Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

[Bob Gray]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Well, you do like splitting hairs. Just like Bob.

I still won't call Bush II a fascist even though he deserves it if Obama deserves his label.

I apologize for noting that there are many people in this country who either call themselves socialists, or endorse socialist concepts, after you had claimed there were none. I'll try to be less detail oriented in the future when I read and respond to your posts.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Well, you do like splitting hairs. Just like Bob.

I still won't call Bush II a fascist even though he deserves it if Obama deserves his label.

I'm not saying Obama deserves his label. I think the entire discussion is silly. I don't care one way or another.
What I'm saying is, name someone within GOP leadership or a significant Congressperson who has called Obama a socialist.

 

[Rover]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Hmmm...getting off on a tangent here. I'll answer the question wewantmore? maybe posted, which is at what point is it about Obama vs the economy.

I'd say a 40 something seat loss is probably economy driven. Few people expected us to be well into year 3 of a jobless recession. With things looking like the period of 1976-1982 on the job front, which also resulted in a great back and forth on the political scent (Dem Prez takeover, then GOP Prez takeover plus Senate, followed by Dem House bounce back) a lot of losses are out of the admin's control. Any higher than that means Dems just aren't showing up at all, and that would be on Obama (or more accurately Harry Reid).

Another way to look at it is where are the losses coming from? Reps who lose in the South or parts of the Midwest aren't due to Obama because those voters never liked him before he even took office. If they start losing Dem friendly areas (NY, PA, CA) then you can put that at his feet.

On to predictions. Dems lose 5 in the Senate (ND, IN, AR, WI and one or two others) by splitting the remaining toss ups (NV, IL, AK, PA and CO). I base this largely on my "Rasmussen rule" - which is if even Rasmussen can't show you leading and you're the GOP candidate, you're screwed! That takes CA, WA, and WV off the board.

House - Dems lose a net of 35 (as in they drop 40 but win back 4-5). I'm looking closely at PA and OH (and to some extent FL). Some idiots have like 9 New York House seats up for graps. Tomorrow will tell, but I find that hard to believe in a place where the two Dem Senators and the Dem Gov candidate are leading their races by like 25 points. However, both PA and OH have competitive statewide races (PA for Senate, OH for Gov). If they limit their losses (to a half dozen lets say) here they're looking a lot better as we move further west.

South will be ugly especially in open seat races but several entrenched incumbents will also go down (TX, MS, etc).

Gov - not going through every state. GOP strong midwest with pickups in PA, MI, IL, IA, and WI. Dems counter in CA, FL (I wouldn't have thought this race until I was down there last week, when even my rock-ribbed, God fearin', gun totin' GOP relatives by marriage where telling me Rick Scott is a "f*kin crook"), MN and my surprise prediction - Ohio.

Now lets hear from some of you. No penalty for wrong predictions.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The House is tough. I think 40 is the absolute low end. Maybe not. I'm on record as Senate +7 for Republicans, so I think 5 is low. Let's look at them in depth.
North Dakota, Arkansas, and Indiana are guaranteed to switch. That's 3.
Then, there's Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Republicans are winning here, but there's the chance the dead could rise up (as they have a habit of doing in Milwaukee, Madison, and Philadelphia) and give the Dems a win. Still, I'm calling it 5.
Nevada, Colorado, and Illinois are a little tougher, but Republicans are leading in all 3 races. Give them 2 out of 3. That's 7. I feel reasonably comfortable with that.
Then, there's West Virginia and Washington. West Virginia is probably in the Democrat column, but there's a chance voters may be overwhelmed by their dislike of Obama. Washington is interesting, because Public Policy Polling (Democratic firm) showed Rossi leading today by 2 (and by 5 among the 75% who had already mailed in their ballots). So, I'd say there's maybe a 20% chance of taking as many as 9.

Interesting that you feel like Dems have a chance in Alaska. Is that of McAdams winning or of Murkowski caucusing with them?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I agree predicting the House is very tough -- it's far more susceptible to a wave. I wouldn't be shocked by a House swing of anywhere from 40 to 70, and that's a helluva lot of territory.

But no matter what, the Republicans will crow and they should -- it will be a thumpin', and they're in need of some good news. The pendulum keeps on a swingin'.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'd really like to participate in this. But given what happend Saturday night, my heart's not in it. I expect to recover in time to be at my irritating best tomorrow. In the meantime, I'm thinking about a young man who reached out from his hospital bed today to tell the player who broke his neck that he holds no ill will, that it was just part of the game. Where do we find these people?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

U.S. Rep. Cynthia Lummis says some of her Wyoming constituents are so worried about the reinstatement of federal estate taxes that they plan to discontinue dialysis and other life-extending medical treatments so they can die before Dec. 31. Lummis, a Republican who holds her state's lone seat in the House, declined to name any of the people who have made the comments.

But she said many ranchers and farmers in the state would rather pass along their businesses _ "their life's work" _ to their children and grandchildren than see the federal government take a large chunk.

"If you have spent your whole life building a ranch, and you wanted to pass your estate on to your children, and you were 88-years-old and on dialysis, and the only thing that was keeping you alive was that dialysis, you might make that same decision," Lummis told reporters.

Lummis and other Republicans are fighting to renew the Bush-era tax cuts, which expire at the end of the year. The cuts exempt large inheritances as well as certain wage income, interest, dividends and capital gains.

The estate tax, first enacted in 1916, temporarily disappeared for 2010 while political wrangling stalemated efforts to revise it. The tax's top rate in 2009 was 45 percent, but estates smaller than $3.5 million _ or $7 million in the case of married couples _ were exempt. That left less than 1 percent of all estates subject to the tax.

Uh huh.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Uh huh.

You don't believe that? I think it was either the first or second Freakonomics book where they proved pretty definitively that that does happen.

Edit: They talked about it in Superfreakonomics. http://books.google.com/books?id=p1...&resnum=5&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

You don't believe that? I think it was either the first or second Freakonomics book where they proved pretty definitively that that does happen.

Edit: They talked about it in Superfreakonomics. http://books.google.com/books?id=p1...&resnum=5&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm sorry. Where is the proof that it actually happens? All I see is a note that the mortality rate increased in Australia 30 years ago, and some supposition of what "might" happen in the US. The phrase "it's not hard to imagine" is not proof.

ETA: I'm curious...how does this sit with the "sanctity of life" wing of the GOP? Killing your parents (or standing by and letting them off themselves) wouldn't seem to go with those beliefs...

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'm sorry. Where is the proof that it actually happens? All I see is a note that the mortality rate increased in Australia 30 years ago, and some supposition of what "might" happen in the US. The phrase "it's not hard to imagine" is not proof.

ETA: I'm curious...how does this sit with the "sanctity of life" wing of the GOP? Killing your parents (or standing by and letting them off themselves) wouldn't seem to go with those beliefs...

These are economists. They study incentives for a living. And it's hardly like they're right wingers either. You don't see how a death tax could motivate people to die early?

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

These are economists. They study incentives for a living. And it's hardly like they're right wingers either. You don't see how a death tax could motivate people to die early?

I think it makes great rhetoric to say the estate tax could lead people to die early, but a) I doubt that will happen and b) they haven't proven anything. They said it "might" happen.

It's also "not hard to imagine" tangerine trees and marmalade skies...

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Right. Economists- people who study these things- say repealing the death tax might (I'd say the Freakonomics people imply probably) lead to people dying early. But of course, they can't say definitively, because there isn't an actual situation to study.
Now, there is an actual situation in play, and we have a Congresswoman saying it's actually happening. But clearly it's a RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY oh my god!!!

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

These are economists. They study incentives for a living. And it's hardly like they're right wingers either. You don't see how a death tax could motivate people to die early?

So what if they do? Who cares?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

So what if they do? Who cares?

I don't. But Priceless seemed to be suggesting that the Congresswoman who suggested that they might was crazy, or making stuff up. I certainly don't think she is.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Right. Economists- people who study these things- say repealing the death tax might (I'd say the Freakonomics people imply probably) lead to people dying early. But of course, they can't say definitively, because there isn't an actual situation to study.
Now, there is an actual situation in play, and we have a Congresswoman saying it's actually happening. But clearly it's a RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY oh my god!!!

Where did I say it was a right-wing conspiracy? I said I doubted it was happening.

Aside from the the inference that matricide/patricide is OK for tax purposes, you think a doctor is going to risk their license by allowing their patient to die? Hospitals are going to risk exposure (not to mention the PR hit) by letting people die? And again, if assisted suicide is wrong, how can this possibly be justified? It. isn't. happening. But like I said, it makes for great rhetoric on the campaign trail.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

My only opinion on this is tangential: it would be better if we could have rational end-of-life conversations at the national level. But that's not happening before the end of my life, so onto the real business.

GOP takes a ride on route 66. +66 House, +7 Senate.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Where did I say it was a right-wing conspiracy? I said I doubted it was happening.

Aside from the the inference that matricide/patricide is OK for tax purposes, you think a doctor is going to risk their license by allowing their patient to die? Hospitals are going to risk exposure (not to mention the PR hit) by letting people die? And again, if assisted suicide is wrong, how can this possibly be justified? It. isn't. happening. But like I said, it makes for great rhetoric on the campaign trail.

Right, because the Congresswoman is in desperate need of campaign help. The Congresswoman from Wyoming. R+18 Wyoming. The Wyoming that went 65% for McCain. The Wyoming that Nate Silver has at 100% Republican win probability.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Right, because the Congresswoman is in desperate need of campaign help. The Congresswoman from Wyoming. R+18 Wyoming. The Wyoming that went 65% for McCain. The Wyoming that Nate Silver has at 100% Republican win probability.

And of course people from other districts/states don't campaign for anyone else.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'm going with my "Vote the Vowel". THere isn't a single name on the ballot with a consonant next to their name that deserves a single vote.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'm going with my "Vote the Vowel". THere isn't a single name on the ballot with a consonant next to their name that deserves a single vote.

So you're going big with the Anarchy Party.