home

The Polls - 10/9

Obama is way ahead. RCP has them here, except for the DKos/R2000 poll, which has Obama up 10 (Gallup also has Obama up by double digits.) It's over.

This is an Open Thread.

< Judge In Stevens Case Will Tell Jury that Prosecution Knowingly Presented False Evidence | Dow Plunges >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Will you let me gloat (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:17:56 PM EST
    about the fact that even Strategic Vision says that Obama is up 14 points in PA?

    Makes me wonder whether the ARG(H) poll showing him up in WV could be for real.

    Could we stop you if we wanted to? (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:01:12 PM EST
    Gloat on!

    We all deserve a gloat now and then.

    Parent

    Dow has fallen below 9000 (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:39:16 PM EST
    and the NY National Debt clock maxed out.

    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    Makes me not feel so badly about carrying a credit card balance.

    Parent
    I'm not carrying a balance, but from what (none / 0) (#30)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:57:08 PM EST
    I hear, my share of the debt is 86 grand and change  {sigh}

    Parent
    ahhh, but the thing people don't get (none / 0) (#33)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:00:22 PM EST
    is that in a down world economy such as this - the debtor and not the creditor has the power.

    Seriously.

    Parent

    Try to collect it.... (none / 0) (#47)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:18:16 PM EST
    IF I have no money, there's nothing to collect....

    Parent
    My math (none / 0) (#40)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:10:36 PM EST
    only has it at $33,029 per man, woman, and child. Not sure what interest rate we are paying on that debt.


    Parent
    That sounds better . . . (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:13:21 PM EST
    I can't remember where I saw the 86 figure earlier today. Cruising the internet while drinking morning coffee can cause memory gaps  ;)

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:16:06 PM EST
    that's just counting the debt at 10 trillion and my math doesn't calculate as fast as the debt is climbing. The figure will be higher before dinner.

    Parent
    The 86 number was ... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:42:21 PM EST
    probably per family, and a month old.

    The current per family number is $149,000.

    You can see that here.

    Parent

    Single, no kids (none / 0) (#108)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:54:19 PM EST
    can I assign some of it to my pets, pretty please!

    Parent
    I submit (none / 0) (#112)
    by indy in sc on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:59:11 PM EST
    that it is your pets who have led us to this economic crisis with their irresponsible consumption of kibble they couldn't afford.

    Parent
    It's not the kibble (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:04:33 PM EST
    it's the grass fed/free range meats. Kibble is toxic, so my pets submit that it was bad free trade agreements! ;)

    Parent
    I think you are right (none / 0) (#50)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:18:27 PM EST
    this page I found has all of the historic data.  You will note that Clinton was able to stop the bleeding, only to have Bush come in and resume Reagan's pace.

    Parent
    We are in a mess. It scares me for (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Teresa on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    the next President. I guess if it hits rock bottom, it can only go up and the new President will get the credit for that.

    I'm sort of a believer in fate and it seems it is Obama's fate to be President. I wish him well but I would be scared to death. I'd ask if I could change my mind and wait a few years.

    Parent

    Yeah. I sure as heck wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:55:35 PM EST
    want the mess someone is going to be handed. I learned long ago how to read perspective jobs and what to avoid. This one has a big red flashing "WARNING!" sign on it.

    This whole thing is getting a tad scary.

    Parent

    Well there's 2 ways to look at it (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:12:03 PM EST
    Its possibly unfixable and thus dooms the winner to a one-term presidency (though this is actually questionable, if it looks bad going in the winner-- especially if its Obama may have a lot of slack), on the other hand this could be a chance for Obama to be a great president, this is the kind of problem that seperates the really good presidents (like Clinton, who would have been great but never had any real opportunity to make history) from the great ones (like FDR) a defining crisis.

    Parent
    Try below 8700 with 15 minutes to go. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by magster on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    This is a freefall.

    Parent
    Dang! Getting hard to keep up :( (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:57:50 PM EST
    I guess (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by CoralGables on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:17:16 PM EST
    my dive in to buy last Wednesday was a bit premature..lol

    Parent
    And people laughed at me ... (none / 0) (#44)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:14:20 PM EST
    a year ago when I said the Stock Market would drop to 8,000 before it stabilized.

    Now that prediction looks conservative.

    Parent

    I've heard the 6,000 number from some (none / 0) (#52)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:21:36 PM EST
    very well-respected sources...

    considering 2009 will most likely be worse economically than 2008 I can see something close to that happening...

    Parent

    I know, crazy, right? (none / 0) (#78)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST
    For a couple of decades most people on Wall Street weren't even familiar with the word "down."

    ;)

    Parent

    I was thinking that also (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:25:41 PM EST
    I'm torn though

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 0) (#26)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:50:01 PM EST
    8,700 right now.  That is insane.  Once again, I'm glad I am such a coward - my whole 401k in money markets, no stocks.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#68)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:40:38 PM EST
    mine (something with RBC) just sent out a special letter assuring us that they had been able to maintain the $1 per share value.  Whew!

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#51)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:20:16 PM EST
    Ah, who cares. We have nukes.

    When you borrow money to build nukes, you dont have to pay anyone back.

    Parent

    Closed down around 8,500 plus change (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    dropped over 600 points. YEOUCH!

    Parent
    For those freaking out, consider (none / 0) (#83)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    this:  if you look at a long-term chart of the Dow, we are coming down to about the same point we would have been in, after steady growth and no bubbles in dot-com and real estate.

    Go look.

    Like that post says:  take a deep breath.  Relax a bit.

    Parent

    your point is (none / 0) (#84)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:11:59 PM EST
    well taken, but it is also true that people that bought at the peak in 1929 had to wait nearly their entire lives to get back to even.  If you are one that bought at the peak in 2007, you might be waiting quite a while to get that back.

    If you are in at $14,000, it is of little comfort that the market is probably merely deflating to a more reasonable, non-bubble driven, value.

    Parent

    You mean (none / 0) (#86)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:14:14 PM EST
    that the economy might just be "STABILIZING" after all these years? You couldn't possibly mean that government regulation is, to quote Marthe Stewart, "A Good Thing"?


    Parent
    It's kind of like that line ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:15:31 PM EST
    from FIGHT CLUB which goes something like:

    If the timeline is long enough the survival rate always drops to zero.


    Parent
    While it looks good now, the only (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:41:31 PM EST
    poll that counts is the one held 11/4.  And that one requires turning out actual voters - not some statistical sample.

    I would not let seeming good news lull myself to a sense of inevitability.  Everyone thought 'murca couldn't be so stupid as to re-elect the Shrub in 04, and yet there he was, smirking and snickering on January 20, 2005.

    So, let's not let up on working it to make sure Dems - all Dems - win.

    OK?

    Republicans vote on the 5th (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:53:13 PM EST
    Pass it on!!!!

    Parent
    I must admit (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:46:24 PM EST
    I really liked Kos's "leave it on the road" post this morning. Inspired me to commit to some work for Darcy Burner. It would make me so happy to get Reichert out.

    Me too (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:50:29 PM EST
    I am going to work for "no on 8"

    Parent
    ya (none / 0) (#53)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:21:38 PM EST
    Yeah, Im going to start working for OBama once early voting is on.

    Parent
    Biden swings, rips McSame's guts out (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:02:54 PM EST
    In St. Joseph, Missouri, today:

    "All of the things they said about Barack Obama in the TV, on the TV, at their rallies, and now on YouTube ... John McCain could not bring himself to look Barack Obama in the eye and say the same things to him," Biden said this morning. "In my neighborhood, when you've got something to say to a guy, you look him in the eye and you say it to him."


    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    Let's see Joe say that to McCain next time he sees him in person.

    I really hate that whole argument, in case you couldn't tell.  

    Parent

    I love it (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by txpublicdefender on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    I think it's a great argument.  It either goads McCain into personally attacking him at the next debate where Obama will have good answers prepared and McCain will look bad for the personal attack, or it stops them from making the attacks altogether, or it makes them look like coward-losers for making them at all.  Works for me.  I also think it is just a viscerally appealing argument.  Everyone can relate to that argument about someone talking bad about them behind their back, wanting the person to have the guts to say it to their face, etc.  

    Parent
    I disagree that it is (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:55:50 PM EST
    viscerally appealing to everyone.

    To some of us it feels like jr. high.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    It reminds me of a south park episode where the boys got "served" and then "it's on" and they go on to have a dance off.  Maybe that's what we need to see, an Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin dance off.  Then we'll know who really has guts :)

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST
    It implicitly attacks McCain's two purported strengths, his honor and courage, while I also discrediting the initial claim by suggesting it is scurrilous.

    Parent
    its great stuff (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:25:02 PM EST
    This is an excellent argument.  They can force McCain to look like a slinking coward until the next debate and then when he winds up to fight, Obama can be ready for it.  

    If he wants to smear, make him stand up like a man and deliver it.

    Parent

    I find this whole tactic juvenile (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:29:15 PM EST
    we need some adult supervision.

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure it's a "guy" (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:45:41 PM EST
    thing.

    Parent
    so am I. (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    ooled me. Must be all that (none / 0) (#76)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:54:48 PM EST
    canning.

    Parent
    Hardly... (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    Ive personally heard many women say these very same things.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#98)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:31:03 PM EST
    Well, Democrats whine about Kerry and Dukakis not punching back.  McCain can whine about the conservative smears that lost him 2000.  But whining doesnt win a fight.  Punching does.  

    This is bareknuckle politics and McCain's entire campaign is resting on a juvenile smear.  Hiding doesnt work, as history shows.

    Parent

    Today a McCain surrogate (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:52:41 PM EST
    talked about Obama's drug use, per Huff Post.

    Parent
    12 months from now (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:56:49 PM EST
    That same surrogate will be busted for cocaine posession.

    Parent
    voters didn't care about that in (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004....

    not sure why they would start now...

    Parent

    Most voters didn't and won't (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM EST
    care.  Some may.  I do, although I'm voting for Obama/Biden ticket.

    Parent
    It's a smart tactic. (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by TheRealFrank on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:26:08 PM EST
    Try to provoke McCain a little, and see what he does. He's not good at attacking with a smile (Obama is, and Clinton was too).

    Also, this kind of quote plays better with male voters, where Obama's support lags.


    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Lil on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:33:14 PM EST
    it pushes back on the idea that Dems are wimps. Biggest complaint I had about Kerry is that he didn't fight back. Throw the gauntlet down; I like it; stand up to the bullies for a change.

    Parent
    Wimps (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:02:08 PM EST
    I would prefer the Dem's to use their muscle in Congress rather than the media! They still cave on every issue.

    Parent
    From the guy who chaired (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:50:42 PM EST
    the Anita Hill hearings?  Who said he thought she lied but never said it to her face?

    Testosterone-driven bravado never impresses me.  There are other things about Biden that did, but if he keeps this up, I'll picture him as the same as all the other bullsh*tters I've seen say this over the years.  They say it, they never do it.

    Parent

    Scranton, was it? (none / 0) (#48)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:18:17 PM EST
    Can someone elucidate what Obama did (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:22:13 PM EST
    to ensure homeoners and taxpayers are protected?

    Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor responded in a statement, "It's now clear that John McCain would rather launch angry, personal attacks than talk about the economy or defend his risky bailout scheme that hands over billions in taxpayer dollars to the same irresponsible Wall Street banks and lenders that got us into this mess - a scheme that guarantees taxpayers will lose money. While Barack Obama ensured that the rescue plan that passed Congress protects taxpayers and homeowners, John McCain's scheme has been panned by experts and observers from across the political spectrum."


    Bogus (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by lentinel on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:30:49 PM EST
    From what I have heard, or not heard from Obama, he made no statement and made no effort to benefit those who have lost or are about to lose their homes. The bailout bill will do nothing to help those who need help the most.

    Parent
    The Big Dawg...... (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by michitucky on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:30:34 PM EST
    Going to see Bill Clinton tomorrow at the Cure Michigan Cocktail Party......To benefit Proposal 2 on the Michigan Ballot for Stem Cell Research!!!  

    Rasmussen in Michigan (5.00 / 0) (#100)
    by flyerhawk on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:35:21 PM EST
    Obama up 16.

    Put Michigan in the strong Obama camp now.

    Obama should point out that McCain favors privitizing Social Security.   That could seal up Michigan.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by KeysDan on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:50:06 PM EST
    Florida.

    Parent
    NYT: (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by lilburro on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    "In Manner, Obama is Far From Clintonesque."

    Interesting, esp. after all the town hall/debate coverage, which referenced Clinton so much.

    Just out of curiousity do you have the figures (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:06:06 PM EST
    from 2000?

    Where was Gore polling in Early October?

    Bush ahead by 2 (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:22:49 PM EST
    Actually in Sept and Oct of 2000 (none / 0) (#139)
    by patriotgames on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
    they were bouncinge back and forth, Gore was up then Bush, then Gore, then Bush. I a way it is similar to today.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/wh2gen1.htm

    Parent

    Youre speaking... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:23:18 PM EST
    as if each election is in a vacuum.  The economic situation today is quite different than in 2000, so the comparison holds far less weight.

    Parent
    You're spinning like a top (none / 0) (#148)
    by coigue on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:57:03 AM EST
    look at this:

    From 2007-now. Look at the bottom graph of RCP poll average. There are a couple of blips in McCain's favor but mostly, overwhelmingly, it has been Obama.

    In 2000, Gore and Bush were close throughout.

    Parent

    oops. failed link, look here (none / 0) (#149)
    by coigue on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    Obviously an outlier? (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:20:50 PM EST
    I think it isn't "obviously" much of anything. ARG is a crappy pollster, but not always wrong.

    As for whether it's possible, well. . .evne Michael Dukakis won West Virginia. It's historically a very Democratic state.

    I was told (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:31:50 PM EST
    over and over again during the primary that West Virginia was obviously far too racist a state to ever vote for Barack Obama.

    Parent
    I was stunned that he's within 10% in other polls (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by magster on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:43:48 PM EST
    I can't believe ARG, but could maybe win WV?  If so, t's a credit to Hillary supporters to know that it's all about electing Dems.

    Parent
    Honestly, I didn't think they would either (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:34:14 PM EST
    I still think it's unlikely, but now I don't think it's impossible. I think some people need to accept that lots of West Virginians actually liked Hillary Clinton.

    In any case, I think we have lots of evidence that the bottom has fallen out of the McCain campaign. The Pennsylvania polls showing Obama with a double-digit lead almost require that he be doing well in the parts of the state that are rather like West Virginia.

    Parent

    Only until recently 0_o (none / 0) (#14)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM EST
    From your keyboard to God's eyes (none / 0) (#6)
    by BrassTacks on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    I thought the same thing in 1980 and got burned.  It's lookin' good but I am not ready to count the chickens just yet.

    you thought the same thing in 1980? (none / 0) (#24)
    by coigue on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:48:24 PM EST
    Mailers slowing down... (none / 0) (#10)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:36:37 PM EST
    Got two No On 6 anti-gambling mailers.  I'm looking forward to another casino proposition going down in flames.  That'll be 0 for 4 IIRC.

    I never want gambling in my state.  Once you've got it, you can never get rid of it.  One trip through Atlantic City (the actual city) cured me of believing any of the BS gambling proponents shell out.  

    Kids are getting interesting.  #2 son sat through his IEP, playing happily with toys while we discussed his problems and how to deal with them.  Now he is suddenly behaving better in class.  Coincidence?  Could be.  With him, it's hard to tell.  

    How old are you kids? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:43:19 PM EST
    7 & 5 (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Fabian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    He's just beginning to talk more.  Their big deficit is generating spontaneous speech and their speech development is atypical.  Usually, kids start with nouns - ball, drink, mommy.  Then they expand to verbs - give, want, go.  Finally they add modifiers like adjectives.

    #1 started with colors - adjectives.
    #2 started with numbers - which can be considered nouns but are abstract ideas as opposed to concrete objects.  This is an indication that their cognitive skills advance faster than their expressive speech skills.

    So we deal with two kids whose cognitive and receptive speech skills outstrip their expressive speech skills.  They understand more than they say.  It's a hoot.  Their nonverbal communication is also nonstandard - most people will turn towards you when you call their name.  At #2's most apparently non responsive, I could call his name and tell him it was bath time and he would be playing with his back to me the entire time and yet follow me upstairs to get a bath.  

    Just because he was playing during the entire meeting, does not mean he wasn't tracking part or all of it.  

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#12)
    by Tony on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:39:25 PM EST
    I was just curious if we will still get your promised post about the intellectual dishonesty of the right regarding Fannie and Freddie.  Was looking forward to it.

    Yes, I'd very much like to see it too. (none / 0) (#32)
    by barryluda on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    I find it all complicated and hard to unravel.  It seems that the problem is lack of appropriate oversight and lack of competence, but how do you prove it.

    I have republican friends blaming the "liberal dems" that they pushed opening up the mortgage market to lower income people that couldn't afford them.

    I counter that the problems really started with the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- passed by 53 Republicans, 44 Democrats voted against it -- which allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate.  Then, when Bush took office and the repubs had complete power, this type of crap paper more than doubled to well over a trillion dollars.  Take a look at the chart on page 17 of this report on securitization.  Just look at the red bars which stand for RMBS, or Residential Mortgage Backed Securities:

    http://www.bde.es/informes/be/ocasional/do0808e.pdf

    It just shot right up as soon as the repubs took power.  So, maybe some problem is that lower income people were allowed to share in some of this craziness, but it seems plain wrong to say that the problem is solely or even primarily with the dems, much less Obama.  And even if you do believe that bull$hit, what kind of leadership did McCain show in stopping it?

    Parent

    did the Dems also lower the Fed interest (none / 0) (#54)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:24:57 PM EST
    rate to artificially low levels, thus allowing banks to hand out money to any and everyone (every retail store in the world had no money down/0% interest rate cards for unneeded goods)?

    not to mention that Banks and brokers were making a ton of short term money from all the loans they were giving out...from all the interest only loans, from all the Fees fees and more fees that mortgage loans entail

    Parent

    Teaser (none / 0) (#87)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    That rate is a teaser though. People don't read the fine print that if it isn't paid by the end of the year the rates are comparable to your local loan shark.  They make more profit off the interest than the product,

    Parent
    If it is over (none / 0) (#17)
    by eric on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    then might as well start getting ready for a repeat of 1992.  The right is angry, fired up, and the way it looks, McCain is going do go down in a ball of fire.  Two days after the election, we will hear about the failed Obama presidency.  The right wing will not accept Obama.  It will probably be even worse than 92 because of racism.

    It looks like it's already started...

    lol. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Faust on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:44:14 PM EST
    Absolutely. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:12:52 PM EST
    The tables will turn 180 degrees.

    The left should expect from the right exactly what the left had dished out to the right previously. Which, of course, is exactly what the right had dished out to the left before that. Which is exactly what the left had dished out to the before that...blah blah blah

    Parent

    I'm not afraid of a '92 repeat - (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by smott on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:18:20 PM EST
     - I'm afraid of a 1980 repeat. Dems in power in Congress and the WH - and the economy in freefall, a la what happened to Carter.

    To correctly blame Bush, people will have to actually have a clue about why this happened. They don't. They blame whoever's in charge at the moment, and that will be Obama.
     

    Parent

    they're really going to harp on (none / 0) (#25)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:49:01 PM EST
    Obama not truly winning, only winning b/c of voter fraud...

    it will be all out war...

    Politicians are not known for losing gracefully...

    Parent

    Real Sign of the Times (none / 0) (#28)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 02:52:54 PM EST
    Can anyone imagine this story getting national attention even a year ago?

    Sheriff Takes Stand On Homeowner Evictions
    Chicago-Area Official Calls Orders "Unjust"; Directs Deputies To Stop Evicting People

    (CBS/ AP) An Illinois sheriff announced that he's ordering his deputies to stop evicting people from foreclosed properties because many people his office has helped throw out on the street are renters who did nothing wrong.

    "It's a horrible injustice and we're stopping it," Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart told CBS' The Early Show Thursday.

    Full story here.

    And this isn't just a minor story.  It's been picked up by everyone in both print and electronic media.  Even AOL has front paged it.

    This country is ready for a distinct move to the left.  Let's hope the Democratic Party understands this.

    they don't (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by ruffian on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:03:41 PM EST
    Unfortunatley, they ran to the right in a year they did not have to. They will attribute their success to their centrism and appeal to religious voters.

    Parent
    Sad but true (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by mmc9431 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    What a waste of an opportunity. And at a time when the country is in desparate need of innovation.

    Parent
    I'm afraid you're right ... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:00:48 PM EST
    but hope you're wrong.

    Still, I'm amazed a story like that got such huge play in the national media.

    An anti-foreclosure, tenants rights story?

    Amazing.

    Parent

    According to Rep Elijah Cummings, (none / 0) (#60)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:29:45 PM EST
    we've been had again:

    From TrueMajority:  

    Two weeks ago, Treasury Secretary Paulson bailed out American Insurance Group (AIG) with $85 billion dollars in taxpayer money - and now they are back for more. He said they needed it to stay afloat. Now, we know what they did with our money.
    AIG executives headed out on a taxpayer funded junket to the St. Regis resort in California. While there, they had a blast at our expense. They helped themselves to:
    ·    $201,047.42 for hotel rooms and $147,301.71 for catered banquets
    ·    $23,380 for the hotel spa and another $1,488 for the salon.
    ·    Golf for $6,939.09 and $5,016.32 spent at the Tavern.
    Now they are back at the trough.  These bailouts are the last money grab by the Bush Administration on their way out of office.
    (BTW, you can complain to Secretary Paulson here. )

    Screech, holdit, our guy voted for that bailout...

    But Amb. Marc Ginsberg writes on Obama's New Deal for America.

    Oh, too bad, Ginsberg was just suggesting or hoping that Obama will make a New Deal:

    I believe now is the time for Obama to consider a bolder and more historic approach to the financial crisis by presenting to middle income Americans a step-by-step "big think" FDR-style New Deal program to add greatness and urgency to his economic recovery plan.

    Meanwhile, on Political Intelligence, McCain points his finger at Democrats, including Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd, and Con. Barney Frank, saying they are taking credit for the rescue package, but stood idly by as the subprime crisis festered.  His followers are eating it up.  

    What's the average American going to do?  Both sides are acting like sheep right now.

    AIG has another little excursion (none / 0) (#63)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    slated for the upcoming week, I believe...at a Ritz in fact...

    Parent
    I hope that leads off every news (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:44:57 PM EST
    broadcast next week.

    Parent
    The next excursion (none / 0) (#79)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    They are planning another one of these excursions. Up Next on CNN at 5 PM.


    Parent
    Next excursion should be to a (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM EST
    federal penal institution.

    Parent
    Thanks BTD. You've finally convinced me. (none / 0) (#61)
    by WillBFair on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:30:32 PM EST
    And the Clinton policy agenda is back in the driver's seat. Yeah!
    But looking at what needs fixing has got me so very very. Yet I still have faith in the Clinton team. And maybe after the election, Obama can drop the pose and bring Bill online.

    Troopergate continues! (none / 0) (#71)
    by scribe on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:48:13 PM EST
    Progressive Alaska (none / 0) (#73)
    by white n az on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:50:10 PM EST
    I'm rolling on the floor laughing...

    Dramatic reading of the recorded minutes demonstrating Sarah Palin's executive experiences

    Is Sarah qualified to be President? In a world where GWB is qualified...you betcha.

    No longer low info {grin} (none / 0) (#74)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 03:50:32 PM EST
    Research has shown that wine drinkers may have healthier lifestyles and tend to have more education and higher income than non-wine drinkers, the researchers note.


    Yu[p (none / 0) (#91)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:19:58 PM EST
    Just ask my 87 year old French MIL who heads the family business and my Marathon running 66 year old cardiac/trauma surgeon spouse.


    Parent
    Chicago Evictions of Renters Halted (none / 0) (#89)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:16:55 PM EST
    I posted this up thread ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:18:20 PM EST
    ;)

    Parent
    My question to the banks (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:52:36 PM EST
    Why wouldn't they want to continue collecting the rents as opposed to having a vacant building with NO INCOME? Is the decision to leave a building unoccupied and subject to vandalism a wise fiscal choice? What is the matter with these people in charge of these banks?


    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#111)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:59:11 PM EST
    I'm told that sometimes you get a tax writeoff for leaving the property unrented that's a better deal than actually renting it out at a bargain rate, although I confess this isn't something I know much about.

    Parent
    maybe som ambitious (none / 0) (#114)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:04:15 PM EST
    lawmaker needs to look into that loop hole?


    Parent
    God, Steve (none / 0) (#144)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:41:11 PM EST
    you are so smart.  Is there anything you don't know about?

    Parent
    Hee hee (none / 0) (#145)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:50:47 PM EST
    Don't make fun!

    Parent
    No, really. (none / 0) (#147)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
    I actually meant it.  I might disagree with you, but dang, you've always got something to add to any topic.

    Lovin' TL tonight...

    But I'm still hating both parties, watching my country slowly die...

    Parent

    OOP's (none / 0) (#92)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:21:15 PM EST
    missed it. Scrolling too fast. ;-)


    Parent
    Obama Campaign (none / 0) (#94)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    Hmmm, he's buying opposite game 6? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    Must be hoping for a sweep  ;)

    Parent
    Hah (none / 0) (#113)
    by CST on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:03:52 PM EST
    It will clearly be the red sox doing the sweeping.  And then a bunch of my friends will get free furniture!

    The sad thing is, my mom is actually rooting for the sox to lose, since she is convinced that the sox winning in 2004 is what caused Kerry to lose.  To which I reminder her that this year the Cubs/White Sox are already out of it and Boston sports do not control the universe.

    Parent

    A Sox/Dodgers series could be amusing :) (none / 0) (#117)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:07:54 PM EST
    Every law enforcment (none / 0) (#135)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 07:27:49 PM EST
    officer in the U.S. is summoned to WS duty.

    Parent
    The story doesn't note the significance (none / 0) (#133)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 06:01:14 PM EST
    of October 29?  And no historians here, not even history students who paid attention?

    It's the anniversary of Black Tuesday in 1929, the day that the market dropped so precipitously (note, after several drops of the like that we've seen lately) that it is the date picked as the start of the Great Depression.

    I think you now know the theme of the 30-minute special to come on this October 29.

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#140)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:17:59 PM EST
    I thought there was something familiar about the date.


    Parent
    CA polls anyone? (none / 0) (#118)
    by nycstray on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:12:05 PM EST
    I'm curious about a couple races there and was wondering if there were any state polls out. Specifically Durston CD4 and Brown CD3.

    Serious question (none / 0) (#122)
    by digdugboy on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:32:36 PM EST
    How many people believe that Hillary would have smoked McCain as badly as obama has by this point?

    Frankly, I can't see it.

    I do (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:35:44 PM EST
    No clue why you feel the need to bring this up, but I think Hillary would have had a solid lead over McCain even before the economic meltdown.

    Parent
    Doubtful (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by zvs888 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    Both Obama and McCain got nice convention bumps.

    No real reason to assume that McCain wouldn't have gotten a bump against her.

    I think Obama is running behind Hillary in some states but ahead of where she would be in some states.  She would have been slightly above where Obama was in the electoral count before the electoral mess since she could count on Ohio/Florida.

    But Obama runs better in Colorado and Virginia, and there's no way Hillary would be where he is in North Carolina.  Then again she would be way ahead in West Virginia.

    So who knows, at this point though, they'd both just be channeling the generic Democrat and running strong all over.  Even Kerry would be way ahead in the Gallup right now (well maybe I shouldn't go that far...).

    It's a wash; I don't even know why this was brought up though...

    Parent

    I think (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Steve M on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:46:10 PM EST
    that Hillary would have gotten the benefit of both the generic Democratic brand as well as the Clinton brand on the economy.

    But I think it's clear that any Democrat has an electoral ceiling, even if we could run Bill Clinton for a third term right now.  I'm frankly not sure why we can't all just agree that Obama is doing great and leave it at that, but for some reason the guy felt compelled to bring it up.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#130)
    by zvs888 on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:48:33 PM EST
    Now someone needs to figure out what Obama has planned on Oct 29...

    Parent
    See above; it's the anniversary (none / 0) (#134)
    by Cream City on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 06:03:11 PM EST
    of Black Tuesday, 1929, the start of the Great Depression.  (Boy, there used to be a lot of commenters here who would have known that. . . .)

    Parent
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by indy in sc on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:43:34 PM EST
    No clue why you feel the need to bring this up

    I have a theory Steve, and I would say don't feed it.

    Parent

    Look to the future (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by WS on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:47:01 PM EST
    instead of the past.  I already have my candidate for 2016.  

    Parent
    Hillary would not have needed (none / 0) (#138)
    by kenosharick on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:05:00 PM EST
    an economic meltdown that is hurting us all to win. The race was nearly tied before this all happened.

    Parent
    More Fun with Tasers (none / 0) (#125)
    by themomcat on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    Now being developed for crowd control:
    http://www.infowars.com/?p=5171
    With a h/t to Hullabaloo.


    Oh, didn't you hear? (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by oculus on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 05:52:15 PM EST
    Tasers are o.k. now, even for 10-year-olds.  

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#143)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 10:41:03 PM EST
    Well plastic explosives are now apparently a party favor for conservatives.  Palin's buddy at AIP would know all about it.

    Parent
    I really dont see... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Thanin on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 11:02:54 PM EST
    why conservatives have such a problem with tasers as discipline.  Sounds like a natural conclusion of their ideology.

    Parent
    McCain - Free Fallin' (none / 0) (#136)
    by john horse on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:01:54 PM EST
    Per fivethirtyeight Obama is winning West Virginia by 8 points.  McCain's campaign is imploding.

    Given the state of his campaign, I would like to suggest a new campaign song for McCain -
    Tom Petty's "Free Fallin'".

    Road trip today, and- (none / 0) (#137)
    by kenosharick on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 08:01:55 PM EST
    heard comedian rush limbaugh on and off.  Completly off the deep end- he is claiming these numbers are all "drive-by media" lies and that obama is barely attracting any crowds anymore, while the repubs are packing them in- only the media is keeping this all secret. His lies (or delusions) got worse from there- he is literally insane.

    No, they're planning on massive election fraud (none / 0) (#142)
    by Newt on Thu Oct 09, 2008 at 09:12:16 PM EST
    so they have to keep up the pretense that their candidate is actually winning.  That way, when they use electronic fraud at the polls, people won't be so shocked that the results don't match reality.

    Parent