Someone who remembered 1960 and 1988 though would not have assumed Gore should win easily. Successors to two-term Presidents of the same party always underperform them by a large margin. Even Bush 41, but he had a lot further to fall given the margin of Reagan’s victories. And when they are trying to succeed an unpopular President, that never goes well.
JJandyiiii, of all the other things you said that were incorrect, this is the one that will be the most damaging: ISIS is no threat to America. I can’t believe you really think that might be true. How blind can even a liberal be??? Do you think for one moment they won’t take advantage of our southern border to fast track as many of their people as possible into this country? You may haven’t seen much yet, but just sit tight. Since your party has weakened our military to nearly the weakest its ever been, again, don’t you think our enemies will take advantage of that to hit us as close to home as possible? Better buy your prayer rug now because once they’re in short supply they’ll become very expensive. As for me, I’ll never surrender like you will. They’ll have to kill me first. I’ll never renounce my Christian faith. I’m willing to bet you’ll buckle and drop to your knees at the first sign of a robe and beard coming at you on the horizon.
Phu Cat
ISIS is a bunch of violent assholes. Sure, they could kill some people – and that’s bad. But they’re not even close to a threat to America. Mexican drug cartels are a much greater threat to cross the border.
I have no faith to renounce, but I did take an oath that lasts a lifetime when I joined the Navy (did you serve, by the way?), so on the off chance that ISIS grows super powers, I’ll join in the fight against them as well. But for now, they’re a raggedy bunch of assholes in a shitty part of the world, and the worst they can do is cut off a few heads. They’re not worth the thousands of American lives it would take to stamp them out… the region will grind them down with enough time.
What is it with the fear of a bunch of dumb assholes with AK-47s? These guys could never pull of a 9/11, much less do serious damage to America.
Well, they aren’t very well funded, they’re only making millions every DAY selling oil. How much damage damage could they do?
You are a young thinking “it can’t happen here democrat”. Remember 911. And how much did THAT cost? That is the mark of a terrorist: Do the most damage with the least amount of effort and expense. Silly boy.
Phu Cat
How have the Democrats weakened the military to the weakest it’s ever been? We’re still spending nearly as much as the rest of the world combined. “Better buy your prayer rug”? WTF? “you’ll buckle and drop to your knees at the first sign of a robe and beard”? Double WTF?
Very slight damage, in the broader scheme of things.
I’m not that young, and I’m a veteran. I’m well aware of what can go wrong in the world.
The disastrous war of choice in Iraq that followed did America far, far more damage than the attacks of 9/11 did.
Getting involved in another ground war in Iraq would damage America far, far more than ISIS ever could.
I’m a progressive liberal who nearly always votes Democratic, but I think this is by an large an excellent summary. It overlooks a real and growing dismay among many about the widening gap between the haves and have-lesses – of which the Occupy movement represents a more visible manifestation – but, like I said, it’s a pretty good description of the general attitude of your average American.
No, the middle class is not being overtaxed and you can’t point to any taxes imposed by Democrats that have hurt the middle class. The middle class is being squeezed out by the inequality gap that has grown exponentially with trickle-down economics. The middle class is not being used as an ATM, that’s just typical right wing propaganda used to justify handing over ever more money to the wealthy.
Reagan was a very popular president, yet Bush Sr. trailed Dukakis by an enormous 17% at one point in 1988.
They aren’t being used as an ATM anymore, because Democrats have only won elections in recent years by either promising middle class tax cuts, or at least promising no middle class tax increases.
Taxing the middle class more today is as dangerous as pledging to cut Social Security. It’s the new third rail of politics. Which means that progressive ambitions have pretty much come to an end. They ran out of other people’s money.
Well, the wealthy still have money. Technically until about 99% of that’s taxed away, the liberals haven’t run out.
The middle class has never been overtaxed. When middle class taxes go up, it’s at the hands of Republican governors such as what happened in Michigan, where pensions are now fully taxable (but exempting the oldest pensioners) and the property tax credit has been virtually eliminated. Or as many Republican states have done, the middle class tax burden is increased by raising the regressive sales tax. But everybody must vote Republican to keep those dastardly Democrats from raising taxes. Got it.
The middle class was overtaxed enough to cause a tax revolt in the 1970s. Ever since then, middle class tax increases have been off the table.
If states want to raise taxes for state uses, that’s fine. There does seem to be more support for that, understandably, since it’s local money spent locally on local needs.
Technically, but politically it can never happen because most politicians are rich and they like having money. They’ll only raise taxes to the level they themselves can tolerate, although they will try to be cute and carve out exemptions for themselves and their campaign contributors. Our ability to call them out when they try is what will keep that under control.
Plus the money available is pretty limited. Repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the rich were only worth $700 billion over 10 years. The middle class tax cuts were $3.3 trillion. The middle class is where the money is, and we’ve cut Democrats off from that source, which is the greatest triumph conservatives have ever achieved. Far more important than merely winning elections.
You really might want to take a look at CBOs numbers for average tax rates. Simply looking at marginal rates doesn’t take in to account all the complexities of deductions and capital gains taxes being a lower rate to give a clear idea of what’s actually being paid as a percentage of what’s actually coming in.
**Early to mid 90s shows a bit higher average tax rate for the top quintile and subsets of that quintile. ** The results of the Bush deal with Congress (spending cuts mixed with tax increases) followed by Clinton mildly raising taxes (and not getting asked for spending increases) produced a period of strong growth and even balanced budgets. Throw in some solid monetary policy to keep inflation low while growth chugged along steadily and those were very good times in macro for the US economy.
The key is finding the sweet spot. It’s finding the appropriate balance between efficient spending (to provide public goods that can’t or won’t be provided efficiently by markets) with the lowest efficiently gathered taxes to pay for those programs. Looking solely at taxes or spending in isolation makes it hard to get a good balance for most efficient outcome.
You’re right about all of that. But there’s still no way to pay for any significant new spending without middle class tax increases. At best, current tax rates on the middle class plus taxing the rich a little more can get us to a balanced budget.
Back to 2016, a National Journal writer makes the same point I’ve been making:
http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/how-does-clinton-overcome-obama-20141030
…
I read Nate Silver’s page where he discussed his methodology and I must say that I am very impressed.
Basically, the polls are what they are at this point, three days out from the election. If the polls are correct, then the GOP takes the Senate. But Silver discusses the various reasons why polls can contain error. And if those polls contain error, they will likely contain the same error for the races nationally. So if the polls have an error that puts the Dems -3 points from where they should be on election day, then every race will skew by those 3 points.
He analyzes the probabilities of those errors and puts the chances of a systematic error that will swing enough seats to the Dems at 30%.
I’m still shocked at LA, though. I thought Landreau was bullet proof in that state. Yes, it is a heavy red state, but her and her family have been there like your grandmother’s clock on the mantle. It’s not the greatest thing ever, but no need to replace it with something else.
ETA: Will the Dem senate candidate in Kansas still have his name on the ballot? That will be a killer for Orman
He won’t, btw.
Ben Carson is a hypocrite. Here’s a list Shayna posted:
- Dr. Carson was raised by a single mother.
- Dr. Carson was raised in public housing.
- Dr. Carson was fed with food stamps.
- Dr. Carson was supported with welfare.
- Dr. Carson was kept healthy with medicaid.
- Dr. Carson was educated in public schools.
- Dr. Carson got free eyeglasses from a state agency.
- Dr. Carson benefited from affirmative action to enter college.
- Dr. Carson used federal loans and Pell grants as an undergrad.
- Dr. Carson benefited from affirmative action to enter medical school.
- Dr. Carson’s medical school was paid for with grant from USPHS.
Ben Carson So Glad His Welfare Mom Wasn’t Dependent On Government
Noemie Emery today:
It’s been said before, but anyone who thinks it’s likely should be aware that it would be a first-time accomplishment.