I made this map last week, and I might change it a little if I were redoing it tonight. I’m not for McCain (although I am decidedly against Obama), but here I am simply illustrating in red those states I would be very surprised to see McCain lose tomorrow. If I were to redo the map tonight, I might throw Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin to McCain, along with New Hampshire and half of Maine. Anyway, here is my thinking as of last week:
I could be wildly, wildly wrong, and you’re free to express the belief that I am — without flames, please — provided you’re willing to eat crow should it turn out, in the end, that I am wildly, wildly right. Bear in mind that all I had to do was keep this map secret to avoid the possibility of eating crow myself.
But: You can play this game, too. If you go to RealClearPolitics.com, you can create your own electoral-college map so you can show the rest of us how you think the election is going to play out. Email your map to yourself and then paste the link to your map in a comment to this post.
Why, you may ask, am I representing such a strong win for McCain when you have been told for weeks and months that Obama will win in a landslide? It’s because I don’t believe what I’ve been told. It may turn out that everything you’re hearing is true. For now, at least, I’m inclined to think otherwise.
If you’re interested, here is a stunning contrarian analysis of this election from Sean Malstrom:
The Undecideds *have* decided: they have decided not to declare their choice to pollsters.
The polls are way, way off this election cycle. Pollsters have admitted that this election has the highest ‘refusal to respond’ number. The ‘undecideds’ are people who don’t want to declare their choice. Why would they do that? If you belong to a Union, and they tell you to vote for Obama or ‘else’, you will not answer a pollster for it could be a union boss checking up on its members. PUMAs have declared their intention to lie to pollsters and they are organized. And there are many people who don’t want to declare ‘McCain’ because of being perceived as a ‘racist’.
Look, days away from the election and there are like 11% undecideds? No! This is not normal. The Bradley Effect is occurring with the undecideds. I suspect there is oversampling from the urban population as well. Another big factor is the pollsters putting in the additional Democrat registrations as if these are new voters. The boost in Democrat registrations came from many ‘registration drives’ where people are paid to meet a quota (where you get names like Mickey Mouse on the ballots or the Dallas Cowboys) as well as Republicans who switched to the Democrat Party to tamper with the Democrat Primary. I suspect the boost in Democrat registrations was intentional early on to throw off the pollsters so their calculations can only factor in a much larger than Democrat turnout than normal as part of their ‘inevitable strategy’ psy-op campaign.
Projections are only as good as their inputs. With the high rate of people refusing to be polled (as admitted by pollsters), the high rate of people not willing to declare who they want to vote for (the undecideds), and the huge wave of junk Democrat registrations, you’re going to see the polls be way, way off.
That’s just a tiny slice of a very long article. Read the whole thing — if you can stomach challenges to received wisdom.
As above, I don’t have a dog in this race. I want for Obama to lose, not alone because, as bad as McCain will be for our economy, Obama will be much worse. But nothing good will happen in the United States until somebody turns off the spigot at the Fed — and only then will we get around to actually paying for this two-decade orgy of fiat money. But come what does, history will be made tomorrow. It were well to pay attention.
Greg Swann says:
This is my Tuesday morning map, my everything-breaks-right-for-McCain map. I can’t take half of Maine, so I took it all. And I took Michigan as a cherry on the sundae. And the next time I’m in Vegas, I’m dropping a C-note — money plays — on Black 13.
November 4, 2008 — 2:07 am
Andrew says:
The default map on Real Clear Politics looks more realistic to my (inexpert) eye. Rushing off to work and no time to make my own map. (Cool tool though.)
You’re absolutely right that we can’t believe the hype. Polls schmols. Anything could happen today.
That’s why I’m voting for Obama. 🙂
November 4, 2008 — 2:07 am
Greg Swann says:
Hi, Andrew. Are you an astroturf surfer? I watch for proxy domains as a matter of habit, and I can’t feature how you would have found us except by Googlebot. In any case, I’m not allowing any more comments to this thread from people we’ve never seen before.
Inlookers, whether or not Andrew is an astroturfer, fake grass-roots comments are one of the ways the Obama campaign has devised of presenting the illusion of invincibility.
November 4, 2008 — 2:42 am
Russell Shaw says:
I’m not fake, I am a registered Republican and I already (via early ballot) voted for Obama. I predict he will not only be our next president I predict he will be one of the greatest presidents we have had in a very long time.
November 4, 2008 — 3:23 am
john Sabia says:
I am in line waiting to vote as of 6:45 this morning without my morning cofee (voting for McCain-Palin).i too think the Bradley effect will be in play today. Hopefully, Florida is not in the news again.
November 4, 2008 — 5:27 am
Tom Vanderwell says:
Greg,
I don’t have the time to do up my own “map” otherwise I would. Let’s just say that I’ll be saying a couple of extra prayers today that you’re right.
I think you summarize my feelings about the two candidates quite well.
Going to be an interesting day/evening/morning to say the least.
Tom
November 4, 2008 — 5:28 am
Missy Caulk says:
Greg, Annoy the media, Go Vote. The real loser here is the Main Stream Media, even now them saying Obama has won is another tactic.
No one knows, except One and he isn’t telling. So as I learned growing up in the South, “from your mouth to God’s ears”. In this case from your post to God’s ears.
See you Friday!
November 4, 2008 — 5:43 am
Cheryl Johnson says:
Bless you, Russell Shaw, for having the guts to stand up and say that.
No matter who wins this election, he will have no shortage of challenges to face.
Whoever he is, if he manages to conquer even a few of those challenges, I think he will be remembered in history as a great president.
November 4, 2008 — 6:16 am
John Sabia says:
Greg – Love the map!
I also expect the Bradley effect to be in play today. I think a lot of older voters felt intimidated.
The Obama victory dance the last couple of weeks may have annoyed some undecideds. I also think there are a few angry from the non-stop insults at Palin.
November 4, 2008 — 6:40 am
Jessica Horton says:
I don’t have time to do my own map, but McCain is 1 vote closer to winning Georgia.
November 4, 2008 — 6:48 am
Eric Bramlett says:
You’re a brave man, Greg. However, since some polls are using cell phones and some aren’t, this year has the potential for them to be wildly inaccurate.
It seems a bit silly to predict at this point (instead of just waiting 17 odd hours,) but I’m going w/ gallup, who predicted the popular vote at 53% 42% among likely voters. I’ll go with reuters on the electoral college, showing a clear victory for Obama. http://www.reuters.com/news/globalcoverage/2008candidates
With regards to Andrew the bot proxy surfer – why don’t you shoot him an email and let us all know how it goes? I don’t believe the Obama campaign is doing this, but even if they were, I’ll take that over voter suppression any day of the week.
November 4, 2008 — 7:05 am
David Shafer says:
The assumption that a “no response” to a pollster is a vote for McCain is invalid in my eyes. I think people are just tired of polls on the telephone. I know I am.
November 4, 2008 — 7:09 am
Geno Petro says:
Still undecided.
G
November 4, 2008 — 7:15 am
David Shafer says:
Just got back from the polls where I voted for Obama. He will make a great president, a great leader, and is the man for the job in my opinion. My precinct is overwhelmingly Democrat so take this with a grain of salt, but saw a much larger percentage of the under 30 crowd and well as larger overall numbers. This is a county that 32% of folks have already voted. The pre-votes tilted heavily to Democrats. Live across the street from the precinct and there has been a steady stream of people going to vote since 6:45 this morning! Whatever the outcome, I see this as a historic election by turnout numbers alone. Obama is very organized. We got hit by three sets of Obama folks yesterday, and Democrats have a heavily organized “ride to vote” system. McCain ads on TV over the last week have been disgusting basically calling Obama a terrorist, untrustworthy, liar, and everything else they can think of. Even my Republican friends were turned off by them and at least two said they will vote for Obama as a result of the negative advertising this week.
As a side note, Obama has been advertising on sports radio for a month now and even Nadar has been advertising on sports radio for two weeks, but no McCain ads on radio.
My prediction, Obama wins a close one in Florida and has an electoral landslide winning Ohio, Virginia, Penn., Colorado, Nevada, and New Hampshire, while losing North Carolina and Indiana.
November 4, 2008 — 7:21 am
Bob says:
If Obama wins, he has 18 months or we will see a return of the 94 Congressional upheaval.
Obama’s problem will be cashing the check he writes. Expectations are high.
November 4, 2008 — 7:32 am
Teri Lussier says:
Malstrom was a fascinating read, Greg. I particularly loved this:
>(how can a poll detect passion? It cannot).
80% turnout is expected in Dayton today. That’s a lot of passion. Of course nice weather always helps, too…
November 4, 2008 — 7:48 am
John Sabia says:
Very true, but he has the media’s support in distracting attention.
November 4, 2008 — 7:49 am
Dave Barnes says:
1. I voted for Obama on October 10th in Colorado even though I am a libertarian at heart. It is time to transfer leadership to a younger generation as we baby-boomers have had our 16 years.
2. See FiveThirtyEight.com
November 4, 2008 — 7:56 am
John Rowles says:
FWIW, Little Dixville Notch NH, which has gone Republican for 40 years, voted 15-6 for Obama. Those are the actual votes, not an exit poll.
I’m entrepreneur working to get into a tax bracket that Obama calls “rich”. All that “It’s YOUR money”, Joe the Plumber stuff was aimed at me — and it didn’t work on me or the “hardworking folks” of Dixville Notch.
Am I going to be happy paying higher taxes if I break into that $250k/yr. bracket? Of course not. But after 8 years of being governed by people who put self-interest first and seeing the results, I voted for Obama because I want to see this country repudiate everything Bush/Cheney/Rove stand for. When McCain embraced Bush’s policies, hired Rove’s acolytes, and went for their “Frighten up the base”/ divide and conquer strategy, McCain 2008 lost my vote.
You gotta wonder how this would have turned out if McCain 2000 had been the “real” John McCain.
November 4, 2008 — 8:49 am
Bob says:
You really believe that Obama is not about self interest?
November 4, 2008 — 8:54 am
john Sabia says:
Uhmm… I think the figure has been lowered several times and is now at $120,000.
November 4, 2008 — 9:00 am
Andrew Davies says:
Hey Greg,
I’m pure green grass.
Found your site through technorati actually. (Is that so wrong?) I included a link to my website as a kind of business card. Only polite to let people know who you are when you stop by their website, I think.
I’m not paid or in any way affiliated with the Obama campaign or Democrat party. Just someone participating in the political dialog that makes our country what it is.
And, as I said in my comment, I agree with you. The election is far from over.
Only point I might disagree on, is that I not sure it’s in Obama’s interest to look “invincible”. Promotes complacency. Last thing we need today.
November 4, 2008 — 9:10 am
Todd says:
My post-election, after-the-dust-settles, prediction map:
http://tinyurl.com/5gbxob
“The revolution WILL be televised!”
🙂
November 4, 2008 — 9:11 am
Greg Swann says:
> Malstrom was a fascinating read, Greg.
I thought so. There’s a lot of other very interesting stuff out there that has gotten no attention.
When McCain announced Palin as his running mate, I was on the phone with Brian Brady. I said, “This is how a fighter pilot runs for president.” It’s plausible to me that, foreseeing Obama’s strategy — a pantomime of invincibility devised to sap any opponent’s will — the McCain campaign devised a believable counter-pantomime: Too weak to win, too proud to quit. The essence of any effective story is plausibility, the willful suspension of disbelief.
So: What if McCain pulled out of Michigan, as an example, not because he was weak but because he knew he was strong enough to hold the red counties and to do well in the blue counties without wasting resources in the state? In other words, that if he could take Pennsylvania and Ohio, he would pull Michigan — cheated out of its primary by the DNC — along with them. That would be a world class head-fake hiding in plain sight.
A competent general can win when he has all the advantages. A great general wins when everything is stacked against him. We won’t know until nearly midnight if McCain (and Rick Davis and Steve Schmidt and Sarah Palin) qualify as great generals, but it makes for an interesting line of thought.
The Hollywood cliche of the tweedy city-slicker who wanders into a Wild West tavern and orders a glass of milk, only to be force-fed shot after shot of whiskey by the chortling cowboys — that story has its origins in Doc Holliday. He was very much a tweedy Victorian intellectual persona, and so he would get his first drunk on in every new town he set foot in simply by ordering a glass of milk. McCain spent 40 million dollars in the past seven days, but if you go to his poll-watching event tonight at the Biltmore, almost nothing is on the house. What is weakness and what is a very convincing counterfeit of weakness? Hide and watch…
November 4, 2008 — 9:23 am
Greg Swann says:
> I’m pure green grass.
My apologies. I’m more than normally paranoid right now.
> Only point I might disagree on, is that I not sure it’s in Obama’s interest to look “invincible”.
If he loses tonight, this will prove to have been a fatal error. They used this gambit all through the primaries, then used it to hound Hillary out of the running. They actually tried it last week, trial balloons suggesting that McCain should bow to the inevitable. Obama’s hubris has pissed a lot of people off. I think personal pique is a poor reason to vote for or against someone, but when we take up the ballot — in preference to taking up arms, thank the gods — we answer to no one but ourselves.
My best to you,
Greg Swann
November 4, 2008 — 9:34 am
Greg Swann says:
Just as an aside, while the comments in this thread are strong, our traffic is slow like a Saturday. Could be a lot of people are out voting…
November 4, 2008 — 9:42 am
Thomas Johnson says:
@ Bob: Obama’s problem will be cashing the check he writes.
Will the ChiCom fellow travellers make his IOU good or will they demand that WalMart pay in Euros?
November 4, 2008 — 10:06 am
Thomas Johnson says:
Looks like the next president will be overdrawn.
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2008/11/treasury-borrowing-for-quarter-to-be.html
November 4, 2008 — 10:10 am
Dylan Darling says:
I’m heading to the polls in a few minutes. It’s going to be a wild ride this evening. I think its going to be neck and neck. We’ll see how it pans out. I think we’re going to see some major changes in the Whitehouse no matter who wins.
November 4, 2008 — 11:45 am
Joe Strummer says:
It could be that Greg is correct. Until the votes are counted, nothing is set. However, a similar way of thinking encouraged people to believe all kinds of things in the past 8 years that evidence suggested at the time were incorrect – re: Iraq and how easily it could be made into a liberal democracy.
Most of the evidence suggests at least an Obama win, if not a landslide. Saying “I don’t believe what the media tell me” is a nice starting point, but doesn’t really build a case. As to the case he does build, by quoting an excerpt about undecideds: in many of these toss-up states, Obama has 49 or 50 percent. So even if all of the undecided break for McCain (highly unlikely), McCain would still need to have 1-3 percent of Obama supporters change their minds.
I take a more traditional map, and add in NC and GA which I think, owing to sizeable African-American populations, might go for Obama.
http://tinyurl.com/6qky68
Obama is going to be as disastrous a president as Carter, which is to say he’ll be better than LBJ, Nixon, George W. Bush, and Ford.
November 4, 2008 — 12:18 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Obama is going to be as disastrous a president as Carter, which is to say he’ll be better than LBJ, Nixon, George W. Bush, and Ford.
Wishful thinking, I’m afraid. Even ignoring the promise to tax and spend into a recession, which will be a disaster unto its own, the revocation of the right to a secret ballot in union elections will send millions of jobs overseas, even as it destroys businesses that cannot move their work offshore. We ignore the fact that Obama is a lifelong Marxist — who routinely quotes Mao and Malcolm X in his stump speeches — at our peril, but there is nothing but vain hope to protect us from the kinds of thuggish suppressions of free expression we have already seen from the Obama campaign. The man has told us in plain English that he wants to establish an internal security force as big and as well-funded as the military. Are you prepared to bet that your liberty to express yourself as an outspoken advocate of laissez faire will fare as well under Obama as it has under Bush? My take: No one as far removed as we are from the mainstream of American politics should ever pray too hard for change. Change of the kind Obama promises has never been kind to our kind.
Do read the Malstrom article though. It’s a masterful work of the mind even if it turns out to be incorrect. The posts and essays at zombietime.com are also worth perusing. The net really came into its own with this election. If we can keep it free, we’re that much closer to the individualist renaissance, Obama or not.
November 4, 2008 — 1:30 pm
Jessica Horton says:
“The man has told us in plain English that he wants to establish an internal security force as big and as well-funded as the military. Are you prepared to bet that your liberty to express yourself as an outspoken advocate of laissez faire will fare as well under Obama as it has under Bush? My take: No one as far removed as we are from the mainstream of American politics should ever pray too hard for change. Change of the kind Obama promises has never been kind to our kind.”
November 4, 2008 — 2:19 pm
Dave Phillips says:
I voted several hours ago. Since Senator O’Cain was no where to be found on the ballot, I wrote in myself. I guess the FBI will have something else to put in my file.
Polls do lie. Kerry was up 5 points in Fla last time and lost by 4 points. With that said, Obama has run a brilliant campaign and I will be surprised if he loses. His ads and ground game in VA have been way better than MaCain and he has spent a ton more money on both.
Hope to see you folks in Orlando, but I’m having trouble finding time to stop in Unchained. I’ll be hanging with the establishment trying to do the peoples work.
November 4, 2008 — 3:00 pm
Greg Swann says:
> I’m having trouble finding time to stop in Unchained.
Come and dine with us Thursday night. Or: BloodhoundBlog has a house in West Disney. We might do something there Saturday night.
November 4, 2008 — 3:04 pm
Joe Strummer says:
The man has told us in plain English that he wants to establish an internal security force as big and as well-funded as the military. Are you prepared to bet that your liberty to express yourself as an outspoken advocate of laissez faire will fare as well under Obama as it has under Bush? My take: No one as far removed as we are from the mainstream of American politics should ever pray too hard for change. Change of the kind Obama promises has never been kind to our kind.
Similar things were said about Bill Clinton – that his wife was an avowed Marxist and that he and her were going to usher in a socialist wave. In fact, after health care was defeated, we got welfare reform, and a fairly sane budget for 8 years.
Then we got Bush, who may not have spoken the language of Marxism, but to the extent that we now have gov’t ownership of once private banks, definitely practiced it.
If the Republican Party can reform itself in the next 18 months, Obama will lose the mid-terms and be effectively checked.
November 4, 2008 — 3:14 pm
Joe Strummer says:
“The man has told us in plain English that he wants to establish an internal security force as big and as well-funded as the military. Are you prepared to bet that your liberty to express yourself as an outspoken advocate of laissez faire will fare as well under Obama as it has under Bush? My take: No one as far removed as we are from the mainstream of American politics should ever pray too hard for change. Change of the kind Obama promises has never been kind to our kind.”
As for the video, that’s obviously not good and those men should be arrested. But obviously this is nothing new in American politics. The U.S. has had fairly non-violent elections as compared to most of the rest of the world, but it would be silly to assume that the U.S. has had universally non-violent elections.
November 4, 2008 — 3:23 pm
Joe Strummer says:
Obama wins PA, which means it’s all over for McCain.
November 4, 2008 — 6:02 pm
Brian Brady says:
Ohio, too. Obama’s the new President.
November 4, 2008 — 7:19 pm
Ryan Ward says:
Yup, unless they are wrong, but, ABC and Fox both called Ohio for Obama and that takes the election out of play almost completely.
November 4, 2008 — 7:26 pm
Robert Kerr says:
RE: 284/254 McCain.
Dream on, Greg, dream on.
It’s all over, except for the excuses and the melodramatic lamentations about how the Republic will surely come to an end under Democratic Socialist Communist Redistributionist Party rule.
Break out the violins and the Kleenex!
November 4, 2008 — 8:26 pm
Robert Kerr says:
I’m not fake, I am a registered Republican and I already (via early ballot) voted for Obama. I predict he will not only be our next president I predict he will be one of the greatest presidents we have had in a very long time.
AMEN to that, Mr. Shaw.
Life-long Republican here, too, also voted for Obama, and proudly so I might add.
This year, for me, voting wasn’t about “who will will best for me or my wallet” it was about “who will be best for the country?”
The choice was clear.
November 4, 2008 — 8:34 pm
Bob says:
Wow, Robert, you are going out on quite a limb there about what is best for the country. I still wonder at how people can overlook so many things that are documented.
Oh well. I cant tell you how much I hope I am wrong.
November 4, 2008 — 8:48 pm
Robert Kerr says:
Just to be clear, Bob, what I wrote was my opinion, not some certified universal truth.
November 4, 2008 — 8:53 pm
Bob says:
I know that. And I hope you are right.
November 4, 2008 — 8:56 pm
John Sabia says:
I’m glad you added this is your opinion because I was going to ask what that was based on?
November 4, 2008 — 9:03 pm
Russell Shaw says:
>>The choice was clear.
I’m glad you added this is your opinion because I was going to ask what that was based on?<<
Hope. Anyone who believes that hope – even hope alone – can not make a difference does not know their history very well. 2,500 years ago the appearance of a single man, Gautama, with only his message of brotherly love and hope managed to civilize three quarters of Asia.
Hope is not important – it is vital for the future of any nation.
November 4, 2008 — 9:44 pm
Ryan Ward says:
“Hope is not important – it is vital for the future of any nation”
100% agreed. However, there is little that I hope for that is congruent with what Obama spoke about. I never saw anything in him that remotely made me hopeful. Instead, I heard (hear) much of what I would hope would never happen. Nothing he said (in my opinion) had anything to do with hope for individuals (many of the founding principles of this country), but instead, his campaign was about pretending that he could give people something that he either has no intentions of doing or any way of doing even if he did intend on doing it.
He played on selfishness that has become mainstream culture in this country.
I very much hope that this turns out better than my worst case fears for what might happen under a gevernment with him as president.
Simultaneously, many arguments about how bad America can is, must forever leave public discourse. For this his election will be healing for many in this country and that is good.
November 4, 2008 — 10:03 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Hope.
I see Obama’s support as being completely puerile. That’s what’s most disturbing to me about this election. Iran is about to acquire the means to obliterate Israel and America elects a president about whom it knows nothing except that he is so far without accomplishment and in whom it invests a vast wish list of nebulous non-concepts.
November 4, 2008 — 10:09 pm
John Sabia says:
>>hope.
I was looking for tangible. But you are right, there is nothing there.
For this country’s sake, I “hope” we’ve made the right choice.
November 4, 2008 — 11:05 pm
Robert Kerr says:
I’m glad you added this is your opinion because I was going to ask what that was based on?
…
I was looking for tangible. But you are right, there is nothing there.
Just because it’s my opinion, that doesn’t make it arbitrary or trivial or intangible.
If you’d like a serious discussion, I’m willing to explain, IMO, what’s gone wrong with this nation since 2001 in terms of economics, ethics, the law, education, the armed forces, international relations, etc.
It’s not just dumb luck that were at the start of one of the worst economic downturns that most of us will ever experience.
It took grossly negligent political, fiscal and monetary policy to bring us here.
November 5, 2008 — 12:01 am
Joe Strummer says:
I see Obama’s support as being completely puerile. That’s what’s most disturbing to me about this election. Iran is about to acquire the means to obliterate Israel and America elects a president about whom it knows nothing except that he is so far without accomplishment and in whom it invests a vast wish list of nebulous non-concepts.
This would not be the first time. Go back to 2000, with all this talk among Bush supporters about he was a “man’s man” and a “guy you could have a drink with” and how when he landed on that aircraft carrier in 2003, wasn’t he so strapping and didn’t Peggy Noonan love how he carried himself.
Many (most?) Americans vote for puerile reasons.
And then remember that in 2000 Bush was a weak governor – Texas has a weak governor – who didn’t know much about the world and had otherwise spent his misbegotten youth as an alcoholic until getting a sweetheart deal as owner of the Texas Rangers.
I see really no difference between Obama and Bush, except that Obama seems to be a good deal more intelligent and self-aware which suggests that he won’t just do what a certain class of people – e.g., the neocons – tell him to do.
Besides, what had McCain done? Served X terms in the house and the Senate. Is that supposed to suggest some ability to manage a massive bureaucratic institution like the U.S. gov’t?
November 5, 2008 — 8:15 am
John Sabia says:
I agree that is a separate topic worthy of an intelligent conversation. I didn’t mean to infer that your opinion was arbitrary, trivial or intangible. What I questioned was what is it about Obama that convinces you that he is the clear and best choice for the country (as you wrote in your comment above) to deal with these issues? What is his track record that you based your decision on? That’s a serious conversation as well. The answer written by another was “hope”. That is what I meant by intangible.
November 5, 2008 — 8:33 am
Greg Swann says:
> Many (most?) Americans vote for puerile reasons.
Possibly. Will you be visiting Tehran between now and the end of the year?
I had decided that, should Obama win, I am going to write a treatise on the ethics of consensus. My belief is that Obama will be worse in the near term, possibly catastrophically worse, but that doesn’t make McCain or any currently-available alternative good. If we hope to achieve the good, as individuals, we have to identify it explicitly and work toward it exclusively. Everything we’re doing right now is deck chairs on the Titanic. Force engenders resistance which engenders more force. We know from theory and from mountains of corpses where this process ends. We might move faster or slower, but the vector of motion is the same either way.
Interestingly, I hear hints of highly organized underground economies forming. This was something I wrote about in the 80s, anticipating that data processing would make so-called black markets work as they never have before. The is puerile, too, but nothing makes libertarians like bad laws. Assuming Congress does no worse than Obama’s promises, the Federal tax bite on high earners will be 54%. That’s a strong incentive to produce undetected wealth.
November 5, 2008 — 8:54 am
J Boyer Chatham NJ says:
I am sorry Greg, you must be very disappointed. I would imagine that you feel something like I felt in 2004 when W went on to re-election, when it was becoming quite clear the W was taking the country down the wrong path.
I am still of the opinion that W will go down as one of the worst presidents this country has ever had.
I agree that Obama has about 18 month to get things going, and prove that he is not a liberal radical. If he can do that, then he will be well on his way to re-election in 2012. If he cannot it will be like Jimmy Carter all over again.
November 5, 2008 — 10:33 am
Andrew Davies says:
My prediction is that Obama won’t stray far from the center.
Also, have to say McCain’s concession speech was good.
November 5, 2008 — 1:10 pm
Bob says:
It isnt Obama who will try to take everything away from the center. That would be Reid and Pelosi. Obama will merely let them do it.
The bigger issue for me is that it will take 2 election cycles for the house to balance out, and even longer for the Senate. I was wrong about 18 months. that will merely be the beginning of the outcry.
Obama won’t stay in the center because there is no reason to do so and no consequence for him if he doesn’t.
November 5, 2008 — 4:33 pm
Jonathan Blackwell says:
D’oh. We appreciate the effort though.
November 5, 2008 — 8:08 pm
Robert Kerr says:
That’s a strong incentive to produce undetected wealth.
Translation: tax evasion.
The Wesley Snipes cell will be opening up soon. Be careful in the showers.
November 5, 2008 — 9:26 pm