NorthSideSox72

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) na, the Democrats and Obama campaign have been bringing it up. Biden just recently was talking about it. Why? I have no idea. The MSM also goes with what the Obama camp tells them to, not the other way around. Biden was discussing the tone of recent McCain rallies. But yes, he brought it up. What I see is the media, MSM and otherwise, trying to stir the pot. Race can be a hot button issue for some, and the media thrives on controversy. Both campaigns have, generally, stayed away from it. Not 100%, but I don't see them making it a major issue.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 14, 2008 -> 11:48 AM) Read between the lines here. Under Barack Obama's tax plans 56% of the country will be fully supporting 44% of the country. Stop and think about that. That means almost half of the country, including many who are close to median income in this country will be paying ZERO taxes. A large chunk of that 44% will actually PROFIT from the tax code. That and the old welfare style disincentive to work are by far the two biggest problems I have had with his fiscal policies from day one. I'll be damned if I should support middle class families simply because I am a little more middle class than they are. The end of the article is 100% right when it wonders why this hasn't been hammered by the McCain campaign. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html There are some good points there, and I agree with you in general. but one clarification - the bottom bracket (44% or whatever the number will be) will not be paying INCOME taxes. They will still be paying all sorts of other taxes.

I think Obama should stage a campaign rally in Oklahoma. Just for funsies.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 10:22 PM) the only person bring race into the election are the Democrats. As far as I can tell, most of the "race" discussion has been created and amped up by the media. Very few in either party (not none), and neither Presidential campaign, are making an issue of it unless it comes to their doorstep.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 06:35 PM) 538 hasnt posted yet today, and I know/have a feeling there will be some real shockers in there. I see no shockers on RCP. Have a feeling?

QUOTE (knightni @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 04:03 PM) A poor segue I know but, don't you just hate it when you throw up and it goes into your sinuses? That is pain, man. I have thrown up twice in my entire adult life. Both times there was much alcohol involed, and that stuff might have been in my brain cavity and I wouldn't have known it.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 06:28 PM) To hold you over Gallup has Obama +10 today nationally. There is more great news in the state polling that I'll post once 538 puts up their chart. Not sure where you got that idea. Looking at the state polls on 538 and RCP, it looks to me like the recently-posted polls in battleground states are pretty much in line with where they were. Except VA, where McCain may have closed the gap a bit.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 06:07 PM) is columbus day a major holiday? i never get it off No, its a minor one, that was kind of my point. I've never had it off either.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) Well, see, that's interesting. Because at least this year, one would sort of expect that the things "not reflected in the polls" might be things that would benefit Obama more than McCain. For example, if there was a non-trivial increase in turnout amongst young people or African Americans compared to a normal year, a pollster standardizing his data based on likely voter models using inputs from 2004 might very well miss that. On the other hand, a lack of enthusiasm on the Republican side for Senator McCain might well wind up depressing his turnout. There's always the cell phone thing there as well. And Obama's ground game vs. McCain's total lack of a ground game. I'm citing Kos here but it's the Democrat thread so I'm ok... ...Turns out that Gallup this year is putting out 2 different versions of its likely voter model, sort of with this in mind. Prior to this week they'd been just publishing their "Registered voter" results because you couldn't tell how likely some people were. In other words...if they apply the 2004 results to 2008, they get a closer race than what they're polling now. That's version 2. On the other hand, if they ignore what happened in 2004 and use what they've been hearing on the phone as a way of calibrating their likely voter model (i.e. how likely are you to vote in this election as a question), their likely voter screen winds up widening the gap quite a bit. So, if this election is a repeat of 2004 in terms of what groups turn out and in what numbers, then you're right and it's a closer race than the tracking polls see. Interestingly, I think this is how Zogby does his tracking poll, he normalizes everything by the makeup of the electorate in the last election. On the other hand, if the Obama campaign truly is doing something new and can bring new voters to the polls, then it will be a lot wider than you predicted. I've mentioned before that Obama's positive X factor is that wave of newly registered/invogorated voters. They are a tough group to predict.

Hey, nice red x's. Must be blocked for me at work.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 02:40 PM) Granted this usually is the case with incumbents, but usually in an election like this, many undecided votes swing to the party not in power, as well. There are all sorts of swing and other factors involved, that included. What I am getting at is, what is NOT reflected in the polls? That is what I am theorizing about. I think most other factors are already in those numbers.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 02:32 PM) TO YOU, NorthSide 1. I wasn't even referecing the Bradley election, which I think is a very different scenario than this Presidential election. To use that as a single reference is missing the important differences. 2. The fear vote is not just about race, when I refer to it. 3. I am not talking about just the currently "undecided" here, as the article assumes. 4. I don't think it will be any 6-9 points. More like 3-5, to take a wild ass guess.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 02:59 PM) I would love to see election day a holiday. The thing is I bet it would make a minimal difference in voter turnout in the long run. People who want to vote, will vote. Those who don't, won't. Probably a small increase, but you're right, not a huge one. I think it has another benefit, though. It gets people thinking about it, and taking it more seriously in their lives. Organizations and communities can host discussions and panels where people talk it out, before going to the booth.

Double bejeebus!!! Dow up 1000, Markets up around 12% on the day.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 01:09 PM) I agree, but one is lesser of two evils. What do you think the government is going to do with all this information? People b**** all the time about the Patriot Act, now we are giving them carte blanche access to every medical record in the country? How long will it be before they decide what they will treat and what they won't? Etc.? Absolutely, there's problems with today's health care, but it will get MUCH worse under the government. I don't have a complete answer, but I have a general idea - not-for-profits. Its not a perfect solution, but it netralizes some of the biggest problems in each. If we can find a way to have medical providers and health insurance to be not-for-profit but privately held, I think we could have a real answer there. And we don't necessarily have to force it - it can be promoted and taxed into strength if we handle it right.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) I sense sarcasm. That's good, 'cause I was laying it in pretty thick. QUOTE (Cknolls @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) Including early voting, how many days do voters have to cast a ballot? Seems like plenty of time to make a choice. I don't know Ohio's laws, Sqwert says they didn't have early voting before. They DID have some districts (specifically, low income areas, as I've read) that had way too few machines, and absurdly long lines. IMO, I think you generally have to err on the side of getting as many votes in as possible, when it comes to deciding on keeping polls open a little longer. I fail to see the harm in doing so anyway.

Holy bejeebus - markets up 10% on the day - biggest one day run-up EVER.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 01:34 PM) If you're not vested. Honestly, you'd be stupid to opt out of a matching program even if you could - most of the time you'll make more off the match and subsequent returns on that match anyway. Now if you're paying your own money, invest it in higher return products. I agree with all of you, I was actually not speaking for myself, but for the person who earlier said they were considering it. Good info, though.

QUOTE (Heads22 @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 12:57 PM) One poll shows Obama leading in ND. BTW, I already voted. It swung from McCain +8 to Obama +2. Wite must have changed his vote.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 12:51 PM) I vote to merge Veterans Day and Memorial into a single observance on May and use the gap in November left behind by Veterans Day and make election day holiday. If any politician ever suggested merging those two holidays, they'd never be elected to office again. And I think its a bad idea anyway. The importance of those two holidays, IMO, is right in line with the importance of voting - it is what makes this country great.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 12:52 PM) You can just roll it over right to the IRA (or other vehicle) and not incur penalties, but you can never cash out in your own name. So, if you are in a 401k at work, don't like the fund choices, and want to just transfer to some other provider's funds... you can transfer your 401k to an IRA at that other provider, without penalty... but you can never withdraw the money? I'm confused.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 12:48 PM) I just really laugh at people who want to see government run health care. NEWS FLASH: IT WILL NOT BE ANY BETTER THEN WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. No offense personally, bmags. It just is not an issue I will EVER trust the government to get right. People will die that don't today. It's just about that simple. /waiting for 10 billion articles from leftist blogs telling me how I'm wrong and how f'ed up today's sytem is (yes, s*** happens), but I know from personal experience from working in the industry. It will not be better, but just go on drinking the kool-aid. government run health care vs privately run is a situation where both sides have critical flaws.

Problem with your suggestion is, you replace a minor holiday (which means, few people actually get the day off), with a major one (most people get the day off), you are taking away productivity in the economy. But, overall, I actually think this is a good idea. I'd get rid of Columbus Day, which is more of an insult (and a historically inaccurate one) than a holiday anyway.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 12:39 PM) Why do people get upset when courts try and allow people to get to vote? It seems ridiculous that voting hours are the same hours that people are expected to work and that employers are not required to allow their workers time off to vote. Now if Nov 2 was a holiday where there was no work, I could see the argument that they had plenty of time to vote. This is why so many states are now allowing early voting without a specific reason. And it makes a ton of sense. Having just one day, during work hours, to vote, is assinine.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 13, 2008 -> 12:40 PM) You have 60 days (I think it's 60, it might be 30) to move accounts without incurring penalties but you better be able to document that you put it back into a retirement - or just transfer it directly to another fund. For changing jobs, yes. I think he was asking, can he just move his 401k assets to a seperate IRA where he can allocate to different funds.