U.S. Politics - a conservative, a conservative, my kingdom for a conservative

[Shryke]

Via Krugman, check out Mark Thoma's graph that helps to really illustrate this whole issue. Most working people pay plenty of income taxes for a good chunk of their careers. I used to think you needed to argue back with "but they do pay payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc..." but that argument isn't even really necessary.

This whole thing is a canard, but it's something that everyone on the right knows, just knows!, is a fact.

ETA: And of course Reagan is a big reason why fewer people pay fewer income taxes. It used to be a Republican goal.

That's because they were starving the beast.

Now they've got to pretend to care about the debt again, so they need to raise taxes but they can't raise them on rich people because looking out of the welfare of the richest americans is practically the whole purpose of the GOP at this point.

So you get "broadening the base" or whatever. Read: tax poor people more

[Fez]

That's because they were starving the beast.

Now they've got to pretend to care about the debt again, so they need to raise taxes but they can't raise them on rich people because looking out of the welfare of the richest americans is practically the whole purpose of the GOP at this point.

So you get "broadening the base" or whatever. Read: tax poor people more

Hey now, let's not disparage base-broadening. Its a legitimate topic and is generally considered one of the five principles of a just tax system. The issue is that Republicans have started to use the term to mean something other than it was intended to and, when considering income disparities the base very nearly already as broad as it can be (at least for the middle class; there's nothing wrong with broadening the base by taxing capital gains as income).

[Shryke]

Raidne already gave a rebuttal. I'd only add anecdotal experience. I know people who are dyed-in-the-wool republicans, some who always vote democrat, but the largest group of voters I know (mostly in the 30-45 yo range) weigh both sides and can be persuaded by a good candidate with a good message.

Now, the current election cycle seems to be mostly "baked in" already. In fact, I think a lot of people made up their minds about Obama-vs-GOP more than a year ago. How this will trend in the future is... scary. I much prefer the 35-40% of voters in the middle to be in the driver's seat, but that's probably my own bias speaking.

A good message of what?

It seems like you and Raidne are just saying "there's a group of people who'd switch parties if those parties just changed what they supported".

Which is just basically tautological.

[TrackerNeil]

ETA: And of course Reagan is a big reason why fewer people pay fewer income taxes. It used to be a Republican goal.

This is the really crazy part of that comment. Republicans are all about tax cuts - they've signed a pledge to that effect, for crying out loud! - and yet now they're complaining when people aren't paying sufficient taxes.

[Fez]

In horse-racy news, the WaPo has a new pollout showing Obama beating Romney 52-44 in Virginia among likely voters, (also the "reverse enthusiasm gap" once again rears its head since among registered voters, its a 50-43 lead). So that's fun.

ETA:

Also, Nate Silver has just released his senate forecasting model. Democrats currently have a 70% chance of retaining their senate majority.

ETA2:

And, GWU just released a poll of over 6,000 small business owners on a variety of questions. On the issue "which candidate is most supportive of small businesses?", Obama leads 39-31 (lotta "not sures" here; but still a really good lead for a Democratic candidate).

ETA3:

In the spirit of not cherry picking, the Gallup tracker is back down to Obama+1 though.

ETA4:

Can't stress enough the importance of that GWU poll. That's just not the sort of result that that sort of poll has had since Clinton was still eligible to run for office.

ETA5 (going for a personal best):

NBC has been teasing that their national poll results released tonight are gonna show a big Obama lead; so it looks like we're back to the situation where there's a somewhat large gap between what state/non-tracker national polls say and what the trackers have.

[Jon Sprunk]

A good message of what?

It seems like you and Raidne are just saying "there's a group of people who'd switch parties if those parties just changed what they supported".

Which is just basically tautological.

The message depends on the times.

And I'm not talking about people switching parties; I'm talking about the independent middle that moves one way or the other depending on a lot of factors, and the letter beside the candidate's name has less to do with it than their positions on certain issues. Republicans can be pro-life without insulting every woman in the country. Democrats can support workers' rights without insulting business. Smart messengers find ways to appeal to both sides of an issue and give thoughtful voters something to like.

Using Obama's foreign policy as an example. He shows a willingness to talk and use soft power (which liberals love), but he also shows tough resolve in the face of danger (which national-defense-minded independents respect). There are factions on both ends of the spectrum that find his policies distasteful, but his approach appeals to the broad middle as steady, intelligent, and balanced. (And it has the side-benefit of forcing Romney to make outrageous claims to get to the president's right.)

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

If Obama wins VA, it's damn near impossible for Romney to win, period. So I watch for every piece of news out of there these days.

I gotta give Romney NC and maybe even FL, but without Virginia his map is terrible. And it should be a state that's winnable for him.

Speaking of, what's the word on this third party guy there now? Is he in or has someone managed to kick him off the ballot?

[Fez]

If Obama wins VA, it's damn near impossible for Romney to win, period. So I watch for every piece of news out of there these days.

I gotta give Romney NC and maybe even FL, but without Virginia his map is terrible. And it should be a state that's winnable for him.

Speaking of, what's the word on this third party guy there now? Is he in or has someone managed to kick him off the ballot?

Well VA's a big boost, but Obama still needs to win either Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, or Iowa+Colorado (assuming NH and NV are in the bag). Now fortunately he's up pretty big in Ohio as well. (ETA: He's also up by varying amounts in most of the rest as well of course. Although its interesting how red Wisconsin seems to be trending over the past four years.)

As for Goode, his numbers have started dropping pretty rapidly. A lot of formerly-supportive Republicans seemed to have soured on him once they realized he might play spoiler (which isn't surprising).

[TrackerNeil]

I think if Obama wins Virginia it will signal a general move towards him; it's difficult to imagine him winning there and losing just about everywhere else, which is pretty much what would need to happen for Romney to prevail.

Who'da guessed, eight years ago, that Virginia would even be competitive, much less that it might go for a Democrat not once but twice in a row?

Edited: I'm not surprised to hear that Goode is losing support. Independent candidates tend to perform better in polls than they actually do at the voting booth. Party identification is still the best indicator of how one will vote.

[davos]

*mod hat* ok, we've hit the 400+ mark for this thread. See you in its new iteration, which I will have up as asap. Thanks */mod hat*