New Hampshire Within 4

Hmm, interesting. Three weeks ago it was 13. Four down in a poll ten days out makes it winnable. In any event, it's tightening up. No matter what, this is an electoral college battle now.

Comments

[BobinStamford]

Another impressive SURGE by the vibrant GOP candidate and his worldly sidekick. That's right, patriots - 4, count em, 4 electoral votes are now in the TOSS UP category. This changes everything.

If he can somehow turn the tide in, say, Vermont, and he'd be looking at +7. Matt Drudge, get out your siren!

[Chris]

Dan,

What bounce are you talking about? You link to Real Clear Politics contemporary aggregation of New Hampshire polls, which shows the following:

Poll Date Spread
RCP Average 10/03 - 10/23 Obama +8.2
Rasmussen 10/23 - 10/23 Obama +4
Concord Monitor 10/17 - 10/19 Obama +7
ARG 10/06 - 10/08 Obama +9
CNN/Time 10/03 - 10/06 Obama +8
SurveyUSA 10/04 - 10/05 Obama +13

Are you comparing two different polls to one another? Survey USA's poll that showed Obama + 13 was contemporaneous with the CNN/Time poll showing Obama + 8? Each of these polls have distinct methodologies, and actually, I don't know where you get the # that McCain has closed it to just 4. It's not on the link you provided.

The more accurate view of how the race is trending can be found here:

http://www.pollster.com/polls/nh/08-nh-pres-ge-mvo.php

Obama is widening his lead in NH. Sorry, fella.

[Chris]

Here's a look at the 'electoral college battle' you're talking about:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/#data

Even if the toss-up states are eliminated, the current polls indicate that Obama already has 306 electoral votes.

[mark l.]

considering the wide range of polls, there are three outcomes...

the averages are correct,
or the polls over/under estimate candidate support.

The variance of the 2004 poll was at this point
bush by 0, 5, 3, 5, 2 , 5

The same polls in 2008 are
are running from 1 up to 13 for obama.

This suggest a significantly different scenario, where clearly there is no singular consensus on how to estimate voters. In 2004, the six various polls above could all claim to be within 2 pts of the actual results.

In 2008, there might be 4 among the 14 current polls that could make that claim. /graph the polls, they don't form a pretty curve, they are a flat line-not a thing of statisical beauty.

as for the rasmussen number on NH-
he had kerry +2, kerry won by 1.5. I wouldn't ignore the rassmussen number, given his accuracy in 04.

[mark l.]

the 306 looks great, but the problem is if the polls tighten...

is ohio, co and va really in the win column?

if true, which I doubt, I would expect obama to get half the remainders...a potential blowout.

mccain has to win Ohio and either colorado, virginia, or pa.

If the polls continue to tighten, the battleground states will shrink, and obama's paths to victory shrink.

mason dixon was dead accurate in virginia 06, with the numbers and webb. they have the race at obama +2, 5% undecided.

There seems to a be a collection of pollsters who have pretty good crediblity, going all over the place.

If the bradley effect provides 2pts to mccain, obama still holds a 75% chance of winning. If it provides 5pts, obama's chances are less than 20%.

[mark l.]

just ran the polls thru a statistical calculator

std deviation is 3.5,

so margin of error for the 16 current polls, all individually providing their own 3.5 margin of error?

the +/- 3.5 only covers 68% of the outcomes

+/- covers an additional 27%.

the problem, as previously stated, is that since the graph of the poll is not a curve, but flat, each individual outcome, range of 1 pt, with the current numbers, is equally likely. the election won't occur from an average, but the randomness of the polls. If Mccain is within 2-4 pts, and the polls tighten, in will be 2000 and 2004 all over again, on so many levels.

[mark l.]

+/- "7 pts" covers an additional 27%.

[mark l.]

here's my beef with pa...

morning call has obama with 52%.

sample size of democrats? 52%.

let's talk about how interested the voters are...

2006, the senate election was a raging success, and casey won with 2.357 million democratic votes.

the april primary, despite all this drive to registration and reports of increased turnout, produced less voters than the senate run, 2.31 million. (getting almost the same turnout as the seante run is a great feat, but does not really demonstrate a surge or increase, just more involvemtn from the people who already vote democrat, all the time.)

from national journal for 06-

3,985,486 D (47.6%) registered democrat. (3,405,278 R (40.7%))

http://election.nationaljournal.com/states/pa.htm

I'll repeat that casey drew 2.36 million, or only 60% of registered democrats. Obama got votes from 26% of registered democrats.

Of the 2.31 million, only 1.046 million voted for obama, and he lost the state.

Let's see...obama is so loved by pa democrats that he gets less than 45% of the people willing to turn out for an offyear election, and 55% turnout to vote aginst him?

(how did rick do on turnout, weak as he was?
1.658 million, terrible number, 48% of registered republicans.)

[mj]

In the final days of WWII the people in Hitler's bunker thought they had a chance to win as well. Do you have this much optimism in all aspects of your life? Or are you trying to fool yourselves and feel better?

[mark l.]

"In the final days of WWII the people in Hitler's bunker thought they had a chance to win as well."

I wouldn't know. I never fantasized about hanging around with hitler. Whatever floats your boat.

[mark l.]

"Do you have this much optimism in all aspects of your life?"

I'm a happy guy. I liquidated my portfolios in august 07, and am sitting on a wad of cash with stocks in front of me that I sold for well over 60% their current value, waiting to be bought over the next 9 months. I even shorted the financials in March 08. cha-ching.

can obama really affect my life? nope. The capital gains rate will suck when I get back in, and I have a feeling that obama messing with 40 million online investors returns, combined with 20 million evangelicals makes a pretty potent combo for mccain supporters.

don't worry, you have the youth vote, like 2004 and 2000.

[mark l.]

let me add to the 40 million online investors and the 20 million evangelicals who turned out in 04, another teeny-tiny demographic...

24.9 million
The number of military veterans in the United States.
(From the upcoming Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004-2005.)

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/002827.html

bush was probably not as well liked by veterans as mccain would be and he was running against kerry who was a veteran.

kerry lost becuase he was swiftboated, ie his crediblity was weakened on his military connection, but as weak as it was, it surely was far better than obama could hope to draw from.

25 million veterans, voting 75-25, would nullify the entire minority vote.

good luck in virginia and abroad.

[ET]

mark l. Amen, bro.

[Spartan112]

Shaheen's lead in NH is widening, I doubt McCain is really pulling closer there. Look at recent history in statewide elections, NH is going blue. It's not the state I grew up in anymore.

[Spartan112]

If McCain takes all the toss ups on the map and then wins OH, FL AND NH it's an electoral tie at 269. In that case the Nouse of Reps would vote for President and the Senate for VP if memory serves and Obama would still win.

[Philip McDaniel]

"I liquidated my portfolios in august 07, and am sitting on a wad of cash with stocks in front of me that I sold for well over 60% their current value..."

I wish I had had as much presence of mind, Mark, I’ve got to wait this out to recoup. Fortunately I don’t need to touch it. Hopefully the market will rebound, but if THE ONE gets in I doubt that will be any time soon.

[BobinStamford]

Wow, a WAD of CASH! That is highly impressive. America needs more forward-thinking patriots/statisticians like you.

Thank you for your service!

[Todd]

@ Philip McDaniel : The SP500 has fallen from 1350 on Jan 20, 2001 when George W. Bush took office to 870 as of today - a fall of 36% in an 8 year period, the worst stock market performance of any president since Herbert Hoover.

The poetic justice of this stock market crash is it happened while George W. Bush was still in office despite all of the desperate attempts to delay it until the Democrats were in office in 2009. That way the GOP could have blamed the Democrats. But, like all other desperate Republican tactics this one has failed, too.

History will show that this stock market crash coupled with our ghastly national debt of $11 trillion dollars has put to death the idea that Reaganomics was a successful policy. It was Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics that heralded in the idea that huge budget deficits didn't pose a problem. Dick Cheney was quoted by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill in 2002 that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Prominent Republicans like Phil Gramm and Alan Greenspan deconstructed effective regulation of Wall Street, leading to the credit freeze and resulting economic meltdown. The one key difference between Ronald Reagan and the Bush/Cheney Administration was that Reagan was a pragmatist while Bush/Cheney are dogmatists. With budget deficits spiraling upwards in scary fashion, Ronald Reagan raised taxes in 1983 in an attempt to reign in those deficits. Bush and Cheney blindly believed that supply-side economics and tax cuts would eventually lead to budget surpluses.

The one part of your post I agree with is Barack Obama can't fix this mess quickly. The stock market will continue to be a disaster for quite a while as this recession will be very deep and very protracted, and corporate profits which drive stock prices decline precipitously. The investing pubic has turned very cynical towards investing in the stock market as they perceive it to be a rigged game in the favor of corporate executives at the expense of the interest of shareholders. The spectre of huge executive salaries and bonuses, even this year of massive losses at the companies and on the part of shareholders, particularly at money center banks and investment banks is enough to turn off a generation of investors.

I strongly suggest you place the blame and responsibility for this terrible stock market and this terrible economy where it belongs : at the feet of George W. Bush, the Republican Party, and the tarnished economic legacy of Ronald Reagan.

[Todd]

That's interesting how you so conveniently neglected to mention Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama last Sunday, Mark.

Powell's ringing endorsement combined with his sharp criticism of McCain's judgment of choosing Sarah Palin as his running mate will sway many swing voters, including many veterans towards Obama.

And, do you really think that the 40 million online investors are going to vote Republican en masse after they have seen their portfolios decimated because of capital gains taxes? I find it highly dubious that someone as prescient as you in liquidating your portfolio in timely fashion a year ago truly believes that. Capital gains tax rates aren't very important to people who have tax-loss carryforwards that will run for years, if not decades if those stay at just $3,000/year. Barack Obama and his financial advisor like Paul Volcker are very pragmatic people, and I'll just bet you see they propose that those tax-loss carryforwards get raised to %10,000/year in tandem with the higher capital gains rates

[Fred Beloit]

"What did the Boob say?" Why nothing, nothing at all.

[Bilby]

"McCain's judgment of choosing Sarah Palin"

What about McCain's judgment of choosing Sarah Palin? I see that talking point from the Obamadrones over and over, but just what is so bad about Palin and why does it reflect badly on McCain's judgment? Hmm?

[Bilby]

"History will show that this stock market crash coupled with our ghastly national debt of $11 trillion dollars has put to death the idea that Reaganomics was a successful policy"

Talk about wishful thinking.

[BobinStamford]

Sarah Palin is as dumb as a stump. The idiot doesn't even know what the Vice President does. The fool gets up and decries the squandering of money on fruit fly research when, in fact, fruit fly research is providing advancements in the treatment of autism.

The tortured old geezer can drop at any moment and he picks a complete moron. He's a crappy political hack and will lose by 10 points because of it.

Surge on, patriot. GODSPEED!!!

[Bilby]

As I thought. No good, real reasons. Just cheap, nasty talking points.

[Philip McDaniel]

Actually, Todd, the S&P topped out above 1550 in September of 07 from a low in 2002. Various complicated and some not so complicated conditions and factors affect market performance. For example, 9/11. Certainly not caused by President Bush. The recent drastic collapse of the market is primarily due to the subprime mortgage mess and that is primarily a result of Freddie and Fannie being involved in high risk mortgages with much of the blame falling to Sen. Frank and Dodd. In fact the Republicans tried to get some controls placed on Freddie and Fannie but were out maneuvered by the Democrats in Congress. I fault the Republicans for not proceeding more aggressively in that. They should have – and still should – loudly place the blame where it belongs.

As far as supply side economics goes I think it is well proven. Keynesian economics have been pretty well discredited…unless, of course, you happen to be Robert Reich with his concept of bottom up economics that is the current flavor of the Democratic Party now days. I tend to believe Arthur Laffer since I have seen the theory he espouses work not only here in the US but in other places as well. On the other hand, one has only to look at Michigan to realize what an economic disaster can be created by (well-meaning??) Democrats intent on controlling the economy and spreading the wealth around. That is why I say if you want to know what an Obama presidency will look like just look at Michigan.

I do agree with you that huge corporate executive salaries and bonuses look to be at the expense of stock holders and employees but that is an issue for the employees, stock holders and boards of directors to deal with, not the United States government. If laws have been broken then those guilty should be punished. However, it is a very slippery slope to tread on if the Congress decides to limit salaries in private corporations by some sort of law or even taxation.
To sum up, I do not believe that George Bush, the Republican Party or Reagan economics are to blame for the current state of affairs. I do believe that members of the Democratic Party in and out of Congress are in large part responsible. It would be nice, however, for all of us to discuss economics calmly and to also test out our theories before scaling them up to a national level. Actually, that would be a good idea in general. Nevertheless, I do not hold out much hope for anything constructive happening. The Democrats and Republicans are like two people in a marriage who have finally gotten to the point that they can no longer talk to each other without fighting. Either they renew their vows – remembering just what it was that they set out to accomplish together – or they get a divorce. In this day and age divorce seems to be the selection of choice.

[mark l.]

"It was Ronald Reagan's supply-side economics that heralded in the idea that huge budget deficits didn't pose a problem."

supply side economics has nothing to do with govt spending.

you have no idea waht you are talking about...

the'theory' goes if you reduce taxes, you actually will create revenue.

2003-2007...

govt receipt up 44%, while gdp grew 27%.

It would seem that the supply side theory has been proven once again.

If you have a better economic system, could you provide me with your 'superior' country(s)?

[befair]

Unhappily my portfolio is as it was in November 2007 - balance-wise that is. I should have waited until this year to sell C as I took a huge capital gains tax on it that would have been wiped this year. I don't anticipate much of a recovery for at least two/three years - probably more.

Anyhow, the purpose of the post is to hypothosize (sp?) that Palin is way more popular with men than with women. Is there a poll or any statistics on that? She scares me when I think of the possibility of her landing as president - would she take the advice of the McCain advisors or do her own thing in her cutsy, overlyconfident way? It is far better to know that you don't know some things than to feel that you really do, which is the image I have of her.

[befair]

Unhappily my portfolio is as it was in November 2007 - balance-wise that is. --- not meaning dollar amount of course.

[mark l.]

todd-

the whole premise of democrats belief on supply side econmics is that when you cut taxes the govt has less money to spend.

do some modest research. our defict is not a product of declining revenues, but excessive spending.

here's a good resource, p22-26 have easy tables...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf

here is a REALLY GOOD article that is well worth reading:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121124460502305693.html

"The data show that the tax yield has been independent of marginal tax rates over this period, but tax revenue is directly proportional to GDP. So if we want to increase tax revenue, we need to increase GDP.

What happens if we instead raise tax rates? Economists of all persuasions accept that a tax rate hike will reduce GDP, in which case Hauser's Law says it will also lower tax revenue. That's a highly inconvenient truth for redistributive tax policy..."

If you can dismantle the wsj article, I would yield to the belief that you have far more economic understanding than I...

put holes in it, and you win.

[Worst President Ever]

http://www.forbes.com/business/2004/07/20/cx_da_0720presidentstable.html?partner=msnbc%20target=_forbes

[mark l.]

worst president ever...

the tables you just provided...

you do realize that the only bush you are discussing is '41'?

can you tell the difference?

[Worst President Ever]

And you're arguing the economy has improved under Bush?

Clinton raised taxes and GDP went up.

Supply-side economics is most notable for giving us the biggest deficits in history under President's Bush and Reagan.

[mark l.]

"The poetic justice of this stock market crash is it happened while George W. Bush was still in office despite all of the desperate attempts to delay it until the Democrats were in office in 2009."

I seem to remember clinton dropping the fed rate to 1%, in the hopes of staving of a recession under his term.

[Worst President Ever]

I seem to remember Clinton leaving a budget surplus.

REAL Riscal Conservatives pay for what they buy - they don't leave it for their kids to pay for.

[mark l.]

"I seem to remember Clinton leaving a budget surplus."
you seem to have forgotten that both houses were republicans.

I don't have a huge beef with clinton econmics, reich was a pretty smart guy, and quite likable.
His foreign policy legacy is a larger diaster than bush's.

One other point about spending, this time under reagan.
People complain about huge deficits, but he was 'blessed' with a democratic congress.

The broad implication is that the economy does well under seperate parties(congress/president), with a MODERATE democrat, and a conservative congress, being the best of all circumstances.

a uni-polar govt is going to reduce spending? please.

[mark l.]

"Clinton raised taxes and GDP went up."

give me the year you are referring to the tax increase, and consult the above link to the omb report, and you might find your assumption is incorrect.

I have given a 5 year window after bush decreased taxes, please provide a similar window of five years, after a tax increase where revenue exceeded the rate under bush.

[mark l.]

you also realize that clinton lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%...

[Worst President Ever]

And Republicans proclaimed Clinton's tax hike as the veritable End of The World.

Reagan never, ever submitted a balanced budget.

Clinton's foreign policy looks pretty damn good compared to the mess we have today.

We'll see what happens once Obama's president. He's got little choice but to engage in deficit spending until the economy's back on track.

[mark l.]

"Clinton raised taxes and GDP went up."
see above post about a reduction in capital gains.

"Reagan never, ever submitted a balanced budget."
which a democratic house and senate repeatedly produced and signed.

Should I also infer that your approval of a balanced budget will be met with a unipolar govt?
I'm not a fan of McCain, but if you want a balnced budget, you have a little hope should mccain win. If it is obama, you will never have any chance of it occurring. You really believe that obama would hold spending in check?

[mark l.]

one other point about the success of govt under clinton...

military spending was cut by 200 billion dollars post gulf war I, by 92.
The reduction/savings would be the approximately 1.6-2.5 trillion over eight years.
Clinton produced his own 'govt stimulus' check. This isn't clinton's fault, as the gop congess voted along with it, but the economic success of clinton was not his tax programs, but the production of post cold war spending on govt.

when bush took office, the military was 1/3 the size in personnel, relative to 91-
did bush really spread our military too thin, or did he go to war with the army he had?

if you believe having a smaller military is a good thing, not a problem. Barney Frank is onto something when he says he wishes to cut military spending by 25%. I don't agree with the philsophy, and most amercians probably wouldn't, but there is a method to the madness.

[mark l.]

well worth examining-

look into rangel's(and frank's?) proposals regarding corporate tax rates...

he wanted to reduce them. Why would democrats wish to cut corporate tax rates, if tax cuts are evil?

[andrew]

Clinton just had the dumb luck to inherit the Republican victory in the Cold War. Defense spending as a % of GDP was roughly cut in half during his 8 years.

[Todd]

Philip, there were many major political figures who are at fault for the economic abyss we are staring it. While I agree that Senator Dodd and Congressman Frank do bear some responsibility for the lack of regulation on Fannie and Freddie, I think it's entirely disingenuous to place anywhere near the lion's share of the blame on Dodd, Frank and the Democratic Party. There are so many bad players here including but not limited to :

1) Alan Greenspan -for his malfeasance on banking and lending regulations and lowering Fed Funds to 1% and keeping them there for over a year leading to bubble formations, and for allowing himself to be neutered by the Bush/Cheney on the danger of deficits.

2) George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for their supply-side dogma no matter what the changing realities required, for allowing completely reckless budget deficits to skyrocket (not to mention future enormous unfunded obligations in social security, medicare, and veterans health) and for encouraging reckless lending to subprime borrowers for George W. Bush's ownership society.

3)Phil Gramm for deconstructing the Glass Steagall Act and allowing Wall Street firms to become the wild west of finance allowing for systemic failure, in the name of unfettered, unregulated, free market capitalism. Phil Gramm is specifically responsible for the advent of credit default swaps.

4) George Bush's SEC's 2004 conscious and willful SEC decision to allow 5 firms (Goldman, Lehman, Merrill, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley) to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1.

Instead, the 2004 exemption -- given only to 5 firms -- allowed those firms to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1.

5) The management of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for their greed and corruption, choosing to run their firms like hedge funds.

I completely disagree with the assertion that the economic decline is tied entirely to the housing bubble. I feel that when a country continually runs horrendous deficits it will eventually lead to a day of reckoning. It's just an inevitability that at some point in the business cycle the economy will head into a recession. That's a simple fact of life - recessions happen. In previous times when the economic environment looked dire (1981, 1991, 2001) the country had a lot of flexibility to deal with the problem because we weren't running monstrous deficits and our national debt hadn't skyrocketed to unreasonable levels, and we weren't held with a gun to our head by foreign lenders like the Chinese. Now, we find ourselves in a situation because of these deficits that we have much fewer options left simply because of this staggering national debt. Witness that when Fannie and Freddie were failing, the Chinese picked up the phone and called Henry Paulsen to make sure they were going to be made whole on the massive Fannie and Freddie debt they were holding, even though it was written in the fine print that there was no implicit government guarantee on that debt. Naturally, the Chinese were made whole when they shouldn't have been, because the threat of China no longer buying US Treasuries is not an option for the US government right now. If the Chinese wanted an implicit government guarantee, they should have bought TBills or Treasuries. But, no we made them whole because we couldn't risk a Chinese boycott of our future obligations. The Bush Administration, and the legacy of Reaganomics, has brought us to this point because of these deficits. Yes, the housing crisis has been the catalyst but eventually we were going to be looking at a day of reckoning when you run a government like the GOP has run.

I do agree with you, Philip, on the need for a calm discourse without the typical internet flaming. It's a major problem in this country that the left and the right hate each other so much, and the reality to me is that the answer to our solution lies not in policies espoused by either the Democrats or the Republicans. Rather, the answer is something much more centrist and pragmatic. I'm a firm believer that old line Democratic tax-and-spend policy is bad policy but that GOP borrow-and-spend policy is much worse, entirely toxic and fully responsible more than anything that has put us in this present predicament.

[Todd]

Mark, I have never subscribed to the idea that cutting taxes decreases government revenues. Indeed, I think it increases government revenues and has been successful in countries like Ireland, New Zealand and several Canadian provinces.

My indictment of Reaganomics and supply-side economics lies in the very valid history that we have that each time it has been applied it has led to appalling deficits and astronomical national debt, which is something I have always feared to be very potentially destructive longer term. I am someone who tends to hold people responsible for their own actions, and in the case of politicians I vote against them.

Here is a chart that clearly shows what the record is on Reagonomics when it has been employed, and when it hasn't been over the last 33 years dating back to 1975. While you may rightly point out that it is reckless spending that has been the culprit, I say that it is the party in charge that is responsible for those monstrous deficits regardless of the reason - period, end of story. There is no acceptable excuse for the shameful deficits we have seen in the Republican-controlled years in this chart:

http://www.lafn.org/politics/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

Note that the Clinton years, when the deficit declined notably, were marked by centrist policy where Clinton and the GOP Congress were forced to compromise with each other on tax policy.

[mark l.]

"I completely disagree with the assertion that the economic decline is tied entirely to the housing bubble."

two people, who deserve a lot of blame-
john snow, alan greespan.
(ultimately bush is responsible for them though)

John snow was an uncurious person. Had bernanke held the post during snow's tenure, he would have quickly seen the massive accumulating leveraging and examined the possibilities...

he figured it out too late, but had we addressed the problem in 2006, we could have spared ourselves a ton of misery.

alan greenspan, who billed himself as an inflation fighter, started branching out with the fed rate. Rather than using a low rate to help booming business, he started believng that he could also control gdp. Econmy slows? give em more money.

The net result is that the dollar fell 40% against the euro since 2000.
It is a zeitgeist, and the dollar will likely rebound over the next three years, barring an exploding deficit.

There were a ton of problems with bush policy, but they don't come anywhere close to the disaster than will befall us if obama doesn't at least make a move to be a fiscal hawk. not gonna happen...

[mark l.]

"My indictment of Reaganomics"

look at the marginal rates of every major country.

Reagan drops the top bracket from 75 to 28%, and within three years every major country follows suit.

There are problems, but the overarching theory of reagonmics is correct, and still in use. Reagan correctly applied a bold, and I mean BOLD, econmic theory which turned the perception of high marginal taxes on its ear. You make more with taking less...

nitpick the the implimentation, but not the theory. It is sound.

[Todd]

"What about McCain's judgment of choosing Sarah Palin? I see that talking point from the Obamadrones over and over, but just what is so bad about Palin and why does it reflect badly on McCain's judgment? Hmm?"

So many reasons:

1) Abuse of Power - Palin abused her power as Governor in Troopergate. The investigation has released it's findings and she did abuse her power which may be a crime.

2) Dishonesty - Palin has lied and lied and lied about being against the Bridge to Nowhere, stating the lie at the GOP convention and repeating it over and over on the campaign trail.

3) Cronyism - Taking a page out of George W. Bush's playbook, Palin has stuffed her administration in Alaska with high school friends, donors to her campaign, and relatives of those donors, and given state contracts to companies related to those donors. Didn't we learn enough about the dangers of Cronyism from Michael Brown's tenure at FEMA ("Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job!"). You put politically connected, entirely unqualified hacks in important government jobs and you get a huge mess. Palin has displayed just horrendous cronyism.

4) Lack of intellect - Governor Palin's display of intellect in her various interviews has been rather alarming to say the least. She makes George W. Bush seem intelligent. The electorate should be immediately suspect of people who have been underachievers in academia. Shouldn't we have learned from the experience of having George W. Bush as President, a man who got a C average at Yale (who gets a C average at Yale?!?!??) and who clearly only got into Yale and Harvard Business School because of his poltiical family. Sarah Palin's academic history is having matriculated to 6 different colleges and you can't get a transcript of her grades. That in and of itself is a disqualifier to me. You don't elect Presidents and Vice Presidents based upon how folksy they are or who you want to have a barbeque with !!!

5) Lack of experience. Prior to being the VP nominee, she had 1 1/2 years of experience as a governor. Prior to that, she was the mayor of a town of 5000-9000 people. That is a very light resume. Additionally, Sarah Palin left Wasilla, Alaska with a debt of $20 million from her tenure as mayor, when the town had zero debt prior to her tenure. That debt was due to a boondoggle hockey rink that Palin insisted would be a major money-maker for the town. It hasn't been. Consider that: $20 million in debt for a town of 5000-9000. While Barack Obama has a lack of experience too, the electorate has had 20 months to vet him as a candidate. He has provided solid answers. Sarah Palin has proven to be embarrassing when she hasn't read from a teleprompter. Can she even think on her feet at all when having to stray from Talking Points?

6) Claiming to be against lobbying and earmarks - Sarah Palin claims to want to reform DC and eliminate earmarks, but while she has been Mayor and Governor she has actively pursued earmarks and hired lobbyists to represent her constituents interests. You can't talk out of both sides of your mouth on this issue and get away with it. Don't insult my intelligence with this kind of b.s !!!

7) John McCain's poor judgment - John McCain did almost no vetting of Sarah Palin before choosing her as his VP nominee. He met her one time last February at a governor's conference and then had a 3 hour phone conversation on the Sunday before the convention!!! Given all of the above listed baggage that Sarah Palin carries into this campaign, it's an indictment of John McCain's total lack of judgment in this pick. The one thing John McCain proved in his pick of Sarah Palin is that he is the King of All Panderers. In one fell swoop, he was able to pander to the evangelical wing of the GOP and attempt to pander to the disaffected Hillary voters, thinking that Hillary voters would vote for him just because he picked a woman, any women as his running mate. McCain succeeded in his pandering to the evangelicals but has been indicted by Hillary voters who feel scathing anger towards McCain who assumed that they were so superficial and stupid that they would vote for any woman regardless of the polcies she espoused. John McCain lost the election as soon as he chose Sarah Palin because it exposed his judgment to be very questionable. With the Palin pick, McCain clearly chose political expediency first over country first, despite all of his slogan signs at his rallies. And, the electorate knows it.

[Todd]

"To sum up, I do not believe that George Bush, the Republican Party or Reagan economics are to blame for the current state of affairs."

Philip, I find it quite striking that you can give a pass to George W Bush and the GOP given that they have been in charge for 8 years, not holding them accountable at all. Do bad things just happen in a vacuum?

Please explain your thinking in detail so I can get some idea where you're coming from.

[mark l.]

"the GOP given that they have been in charge for 8 years"

what about the election of democrats to both houses in 06?

I do remember a recent pelosi quote declaring that dems were not responsible. One could argue whether the speaker of the house was in a position of responsiblity, but I must agree with todd,

Democrats are not responsible in general, so why should they be in a particular case?

[mark l.]

Should I blame a democratic majority senate submitting the Iraq War resolution in Oct 2002, immediately preceding the novmember election, and voting 29-21 amongst themsleves to support it?

that too is bush's fault. he made them do it. they have been his 'b*tches ever since...

besides, cheney was president of the senate, he probably blackmailed to democrats into producing a gulf of tonkin style resolution, despite kerry's objection based on experience. he did object, right?

idiots.