danivon wrote:

Right. So, where did I get the idea that you believe we should have a national police force?

Politeness impels me not to venture my most immediate guess...

I'll mark this day and celebrate it annually. You being polite is a cause for a party.

Non-parochial policing = a national police force able to cross jurisdictional lines.

Not necessarily. It could mean consolidation of forces withing counties or across a State, which would not be a bad idea. Or State forces able to cross jurisdictional lines. Or closer coordination between forces at all levels. Or a reduction in the sheer number of Federal law enforcement agencies and 'polices' (which themselves are parochial).

You're just either dodging the clear implication of your original writing or you don't understand federalism. And, consolidating Federal agencies has nothing to do with the original topic of Federal spending on local law enforcement.

I say "Non-parochial policing = a national police force able to cross jurisdictional lines." So, you say I've got you all wrong . . . then cite non-national police forces able to cross jurisdictional and State lines.

So, no, I don't have you all wrong. You just don't understand our system. That's okay. I'll not pretend to be an expert on British legislative practices and you try not to be an expert about American law enforcement. I think that's pretty fair.

You want to throw up your hands in victory, but your words remain.

However, I am more than willing to drop it as it's pointless to try and get you to admit that.

Read your own material more carefully and grow up yourself.

Problem is, Doc, I do read what I write. You decide to misread what I write, or decide that an ambiguous statement can only haev one interpretation and tell me what I really think. As I said, last time I called you on it, you got all hetty and did a megaflounce.

Time to drop it, no?

Actually, you either don't communicate your ideas properly or are trying to escape their clear meaning after the fact. I'm not trying to tell you what you really think. You seem unsure yourself.

Nevertheless, I'm ready to drop it.

Whatever, Steve.

So, let's move on:

As we have been told for the GOP race, it's not the votes it's the delegates that count (although I think rumours of a Paulista delegate-hack are wildly optimistic).

Looking at the RealClearPolitics map today, we see they have five categories of state, Likely and Leaning for each candidate (on the assumption Romney gets the nod) and the Toss Ups in the middle.

Firstly, can we assume that the likely states are not going to move?
All went the same way in 2008 (with Nebraska's split delegation including a lone Democrat).
Obama:
California (55)
Connecticut (7)
Delaware (3)
District of Columbia (3)
Hawaii (4)
Illinois (20)
Maryland (10)
Massachusetts (11)
New York (29)
Rhode Island (4)
Vermont (3)
Washington (12)
total: 161

Romney:
Alabama (9)
Alaska (3)
Arkansas (6)
Idaho (4)
Kansas (6)
Kentucky (8)
Louisiana (8)
Mississippi (6)
Nebraska (5)
North Dakota (3)
Oklahoma (7)
South Dakota (3)
Tennessee (11)
Texas (38)
Utah (6)
West Virginia (5)
Wyoming (3)
total: 131

Then there are the 'Leaning' states. All of the Blue ones were blue last time, and of the Red ones, Indiana was blue in 2008 but the rest were red. So, are there any that may be vulnerable?

Obama:
Maine (4)
Michigan (16)
Minnesota (10)
New Jersey (14)
New Mexico (5)
Oregon (7)
Wisconsin (10)
total: 66

Pale Red:
Georgia (16)
Indiana (11)
Montana (3)
South Carolina (9)
total: 39

Then we come to the real battleground. If the above states go as RCP project, then Obama would need 43 of the delegates from these to win, while Romney would need 100. I've marked them with R or P to denote which party took the state in 2008

Arizona (11) - R
Colorado (9) - D
Florida (29) - D
Iowa (6) - D
Missouri (10) - R
Nevada (6) - D
New Hampshire (4) - D
North Carolina (15) - D
Ohio (18) - D
Pennsylvania (20) - D
Virginia (13) - D

There are situations where 2 of the 11 States going Obama would be enough (FL+NC, FL+OH, FL+PA, NC+OH, NC+PA, OH+PA, PA+VA). If the Republicans are doing well, I guess we can assume that AZ and MO will be holds (although if AZ was stronger in 08 due to McCain that may be tougher) which is 21.

So, the questions are:

1) Are any of the 'Leaning' states likely to change, and if so why?
2) If Obama is to win, which of the Toss Up States is he likely to need to keep?
3) If Romney is to win, where does he get the 100 delegates he needs from the Toss Up states?

NB: While the above list is based on RCP collated polling data, the polls in some states are patchy at best, and of course are also 6 months at least ahead of the real election, so please can we not get bogged down in poll-swapping or company comparing. The essence of the question is which areas will be key for the candidates in November.

rickyp wrote:Interesting headline in the Washington Post:

The U.S. economic recovery slowed in the first three months of the year as government spending declined. While consumer spending was strong, other aspects of the economy appeared weak. The budget woes at all levels of government continue to hamper growth, according to the Commerce Department report. Federal government spending dropped 5.6 percent, with defense spending down 8.1 percent. Spending by state and local government dropped by 1.2 percent.

source:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gdp-report-rate-of-us-economic-growth-slows-to-22percent/2012/04/27/gIQAwZaElT_story.html?hpid=z1

Rather interesting that the strategy of cutting spending in government is thought to be largely responsible for slowing the economic recovery.
Further proof that choosing when to cut government spending is important...

You are a funny man!

The Commerce Department is your source (at its root)? Wow, was Joe Biden unavailable?

I'd like to know how they figure Federal spending is down 5.6%. Our deficit sure isn't going down, so where's the money? What did President Obama cut?

From your article:

The U.S. economic recovery chugged along in the first three months of the year, showing moderate 2.2. percent growth, the Commerce Department reported Friday, thanks largely to consumers who have ratcheted up their spending.

People bought more cars, furniture and clothes, boosting the economy even as businesses invested more cautiously and governments, constrained by post-recession budget woes, cut spending. Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, rose 2.9 percent in the first quarter, beating expectations.

Your answer is what? Raise taxes? Borrow more?

If you raise taxes, consumer spending will go down. If you borrow more, you will eventually have to raise taxes.

Furthermore, if consumer spending is 70% of the economy, that means government spending is far less of it. So, is that the main driver? Should it be?

At least you're as consistent as the President: spend, spend, spend.

Our deficit sure isn't going down, so where's the money?

The deficit isn't going down because revenues are down.... Mostly due to lower taxation levels...Some due to the less than robust economy. Thats why the Bush years saw such a huge increase in the accumulated debt....despite a healthy economy. Taxation way down, spending (military especially) way up.
Obama got smashed with a huge decline in overall out put, besides being saddled with historically low taxation rates... Then he cut more taxes as part of the stimulus.

Your answer is what? Raise taxes? Borrow more

Raise revenue.
Since the middle and working class actually spend money when they have it, which is that important consumer economy you noted, you can't tax them more. I'd raise revenues by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Cut tax loop holes. And by eliminating a lot of subsidies. (Oil, agriculture). Subsidies that have been around for years, and which mostly just contribute to the bottom line of very profitable enterprises...
And I'd cut military spending, and (sharing with you I believe) bring troops home from a lot of old bases... At the very least that spending would be domestic then...
But I don't think laying off govenrment employees will either improve the economy right now OR do anything to help unemployment. You agree?
Mostly the economy has to start growing at a rate of 4% or better for awhile. As noted, government spending taken out of the economy does hinder growth..... The best time to cut that, is when the economy is overheating and the cut backs would help alleviate demand and inflation etc.


.

danivon wrote: . . .

Then we come to the real battleground. If the above states go as RCP project, then Obama would need 43 of the delegates from these to win, while Romney would need 100. I've marked them with R or P to denote which party took the state in 2008

Arizona (11) - R
Colorado (9) - D
Florida (29) - D
Iowa (6) - D
Missouri (10) - R
Nevada (6) - D
New Hampshire (4) - D
North Carolina (15) - D
Ohio (18) - D
Pennsylvania (20) - D
Virginia (13) - D

There are situations where 2 of the 11 States going Obama would be enough (FL+NC, FL+OH, FL+PA, NC+OH, NC+PA, OH+PA, PA+VA). If the Republicans are doing well, I guess we can assume that AZ and MO will be holds (although if AZ was stronger in 08 due to McCain that may be tougher) which is 21.

So, the questions are:

1) Are any of the 'Leaning' states likely to change, and if so why?
2) If Obama is to win, which of the Toss Up States is he likely to need to keep?
3) If Romney is to win, where does he get the 100 delegates he needs from the Toss Up states?

1) They could, but only if this turns into a "wave" election. If either the President or Romney tank in the polls. If we get to 55-41 or something of that size, then yes, absolutely the leaning States could change.

2) I think he's going to be hard-pressed. If I were guessing right now, which I am, I'd say he carries only Colorado, Iowa, and maybe Pennsylvania from that list. Nevada is not a good "toss up" state and neither is Arizona. People underestimate what the Mormon vote in those States and even Colorado might do. Plus, President Obama has said some dopey things about Las Vegas, and the housing market is pathetic there. The only reason Reid won is because the GOP nominated someone who was completely unpolished. I also don't think Obama can get Florida or North Carolina again. If he has a shot anywhere else, it's Virginia and NH. That would only make it 52 and he'd win. However, I don't think he gets either.

In other words, I don't think President Obama can get those 43 electoral votes.

3) Unless Romney picks Palin, Alan West, or Sharon Angle, I think he gets all of these except maybe Iowa, Penn, and Colorado.

NB: While the above list is based on RCP collated polling data, the polls in some states are patchy at best, and of course are also 6 months at least ahead of the real election, so please can we not get bogged down in poll-swapping or company comparing. The essence of the question is which areas will be key for the candidates in November.

I think Obama is going to run a desperately negative campaign. If that doesn't catch fire, I think he will get drubbed. He has to have either an noticeably better economy (and soon) or completely disqualify Romney. If he fails to do either one, he will not win.

rickyp wrote:

Our deficit sure isn't going down, so where's the money?

The deficit isn't going down because revenues are down.... Mostly due to lower taxation levels...Some due to the less than robust economy. Thats why the Bush years saw such a huge increase in the accumulated debt....despite a healthy economy. Taxation way down, spending (military especially) way up.
Obama got smashed with a huge decline in overall out put, besides being saddled with historically low taxation rates... Then he cut more taxes as part of the stimulus. .

Uh-huh. You do know that our budget is higher than ever, right? http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bus ... -pictures/

Your answer is what? Raise taxes? Borrow more

Raise revenue.
Since the middle and working class actually spend money when they have it, which is that important consumer economy you noted, you can't tax them more. I'd raise revenues by increasing taxes on the wealthy. Cut tax loop holes. And by eliminating a lot of subsidies. (Oil, agriculture). Subsidies that have been around for years, and which mostly just contribute to the bottom line of very profitable enterprises...
And I'd cut military spending, and (sharing with you I believe) bring troops home from a lot of old bases... At the very least that spending would be domestic then...
But I don't think laying off govenrment employees will either improve the economy right now OR do anything to help unemployment. You agree?
Mostly the economy has to start growing at a rate of 4% or better for awhile. As noted, government spending taken out of the economy does hinder growth..... The best time to cut that, is when the economy is overheating and the cut backs would help alleviate demand and inflation etc.

Okay, Ricky. Be specific. How much would you raise taxes and how much would that stimulate the economy? Who would you raise the taxes on (what income level) and how much would that bring in?

NB: this is a trap. I'm warning you ahead of time that this is a hare-brained scheme you've come up with. It's typical of liberals to think they can tax us to prosperity, but I want you to prove it.

I don't know what the exact numbers are Steve. But I asked you this
But I don't think laying off govenrment employees will either improve the economy right now OR do anything to help unemployment. You agree?
and you didn't respond...
Why not? Don't have an answer?
The main reason revenue is required is to ensure that the unemployment rate is not added to by government lay offs...
Without the government layoffs, the economy would be performing better...

The budget woes at all levels of government continue to hamper growth, according to the Commerce Department report. Federal government spending dropped 5.6 percent, with defense spending down 8.1 percent. Spending by state and local government dropped by 1.2 percent.

And as I've said the key is growth .... like priming the pump to start the flow, you need NOT to stop priming as the pump is starting to catch traction.

By the way, if this is a trap Admiral Akbar, its a pretty poor trap. All evidence in Europe shows that governments that embraced major austerity are seeing the economy falter. Those that loaded up heavilly and quickly in stimulus after the crash (Germany, Sweden) didn't suffer the recession so much and came out faster. When they eschewed heavy austerity they've had growing economies. Those that embraced austerity like the UK are falling back into recession...
The US is doing quite well compared to say the UK, because a lot of the austerity measures simply collapsed in your dysfuntional congress... But that has worked to advantage since at least the economy has positive growth...


How would I specifically raise revenue?
The "W" Bush tax cuts (benefiting the top 2%), that got the US into deficit-spending and added over $1.8-trillion to debt The 2% at the top of the pyramid aren't spending, aren't directly investing, and they are being taxed at the lowest rates since 1945. Returning them to the tax rates of 2001 would seem a prudent way to raise revenue.
Corporations are sitting on all kinds of cash, and not reinvesting it right now. Seems to me that there is revenue to be had from those corporations by closing tax loopholes particularly and maybe by marginal rate increases...
Those who are also receiving subsidies should see those subsidies end. (Largely oil, big agriculture and big pharma).
End the parts of Part-D (Medicare) that are precluding price negotiations and banning imports for big pharma.(Cut the cost of govenrment here by cutting cost of medicare and medicaid.)
Price supports (for farmers), encouraging some NOT to grow crops, while many Americans face hunger
Anti-trust exemption for health insurers, enabling a few to monopolize markets, fix prices and commit abuses: denying coverage-claims, canceling policies for those who become ill, or raising premiums, co-pays, deductibles, so only the wealthy can afford decent medical care (Well, if I were king I'd move the US to a single payer system or a Swiss system. There's a 5% decrease in health care spending (as a portion of GDP) right there.... Part of that spent in other areas like infrastructure repair might contribute more to economic growth as a whole)
Bail-outs for bankers who committed numerous felonies, abuses, engaged in predatory lending practices, decimating over $17-trillion net worth of Americans, with NO accountability . I'm not oppossed to bailing out the banks, only to the failed bankers being financially rewarded as a consequence of the bailout. (Moral hazard...) So accelerate investigations and prosecutions and recover some money.

All of this would raise revenue, protecting employment in the govenrment sector for now, which would aid the consumer economy and the recovery... As the recovery cycle takes hold, then the growth of govenrnemtn could be reveresed if it makes sense. (The specific of each the decision in each sector can't be generalized. Perhaps some can't be reduced without harm. )
I know this would move in the right direction....
Now, explain how government layoffs are a good idea right now and how they help the employment rate>?

Arizona (11) - R will go Dem
Colorado (9) - D stay D
Florida (29) - D stay D
Iowa (6) - D stay D
Missouri (10) - R stay R
Nevada (6) - D stay D
New Hampshire (4) - D split 3 D and 1 R
North Carolina (15) - D go R
Ohio (18) - D stay D
Pennsylvania (20) - D stay D
Virginia (13) - D stay D

Thats based on polls now, and my conviction that nothing much is going to change over the next months. Least sure about Virginia....

rickyp wrote:I don't know what the exact numbers are Steve. But I asked you this
But I don't think laying off govenrment employees will either improve the economy right now OR do anything to help unemployment. You agree?
and you didn't respond...
Why not? Don't have an answer?

As a matter of fact, unlike you, I don't live for Redscape. I've had far, far more important things to do than worry about answering the all-mighty rickyp.

Actually, in the long run, getting rid of unnecessary government employees will help lower unemployment. What extreme Keynesians like you fail to grasp is that government is not an independent entity. The government = us. When "the government" spends money, it must borrow or tax to get that money. So, employing people needlessly is not a net plus. It sucks potentially productive money out of the economy and deploys it in an anti-market fashion.

The main reason revenue is required is to ensure that the unemployment rate is not added to by government lay offs...
Without the government layoffs, the economy would be performing better...

Raising tax rates does not necessarily increase revenues. Look at New York, Illinois, California, and the UK for example.

And as I've said the key is growth .... like priming the pump to start the flow, you need NOT to stop priming as the pump is starting to catch traction.

That's your theory. The truth is this is the worst recovery in history--slowest, least number of jobs, etc. That's in spite of $5T in pump-priming.

The key piece of evidence: look at the President's initial thrust for reelection. What record is he running on? So far, the bumper sticker would be: "Reelect Obama: he killed Bin Laden with his bare hands."

By the way, if this is a trap Admiral Akbar, its a pretty poor trap. All evidence in Europe shows that governments that embraced major austerity are seeing the economy falter.

Yeah, the PIIGS countries should have not embraced austerity . . . they should have gone bankrupt? Those were their choices, weren't they?

How would I specifically raise revenue?
The "W" Bush tax cuts (benefiting the top 2%), that got the US into deficit-spending and added over $1.8-trillion to debt The 2% at the top of the pyramid aren't spending, aren't directly investing, and they are being taxed at the lowest rates since 1945. Returning them to the tax rates of 2001 would seem a prudent way to raise revenue.

How much EXACTLY would this cut the CURRENT deficit?

The truth is if all of the revenue from the top 2% were seized, we'd still have a deficit--and those rich people would have no incentive to work.

Corporations are sitting on all kinds of cash, and not reinvesting it right now. Seems to me that there is revenue to be had from those corporations by closing tax loopholes particularly and maybe by marginal rate increases...

Guess who agrees? Paul Ryan.

Guess who has proposed nothing? President Obama.

Those who are also receiving subsidies should see those subsidies end. (Largely oil, big agriculture and big pharma).

Where is the Great Man on this? Hint: he's promising more subsidies--to students and others.

End the parts of Part-D (Medicare) that are precluding price negotiations and banning imports for big pharma.(Cut the cost of govenrment here by cutting cost of medicare and medicaid.)
Price supports (for farmers), encouraging some NOT to grow crops, while many Americans face hunger

How much will this bring in?

Remember: I'm not asking you to tweak every part of government you don't like, but to "raise revenues" and simultaneously "stimulate the economy."

All of this would raise revenue, protecting employment in the govenrment sector for now, which would aid the consumer economy and the recovery...

Says you. Where is the Great Man on this?

I know this would move in the right direction....

No, you don't. It's a mish-mash of hodge-podge half-baked nonsense. You have no idea what putting all this stuff in motion would or would not do.

And, it's telling that President Obama is campaigning on . . . none of your ideas.

rickyp wrote:Arizona (11) - R will go Dem
Colorado (9) - D stay D
Florida (29) - D stay D
Iowa (6) - D stay D
Missouri (10) - R stay R
Nevada (6) - D stay D
New Hampshire (4) - D split 3 D and 1 R
North Carolina (15) - D go R
Ohio (18) - D stay D
Pennsylvania (20) - D stay D
Virginia (13) - D stay D

Thats based on polls now, and my conviction that nothing much is going to change over the next months. Least sure about Virginia....

Wow, it's too bad you don't gamble. This is easy money. You are insane. Axlerod, if he were honest, would not even claim Florida or Nevada.

I'm liking my bet more and more Steve....Let me list the numerous reasons that there will be a landslide:

(1) Ryan plan scares all those seniors in Florida leading to Obama win there.
(2) Republicans have alienated the Hispanic vote (a rapdily expanding demographic) and will lead to 70% vote for Obama among Hispanics (I believe this will bring Virginia into play)
(3) African-American vote is going what 95% for Obama?
(4) The talk about limiting access to contraception will ensure gender gap stays at close to 20% for Obama
(5) Deficit is abstract, people are more concerned about jobs and their own economic situation. Average 401(k) value has grown from 109K to 225K from bottom after financial crisis to now.
(6) Young voters will vote overwhelmingly for Obama, particularly given his policies on student loans.
(7) Romney is a weak candicate. The man stuttered today when he said he would have given the order to take out Bin Laden. He has no common touch, people don't like him

So, your guy has lost the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Female vote, the Youth vote, and lost some of the Senior vote and yet you expect him to win? This is going to be a landslide ala 1984 except this time we win.

Well not like 1984--the country is too polarized. But a comfortable victory.

steve

Actually, in the long run, getting rid of unnecessary government employees will help lower unemployment. What extreme Keynesians like you fail to grasp is that government is not an independent entity. The government = us. When "the government" spends money, it must borrow or tax to get that money. So, employing people needlessly is not a net plus. It sucks potentially productive money out of the economy and deploys it in an anti-market fashion.And adds to the downward spiral.

Yeah, its about timing....
In the long run your right. But in the short run, say the couple of years since the crash, firing government employees simply adds to unemployment. Keynesians do grasp that govenrment is not independent of the economy. Thye understand that it contributes to economic activity. (I get the feeling some conservatives don't grasp that reality.) And they understand that there is a limit to how much govenrment can and should be supported.
However the idea that you can improve economic activity by curtailing it (austerity and unemployment) in the short run, when the economy is on a downward cycle is entirely counter intuitive. Krugman says that conservatives beleive that the "austerity fairy" will come along and give people confidence and that will solve everything. I guess thats your premise.
By the way, Keynesians weren't followed for most of the last 35 years... When the economy is expanding thats the time to instill givernment austerity. It provides the rewards of producing a more efficient government, but by removing the government spending in periods of economic growth you don't damage the economy. In fact at times it can dampen run away inflation...

So what do you think long term is Steve? How long will the austerity measures take to magically create the confidence and the upswing in economy you predict?
I'm assuming you mean less than 3 years because thats the period since the worst recession since 1930 hit the US and Europe .... and you don't think that the recovery since then has been great. Looking at Europe, the austerity measures are contributing to a returned recession.... How long a term are they supposed to endure this before the "austerity fairy" works the magic?
If one bases one's decisions on evidence, rather than fath, the evidence of government austerity contributing to economic recovery is zero....In the short run. SInce the American electorate doesn't have the patience for your long run solution, I'm thinking that the economic debate is starting to work in Obama's favour too...

freeman2 wrote:I'm liking my bet more and more Steve....Let me list the numerous reasons that there will be a landslide:

(1) Ryan plan scares all those seniors in Florida leading to Obama win there.

Maybe, but I would take a separate bet on FL. I think you overestimate the "damage" that a plan which will not impact anyone over 55 will have. Even lying Democrats (but, I repeat myself) can't convince seniors the sky is filled with tangerine trees.

(2) Republicans have alienated the Hispanic vote (a rapdily expanding demographic) and will lead to 70% vote for Obama among Hispanics (I believe this will bring Virginia into play)

This is very funny (all of it is, actually). You act as though Romney is running against a cipher. That is not the case. Candidate Obama promised to make comprehensive immigration reform a priority and take it up in the first year. Did he? That's going to lock up the Hispanic vote?

As for Florida, if Romney picks Jeb or Rubio, Obama has zero chance in Florida. As it is, I'd put him at one in five.

(3) African-American vote is going what 95% for Obama?

And, that would be different how? With this and every potential wind at his back (Bush in office, McCain's ineffectual campaign, Obama's tabula rasa persona, etc), Obama got 53% of the vote. Now, he has a record that is, um, less than perfect. You seem to think the election will be a referendum on Romney. Maybe, but doubtful.

(4) The talk about limiting access to contraception will ensure gender gap stays at close to 20% for Obama

So, another lie from Democrats that a minority group is too dumb to sort out over the next several months. Maybe. Or, just maybe women are smart enough to figure out that this was a bunch of hogwash and they should be more concerned with funny things like the economy, the debt, and their children's futures.

(5) Deficit is abstract, people are more concerned about jobs and their own economic situation. Average 401(k) value has grown from 109K to 225K from bottom after financial crisis to now.

Again, the American people are stupid (allegedly). Obama has done little to nothing re: jobs. The unemployment rate is higher than when he took office. There are several indications that the lackluster job market is sputtering. For example, 119K jobs created in April. That's not even close to keeping pace with the growth of population, let alone a recovery. Could it be a blip? Maybe, but there are many other less-than-promising facts out there.

You cite 401k's. Well, President Obama is running against wealth. Can he really talk about investors doing well? What average folks notice is gas prices. How's that going?

(6) Young voters will vote overwhelmingly for Obama, particularly given his policies on student loans.

Yeah, pandering again. The question is can he replicate the enthusiasm after 4 years of breaking promises. Besides, his "major" point on student loans is interest rates. The only person threatening to allow the rates to go up is . . . Barack Obama. He says he will threaten the GOP bill.

(7) Romney is a weak candicate. The man stuttered today when he said he would have given the order to take out Bin Laden. He has no common touch, people don't like him

Thankfully, Romney is running against an arrogant, preening, incompetent, and entitled fool. I like Romney's chances.

So, your guy has lost the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Female vote, the Youth vote, and lost some of the Senior vote and yet you expect him to win? This is going to be a landslide ala 1984 except this time we win.

Yeah, that's why, in spite of all you say (nicely ripped from the Obama Campaign website), the two are essentially even in polling. Why doesn't The Man have a huge lead if all your "facts" are accurate?

rickyp wrote:So what do you think long term is Steve? How long will the austerity measures take to magically create the confidence and the upswing in economy you predict?

The real recovery will start one year from now, if Obama loses. If not, it's at least four years away.