Black Hole....errr The Political Roundtable

[nate33]

--Tax relief for the middle class, first time home buyers.

The middle class don't pay federal taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3.3% of total income taxes. Pretty much any additional "tax cut" sent their way amounts to outright welfare-style wealth redistribution.

--Better schools, better wages for better teachers.

The money spent per pupil in education has almost quadrupled in the past 40 years after adjusting for inflation. Clearly the system is broken. More money is not the answer. We need to rethink the way we organize our school systems. I find it hard to believe that the Democrat party, clearly in the pocket of the teacher's unions, will do much to upset the status quo. They'll just throw more good money after bad. I'm not convinced the Republicans will do much better, but they're at least trying to institute some level of school choice into the system (whenever they can push it past Democrat opposition).

--Incentives for the small business entrepreneur, since that's where the greatest job creation occurs and how people attain productive middle class status out of being working poor. Microloan programs and other small business incentives.

I worry about over-incentivizing small firms over big ones. I reject the idea that somehow big business is bad. Big businesses are merely good small businesses that have been around for a while. I'm all for incentives that help business and create jobs. I just don't much care whether those jobs are coming from small business or big businesses. Ideally, we develop a tax code that is business-friendly enough to encourage both big and small business to operate here and not overseas. Right now, we have the 2nd highest corporate tax rate out of all developed nations.

--Some program to allow preventive care, early care, so we're less vulnerable to any next-order epidemic. Some program to ensure that the most vulnerable are safe.

Health care is the trickiest public policy problem of all, in my opinion. I think the problem is that we are too focused on who has insurance and access to health care, and we're less focused on why the actual health care is so damn expensive. There's a lot of bureaucracy, red tape, and monopoly power within the health care and insurance industries. I'm not smart enough to know whether the solution is regulation or deregulation, but if costs are cheaper, more people will have access. (I think your point about preventative care is spot on. Surely, it would be cheaper to treat people before they get too sick. I'm just not sure that nationalizing health care is the way to get there. National health care is no panacea in Great Britain or Canada.)

--Intelligent use and deployment of forces. And real diplomacy as a tool thereof. To bring pressure both public and private.

I agree. But diplomacy without the credible threat of force is empty. Reagan was a more effective "diplomat" than Jimmy Carter.

[Cramer]

closg00--I don't think the brother-in-law state trooper scandal has legs; the affair would probably be very damaging at this point.

Update!
The story has legs and will be breaking wide-open in three weeks according to ABC news.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5734511&page=1

You come to the conclusion from that article that this "has legs" and "will be breaking wide-open?"

God give me strength.

[dobrojim]

OK, so from where I sit the biggest or best arguments/charges against Obama's
candidacy are his relative lack of experience and his supposed lack of
accomplishment.

Let's examine these for a moment. We believe experience is important
because it suggests the likelihood that important decisions will be made in
a better, more informed manner. So I counter thusly- if Obama's inexperience
was so important why has his stance on a number of important issues and
especially THE most important decision of the last many years, the decision
to attack a country that posed no threat to us, demonstrably correct and
the position of the more experienced candidate on the clearly wrong side
Bottom line - experience doesn't necessarily trump judgment. I'd much
rather have a really smart guy, say someone who got was elected to the
Harvard Law review, where he supervised 80 other editors, before graduating
Magna Cum Laude than say just hypothetically someone who appears to have
gotten into his college primarily on a legacy and did exceedingly poorly once
he got there.

As for accomplishments, I think there is one very large accomplishment
that seems to be largely ignored, as if it were nothing, when in fact it
was/is historic. That accomplishment is winning the nomination against
a powerful political machine that most observers believed was going to
inevitably triumph. In doing so, he won by developing a great strategy
and executing it against a well financed and well connected opponent.
And he did so by breaking every record in the book concerning getting
SMALL donations from a HUGE number of different donors. No one had
done what he did. Oh, and he did so while being african american, a fact
which I cannot see how it's possible to argue that would be an advantage
in that situation. It would be kinda like if McCain had first gotten to the
senate in 1996, and then beaten Bush for the GOP nomination in 2000.
Except McCain wasn't african american.

So I ask any McCain folks out there how to explain how come with all
this man's lengthy experience, he still repeatedly makes gaffes which
to most observers, would indicate a lack of serious deep understanding
of the world such as it is. The list of gaffes is pretty impressive. Now
if Obama had made this many gaffes, I could see the experience argument
having more legs (today's cliche). But we just don't hear that much about
the McCain gaffes (media bias? CBS in particular) but they're out there for sure.

And straight talk? Please. If you're first going to accuse the other guy
of being willing to lose a war (which it isn't, it's an occupation, which
can never be "won") in order to win an election, you probably shouldn't
turn around and make your VP pick as someone who I think it is more
than safe to say, is unprepared given she didn't know what the job
responsibilities were at the time she was chosen. Now GOP operatives
are reportedly saying she will not be doing any interview any time soon,
if ever. Oh yeah, she's as qualified as Obama. That doesn't pass the laugh
test.

[dobrojim]

ps - someone needs to remind Palin and her syncophants that
Jesus was a community organizer and P Pilot, a governor.

[doclinkin]

Pretty much any additional "tax cut" sent their way amounts to outright welfare-style wealth redistribution.

Sounds good to me. Tax cuts, additional savings incentives, health care credits, increased education credits, first time home buyers credits, treating the middle class as human infrastructure that keeps this country steadily working and not simply moving assets around the stock market. Yes, I'm for a reversal of the trend of 'wealth redistribution' that highly compensates Enron execs and other pals of the privileged class, while the average joe is in danger of losing his house. I know it sounds heartless, but boo frickin hoo, not alot of sympathy here for the multimilionaires. Seems to me it's absolutely right that the country asks more from the folks who have profited most, and tries to give bootstraps to folks with no shoes.

--Better schools, better wages for better teachers.

[url]
The money spent per pupil in education has almost quadrupled in the past 40 years after adjusting for inflation. Clearly the system is broken. More money is not the answer. We need to rethink the way we organize our school systems.[/url]

'Expenditure per student' is not quite the whole picture. The data available states that the highest cost per student is seen in low-income areas, especially urban areas. But that cost per student will include things like metal detectors, security personnel, additional counseling, special education, free lunch programs, higher cost of living in urban areas, even teacher re-training to certify for 'no child left behind' education. I agree we need to reorganize our schools, but conversations with teachers suggests if we simply had smaller classes, smaller schools, and more teaching assistants we'd have more actual teaching getting done. Discipline issues that waste time could be minimized.

As for salaries, I've met great smart idealistic teachers, but the burnout rate is high. Many teachers last only a few years before moving on. Paper work is grinding, parent-teacher conferences are draining, teachers are required to be social workers, psychologists, drill sergeants etc. everything but a teacher. Could be a constant cycle of freshscrubbed kids with new teaching certificates might be what the job requires, a few years in the trenches then they move on. Seems to me though that folks entering teaching from successful careers in other real-life professions often have more to offer than enthusiasm. (Yeah I get the irony here).

On average Elementary and High school teachers earn less than Insurance salesmen, door-to-door salesmen, telephone installers... all in a profession where about 50% of them have masters degrees, and all of them are required to pass advanced certification tests with specialized training. That teachers earn less than Firefighters and plumbers, and funeral directors, well okay, I can make a case for that, but general sales professions, and uh, statisticians... Dunno seems to me --yeah summers off is nice (though seems like they don't get near the time off you'd expect)-- but if you paid a professional wage you might attract professionals with a different perspective and coping skills for what's a deeply intense and difficult job in the best of circumstances.

--Incentives for the small business entrepreneur, since that's where the greatest job creation occurs and how people attain productive middle class status out of being working poor. Microloan programs and other small business incentives.

I worry about over-incentivizing small firms over big ones. I reject the idea that somehow big business is bad. Big businesses are merely good small businesses that have been around for a while. I'm all for incentives that help business and create jobs. I just don't much care whether those jobs are coming from small business or big businesses. Ideally, we develop a tax code that is business-friendly enough to encourage both big and small business to operate here and not overseas. Right

Right, because your average garage start-up is likely to ship their customer service phone banks to Sri Lanka. Big businesses don't need the help, many small businesses fail by the narrowest of margins when a little extra help at the right time could carry them through.

--Intelligent use and deployment of forces. And real diplomacy as a tool thereof. To bring pressure both public and private.

I agree. But diplomacy without the credible threat of force is empty. Reagan was a more effective "diplomat" than Jimmy Carter.

And? Democrats FDR and JFK showed credible threats of force. This past administration failed deeply and grievously at the diplomacy aspect and as such had to over-commit to a force-only strategy to back up the bluster and significantly weakened our forces, even to the extent that we are unable to recruit to replenish our own troops. I trust Obama to work the diplomacy angle, and I trsut him to select and delegate bright minds to oversee the DOD and I'd damn sure trust him as the 'deciderer' more than I'd trust the last guy. Over and over again McCain supported the decisions of the last guy. And said he'd do it again, for the next 100 years if necessary.

[closg00]

closg00--I don't think the brother-in-law state trooper scandal has legs; the affair would probably be very damaging at this point.

Update!
The story has legs and will be breaking wide-open in three weeks according to ABC news.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5734511&page=1

You come to the conclusion from that article that this "has legs" and "will be breaking wide-open?"

God give me strength.

The basic facts on Palin's abuse of power are already on-record,and it doesn't make her look good - hence the current stall tactics by her handlers. The investigation was already underway when she was selected. The McCain folks just didn't do their homework on Palin.

[nate33]

The basic facts on Palin's abuse of power are already on-record, and it doesn't make her look good - hence the current stall tactics by her handlers. The investigation was already underway when she was selected. The McCain folks just didn't do their homework on Palin.

Exactly. Everybody knew about it. The McCain folks too. They all could see that it simply wasn't that big of a deal. When you boil it down, you have a case where the governor wanted a bad guy removed from the police force. That's hardly scandalous.

If Palin indeed had an affair, that would definitely be a big scandal.

[nate33]

And? Democrats FDR and JFK showed credible threats of force. This past administration failed deeply and grievously at the diplomacy aspect and as such had to over-commit to a force-only strategy to back up the bluster and significantly weakened our forces, even to the extent that we are unable to recruit to replenish our own troops. I trust Obama to work the diplomacy angle, and I trsut him to select and delegate bright minds to oversee the DOD and I'd damn sure trust him as the 'deciderer' more than I'd trust the last guy. Over and over again McCain supported the decisions of the last guy. And said he'd do it again, for the next 100 years if necessary.

I think this is the crux of the issue. Conservatives think Obama is the next Jimmy Carter. Liberals think he is the next JFK. I'm not sure how we resolve this disagreement.

I'm just not all that inclined to believe the words and policy proposals coming out of his mouth on the campaign trail. (Some of that stuff doesn't sound so bad.) I focus more on his voting record. He's the most liberal member of the Senate.

Likewise, Liberals are convinced that McCain is an extension of the Bush administration. I don't think he'll make the same mistakes. I think he has a much better track record that George Bush on spending. He does appear to have the same neocon foreign policy tendencies as Bush, which is a concern. But at the same time, he isn't blind to the political repercussions sustained by Bush. Despite his bellicose words (the 100 years quote, etc.) I think McCain be less inclined to engage in war. If nothing else, most troublemaker nations will be more loathe to try anything against him than they would Obama.

I'm not thrilled with his background on global warming, campaign finance reform, and the Supreme Court, but one can't have it all.

[nate33]

* The National Enquirer will be publishing an article detailing her adulterous affair with her husbands business partner(?) (Great family values huh?). Right-wing radio LOVED the John Edwards expose' in the Enquirer, but are oddly mute on the impending Palin bombshell in the Enquirer.

FWIW, from Byron York of the National Review:

"Another Incredible Allegation" — What The Enquirer Is Saying About Palin [Byron York]

Concerning the allegations in the new National Enquirer of an extramarital affair involving Sarah Palin, I called the tabloid this afternoon and asked for a copy of the new story. They obliged, and here is the portion of the story dealing with the alleged affair:

Another incredible allegation emerging from the family war is that Palin, a mother of five, had an affair with a former business associate of her fisherman husband, Todd.

“Todd discovered the affair and quickly dissolved his friendship and his business associations with the guy,” charges an enemy. “Many people in Alaska are talking about the rumor and say Todd swept it under the rug.”

And that's it, as far as the affair is concerned. In the brief cover story, the Enquirer also says this:

The ugly family feud stems from a three-year battle between the 44-year-old governor and her former brother-in-law, state trooper Mike Wooten.

“Sarah has many enemies in her hometown – but a lot of them are in her own extended family,” a source close to the Palin family told The Enquirer.

Family members loyal to Wooten are now waging a campaign to drag Palin’s reputation through the mud.

Sounds like it's an unsubstantiated allegation from Wooten's people.

[BanndNDC]

...But at the same time, he isn't blind to the political repercussions sustained by Bush. Despite his bellicose words (the 100 years quote, etc.) I think McCain be less inclined to engage in war. If nothing else, most troublemaker nations will be more loathe to try anything against him than they would Obama.

i don't know about that. his recent talk about Georgia was truly scary. He was actually calling for war with Russia (what would be required by having Georgia join NATO during the Russian invasion). His rhetoric on Georgia seemed extremely reckless. I don't think troublemaker countries will have any problem trying something against McCain because it's pretty clear right now that we are a bit of a paper tiger. We can't do anything somewhere else as long as Iraq is going on and Russia played us for a fool big time by exposing our rhetoric as empty.

[doclinkin]

I think this is the crux of the issue. Conservatives think Obama is the next Jimmy Carter. Liberals think he is the next JFK. I'm not sure how we resolve this disagreement.

I'm just not all that inclined to believe the words and policy proposals coming out of his mouth on the campaign trail. (Some of that stuff doesn't sound so bad.)
...
Likewise, Liberals are convinced that McCain is an extension of the Bush administration. I don't think he'll make the same mistakes. I think he has a much better track record that George Bush on spending. He does appear to have the same neocon foreign policy tendencies as Bush, which is a concern. But at the same time, he isn't blind to the political repercussions sustained by Bush. Despite his bellicose words (the 100 years quote, etc.) I think McCain be less inclined to engage in war. If nothing else, most troublemaker nations will be more loathe to try anything against him than they would Obama.

I'd agree on the disagreement. I think the key lies in whom Obama taps to serve as advisors and Cabinet members. It was a hopeful sign to me that he was working closely with General Wesley Clark on foreign policy issues. Post-9/11, Clark laid out the most sane rational forceful direct and immediate plan to attack the issue of terrorism. Small mobile forces, constant state of readiness, working closely with allied Intel, treating terrorism as a Police issue, backed by Military force, but not burning down a house to kill a roach. Recruiting allies, forceful diplomacy is the only way to deal with it, clean up our own messes and marginalize countries that harbor terrorism, making it less profitable while still keeping the white hat on. The former NATO commander in the Kosovo situation is an ideal person to advise and execute post-9/11 coalition building.

We have so many potential allies who are thwarted from helping us by public opinion in their own counties. That's the danger of world-wide Democracy, you have to make a convincing argument not just at home but abroad to convince people to risk their sons lives for a cause. Terrorism, muslim extremism or otherwise, is a world wide problem, there's no way the US should be the sole country that pays the cost, in lives as well as ordnance. But with this version of assbackwards cowboy adventurism we can't even convince France and Spain to lend a hand-- two countries that have had to deal with domestic terrorism, hell Germany and England have had to backpedal from public support. They've lost confidence in our judgment and competence. Pretty sad, that.

Political good will goes a long way. If I were a pure-blood fanatic pacifist I might worry more about an Obama presidency precisely because Internationally he'll enter office with a huge bankroll of goodwill to do what he needs. And there's nothing more dangerous than a guy whose been accused of being weak who suddenly has a gun and the need to prove his machismo.

But I don't think Obama is that guy. He's not Clintonesque with a pathological need to be liked. In his public persona he's cautious and careful, considers his arguments, then strikes back with all appropriate force. He's proven to be smart and savvy in politics, willing to fight but fight fair. The nasty in me recognizes the republican concern that he's not devious and fierce enough to fight dirty the way the game sometimes has to be played. But standing across the game table I'd respect the hell out of his intelligence and know for certain I'd have to be both lucky and on top of my game to beat him. They know it too. The Palin maneuver was a smart dirty trick, clever, well thought out. Surprising and funny. I don't underestimate those jokers, they know politics well. But it's a trick, a stunt, ultimately the mass of voters get it.

And if or when Obama is elected anyway, you'll come to understand the strength of the candidate. More doubters will have to give grudging respect. There's no question the repubs are due for a reorganization, the McCain candidacy speaks that as clear as anything. They've been betraying the confidence of their core constituency for too long. The next candidate may have to start playing the same game: articulate your heartfelt opinion, then back it up with carefully considered arguments. If you're right you're right; if you're wrong: get right. My feeling is an Obama election may ultimately help the republicans cut out the hijinks and discover what they hell they really care about enough to state plainly. And I think people will be surprised to see how receptive Obama is to it. If he maintains the [knockwood] bulletproof reputation, kevlar, not teflon, he doesn't have to care about pandering to extremists in his party, he can work on coalition building at home as well as abroad.

[doclinkin]

Here's one of several of Gen Clark's riffs on terrorism and the strengths and difficulty of multilateral action.

I also liked Wes Clark's terse reply that getting shot out of a plane doesn't strictly qualify you as a military expert. Then when pushed on the issue he poked back

"John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as president. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country, but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions," Clark said.

"And in this area his judgment has been flawed. He not only supported going into a war we didn't have to fight in Iraq but has time and again undervalued other, nonmilitary elements of national power that must be used effectively to protect America.

"But as an American and former military officer, I will not back down if I believe someone doesn't have sound judgment when it comes to our nation's most critical issues.

Barak Obama is not running on the basis of his national security experience, he is running on the basis of good judgment. I support him."

While he wasn't selected as Veep, he acted as an early advisor to the Obama camp and would have to be considered on the short list for SecDef or SecState.

[20MexicanosIn1Van]

I haven't read the whole thread, just the beginning. But the point of the electoral college is so that each state has "equal" say. (Yes, I know that each state has a different number of electorates.) If there were no electoral college, politicians would cater to the big cites, cause they have the bigger populus. Obama and McCain wouldn't come to Ohio, Virginia, etc, they would go to Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, etc.

[nate33]

Among registered voters:
- Zogby: McCain up by 4%
- Gallup: McCain up by 3%
- Rasmussen: Tied

Among likely voters:
Gallup: McCain up by 10%

I tend to believe Rasmussen more than the rest of these pollsters, but nevertheless, the trend is changing. Palin and Giuliani really did a number on Obama at the RNC Convention. Their humorous, sarcasm-laced attacks on his experience have really hit home. It'll be interesting to see how the Obama camp responds. Right now, they're on the defensive, which is never good.

[closg00]

Among registered voters:
- Zogby: McCain up by 4%
- Gallup: McCain up by 3%
- Rasmussen: Tied

Among likely voters:
Gallup: McCain up by 10%

I tend to believe Rasmussen more than the rest of these pollsters, but nevertheless, the trend is changing. Palin and Guliani really did a number on Obama at the RNC Convention. Their humorous, sarcasism-laced, attacks on his experience have really hit home. It'll be interesting to see how the Obama camp responds. Right now, they're on the defensive, which is never good.

Obama had his post-convention bounce, and now McCain has had his. The debates will be crucial.

Obama made a HUGE mistake in not selecting Hillary as his running-mate.

If Obama were white, the election would not even be close. One of the pundits said "The Democrats selected the only candidate that could lose" and Republicans selected the only canditate that could win" McCain is really running as as Independent.

[nate33]

Obama had his post-convention bounce, and now McCain has had his. The debates will be crucial.

Obama made a HUGE mistake in not selecting Hillary as his running-mate.

If Obama were white, the election would not even be close. One of the pundits said "The Democrats selected the only candidate that could lose" and Republicans selected the only canditate that could win" McCain is really running as as Independent.

Here we go with the racism defense again. What a bunch of hooey.

Two weeks ago, Democrats were smug in the knowlege that Obama was an unbeatable force of nature. There was no sactimonious crap about the Democrats selecting "the only candidate that could lose". Give me a break.

[miller31time]

Here is my post on the CA Board about the electoral map and how things seem to be shaping out....

Looking at NPR's website, they have an interactive Electoral Map.

Now, I'm not sure how accurate and recent each of the map's state-polling is, but according to the map, if the election process ended today, and each state went to the nominee who is currently leading, Obama would win 273-252 (not counting Virginia which, according to the poll, is a complete tie.

Giving Virginia to McCain (since Bush won there with 53% of the vote in 2004), Obama still would win 273-265.

Here are the swing states, filed under who it is currently favoring....

Favoring Barack Obama

Colorado (9 votes) (Obama currently up 0.4%)
New Mexico (5 votes) (Obama currently up 4.3%)
Iowa (7 votes) (Obama currently up 9.0% -- BTW, can anyone tell me why this is a swing state when Obama has such a sizable advantage?)
Michigan (17 votes) (Obama currently up 4.3%)
Pennsylvania (21 votes) (Obama currently up 5%)
New Hampshire (4 votes) (Obama currently up 0.3%)

Favoring John McCain

Florida (27 votes) (McCain currently up 3.1%)
Nevada (5 votes) (McCain currently up 1.0%)
Ohio (20 votes) (McCain currently up 0.6%)

Virtual tie

Virginia (13 votes)

However, the states where Obama holds a 1% lead or fewer contain a combined 13 electoral votes.

The states where McCain holds a 1% lead or fewer contain a combined 25 electoral votes.

All-in-all, this is going to be a very tight election, but it's clear McCain is (currently) at a disadvantage electorally. Though with the way his campaign seems to be picking up steam, the whole spectrum of this map can, and probably will change quite a bit.

By the way, here is the link to the interactive electoral map. I find it to be much more useful and informative than the one on cnn's website.

Click here

[nate33]

Here is my post on the CA Board about the electoral map and how things seem to be shaping out....

Looking at NPR's website, they have an interactive Electoral Map.

Now, I'm not sure how accurate and recent each of the map's state-polling is, but according to the map, if the election process ended today, and each state went to the nominee who is currently leading, Obama would win 273-252 (not counting Virginia which, according to the poll, is a complete tie.

Giving Virginia to McCain (since Bush won there with 53% of the vote in 2004), Obama still would win 273-265.

Here are the swing states, filed under who it is currently favoring....

Favoring Barack Obama

Colorado (9 votes) (Obama currently up 0.4%)
New Mexico (5 votes) (Obama currently up 4.3%)
Iowa (7 votes) (Obama currently up 9.0% -- BTW, can anyone tell me why this is a swing state when Obama has such a sizable advantage?)
Michigan (17 votes) (Obama currently up 4.3%)
Pennsylvania (21 votes) (Obama currently up 5%)
New Hampshire (4 votes) (Obama currently up 0.3%)

Favoring John McCain

Florida (27 votes) (McCain currently up 3.1%)
Nevada (5 votes) (McCain currently up 1.0%)
Ohio (20 votes) (McCain currently up 0.6%)

Virtual tie

Virginia (13 votes)

However, the states where Obama holds a 1% lead or fewer contain a combined 13 electoral votes.

The states where McCain holds a 1% lead or fewer contain a combined 25 electoral votes.

All-in-all, this is going to be a very tight election, but it's clear McCain is (currently) at a disadvantage electorally. Though with the way his campaign seems to be picking up steam, the whole spectrum of this map can, and probably will change quite a bit.

By the way, here is the link to the interactive electoral map. I find it to be much more useful and informative than the one on cnn's website.

Click here

Only the national data is updated on a daily basis. The state data can be weeks or months old. Most of that stuff won't reflect the Palin nomination or the GOP Convention bounce.

Look at it this way, the national polls are pretty tight, with McCain having perhaps a small edge. Theoretically, it's better to have a small lead in a bunch of states, than a large lead in a few states. Large leads are "wasted votes", so to speak. We know that Obama has a ginormous lead in the several huge electoral states: California, New York, Massachusettes, Illinois. There's a lot of wasted votes for him in those electorates. McCain has fewer wasted votes so he should be in better overall shape electorally.

[miller31time]

Look at it this way, the national polls are pretty tight, with McCain having perhaps a small edge. Theoretically, it's better to have a small lead in a bunch of states, than a large lead in a few states. Large leads are "wasted votes", so to speak. We know that Obama has a ginormous lead in the several huge electoral states: California, New York, Massachusettes, Illinois. There's a lot of wasted votes for him in those electorates. McCain has fewer wasted votes so he should be in better overall shape electorally.

Eh, I think you can look at that either way.

One way is to say as you did - larger leads are more wasted votes.

The other way is to say as I guess I did - In most cases, larger leads = near-definite victory in that state. Smaller leads (say, 0.1% - 1.0%) mean the state could go either way.

[badinage]

Obama had his post-convention bounce, and now McCain has had his. The debates will be crucial.

Obama made a HUGE mistake in not selecting Hillary as his running-mate.

If Obama were white, the election would not even be close. One of the pundits said "The Democrats selected the only candidate that could lose" and Republicans selected the only canditate that could win" McCain is really running as as Independent.

Here we go with the racism defense again. What a bunch of hooey.

Not racism, Nate 33 -- reality.

Whether it's legitimate, practical change he'd bring we don't yet know, but Obama represents the biggest change at the top -- simply in who he is -- in the country's history.

(I use the subjunctive, above, because I don't believe he will win, even though he ought to -- even though he is the strongest Democratic candidate in a generation and the country does not want a Republican right now. Or, he will win, but voting manipulation -- as in the fixes in 2000 and 2004 -- will give the election to the Republicans.)

This is a conservative country (not as far as actually conserving things, of course -- in that sense, it's a squandering country; in the last half-century and especially in the last eight years, a squandering of our natural resources, of our standing in the world, of our surplus, etc.). That's a lot to overcome for a candidate.