Obama v McCain -- Closest to the Pin

[medusala]

No, I suppose it doesn't HAVE to be. But what's the point in governments continuing to accumulate massive surpluses if they're not gonna plough that money back into the community in the form of infrastructure, benefits, research, training etc?

I dont disagree with you, I think Howard should have returned all the surpluses as tax cuts.

Merely pointing out the link between spending and revenue isnt that highly correlated.

Governments aren't there to make profits.

Totally agree.

I find your enigmatic three- or four-word responses singularly unenlightening

.

my fault for assuming you knew that Australia was continuing to build up large cash surpluses whilst the UK was going the other way.

It hasn't happened quickly enough in the US -- just look at their debt. The Republicans are gonna leave a fine old mess for the next Democratic administration to clean up.

If (ok big if) you cut Iraq expenditure you can rapidly cut the budget. Far, far easier to cut the US budget than most Euro countries with a similar deficit

No, I didn't ignore your example. I'm just making the completely sensible -- and easy-to-understand point -- that you should calibrate your spending relative to your revenue.

Yet their is a wealth of evidence to suggest that slashing taxes will lead to a great deal (and in some cases all) of the revenue coming back due to higher economic growth.

So it may seem counterintuitive to cut taxes and throw the two out of balance, however in practice equilibrium can get restored quite quickly.

Well, you're making a big assumption here. Who says the benefits of economic growth always reaches the bottom economic layer of a society, the layer that relies on benefits? The benefits of economic growth don't always 'trickle down', so I don't know if you can say social security payments will necessarily decrease in a growing economy.

Its not a big assumption. As the economy grows unemployment decreases (and thus spending on unemployment benefits) . I dont think that is a particularly radical thing to say.

But that's not really my point. My point is that if you have more revenue you can increase expenditure. If you have less revenue, cut expenditure. One axis depends on the other. You could increase expenditure by 15% in a year, but that wouldn't cause any problems if you had the revenue to cover that kind of increase.

This is where we start to have a fundamental disagreement.

I can see absolutely no value in a balanced budget where spending is = 50% of gdp

Far, far better to have a 3% of gdp budget deficit and spending at 30% of gdp.

 

[vAin21]

Guys try to check out this video Obama v. McCain: Setting the Tone that i saw in pollclash, candidates are set for the US Presidential Election, Barack Obama and John McCain are beginning to set the tone for their campaign. Looking at their most recent speeches , what do you think about what you hear?

 

[JW Frogen]

My point was that given the surplus when Clinton left office, and given the appalling job that the Republicans have done, I think you're drawing a false equivalence.

Clinton did leave a very good surplus. (I voted for him twice believe it or not, but that is because I liked his sexual ethics, not his foreign policy), and some of that achievement was from the initial tax hike he got through during his first budget, but some of it was also from the fiscal discipline the Republican Congress forced on him after the Democratic Party disaster of the 1994 Congressional elections.

Then Clinton moved to right, triangulated the Congress against liberals in his own party, signed bills he had never supported before, like Republican welfare limitations, and saved his Presidency.

Still, I do not think anyone could or should argue Bush has been fiscally conservative, or even responsible.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

We're in the last month now. Anyone want to have another crack at predicting the electoral college outcome?

With Florida and North Carolina teetering, I reckon my original prediction may turn out to be conservative.

 

[DaveW]

I'll up my original prediction to include Virginia and Florida in the Obama column.

Obama 338 McCain 200

Apart from saying Iraq would be the major issue of the campaign I'm pretty happy with my original analysis.

The battleground is more or less what I said it would be. Perhaps I was too cautious about Oregon and not assertive enough about North Carolina. Yes Indiana looks close but I still don't see Obama winning there.

Possible changes to the above map?

A bigger Obama landslide would include MO & NC.
A McCain win would mean sweeping OH, FL, VA, CO & NV.

Oh, and the answer to the biggest surprise of the campaign? Sarah Palin.

 

[Juddism]

We're in the last month now. Anyone want to have another crack at predicting the electoral college outcome?

With Florida and North Carolina teetering, I reckon my original prediction may turn out to be conservative.

landslide to Obama...I picked the numbers for the election last year, I reckon Obama will pick up 353 EV and possible even 364 ( if he gets IN), McCain won't even get 200 at this rate.

 

[Mr Q]

I can't argue with Dave's prediction. With NC as a 50/50.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

I've been fairly bullish about Indiana all along. The Northwest corner of the state is within Chicago's orbit, and it's surrounded on three sides by Illinois (Obama), Michigan (Obama), and Ohio (50-50). Factor in that Obama has spent shitloads more money and has an inordinately better resourced operation on the ground, and that he campaigned heavily during the primaries, whereas McCain didn't, and I still think it could be a surprise.

 

[finders]

340 Obama

198 McCain

 

[Bomber32]

Obama - 353
McCain - 185

 

[stuart27]

Used another predictor...the 'red states' being blue and vice versa in the linked one messed with my head a bit

I'm with the general consensus that it'll either be 338 to 200 or 353 to 185 in favour of Barack, depending on whether he wins NC.

I'm counting on McCain's campaign continuing to deteriorate as it has been of late, and for Obama to pinch NC out of the red.

Obama 353 def McCain 185

 

[DaveW]

Two polls out of Missouri today:

Survey USA - Obama 51 McCain 43

Rasmussen - Obama 50 McCain 47

In my constantly changing map, I would now put Missouri in Obama's column. That means he's making a complete sweep of what I originally defined as the battleground states.

 

[DaveW]

And another Missouri poll out today.

Public Policy Polling - Obama 48 McCain 46

 

[apollo_creed]

There was a three or four page article about Missouri's voters in this weeks Time mag.

 

[DaveW]

I doubt anyone could top the outlandishness of Dick Morris's "analysis":

Where to start? ...

Arizona - I think this will be a competitive state for Democrats in future cycles, and maybe could have been in this election. But the home state factor should be more than enough to deliver Arizona the Republican candidate. (c.f. Barry Goldwater 1964)

Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana - Morris seems to be stuck in a 1990s mindset about these states. And Obama aint Bill Clinton...

Also interesting that he sees South Dakota as more competitive than North Dakota. Though I've never understood the reverse either, i.e. the fixation on ND whilst simultaneously disregarding SD. My impression is that the two states are much of a muchness.

 

[medusala]

In my constantly changing map, I would now put Missouri in Obama's column. That means he's making a complete sweep of what I originally defined as the battleground states.

The Times has been looking one such state per day.

McCain looks to be stuffed in just about all of them.

 

[DaveW]

Here's the Economist piece on Missouri. I love their maps...

Does any other state more starkly illustrate the urban/rural divide in political leanings?

For what it's worth the latest batch of Time/CNN polling gives McCain a 1-point lead in Missouri. (Too bad he's down 10 in Virginia.)

 

[Mr Q]

I doubt anyone could top the outlandishness of Dick Morris's "analysis":

That truly is insane. He seems to have pulled the whole election about eight points to Obama - and that still doesn't explain putting Arizona in Obama's column.

What this reminds me of is our very own GuruJane's prediction for the election - I remember her tipping a big Obama win with a lot of votes in the South, as per a Clinton win. Except that the only states in the region Obama really has a chance in are NC and FL, and maybe GA if - and it's a big if - the African-American vote comes out in bigger total numbers than predicted by most polling.

Mind you, anyone that says Ohio, Missouri and Nevada are safe for Obama is clearly cherry picking their polling sources. Or sourcing them from a Democrat's wet dream.

 

[Freo Big Fella]

That's my go from a very superficial reading of the polls. I just have a gut feeling there's going to be a few close races, especially in places like Florida, Nevada and the midwest states that Kerry didn't pick up.

 

[apollo_creed]

That's my go from a very superficial reading of the polls. I just have a gut feeling there's going to be a few close races, especially in places like Florida, Nevada and the midwest states that Kerry didn't pick up.

Your faith in Ohio is unfortunately misplaced.

Looks nothing but 50/50 at this point. As does Florida.

 

[DaveW]

Final prediction:

I'm leaning a bit on the optimistic side here. I think MO and NC are the true-est tossups. I'm reasonably confident about everything else; though Florida does appear to have tightened.

As for the Senate, I'll nominate eight Dem gains: VA, NM, CO, NH, AK, OR, NC, MN. Again, slightly optimistic on MN, which I regard as a toss-up; pretty confident of the rest. GA is the other state in play, but ultimately I think the GOP will hold it, even if goes to a run-off.

 

[bit_pattern]

Even Karl Rove is predicting a Democrat landslide

Rove predicts Obama landslide
Posted: 10:37 AM ET

From CNN Ticker Producer Alexander Mooney

Karl Rove's Electoral prediction

(CNN) – John McCain and his aides are still banking on a come-from-behind victory Tuesday, but the GOP's most famous political strategist has already called the race for Barack Obama.
Karl Rove, the man widely credited with engineering President Bush's two successful White House bids, is predicting the Illinois senator will take the White House in an Electoral College landslide, winning 338 votes to John McCain's 200. That would be the largest Electoral College victory since 1996, when Bill Clinton defeated Bob Dole in a 379-159 rout.

 

[DaveW]

I see it pretty much the same way as Rove. It's just that he's gone for his horse in the two toss-up states, and I've gone for mine.

 

[GuruJane]

That truly is insane. He seems to have pulled the whole election about eight points to Obama - and that still doesn't explain putting Arizona in Obama's column.

What this reminds me of is our very own GuruJane's prediction for the election - I remember her tipping a big Obama win with a lot of votes in the South, as per a Clinton win. Except that the only states in the region Obama really has a chance in are NC and FL, and maybe GA if - and it's a big if - the African-American vote comes out in bigger total numbers than predicted by most polling.

Mind you, anyone that says Ohio, Missouri and Nevada are safe for Obama is clearly cherry picking their polling sources. Or sourcing them from a Democrat's wet dream.

Was basing that on looking at the states Bill held after the 96 elections which then went back to the Repubs and wondering why Obama couldn't get them back in the then anti Republican climate.

And that was before the economic meltdown!

Anyway, the way those states stand according to the RCP averages is:

New Mex - O plus 7.3
Nev plus 6.5
Iowa plus 15.3
Ohio plus 2.5
Florida plus 1.8

Mc appears to be holding

Missouri plus 0.7
Arizona plus 3.5
Arkansas plus 9.3
Louisiana plus 13
Tennessee plus 14
West Virg plus 9

So I agree - with exception of Missouri, it seems the south was prepared to accept a WHITE "black" president but not the real thing. A racist vote. Clearly Hillary would have had a much better chance in those states.

 

[Juddism]

lets see who gets closest.