I just heard.

1) Adam Smith, in “The Wealth of Nations” (1776), his seminal treatise on capitalism, Smith wrote:
The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

2) I don't see McCain denouncing the progressive tax system that has been used in this country for the past 90+ years. McCain's tax plan does nothing to reverse this trend. Obama's tax plan simply shifts the numbers around slightly.

3) I can't trust anyone that keeps a terrible lie/misquote in their signature.

You've convinced me. I'm totally voting McCain now. I vote on Wednesday, right?

Ronald Reagan: "Are you better off than you were four years ago"?

PASS IT ALONG....AND VOTE CAREFULLY !!

Another question about US constitutional law:
Is the following scenario possible?
McCain/Palin get elected. McCain dies. Palin becomes president and picks George W. Bush as vice president.

I just heard that McCain plans on traveling to New Mexico and Colorado after he votes, to campaign. I can't ever remember a candidate campaigning on Election Day.

I remember CNN reporting back in 2000 of Gore calling in radio stations for short-interviews in the last opening hours for New Mexico and Nevada.

From Drudge:


McCAIN CAMPAIGN MEMO: READING THE EXIT POLLS
Mon Nov 03 2008 16:53:14 ET

As we have seen in previous election cycles, the exit poll results do leak early and that ends up influencing the coverage of the race before even the first state polls close at 6:00 PM Eastern.

However, we want to remind the campaign that the medias own post-election study of the exit polls in 2004 showed that the exit polls overstate the Democratic candidates support. Therefore, we would discourage a rush to judgment based on the exit polls and wait until there has been a representative sampling of actual tabulated results from a variety of counties and precincts in a state.

Here are the key points to keep in mind when the exit poll data starts being leaked:

1. Historically, exit polls have tended to overstate the Democratic vote.

2. The exit polls are likely to overstate the Obama vote because Obama voters are more likely to participate in the exit poll.

3. The exit polls have tended to skew most Democratic in years where there is high turnout and high vote interest like in 1992 and 2004.

4. It is not just the national exit poll that skews Democratic, but each of the state exit polls also suffers from the same Democratic leanings.

5. The results of the exit polls are also influenced by the demographics of the voters who conduct the exit polls.

After the 2004 election, the National Election Pool completed a study investigating why the exit polls that year showed John Kerry over performing 5.5 net points better than the actual results showed him to have done. Their conclusion was that the primary reason the exit polls was that Kerry voters and Democrats were more likely to participate in the exit polls.

Our investigation of the differences between the exit poll estimates and the actual vote count point to one primary reason: in a number of precincts a higher than average Within Precinct Error most likely due to Kerry voters participating in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters. There has been partisan overstatements in previous elections, more often overstating the Democrat, but occasionally overstating the Republican.

We believe that this will hold true this year. The recent Fox News survey showed that 46% of Obama voters said they were very likely to participate in the exit polls, while just 35% of McCain supporters are.

In fact, even the 2004 exit poll report noted that higher turnout nationally and higher levels of voter interest in both 1992 and 2004 correlated with greater Within Precinct Error.

The overstating of the Democratic vote did not only occur in the national exit polls, but also occurred in the state exit polls. The 2004 exit poll report cited that the Kerry vote was overstated by more than one standard error in 26 states, while the Bush vote was overstated in just four states. So we should also expect the individual state exit polls on Tuesday to be more Democratic as well.

So given that turnout is expected to be even higher than 2004 and that Democrats are more likely to participate in the exit polls, this means we should expect greater fluctuation and variation in the exit polls from the actual election results.

The 2004 exit poll report also showed that the greatest error in the exit poll came in precincts where the interviewer was younger. The completion rates were lower and the refusal rates and Within Precinct Error was higher when the interviewers were under the age of 35.[6] Complicating this is that nearly half the interviewers were under the age of 35, including 35% who were 18-24 and another 15% were 25-34.

Conclusions

Based on the previous exit poll results, we should expect once again that Tuesdays exit poll data could overstate the Obama vote and under represent the McCain vote.

It is important that the campaign make sure the media realizes this, so that when the exit polls do leak, people do not overreact to the early exit poll data. Rather than looking at the exit polls, we should wait until we start seeing actual election results from key precincts and counties to gauge who won the election.

TIS would LOVE that scenario

No.

The constitutional explicitely remarks that a President at most can serve two 4-year terms, or 10 years if one succeeded to the office with less than two years left on that term left unfulfilled by the predecessor. Also, the Vice-President has the same qualification-limits as the President.

On January 20, Dubya will have served 8 full years. He's ineligible for anymore terms or even as VP.

And why is it that this reminds me of Karl Rove two years ago said that "his math" showed the GOP retaining Congress, despite everybody else's pollings saying otherwise?

I have to agree with the McCain Campaign somewhat. I remember very early in the evening on the 2004 Election Day, many of the talking heads were projecting a Kerry win based on exit polling.

Even if he was eligible, and Palin picked him (even if she's now trying to distance herself from the Bush White House), he'd have to be approved by Congress.

That would never happen.

From Barrons.com:

Barack Obama, the Fiscal Conservative?

The Democrat would do a better job of reining in the budget deficit than his GOP competitor, says First Global.

First Global

ON THE EVE OF THE U.S. presidential election, we thought it instructive to look at how the US budget has looked under a Democratic versus a Republican White House. With the caveats that economic cycles bring their own head and tailwinds and 'past performance may not be indicative of the future', the analysis of the last two decades is certainly interesting.

When Republican candidate, George W. Bush took over as president in January 2001, he inherited a budget surplus of $236.2 billion in the fiscal year 2000. In fact, the federal budget was in surplus for four consecutive years, 1998-2001, following 30 years of running budget deficits. In contrast, when Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton took over as President on January 20, 1993, he inherited a budget deficit of $290.3 billion in 1992, built up under the regime of the then Republican President, George H.W. Bush - the father of the current president.

The legacy of the current Bush presidency means that the incoming president will need to work hard to reduce the federal budget deficit. No matter which way you cut the data, the Democratic regime wins hands down, primarily due to the huge difference in expenditures on military defense and receipts from individual taxes, based on policy differences between the candidates.

The US national debt (which represents an accumulation of yearly budget deficits) has touched $10 trillion, on the budget year ending September 2008, with a cumulative growth of 72.6% during the Bush regime, as against a cumulative growth of merely 28.6% at the time of the Clinton's regime.

The continuously declining budget deficit during the Clinton regime reflects the impact of various major legislations signed by him, such as the "Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993" raising the income tax rates, the "Minimum Wage" Increase Act of 1996, etc.

On the other hand, the sharp decline in the budget deficit during the Bush period can be attributed to two reasons -- declining tax rates and the Iraq war.

The high U.S. budget deficit is not popular due to a number of reasons. Firstly, the higher the government expenditure, the lesser the available resources for private investment, which is popularly known as the "crowding-out" effect in Keynesian language.

Secondly, though expansionary government policies become an inevitable tool to boost the domestic economy amidst tough times, investors punish the largest deficit running government in the longer term, as the deficit adversely impacts credibility and increases the risk of default by that government, since it is consuming resources faster than other governments.

Thirdly, if a government is spending more than it has, then it will finance the over-expenditure in two ways -- (i) borrowing and; (ii) printing money. Both of these moves could prove dangerous, as borrowing by issuing government securities will reduce money supply in the market and seigniorage will increase money supply. An excess of either could prove disastrous for the economy (in fact, the entire world is facing a liquidity crunch in the market currently).

Despite governments across the world committing trillions of dollars to save their banking systems, there are some limits as to how far they continue doing so, since in the longer term, investors may punish those nations with higher deficits on their government budgets. The problem for the U.S. is that it started on an already high base of budget deficits and national debt and these would only push it higher. As the situation stands, the incoming Presidents will have an uphill task to reduce the federal budget deficit (let us forget the balanced budget for now).

Republican candidate, John McCain, has a big disadvantage here, as he has backed Bush's tax cuts for the rich and now wants to provide them with bigger tax cuts. Moreover, John McCain was gungho on the Iraq war from the start, while on the other hand, Barack Obama is opposed to both these policies. Hence, our vote goes to Barack Obama, a Democratic candidate, at least in terms of fiscal discipline.

Yes becuase the 22nd amendment only applies to election as President. However, the President's nomination of a Vice-President must be approved by the Congress and I think that a Congress would be unlikely to approve.

I wish Joe the tax-evader, not-really-a-plumber, not-buying-a-business, would-benefit-under-obama-tax-plan, and not-even-named-Joe would go away already. It just doesn't seem conceivable that a unknown "plumber" can become some kind of authority on foreign policy and politics over night just because he asked a question based on false premises to Obama? Anything he says should automatically be dismissed as shit that goes in a toilet he isn't even licensed to unplug.

(reading the thread backwards, sorry)

Below is Obama's statement:

"My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

It's quite obvious that he was referring to a good economy for everyone.

You're wasting your time. She's a lost cause.

McCain and Tina Fey from SNL. This was actually very funny.

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/mccain-qvc-open/805381/

Even funnier, Ben Affleck as Keith Olbermann

http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/countdown-with-keith-olbermann/805561/

Yeah I watched Saturday night before I went to bed. Did you notice how McCain was holding his right arm funny?

Not that I noticed, but his arms are messed up from what he went through.

Karl Rove's final Electoral College projection:

Obama 338
McCain 200


http://www.rove.com/uploads/0000/0049/McCain-Obama_11_3_08_FINAL.pdf

Sounds about right.

I just hope it's an early night. I really don't want to be up until 4 in the morning this year.

Obama, McCain eye potential administration teams

By CHARLES BABINGTON – 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans will elect not only a president on Tuesday, but also his huge team of aides, advisers and bureaucrats who will help the winner run the federal government for the next four years.

Clearly a John McCain presidency would be more conservative than a Barack Obama presidency. Beyond the ideological and partisan divides, however, are differences in style, tone and pedigree that would distinguish one administration from the other.

Obama, if he wins, appears likely to draw several of his top aides, including some Cabinet secretaries, from three key sources: Democratic governors midway through their second and final terms in office; former top appointees of Bill Clinton's administration; and political pros from Obama's hometown of Chicago.

McCain, a former Navy officer whose father and grandfather were admirals, is likely to rely more heavily on current and retired military officials. He probably would draw more people from the corporate world, and somewhat fewer people from think tanks and academia, than would Obama, according to people close to the candidates.

Numerous lists of potential appointees are circulating in Washington, Chicago and Arizona. But Democratic and GOP officials warn that both nominees are fully focused on Tuesday's finish line and probably have made no firm personnel decisions about the administration they hope to run.

People close to Obama believe he would offer jobs to some or all of a quartet of Democratic governors who campaigned hard for him, even if a couple of them opposed him initially.

Two, who have thrived in Republican-leaning states — Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona and Gov. Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas — backed Obama from the start. Napolitano is seen as a possible attorney general. Sebelius is mentioned as a possible secretary of Education, Commerce, Energy or Health and Human Services.

Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania is seen as a possible pick for the top Energy or Transportation posts. Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who sought the presidential nomination himself, is thought to be on a short list for secretary of state.

The four would have to give up the last two years of their eight-year terms as governor, something that might give them pause.

Former Democratic governors who might become Obama appointees include Tom Vilsack of Iowa, mentioned as a possible Agriculture secretary.

Obama already has turned to a former Clinton aide, John Podesta, to head his transition planning. Other former Clinton appointees said to be in the running for prominent jobs in an Obama administration include Susan Rice, who was assistant secretary of state for African Affairs; James Steinberg, who was deputy national security adviser; Gregory Craig, who was one of Clinton's top lawyers; economic advisers Gene Sperling and Laura Tyson; and former treasury secretaries Larry Summers and Robert Rubin.

Top Obama campaign aides David Axelrod and David Plouffe of Chicago would be probable picks for senior adviser or political posts. Officials say Obama already has approached Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, who got his political start with Clinton, as a possible White House chief of staff. Campaign aide Robert Gibbs has the inside track to be press secretary.

Other Chicago associates likely to land posts in an Obama administration include lawyer and fundraiser Penny Pritzker, and business executive and family friend Valerie Jarrett. Former Senate Majority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota is certain to have a prominent role if he wants one, and some Obama supporters prefer him over Emanuel as chief of staff.

McCain, in picking his transition chief, set a tone that he would carry into the White House if elected, associates say. He tapped former Navy secretary John Lehman, one of several prominent military officials close to him.

Lehman might serve as Defense secretary or senior adviser in a McCain administration, sources say. McCain, who says U.S. troops should not leave Iraq until victory is secured, might ask current Defense Secretary Robert Gates to stay, at least a while.

Should neither Gates nor Lehman head the Pentagon, McCain might turn to retired Marine Gen. James Jones or Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a lawyer in the Air Force Reserve.

Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, an "independent Democrat" who campaigned exhaustively for McCain, would almost surely get a top post, possibly secretary of state. World Bank president Robert Zoellick is another possibility for that slot, or another prominent job.

Two prominent women from the corporate world — former eBay chief Meg Whitman, and former Hewlett-Packard chairman Carly Fiorina — would be strong contenders for roles as official or unofficial advisers to McCain.

At least two of McCain's vanquished GOP rivals could land administration jobs if he wins. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani has been mentioned as a possible attorney general. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney could contend for several other posts.

Retiring Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico could receive a top appointment in Energy or national security, two areas in which she has expertise.

Like Obama, McCain would be almost certain to give top jobs to his chief campaign advisers. Longtime aides Mark Salter and Rick Davis would likely be on the White House staff. Top economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin would be offered a post involving domestic policy.

You know, if he hadn't been busted for fucking around, John Edwards would have been Obama's Attorney General.

No really.

Yea, I'm guessing he'd would have stood a chance. Boy, who would have thought hu?

However, speaking of Attorney General, I really think that Patrick Fitzgerald (of Valerie Plame fame) would be great. He's unpolitical, supposedly has a reputation of being honest and gives his all. Actually he is from Chicago too, so who knows.

Anyway, don't want to jump the gun just yet. Perhaps tomorrow at this time we can choose Obama's cabinet for him.


Fingers crossed

Obama/Biden 08

TIS

I know I posted the NBC link earlier, but here's the Youtube video of Ben Affleck/Keith Olbermann SNL parody. Affleck has him down pat.

I saw that on Countdown today. I missed the very beginning and had no idea it was Ben Affleck until Keith said so. He is right on isn't he?

Btw, may I suggest we post here if anyone has any problems, good or bad experiences or just comments when they cast their vote tomorrow? Or just let us know the turn-out at your polling place.

I had an absentee/mail in vote, so can't comment on personal experience. However, the school I work at is a polling place so I expect I'll see a lot of activity. Usually it's not very busy at all but I expect it to be tomorrow.


TIS