OH-2 Special Election Coverage and Prediction thread...

[AuH2O]

Right now the bloggers are furiously lowering the bar for "victory," kos is saying something like a 20 point loss for Hackett means the GOP is doomed???

I have a good connection in that district (well in DC but from that district) so I'll post anything relevant that I find about.

[AuH2O]

That was probably an hour ago. By now its probably a 200% loss is still a win.

[AuH2O]

And ultimately no one cares. This is a freakin' House race. Considering the state of the Ohio GOP a nice win by Schmidt might actually give them a little momentum.

[AuH2O]

Last night was the closest Hackett is ever going to get to being a US Congressman. He certainly won't so much as sniff the Senate.

He's a nobody. All the stars were aligned and the best he could do was lose by less than previous Democrats. Great. You know a party is in trouble when they venerate their 'best loser.'

[AuH2O]

Democrats aren't downbeat, so it doesn't matter what I think about their emotions.

My point is, if this is a major accomplishment, that's pretty sad.

Maybe you all should start working on how to spin Kaine's impending defeat as some kind of moral victory as well.


The Ohio GOP does have some problems. Good thing it's 2005... plenty of time to clean things up a bit, Taft isn't running again obviously. Kasich might come back. In any case, I'm hardly concerned. No one cares about this stupid special election except for people in that district and the small number of politics-addicts on the internet.

Then, my party hasn't been getting pasted for a decade, so maybe this really will swell Democrat hearts with joy and lead them to a 435- seat majority in the House and 100-seat majority in the Senate.

[AuH2O]

I just have a problem with factual error.

The voters in the district did not change. They are still Republicans.

It was close because:

- it was actually contested

- only 25% turnout

- Ohio GOP problems

- Hackett misrepresented himself on TV ads

OK, there we have it. Not that interesting. In fact, there are many, many races that could be considered more "encouraging" for one side or the other that never amount to anything. Look, for instance, at the 2000 House race in Virginia Beach. Then, a no-name liberal Democratic lawyer almost beat a veteran who was Republican in a year Bush trounced Gore in the district and Allen beat Robb handily.

When Schrock resigned because it turns out he's gay, there was an open seat. Democrats ran a very moderate, Iraq War veteran (Hackett was NOT the first). Ashe was smoked by Thelma Drake.

Democrats can be excited for all I care. They'll just make even stupider decisions.

[AuH2O]

Let us hope that all Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the changing tide.

You seriously believe the country has shifted 20% to Democrats?

If there is some massive tide, I guess the GOP is doomed and so there is no point in worrying about it.

Rational people know otherwise, but then, who said Democrats are rational?

[AuH2O]

Let us hope that all Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the changing tide.

You seriously believe the country has shifted 20% to Democrats?

If there is some massive tide, I guess the GOP is doomed and so there is no point in worrying about it.

Rational people know otherwise, but then, who said Democrats are rational?

Strawman.

Ohio Republicans should face the music and realize that when a 70-30 Republican district in Ohio is yielding 52-48 margins, just maybe something is wrong.

But of course, continue to stick your finger in your ears and hum.  All the better for us.

If you're right, then presumably Democrats will be elected Governor of OH, defeat DeWine, and remove at least most of the Republican Congressional delegation.

Would you care to bet $2000 on the above things occuring?

[AuH2O]

lol

[AuH2O]

Strickland is smart. He knows the numbers will change, and in a way negative to Democratic aspirants.

[AuH2O]

Many Democrats support raising the wage cap on Social Security taxes so the program stays solvent. This is the best choice. The tax rate is not changed in this instance.

Why do you want to phase out Social Security? Do you hate senior citizens?

The budget should be balanced somehow and not on the backs of the lower and middle classes. If Bush and the Republican Congress hadn't been so damn irresponsible, we wouldn't be in the fiscal mess we're in.

Do you hate the middle class? Do you want two hard-working people to be able to pay for their kids' college?

Obviously not if you support raising the SS cap. That's straight up rape for the middle and upper middle class, while the rich (i.e. Hollywood) have so much money they don't care and the poor (the Dem base) doesn't make enough to pay the tax.

Democrats hate Christians, whites, the middle class, the upper middle class, business, unborn children, cars, and all kinds of things, by Scoonie's logic.

[AuH2O]

Actually the very rich are evenly split between the parties.

Also, $90,000 in FAMILY income is not even close to the top 3-4%. I think my family is barely top 10% at well north of $150,000.

Seeing as public colleges can cost $14,000 in VA and private schools are more than $30,000, and seeing as the upper middle class does not qualify for financial aid, this plan would be an attack on them.

But feel free to propose it. I would rather like the GOP to easily win Wisconsin, Minnesota, and New Hampshire next time around... at least.


Clinton lifted the cap on Medicare taxation. It only cost you 34 seats in the House. I'd like some more.

[AuH2O]

He's also lying out of his ass.

It's somewhat complicated, but family income is VERY relevant to the workings of SS. For instance, a low earner paired with a high earner cannot claim the Earned Income Tax Credit, even though *their* income is low. It doesn't effect everyone the same, depending on a variety of factors, but nonetheless raising the cap would be a tax increase on large number of families.

[AuH2O]

He's also lying out of his ass.

My god. You have no shame.

Everyone knows that the $90,000 cap is per earner. This is well known fact.  Each person in a family gets Social Security tax on the first $90,000 of wages/self-employment income. 

Next you're going to tell me that the sky is red and the Earth is flat. I mean, this is just basic knowledge.  Come on.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Acting like it's "obvious" doesn't obscure that.

[AuH2O]

Do you even file tax returns?

[AuH2O]

Then why do couples get 1 check?

And why are they subject to the same maximum monthly benefit?

[AuH2O]

If you have a married couple, and one person makes $100K and the other $15K, the person that makes $15K is not eligible for the EITC. That right there means it is not individual if you file jointly.

The FICA is deducted for both earners, yes. But if you file a joint tax return, there is no separate filing for FICA. In other words, there is no individual return in that situation.

Now, in the case of the ~$90,000 cap, I'll check with a tax lawyer I know to get the story. However, regardless of whether more than the cap is deducted (i.e. $150,000 for a couple), I do not believe a married couple can pay over the cap.

There is also a benefit cap, which I know for an absolute fact is by couple, not by individual. The reason is that particularly business owners could play games with their income by first paying the man until he reaches the maximum benefit level, and then paying the woman until she reaches the maximum. If instead just the husband had been paid throughout his career, the couple's SS income would be half as much.

To be clear-- no one on this site understands SS completely. No one on the earth does. It may be that people can file separately if married, but why would anyone ever do that? That's what I don't understand. I'm not saying you CAN'T do it, but I do not think it's required.

[AuH2O]

I'm going to ask someone that knows what they're talking about, not a loony Democrat or retard Republican.

[AuH2O]

I'm going to ask someone that knows what they're talking about, not a loony Democrat or retard Republican.

Which is why John Ford stepped in between Scoonie and you.

The difference between being smart (me) and just thinking it (you and Ford among others) is that the former has demonstrable results, the latter just leads to a lot of silly arguments.

I'd bet on myself on an IQ test after 12 beers over Ford. You, I might only be able to take a sixpack and a joint.

[AuH2O]

You're welcome dan.

[AuH2O]

I can't read this topic in its entirety due to a poor connection but I have to say that if AuH2O is defending his horrendous prediction and has not simply resigned and admitted he got it wrong, good luck to him in explaining it off.

Nothing to do with that. Never made a prediction on this race.

[AuH2O]

AuH20

My parents fit the argument here.  My dad makes about $78,000 my mom makes about $35,000 (started her current job last March so it was more along the lines of $27,000 last year)  Combined income was right around $105,000.  It was paid on the whole $105,000, dad paid fully on his $78,000, mom paid fully on her $27,000.  Now if one member of the household worked & maid $105,000 & the other didn't work than $90,000 on that one individual would be taxed.  Likewise if you had one spouce making $140,000 & the other making $65,000,  $90,000 of the first person would be taxed & the full $65,000 of the other spouce.  If they both made over $90,0000 they would  EACHED be taxed on the $90,000 for a total of $180,000.  The $90,000 cap is based off INDIVIDUAL income, NOT combined household income

Like I said, I'm going to get an authoratative answer from a tax laywer I know. If I'm totally wrong, I'll say so. But I think this is more complicated than you are letting on, because SS is NOT paid individually-- I guess it still could be taxed individually but, if so, a lot of people are paying in money with no chance of ever seeing a dime of it. Withholding is different from actually paying the tax.