Ohio Poll
Wed, 06/30/2010 - 1:45pm — Misty
2010 Senate
40% Fisher (D), 38% Portman (R)
Representing a seven point improvement for Fisher since PPP last surveyed the contest in March and found Rob Portman ahead by a 41-36 margin.
Earlier today, the Quinnipiac Poll also gave Fisher a 2-point 42-40 lead. If Dems win this it is a Senate pick-up. Democrats have to start attacking the GOP on the Social Security age limit especially.
When I see all this stalling
The Democrats getting 61
The Democrats getting 61 seats just ain't gonna happen.
Even if the Democrats win all the races that are considered tossups (a very unlikely scenario) that would still only make it 58 D-42 R.
But Misty just pointed out
The Republicans have 33
The Republicans have 33 seats that are either not up or 100% safe.
There are 5 more seats that the Republicans will win for sure: AZ, AR, DE, IA and LA. That brings them to 38.
They are very likely to win IN, NH, and NC bringing them to 41 with the Democrats at 59.
For the Dems to get to 60, they would have to sweep and win KY, CO, FL, IL, MO, NV, OH, PA, and WA.
They will likely win some of those but there is virtually no chance they win them all. The best you can hope for is 58-42 and I believe that the Republicans will do much better.
My prediction is the Republicans will get 46 seats, leaving the Democrats with 54. Of course I hope we get to 51, but I don't expect that will happen.
Your final tally prediction
Your final tally prediction is pretty close to Nate Silver's, although his recent article shows that the Dem's have improved their chances slightly recently, looking at 55 seats, according to Silver. That's not counting Crist who continues to poll well, so if Crist wins I would add that to the Dem total since he does not seem to be courting Republicans these days nor are they courting him. If the generic ballot keeps improving over the coming months for Dem's, we could see some surprise victories. Not holding my breath, just watching closely.
Just as an analogy, I have a had a few students who always do well on tests (not perfect but decent) and basically stop studying, assuming their pattern of success will continue with no effort. This may sound mean, but I sometimes hope they are tripped up on the next big test so they will be forced to change their habits and improve their own study skills and work ethic. That's how I feel about the GOP. I wish them failure-or at least not the big victory they expect-so I can possibly get the old GOP party back back-one which welcomes Moderates like me, with the "Colin Powell types" as leaders. If the GOP wins big as you seem to hope for, expect an even bigger embrace of the Tea Party. In that case, I am gone for good! Not that they seem to care whether I depart at this point.
This accounts for most of the movement in the rankings. Whereas, as of our last update, or simulations were projecting an average of 54.0 Democratic and 46.0 Republican seats, we now show 55.2 Democrats, 44.2 Republicans, and 0.6 Charlie Crists.
From Politico. Boehner and
From Politico. Boehner and Cantor spineless again when it comes to Tea Party pressure. As the health care bill increases in popularitiy, they decide to sign on to full health care reform repeal. Actually sign on! Sorry, Seniors, we want to open that donut hole again. Sorry if you have a pre-existing condition. We want the insurance company to decide if they want you or not. Are they completely insane? Here I thought they were getting smart since many of them were toning down their opposition and trying to avoid the "repeal" conversation. Most experts say that if the GOP would just keep their mouths shut on issues like privitizing social security, increasing SS age, bashing Thurgood Marshall, apologizing to BP, repealing health care reform etc, they could easily win big. But they are digging their own grave here by standing firm on unpopular positions and going on record IMO. They are giving so many gifts to the Democrats. Now voters see the choice they have. Dem's need to keep asking:
-do you want to give them back the car keys?
-do you want to move forward or backward?
For a bit of humor here's a
For a bit of humor here's a photo-manip of John Boehner, courtesy of the Facebook,The Beer Party. I particularly like the Nancy Pelosi voodoo doll.)
Kelly, while I totally agree
Lep, last week you said the
Lep, last week you said the John Birch Society is behind the Arizona law. Now you are saying Republican operatives tamper with vote counting?
Do you have any credible evidence for these conspiracy theories?
I'm getting sick of the
I'm getting sick of the Republican primary fight for Governor in Georgia. They're all trying to reach out to the neocon crowd and most of the Republicans are campaigning against "Obamacare". The ads are all over the TV now.
First we have this f-ing jackass (sorry Suzi) saying he voted against "Obamacare" and is basically campaigning on an AZ-type law for Georgia.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtlKzckj_5s
We have to see this ad alll the time while my mother is currently fighting for insurance for herself and fighting for coverage for my father's home care. The Republican vying for Attorney General is campaigning on fighting "Obamacare" too.
I just saw this one about a one of the candidates supporting gay couple benefits *GASP*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaYdsdFPX8Y
And there is another one on that woman supporting Gay partner benefits and adoption. THE HORROR!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l2m_-PRDno
But don't worry folks, it has to be a lie because here's an internet ad from the same woman basically saying: " Anyone who wants to challenge that marriage is between a man and a woman can bring it on"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKqiLeik_dw&feature=related
I might vote for Democrat Roy Barnes if he's the candidate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW3kTLTV6eU
What I find funny about all the Republican candidates is all the claims to lower taxes. Georgia has had a Republican Governor for 8 years now and i'm sure he promised to lower taxes. So if we've had a Republican Goverernor in Purdue , shouldn't he have succeeded in lowering the taxes so low that they didn't need to get lower? (:
It's code for no solutions. "lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes" Great, but we've had a Republican governor for 8 years shouldn't the taxes be low enough? How will the next guy do it if the last one didn't lower them enough? I feel sorry for anyone that falls for that BS.
I thought I saw another ad about one of the candidates campaigning on ignoring the liberals. That'd be fine if you were governing over a 100% conservative state. I can't find that one or haven't see it again, so maybe I didn't hear right.
Steve!!! I'm so happy to
Steve!!! I'm so happy to see you. ;-)
"Lower taxes" is code for lower taxes for corporations and the rich. This mantra is how they convince people to vote against their own self interest.
Even if I cursed? (: I've
Even if I cursed? (:
I've been so caught up on my baseball board. The Braves are cruising in first place. It's been a great season. I had to vent about the Georgia primary.
The two things that make the angriest is the Gay couple benefits and "Obamacare" while my family fights to keep coverage.
The gay couple thing just infuriates me though, like they're giving benefits to murderers or something. It's disturbing. I can't believe people campaign on Gay couple benefits and adoption like it's the down fall of society. It's just sad.
EDIT: Oh, and the lower taxes rant is less about tax cuts for the rich and more about how we had a Republican governor for 8 years, why aren't the taxes already low enough if that's their mantra?
Steve, if you had any idea
Suzi, I've probably cursed
Suzi, I've probably cursed more. lol
I get so mad when I see one of these primary ads. I yell stuff at the Tv like a crazy person. I'm sick of it. I've the seen the one about Gay couple benefits at least 10-15 times today.
Apparently the Republican
Apparently the Republican primary for Governor in Florida has also become a pi$$ing contest who is the most anti-gay. Sad.
Under a Tea Party / GOP hypocrisy site, I posted that this must be a version of the declaration of Independence I am not familiar with, but is apparently a widely popular version among right-wingers:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men except homosexuals are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienble rights ... However it turns out homosexuals are created in a warehouse in the Tenderloin district of San Francisco and delivered by storks to hospitals through a Stargate-like portal that makes them appear to be like regular humans in every way except for their sexual orientation, and as such, their civil liberties.
LOL It's kind of like
LOL
It's kind of like our founding fathers. They did well obviously but they made a document/country about all men being created equal but at the same time, some owned slaves and America had slaves for nearly 100 years after the Constitution was written.
People's own self interest
People's own self interest is to be employed.
Lowering corporate taxes would be the best way to get us out of this recession. The U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate out of all the industrialized nations.
There is vast historical evidence that lowering corporate and capital gains taxes would grow the economy.
Then isn't it amazing that
Then isn't it amazing that so few jobs were created (that is in the U.S. and not outsourced to other countries) during GWB's administration compared to the job creation during the Clinton administration.
Last night I read an interesting column where Eric Cantor got pwned on the meme that the stimulus hasn't created any non-governmental jobs. http://thinkprogress.org/2010/07/13/cantor-jobs-fair-stimulus/
"The U.S. has the second
"The U.S. has the second highest corporate tax rate out of all the industrialized nations."
True. But, you forgot to mention that tax rates, and actually paying taxes to the government, are two vastly different animals. You neglected to mention the slew of loopholes in the tax code that corporations (and frankly wealthy individuals also) use to avoid paying taxes to the government.
So, in essence, tax rates DO NOT EQUAL taxes paid. I suggest a better comparison would be taxes actually paid here vs. taxes actually paid abroad.
Right. Exxon paid NO taxes
"Exxon paid NO taxes last
"Exxon paid NO taxes last year."
One can certainly make a case that Exxon should have paid more taxes, but it would not be accurate to say that they paid NO taxes in 2009.
From Forbes, April 7, 2010:
And for all you commenters outraged that Exxon isn't paying taxes in the U.S., don't worry, it is. Our article only focused on income taxes, but it's worth noting that the 10-k also records $7.7 billion in other taxes in the U.S. (like sales taxes).
I personally pay both sales
Brandon, does the $7.7
Brandon, does the $7.7 billion include leasing fees that oil companies pay the federal government for the right to explore on the leased tracts?
The $7.7 billion was for
The $7.7 billion was for "sales taxes" and "duty/use taxes."
I don't know if "duty/use taxes" are the same as "leasing fees."
Don't we all....that's a red
To the extent that this
To the extent that this little syllogism was ever this simple or true, it is canceled out by the recent fascination of corporate America for NOT fostering their interests by creating jobs and investing in production but, rather, creating "innovative financial products" whereby liquid assets (and even gaseous assets) are re-packaged and leveraged, and then sold on a totally uninformed untested market. This is now a colossal part of the American free market economy and it creates NOTHING but paper wealth for insiders who can use dubious transactions to give themselves fabulous numbers for gimmying short term stock and profit reports, thus luring investment assets from retirement accounts, mutual funds, mortgage turnovers, etc.into a sinkhole.
This IS the modern conservative financial legacy.
I'd like to see SOMEONE among conservatives, who purport to like ' the past' so much, own up that an Eisnehower era model economy is actually better than this current Wall Street Leviathan. We could use a little Eisenhower era slow, generally steady growth measured by jobs and real goods/servics productivity (maybe minus the racial and gender job discrimination this time out).
To the conservative philosophy, the end of slavery was government interference in business. So were child labor laws. So are meat inspections. So are warning labels on medicine.
No matter how much they screw up, conservative economists are still quite content to hand you their piss in a champagne bottle and walk away thinking that they just toasted your good health.
You hit the nail on the
You hit the nail on the head.
If you want back-up from one of the best experts in the field of finance, I'll give you back-up from none other than Jeremy Grantham.
I can't supply a direct link to Grantham's commentary because it's by subscription (here it is if you want it anyway). Here's a copy-and-paste of his point:
“In 1965, 3% of GDP that was made up of financial services [and that] was clearly sufficient to the task, the proof being that the decade was a strong candidate for the greatest economic decade of the 20th century. We should be suspicious, therefore, of the benefits derived from the extra 4.5% of the pie that went to pay for financial services by 2007, as the financial services share of GDP expanded to a
remarkable 7.5%.
This extra 4.5% would seem to be without material value except to the recipients. Yet it is a form of tax on the remaining real economy and should reduce by 4.5% a year its ability to save and invest, both of which did slow down. This, in turn, should eventually reduce the growth rate of the non-financial sector, which it indeed did: from 3.5% a year before 1965, this growth rate slowed to 2.4% between 1980 and 2007, even before the crisis.”
Thanks for this, Kim. I did
Brandon, we must face the
Now Suzi, you know that
wc, right now, I'm just
wc, right now, I'm just get so tired of the partisan BS, and talking points. WHERE is the common sense in this world?
Did you see the comment I left for you on another thread about Lake Pontchartrain? ;-(
No, I didn't. What was
No, I didn't. What was it?
I haven't been here as much as usual.
They found some tarballs,
They found some tarballs, and oil sheen on the Lake, fish kill of unknown origin, and rumors of oil "seepage" (couldn't confirm the last one). This occurred a week or so after Alex hit Mexico...it stayed 700 miles away from the spill site, but the wave and tidal action pushed the oil in.
This pretty well confirms the "worst case scenario" you and I discussed earlier re a direct hit from a hurricane.
As luck would have it, a
As luck would have it, a friend of mine posted this on FB. It certainly fits into this conversation....
CBO Data Show Tax Cuts Have Played Much Larger Role than Domestic Spending Increases in Fueling the Deficit
The new Congressional Budget Office budget projections released today show that the nation faces a fourth consecutive year of substantial budget deficits. Some seek to portray “runaway domestic spending” or growth in the costs of entitlement programs as the primary cause of the shift in recent years from sizeable surpluses to large deficits. Such a characterization is incorrect. In 2005, the cost of tax cuts enacted over the past four years will be over three times the cost of all domestic program increases enacted over this period.
Even if you don't read the entire article, there's a great pie chart that sums it all up.
It all depends on what taxes
It all depends on what taxes you cut. Lowering taxes on investing and business development is the best way to help the economy. It is not the poor that own businesses or employ people, so some would call lowering these types of capital gains and corporate taxes: "tax cuts for the rich."
Reagan and Kennedy understood that cutting certain taxes was the best way to grow the economy. Their economic policies gave the country years of prosperity.
Please give me an example of another way the government could bring about sustained economic growth that has historically been proven to be effective.
We've been over that a
What do you suggest we do
I'm sorry Brandon, I just
I certainly understand not
I certainly understand not being in the mood to debate/discuss an issue. With the BP disaster, we've all seen the results of when a business has been able to do whatever they want with little regulatory oversight.
The U.S. economic system has provided the highest standard of living for the greatest number of people in the history of human civilization. Private enterprise is what has created this prosperity especially the small business which employs over half of all workers.
My question is for everyone that reads RFO. If you guys don't believe that giving business owners incentive to expand and grow is the best thing government can do, then what do you believe the answer is?
I think most of us can
I think most of us can appreciate cutting taxes to stimulate the economy. There are points in the economy where cutting taxes by, say, $1, would stimulate the economy $1 (in some cases, possibly more). As taxes are cut more and more, however, the stimulation becomes less and less, until you reach a point where it's ZERO. As the stimulus becomes less and less, the deficit increases more, as you no longer have the stimulation to the economy (the creation of wealth) to offset the loss of revenue. The trick is (and this is really tricky) finding where that inflection point is. So, the point is, just cutting taxes for the wealthy no matter what the economic situation could just as well be hurting as helping. Unfortunately, the GOP seems not to have figured that out yet.
You are correct about Reagan and Kennedy. But today's economy is MUCH MORE dependent on the global economy than was the case during Kennedy's and Reagan's terms. And, in the case of Reagan, much of what he undertook was increasing military spending, to force the Soviet Union into oblivion. He basically succeeded at that, with some help from the Pope, the Solidarity Trade Union in Poland, and Gorbachev himself.
"Please give me an example
"Please give me an example of another way the government could bring about sustained economic growth"
Revisionist history notwithstanding, Depression Era New Deal stimulus. Propped up the economic structures until they got going again. NOt flawless, but had the government gone "lazy (un)fair" the great grandchildren of Rockefeller would still be on the streets of NYC handing out dimes to starving passers bye.
Tom, you obviously forgot
Tom, you obviously forgot about the word "sustained" in my question.
The New Deal stimulus never got actual unemployment below 20% in the 1930s. During the 2nd phase of the New Deal in 1938, unemployment rose.
The Dow didn't get back to its 1929 level until the mid 1950s.
If I recall my history
If I recall my history correctly, the President in 1929 was a Republican, as was the administration for the 4 years previous.
My point is, the Republican ideas weren't so good either...or the crash wouldn't have happened.
During the Depression the unemployment rate was 25%. It isn't an apples to apples comparison to today, as that meant 25% of HOUSEHOLDS were without any means of support, as most had only one wage earner. Today, with so many families having both adults working outside the home, one spouse can remain employed while the other is unemployed. This greatly reduces the impact of a given percentage unemployment.
I'm not meaning to be
I'm not meaning to be difficult...I'm really not. I'm just tired of the same old talking points being debated without so much as a nod to common sense and reality.
Yes, I'm feeling a bit stressed and cranky. ;-)
Paul Krugman has often
Rachael Maddow did a
Rachael Maddow did a segment last night on her show were she stated that for every $1 of tax cuts it stimulates the economy by $1.02 and every dollar of stimulus money (she was using example; unemployment benfits)stimulates the economy $1.62. If these figures are correct (I must say I trust Maddow) then how would tax cuts be of optimal benefit right now as apposed to say, more stimulus?
"Peace Cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
Albert Einstein
Under Bill Clinton, 23
Under Bill Clinton, 23 million jobs were created during his 8 year term. During Bush's 8 years, only 3 million jobs were created.
But the economy is far more complicated than just this one figure. Fiscal and monetary policy, the number of people entering the workforce, lag time between policy making and policy implication etc. are also factors.
Clinton had the luxury of the peace dividend thanks to Ronald Reagan and the huge internet stock boom.
Despite the horrible economic impact of 9/11, the war on terror and the end of the tech bubble, Bush had full employment during his first 6 years.
The problem with Maddow's figures is that while they are technically true, it is only a short term benefit.
Remember, government can't create wealth. All the government can do is take money away from one group and give it to another. Every dollar in government stimulus is money taken away from the private sector either through taxes or debt. Government can move wealth around but not actually create it.
Tax cuts have historically shown to actually grow the GDP which is why we should be focusing on creating long term incentives for people to produce wealth such as cutting corporate taxes.
What ever happened to Mary Moo she understood and knew how to explain these concepts far better than me.
Mary and her defense of
Suzi, with all due respect I
Suzi, with all due respect I don't think you and I are even really discussing the same issue.
I'm not defending corporate America, BP, big business, the rich etc. nor am I just repeating Republican talking points of the last 80 years.
The U.S. is facing a severe economic crisis with high unemployment, huge budget deficits at almost all levels of government and investors pessimistic about the future.
I think that cutting certain taxes along with the government spending less money would invigorate the economy. I also believe that it can be demonstrated factually and historically that this would work.
I'm simply asking those who disagree to tell me what they would do.
To be honest, around here, I