilst it would not surprise me if the state broke heavily for Obama, it is way premature to predict such a thing. Particularly when current polling shows another close race.
Montana - yes Clinton won it in 1992. With 37.6% of the vote. Thank you Ross Perot.
Mississippi - don't underestimate the extent to which the white south increasingly resembles an en bloc vote for the Republicans. Peeling off a third of the white vote in the state is a lot more difficult than it sounds.
Arkansas - Funny state. Democrats dominate at the state and Congressional level but, favourite sons aside, they prefer Republicans in presidential contests. It's difficult to see how Obama does better here than Gore or Kerry (Gore especially). I'm sceptical of Clinton's pulling power in the #2 spot.
Montana - yes Clinton won it in 1992. With 37.6% of the vote. Thank you Ross Perot.
Mississippi - don't underestimate the extent to which the white south increasingly resembles an en bloc vote for the Republicans. Peeling off a third of the white vote in the state is a lot more difficult than it sounds.
Arkansas - Funny state. Democrats dominate at the state and Congressional level but, favourite sons aside, they prefer Republicans in presidential contests. It's difficult to see how Obama does better here than Gore or Kerry (Gore especially). I'm sceptical of Clinton's pulling power in the #2 spot.
Obsession? Its merely common sense (though obviously not too common in some circles). Protectionism is merely appealing to the gullible.
As for tax, you may want to look at what the candidates have actually said on the topic. McCain is in favour of more than just cutting the top rate of tax.
Tell me the last time an increase in the top rate of marginal taxes in a western economy went hand in hand with sustained economic progress.
it got a lot of air time in the UK ie the GBs being very anti McCain, wouldnt cough up cash and threatening not to vote.
I agree with you. dont think Obama will do well with white trash, GBs and the well off (and maybe the Hispanics)
He would want to get alot of soccer moms on board.
cmon Dave, you know it wasnt Clintons measures that were enacted to balance the budget without big tax increases.
It was forced on him by the Republicans in the house. The measures were vastly different to what Clinton proposed (though he seems to have developed amnesia on the topic)
You're wrong.
Gingrich and the Republicans loudly objected when Clinton increased the top rate of tax. So no credit to them.
Furthermore, the Republicans showed how quickly they were prepared to ditch their enthusiasm for budget surpluses once they got one of their own in the White House.
Gingrich and the Republicans loudly objected when Clinton increased the top rate of tax. So no credit to them.
Furthermore, the Republicans showed how quickly they were prepared to ditch their enthusiasm for budget surpluses once they got one of their own in the White House.
????????
They couldnt override the veto, however they dramatically changed what Clinton wanted to do. I think there is a thread on BF somewhere with a list of proposals that Clinton wanted and what actually happened. Big gap between the two.
No credit? Increasing the top rate of tax is an inheritantly stupid thing to do. They get full credit for forcing Clinton to abandon his idiotic high tax policies.
Well put. This is exactly the sort of ideological madness all too common amongst the American Right.
No matter how low the top rate of tax is to begin with, increasing it is always a bad thing to do.
The Republican Party lost their way when they placed tax cuts ahead of budget surpluses. Reagan's legacy.
I don't think he was forced to abandon it.
- Thread starter
- #39
Are you serious? We've already had this discussion at tremendous, mindnumbing length. Since you seem to have amnesia, let me sum up for you: the post-WWII period right up until the oil shocks in the '70s was a period of unprecedented economic prosperity in the US. Prolonged periods of economic growth coexisted with top tax rates that are far higher than the current top tax rates. This situation occurred under the auspices of both Democratic and Republican administrations.
The discussion is here. It really gets going from about post #24 onwards.
- Banned
- #40
You keep bringing up Smoot-Hawley. It was the Republicans that introduced it.
It was also the Republicans that introduced the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005, legislation that led the predatory subprime lending of 2006-07.
Stuart Rothenberg: voice of reason
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-different-will-2008-white-house-map.html
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-different-will-2008-white-house-map.html
There will be changes, but don’t expect the 2008 presidential map to look wildly different from those of 2000 and 2004.
Barring a full-scale McCain meltdown or the public’s wholesale rejection of the GOP (neither of which can be ruled out), only a handful of states are prime candidates to swing from their traditional partisan bent in recent presidential elections.
Barring a full-scale McCain meltdown or the public’s wholesale rejection of the GOP (neither of which can be ruled out), only a handful of states are prime candidates to swing from their traditional partisan bent in recent presidential elections.
If Iraq continues to improve like it has recently, it could be a nightmare for Obama. McCain's already very agreeable, and if he can say "Look, Iraq's getting better, and with our continued presence, it will keep getting better", Obama might be in trouble.
- Thread starter
- #43
I'm a bit more optimistic than you, Q. I reckon Indiana, North Dakota, Montana, and North Carolina could all be in play. I reckon Obama will have a crack at all of them -- he has the money and, at worst, it'll make McCain defend them -- and I'd be surprised if at least a couple don't become serious pick-up opportunities. Indiana and North Carolina would be particularly juicy targets given their electoral college votes.
EDIT: And keep in mind when looking at head-to-head polls that there's greater room for upward movement in Obama's numbers because the Democratic base won't yet have consolidated behind him. McCain's been the presumptive Republican nominee for months. The next batch of polls will almost certainly see better numbers for Obama.
North Carolina I could see being competitive. It's a bit like Virginia in that it's a traditionally conservative southern state, but is gradually liberalising with urban growth. If I was Obama, I'd be testing the water there. However, my impression is that it's a bit behind Virginia in its liberalisation, which is why I don't rate it as an "in play" state. Should be competitive in future elections.
As for IN, ND & MT... how about we rule out any state Kerry lost by 20+ points?
As for IN, ND & MT... how about we rule out any state Kerry lost by 20+ points?
35% is hardly low (plus other taxes on top)
You call it ideological nonsense yet you blatantly ignore all the evidence of the effects of tax rises re revenue.
The top rate in the UK in the 70s was over 95%. What happened? The country was bankrupt and the IMF called in
Raising the top rate generally raises very little money. The rich for a variety of reasons wont pay the extra.
its not ideology its COMMON SENSE. This is why the Laffer curve exists.
This is simply wrong.
Tax cuts lead to increased economic growth which raises more tax
When Thatcher cut taxes the rich ended up paying a HIGHER % of the tax take
Its not the neo liberals who are the ideologues.
They have documented history to back up their case.
So? That doesnt make it OK
Thats not the only issue. Clintons legislation re forcing the banks to lend in poorer areas was just as instrumental.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02052008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_real_scandal_243911.htm?page=0
From the current hand-wringing, you'd think that the banks came up with the idea of looser underwriting standards on their own, with regulators just asleep on the job. In fact, it was the regulators who relaxed these standards - at the behest of community groups and "progressive" political forces.
In the 1980s, groups such as the activists at ACORN began pushing charges of "redlining" - claims that banks discriminated against minorities in mortgage lending. In 1989, sympathetic members of Congress got the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act amended to force banks to collect racial data on mortgage applicants; this allowed various studies to be ginned up that seemed to validate the original accusation.
In fact, minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications - but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances.
Yet a "landmark" 1992 study from the Boston Fed concluded that mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic.
That study was tremendously flawed - a colleague and I later showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination.
Yet the political agenda triumphed - with the president of the Boston Fed saying no new studies were needed, and the US comptroller of the currency seconding the motion.
No sooner had the ink dried on its discrimination study than the Boston Fed, clearly speaking for the entire Fed, produced a manual for mortgage lenders stating that: "discrimination may be observed when a lender's underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower-income minority applicants."
Some of these "outdated" criteria included the size of the mortgage payment relative to income, credit history, savings history and income verification. Instead, the Boston Fed ruled that participation in a credit-counseling program should be taken as evidence of an applicant's ability to manage debt.
Sound crazy? You bet. Those "outdated" standards existed to limit defaults. But bank regulators required the loosened underwriting standards, with approval by politicians and the chattering class. A 1995 strengthening of the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to find ways to provide mortgages to their poorer communities. It also let community activists intervene at yearly bank reviews, shaking the banks down for large pots of money.
Banks that got poor reviews were punished; some saw their merger plans frustrated; others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department.
Flexible lending programs expanded even though they had higher default rates than loans with traditional standards. On the Web, you can still find CRA loans available via ACORN with "100 percent financing . . . no credit scores . . . undocumented income . . . even if you don't report it on your tax returns." Credit counseling is required, of course.
Ironically, an enthusiastic Fannie Mae Foundation report singled out one paragon of nondiscriminatory lending, which worked with community activists and followed "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." That lender's $1 billion commitment to low-income loans in 1992 had grown to $80 billion by 1999 and $600 billion by early 2003.
It's ideology med. The fact that you have to compare it to the most extreme case of high taxation demonstrates the weakness of your argument. It doesn't surprise me that the laffer curve's maximum point is south of 95%. But I don't for a second believe it's south of 35%. Not even close.
The Reaganomics mantra can be summed up thus: cutting taxes and raising revenue are compatible objectives. Rot. A succession of budget deficits under Republican presidents demonstrates that this is fiction.
The Reaganomics mantra can be summed up thus: cutting taxes and raising revenue are compatible objectives. Rot. A succession of budget deficits under Republican presidents demonstrates that this is fiction.
They have to, they can't vote for Obama, and if they don't vote they take the risk of letting Obama win, no if they want what is the most conservative candidate to win, they'll vote, even if they may not like the man or all of his policies. To do so risks demmy victory. Remember med, that the deep right in the US is generally active in getting their man over the line, I just can't see them not voting and becoming disengaged, it's just not their thing.
Obama was never going to win white trash and soccer mom votes, that's just the way it was. He'll gain some centrist and left leaning wealthy votes. His area of the poor working class democrats, he needs to gain those. Thing is though, the thing that will win them (damn you Americans) is tariffs, despite what people think, Americans love a good tariff if it means it protects them.
*Sigh* America, when will you ever learn, you are not the center of the world now.
- Banned
- #49
You keep mentioning it as if it is on the cusp of being introduced by the Democrats
This legislation had no impact on foreclosure rates. Foreclosures exploded after the introduction of the bankruptcy reform, in the 2006 and 2007 tranches of subprime loans. There are also a number of Alt-A loans from these years that are dangerous.
The reform meant that any lender could lend money without the risk of the borrower using bankruptcy protection, placing almost all of the risk upon the borrower. Lending standards dropped, far faster than they did when the 1992 legislation was introduced.
Diesel_2000
Cancelled
Another Battleground State:
Georgia (15) - In 2004 this state went to Bush 58-41, and 55-43 in 2000. Fast-forward to 2008 and current polling shows that McCain is leading Obama 51-41. A ten-point lead 6 months ahead of the final poll had not stopped Obama in the past (ie. Clinton had a substantial lead over Obama 6-months before the Georgia primary). I think that if Obama can bring out a large number of younger and african-american voters, and win a third of white voters this state is his.
Georgia (15) - In 2004 this state went to Bush 58-41, and 55-43 in 2000. Fast-forward to 2008 and current polling shows that McCain is leading Obama 51-41. A ten-point lead 6 months ahead of the final poll had not stopped Obama in the past (ie. Clinton had a substantial lead over Obama 6-months before the Georgia primary). I think that if Obama can bring out a large number of younger and african-american voters, and win a third of white voters this state is his.
