some things...

D +5 (D 44% R 39 % I 17%)

but Obama at only 80 % with democrats.

Romney leads Indies by 6.

Job approv: only 43 %

So maybe a anti-obama bias (2-3 p).

Just an FYI,

D 44 and R 39 is obviously the results of a leaner question which is not the same as its going to be asked by exit polls. Basically, the exit polls will ask which party do they identify with and garner results with both parties in the 30's. A leaner question is worded with the use of either the 5 "Dem, Lean Dem, Independent, etc." or a worded question that asks the person to specify the party they may lean towards.

With the different wording you'll get more barely Dems and barely GOP and the percent of Dems that favor Obama will go down relative to a poll that doesn't use a leaner question.

If you standardized the poll back to a non leaner party id question the results would likely change to Obama getting ~87% of Dems which is about right. And that would be with a party ID sample of probably around D 38, R 33.

So once you take into account the way this polls party ID was almost definitely worded the crosstabs looks about right.

[Mom:]

Mom: A bit more socially conservative than anything else, but sees herself as a reliable Republican. She's the type that teaches a bible study, but you would never guess unless you started a conversation about religion with her.

Dad: He's the type of guy that started listening to Rush Limbaugh in his first month of national syndication back in the late 80s. Saw himself as a rags to riches story until the dot com bust almost cost him everything. Most of my life he was more professorial and after that crash he got way more emotional. Recently courtesy of a blow to the head and old age he's gotten extremely(almost unbearably) emotional about politics. He dances between Libertarian and Conservative.

My freshman year of high school I starting diverging on style(up until that point I was largely a mirror image of my dad). Basically, I became a lot more, well, wonkish than my parents. I started studying economics on my own instead of relying upon my father to 'teach'. I got 'into the weeds' when it came to policy.

My senior year of high school I starting diverging a bit on substance as well. This came from 2 places:
1) The first was in the priority of my goals. I honed in on conservative solutions for healthcare, education, social security, and poverty. My parents stayed with the more simplistic lower taxes and less government spending.

2) The fact that I always saw myself as person that always first dealt in reality. See something always bothered me about smart economic conservatives is that they would study up and could see the realities of the world, the marketplace, policy, etc., but that only resulted in them becoming more idealistic in their politics. For me to be a true realist you had acknowledge both the economic reality and the political reality. Through this I started focusing more on what compromises I could accept and which ones I couldn't; strategy; and what moves the ball forward policy-wise.

Today, a popular description surprisingly used by New Democrats to describe themselves is actually probably the best description of me: I "look to harness the power of markets to solve social problems"(the only difference is that I disagree that creating government owned, funded, and operated programs is the best way to do that) This I guess in a certain practical sense puts me to the left of my parents.

I've never seen the need for a land line so I don't ever get called, but my parents still live in Wisconsin and they're getting inundated right now although it's not as bad as it has been in the past.

My parents live in one of the previous senate recall districts in Wisconsin and they honestly couldn't believe it. It is actually interesting to hear what happens during off schedule elections even for minor races. I was at their house I think one Sunday about 2 weeks before the recall elections and just as an experiment I answered every call that came in. I counted 8 polling calls in just that one day.

A few interesting tidbits:
1) A good portion of them were 'push polls' where they ask you like 3 questions about who you intend to vote for and then proceed to ask you the 'Does this make you more or less lively to vote for x' questions.
a) What is really funny about that is they dig up some of the nastiest BS spun in the absolute most negative light towards one of the candidates and fire off like 8 of them. Then they bring up one barely negative thing on some issue nobody cares about to towards the other candidate so it seem like they're being impartial pollsters.

2) There wasn't a doubt in my mind that there was a lot more money spent in those recalls than reported and that most of the organizations involved never see 1 bit of press.
a) About 4 of those calls I took that day were from organizations nobody ever talked about ever. And I'm not talking about an organization like 60+ or Americans Coming Together. I'm talking about Organized Wisconsin Blah, blah, blah(I don't remember the names) that even after you Google them it only comes up with like 2 press releases, no website, and a few references to them by a few other pieces.


All my parents have said this time around was:
1) They are getting a couple calls a day with a decent portion of the pollsters
2) They left for the cabin for a few days and got back with about a dozen messages on their answering machine. A majority of them were political calls.
3) Apparently most of the calls they're getting from GOP groups and the Wisconsin GOP are calling with the wrong name(correct last name but wrong first name) which is the first time that is ever happened.

I just had to chime in here.

Reaganfan that is the exact map that I've settled on in the last week or so. To a T!

Mason Dixon has the resources and does poll non swing states for various reasons. Hell they just finished a poll in North Dakota for example. But that was primarily to poll the close race between Berg and Heitkamp.

Look there are plenty of pollsters you could accuse of being stupid for pulling out of a state, but Mason Dixon isn't one of them. Most on here if they had to rank the pollsters would put them in the top 5 regardless if they were a GOP or Dem poster. They are consistently one of the best pollsters in the business.

If they are willing to essentially risk their reputation on stating that Romney has Florida in the bag(and by extension Nelson has it in the bag) than you've got to take that with some seriousness.


If Obama does take Florida than yes it will be a blow to Mason Dixon's reputation. If they thought that was possible they wouldn't have said anything. On the flip side they think it will probably even strengthen their reputation to be so confident of a Romney victory going into election day.


Lastly, keep in mind that Mason Dixon also has maintained a particular talent for polling Florida historically.

I love how people on here respond with the antics they would engage in if the hypothetical was flipped.

The answer is a lot more boring. They would act like they did in 2004 when the exit polls shocked them. They would somberly ask what Mitt Romney did wrong and Obama did right all day, and was the deciding factor for many of the late deciders.

Could you do the 538 map, but add +1.2 to Romney's figures and subtract -1.2 from Obama's figures? Adds up to a swing of 2.4 (swinging CO, IA, NH, OH, and VA). That might be interesting.

That's about right. You're looking at a razor thin map for slight Romney right there.

For example:
-Flip Larimer county and make Jefferson almost a pure tie and Colorado probably flips to Obama in that map.
-Flip Dunn and Kenosha counties and Romney takes Wisconsin in that map.
-Flip Richland and Sandusky counties and Obama takes Ohio.

Aye, I was going to recommend 538's predicted state swings to make a map, which would be a lot more accurate (especially for states like Wisconsin).

I don't think using county population alone to make a swing would really do what Wonkish is trying, by the way. A much more useful measure would be county population density, because a lot of rural counties are really big, but sparsely populated: compare, for example, Cocino County AZ with the nearby Washington County UT. They both have a population of ~135k but the latter is eight times denser. Percent urban/rural would probably be even better, actually, if such statistics are easy enough to find.

Of course Wonkish's method should probably also control for race in some way, so it doesn't cause unrealistic huge swings in the black belt, on native reservations, rural hispanic areas, etc. But at that point it just sounds way too complicated. I imagine that a uniform swing by state is the best option, because the only thing that would really offer a more accurate map would be probably way too complicated.

I figured that what you're suggesting was too cumbersome to do so I simplified.

I took it that the goal was to arrive at some approximation of the overall color of a county by county map. It was for the sake of simplicity that I recommended going off of population even though it would produce some odd results in various more Democratic rural counties around the country.

Hell if you wanted to get technical, take the 2004 and 2010 county by county around the country and for every county with a low population density(lets say defined as the bottom 70% density wise) apply the higher performance for the GOP of those 2 years(have to because many 2010 races went unopposed, etc.) and then take the balance of performance shift and apply it to the higher density counties so that the average spread assumption stays the same.

Now that is about the best you're going to be able to do, but even that isn't going to be that close either.

Money Supply = Velocity of Money x Base Money

Somehow I glossed over this one.

The problem here is that this equation does not exist in reality.

Instead the equation is:

Velocity of money = aggregate transactions / broad money supply

Or it's more measurable option: V = PY/M(price level*GDP/money supply) nor does PY/M = Base money either.

Aggregate transactions has nothing to do with base money.

Instead you may be referring to base velocity which is different.

Nice try though.

Well yes, as QE affects base money, then base velocity is what is important. The point is that decreases in base velocity are a mathematical artifact of the increase in base money, and are by themselves harmless.

If you want to use broad money as your measure of money, then QE has no direct effect on broad money (M1, M2, MZM). The effect is transmitted through the money multiplier.

What are you talking about?

I don't even know where to begin.


First of all, the velocity of money isn't just some arbitrary item with no meaning like you claim it is. That is a seriously dumb notion. I mean what do you think, the Nobel Committee just decided to give out the prize to someone who invented a formula where one variable is some arbitrary undefinable value?


So starting from square one the velocity of money is the frequency which a certain amount of money exchanges for goods. Okay simple enough right? Now you wouldn't say that is arbitrary would you?


Now I would love to here your explanation as to how Broad money / base money = frequency of transactions. Seriously, I would be unbelievably impressed if somehow you could actually explain that relationship.


In the meantime allow me to actually explain what broad money divided by base money actually means. That formula is the calculation of the liquidity leverage ratio of entire financial system. It is actually somewhat similar calculation as the capital ratio of our entire financial system.

What does the liquidity leverage ratio(aka base velocity which is actually badly worded term because it doesn't calculate frequency of anything) actually tell us? Well it tells us the following:
1) The current liquidity risk in the US financial system(which is at all time low)
2) The future leveragibility of liquidity in the future(which represents future broad money growth through the money multiplier(inflation) at some undetermined time and is at all time high).
3) The current money multiplier which is essentially a synonym for how much liquidity has been leveraged.

It says zero about the frequency of transactions today. To further reiterate that point both of these things can and have happened in the past(many times actually):
1) That the liquidity in the system is fully leveraged out, but the frequency of transactions is falling. Example: 2008.
2) The liquidity in the system is very low, but the frequency of transactions is increasing(normal recovery).

The problem with this recovery is actually that the liquidity leverage ratio of the system is very low, and the frequency of transactions is falling hence why we are seeing continued decline in GDP growth rates.

Now you then create an argument where your argument acts as an assumption to proves your own argument(aka a circular argument). That argument basically went like this:
1) Since the velocity of money is some arbitrary construct between base and broad money
and
2) Fed printing can only affect base money not broad money
Than
3) You can't use broad money in your calculation because it wouldn't have anything to with the Fed.
Never mind that 1 and 2 are completely false and created purely for a circular argument.

And never mind that the stated purpose of the Fed is to not(as you say) increase base money, but instead to increase broad money either through leveraging base money or by getting money out into the system directly through asset purchases. So what you just said runs completely contrary to what the Fed actually believes.


Instead let me introduce you to the genius of the quantity of money theory in explanatory form.

1) If people carry out the same amount of transactions as before and the money supply increases than inflation will rise.
2) If the money supply remains the same, but people increase the amount of transactions they participate in inflation will rise.
3) If people carry out the same amount of transactions as before and the money supply falls than its deflationary.
4) If the money supply stays the same and the number of transactions fall than its deflationary.

Let's also take a look at whether each of the following is true:
The money supply = GDP * Price index / Frequency of transactions   = true
GDP = the money supply * Frequency of transactions / Price index    = true
Price index = the money supply * Frequency of transactions / GDP   = true
Frequency of transactions = price index * GDP / the money supply   = true


The problem for gold bugs out there is that they see frequency of transactions as constant and they see all monetary easing going to broad money and they come to the conclusion that of course inflation must than have to rise, but that isn't what is happening.

Instead what is happening today:
1) The vast majority of money printing is not affecting broad money and is instead accumulating in the base.
2) Some of it is making it out to the broad money supply and that is why we are currently growing broad money at a higher rate than we are growing the economy.
3) But since the frequency of transactions is falling we're not registering that much in the way of current inflation.

And this causing problems because:

Δ GDP = Δ money supply * Δ frequency of transactions / Δ price index
Money supply is growing and price index is growing a bit, but a lot slower and so the frequency of transactions are falling.

Why are the frequency of transactions falling? Because in my opinion I think that a mismatch between capital and liquidity can only produce one of 2 outcomes.
1) The frequency of transactions either a) decrease less than the rate of money supply growth or b) they stay the same or c) increase as well causing inflation(P to rise) or asset bubbles(Q to rise) or both.
or
2) The frequency of transactions decreases more than the rate of money supply growth causing deflation(P to fall) or falling growth(Q to fall).



I probably should spike the football after this one, but I wont

OK, it is a given that capital will chase and profit from fear, they are a minority and in the present state of commerce are the winners’. The best examples are the American auto and renewable (green) energy sectors being artificially induced/saved has only strengthen the old, legacy deep monies’. The financial service sector has commissioned and bonus out the real equity, the things of tangible use. The greed of needs capital will trump I believe 3:1 the capitulation of fears when liability of labor is at least paired down.
 My suggestion for the best place for you to find your unknown will be the increase in deteriorating destruction of motivation, the “Why do anything” factor, this of coarse beings us back to policies and perceptions.     

1) Motivation of those in work likely increased after the crash

2) Green energy and auto manufacturers are small potatoes when you're talking about the entire economy. Think about this once: A handful of decisions by a board of central bankers in 2001 managed to reorient the entire economy around certain real assets and launch the greatest binge of private debt accumulation a nation and a world has ever seen. Economy changing legislation, huge debt totals, and massive amounts of monetization will trump anything that can be said about green companies, auto bailouts, and even TARP.

3) I don't necessarily believe in the notion that economic performance is negatively impacted by some cultural phenomenon, change in mind set, etc.  That said I do believe that a policy can be created that causes a rational person to choose benefits from the government instead of their own employment, but I don't think that is what is actually dragging down our economy.

Yeah, the number of voters who live in counties with populations under 10,000 is almost negligible. I tried to use your exact method and it wasn't revealing anything interesting so I scrapped it.

The map that I posted applied a fifteen point swing to counties with fewer than 10,000 voters, a 2.5 point swing to counties with between 10,000 and 100,000 voters, and a 2 point swing to counties with over 100,000 voters.

Maybe if I have time later I'll calculate county population densities and play with that. Why do you expect such a huge increase in the disparity between urban and rural voting patterns?

A) I've read polling data that points to rural percentages being the largest swing in the electorate since 2008 by a huge margin.
B) A large degree of anecdotal evidence I've accumulated echo's the same thing in regards to the degree of change in people(and no I don't live in rural America).


Basically, the initial numbers you showed were a 2.5 move against Obama and a 3 pt increase in Romney's, right?

Well take whatever assumption you want to use and set up a way to give rural counties a huge move and medium sized counties less, and suburban/city counties even less move.

Then post the map.   I trust you to figure out some way to do that where the assumptions seem about right.

But for example in the state that I grew up in:
-Chippewa will be for sure GOP
-Clark will be for sure GOP
-Marathon will be for sure GOP
-Lincoln will be for sure GOP
-Langlade will be fore sure GOP
-Oconto will be for sure GOP
-Outagamie county will be for sure GOP
-Brown county will be for sure GOP
-Shawano county will be for sure GOP
-Waupaca county will be for sure GOP
-Mantiwoc county will be for sure GOP
-Racine county will be for sure GOP


Being overly generous to Obama the swing counties would still be: Door, Kewaunee, Marinette, Dunn, Winnebago, etc.

The Wonkish map (large swing in low-population counties):



The 5280 map (nine-point swing toward Romney):

Sorry I probably should have actually looked up population numbers before I said 10,000. I just looked up a bunch of county populations and a lot of rural counties clock in at 20-40k hence why the map didn't change. For some reason I was thinking closer to turnout numbers while saying population numbers.

How about:

Population(not turnout like I was thinking before):
Under 20,000 15 pt swing
Between 20,000 and 40,000 10 pt swing
Between 40,000 and 60,000 5 pt swing

Balance added to remaining counties which is actually probably a lot closer to 2 and 2.5 respectively than my last request(which probably didn't affect more than 2% of the counties nation wide).

Sorry about that.

Holy direct swing, Batman! That won't be the county map, I guarantee it.

No kidding.

Take all counties with a population under 10,000 and assign a 10-15% swing than assign the balance to the remainder of counties(which would probably be ~2.0 and ~2.5 respectively) and you'll likely have a closer representation of the map.

Oh man, that's really awesome.

But I'm surprised to see such a high number of Democratic counties in WI.

I can say with with very, very high confidence that the Wisconsin map will look a lot more like it has in the past than it did in 2008(and like you have up there). It will once again be a sea of GOP with a few populous counties being heavily Dem.

Obama will lose a much higher percentage of the vote in those rural counties, but they alone will only only change the overall % a little bit. The outcome will still mostly rest on more populous counties in the East and Southeast.

No different than the people on here who think that MSNBC is an unbiased network or that people who only watch John Stewart are very informed.

No one on this forum thinks that.

And this is coming from the person who just created a thread using Think Progress as a reliable source to 'fact check'.

Hell of a lot better than Niall Ferguson. *cough* *cough*

i've yet to see much wrong with msnbc's reporting tbh. it's not unbiased, but i don't really think any network is.

LOL!!! I rest my case?

since you used a question mark, no, you don't.

You're just the gift that keeps on giving aren't you?

Money Supply = Velocity of Money x Base Money

Somehow I glossed over this one.

The problem here is that this equation does not exist in reality.

Instead the equation is:

Velocity of money = aggregate transactions / broad money supply

Or it's more measurable option: V = PY/M(price level*GDP/money supply) nor does PY/M = Base money either.

Aggregate transactions has nothing to do with base money.

Instead you may be referring to base velocity which is different.


Nice try though.

No different than the people on here who think that MSNBC is an unbiased network or that people who only watch John Stewart are very informed.

No one on this forum thinks that.

And this is coming from the person who just created a thread using Think Progress as a reliable source to 'fact check'.

Hell of a lot better than Niall Ferguson. *cough* *cough*

i've yet to see much wrong with msnbc's reporting tbh. it's not unbiased, but i don't really think any network is.

LOL!!! I rest my case?

No different than the people on here who think that MSNBC is an unbiased network or that people who only watch John Stewart are very informed.

No one on this forum thinks that.

And this is coming from the person who just created a thread using Think Progress as a reliable source to 'fact check'.

Hell of a lot better than Niall Ferguson. *cough* *cough*

A) That's way out of left field
B) Actually no its not better. Much of Niall's work has very little if anything to do with politics(giving a historical account of the economy of Renaissance Florence for example). Think Progress produces 100% Democratic talking points.

So your response only illustrates my point above. You fit the bill quite nicely actually.

No different than the people on here who think that MSNBC is an unbiased network or that people who only watch John Stewart are very informed.

No one on this forum thinks that.

And this is coming from the person who just created a thread using Think Progress as a reliable source to 'fact check'.

Too wonkish1, his theory,
You have a good ability to convey your premise, it’s just that I’m having a hard time getting pass your first scenario. I understand that you do not want to go here; however, for me, it’s a futile exercise to find anything rational - outside of its use as the leverage necessary for a certain political position* to exist - about a devised economic system around non-productive humans.  Any future of an accomplished civilization will have a non-productive population near null, and, again, many do not want to hear it, that non-productiveness’**, is, what this current election, 2012, is all about.
 The “why, what for, how come” for the results of low velocity is from what I’ve heard and understood, said by others, is simply been deemed as a “capital strike”. Against what, who? …well, the current system that penalizes success, rewards non-productivity, the takers.

*The Obama Inheritance
**The Dollar Dilution “Bernanke Put” hardship for the mass’s and indentured servitude of generations to come.

Well a notion of a 'capital strike' I'll acknowledge is at least a possibility, but from first glance it appears to have some holes in the theory:
1) Not all of those with capital see the US and the world as you described it. So even if we were to accept the premise that those that agree with you are refusing to deploy capital it would still mean that there would be many that don't agree with you who would instead be deploying capital.
2) Furthermore, we also know that if even a small percentage of people make a right call and a much larger percentage of people make a wrong call those that made the right one would still earn a return on their investment. So if we were to assume that capital was being held back from otherwise profitable investment than those would take that investment would see returns and see more capital move to them after positive results.
3) Since this isn't happening than there is likely some better reason as to why capital isn't being deployed.


Now I'll also add that over time corporations and peoples balance sheets should naturally improve when left to their own devices. Extra savings should improve their liquidity situation, improve their net worth, allow them to pay down debt, allow people to default and move on without the same debt burden, etc. They are also delaying purchases for things that are only discretionary in terms of timing. For example:
1) While people may always be consuming food, gas, housing, utilities, etc. they only eventually need to deal with the following:
2) Replace a car that is on its last leg
3) Buy new tires
4) Replace a roof to a house
5) Replace a oven that its on its last leg
6) Replace a piece of a machinery that is either close to salvage or substantially less efficient than something new
7) The list goes on and on.

So eventually someone that has been accumulating savings and improving their own balance sheet will be almost forced to engage in various forms of delayed expenditure.

All of the reasons above is why you normally see growth return and continue to improve as time elapses after the end of a recession. Why is it that this isn't happening this time?

One must conclude that some other force is acting on it which may include:
1) External pressure coming from outside of the US. Here is where the relatively reasonable premise that problems in Europe or China or elsewhere is causing problems in the US.
2) Some negative government policy is acting upon the economy making it worse.

Now there is a limit to how much I think 1 can effect the US economy especially considering our trade balance situation. A country that imports more than it exports and yet consumes more of its own production(primarily services) than anything else should have a limit as to how much they're impacted by stagnant or declining growth elsewhere especially when there are other developed nations of the world that are doing better such as: Canada, the Baltic states, certain portions of the Middle East, South Korea, etc.

Now in regards to #2 there is really only a few pieces that are actually changing today relative to a year or 2 ago.
1) The continued implementation of ObamaCare
2) 'The Fiscal Cliff'
3) Continued growth of the national debt
4) Fed monetary policy
5) Some additional regulatory implementation over the last year or 2

-Food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. all were in use when growth was 2%+ so we can narrow these things down to only a few items that have changed and are continuing to change since growth was higher and somewhere in there you have your answer.

Somewhere in the above has to be causing capital investment to be a net loser or offer a lower return vs. the risk taken. And personally I think a good explanation could be that the perceived 'risk free rate' on investment is less than zero so it isn't worth it.

Essentially I believe that in certain places the pricing function has broken down. The price of money vs. the price of capital is way out of wack and is very far from equilibrium and until they arrive at some equilibrium again capital remains more valuable than money. Essentially with capital way more valuable than cash investors(particularly banks) would rather protect capital and accumulate cash.

1) This is an infomercial for some guy that is selling the hell out of his book lately
2) I've actually met people that have fallen in love with the book, but from what I've been able to gather he isn't that bright. He's just some permabear that succeeded in convincing others that he called a crash when he was always calling for a crash.

3) Out of all of the possible videos to put up showing conservative economists why would you put this one up? Please tell me this isn't your first attempt to actually try to figure out what non Krugman/Stiglitz economic community believes, is it?

I think there's a lot of generosity going on here...

I think a LOT of them, genuinely believe what they're writing. They've spent the last four years watching Fox News, reading RedState/Alex Jones/assorted crackpots/UNskewed polls etc and listening to Hannity etc, and dismissing MSM sources because they're obviously in the pockets of... pick which ever group they don't like to insert.

They believe Obama is the WORST president ever, that he's everything bad he's been accused of, they cannot understand how, in their frame of reference (since it's obvious what they agree with is correct), Obama could win anything, or that the electorate could be in any way shape or form like 2008... because 'I know Obama is that bad'. So they fixate on things like party ID, because they've read that's how Obama and his puppets in the MSM are fixing the polls...

I feel sorry for genuine rational conservatives who try to provide sensible analysis, but get drowned out by the crazy.

Sorry for the rant, but I can't f***ing stand it...

No different than the people on here who think that MSNBC is an unbiased network or that people who only watch John Stewart are very informed.


I've taken apart more dummies on here to point out that it cuts both ways. Sadly though the leftist crazies on here don't embarrass the sensible Dems at all. I find that interesting.

Another good example of this distortion is small businesses. In my province, earned income over $150 000 pays a marginal rate of 50%, while dividends are taxed at 36%. And people wonder why professionals are willing to pay an accountant $2000 to set themselves up as a corporation

You're also forgetting the corporate taxation piece to that puzzle. I'm assuming that in Canada dividend taxes are paid out after corporate taxes are paid, right?

So I don't know what province your in, but lets say your highest corporate tax rate is 25%.

Example:
-$250k in income.
-$150k taken as personal income.
-$100k taxed at 25% first leaves $75k and then taxed at 36% = $48k which is actually slightly lower than your the $50k left after a 50% income rate. But that isn't actually the correct calculation because that is likely only the *highest* marginal rate. Lower marginal rates for the first dollar might drive the average rate down to ~15-20% on that $100k. 18% tax rate leaves $82k and then taxed at 36% = $55k which is higher than the 50% assessed on that the $100k taken as income.

So this would likely create the situation where everybody with income over $150k wants to take at least some, but not always all of the excess as dividends.

Do I have this about right? I obviously don't live there, and I'm just making some approximations.

We have a dividend tax credit to account for this double taxation. Federal corporate income tax is 15% with very few loopholes. Provincial corporate income tax ranges from 0-4% for corporations that qualify as "small business" and 10-16% for ones that don't. The 36% I quoted you accounts for corporate tax, dividend tax, and credits involved

It's quite nice for seniors who hold stock in large corporations as their income taxes are much lower than if they were making the same money in pension income. At extremely low incomes, this is extremely. Take me for example. I make about $10 000 a year, $1000 of which is dividend income. I pay about -1% on the dividend income.

Interesting.

I'm glad that you're posting directly into this thread, W1.

I'm glad you post at all. It gives some of us something to read when we're interested in some laughs.

The fact that Ryan only won a +4 plurality in a R+2 sample (and not to get into crosstabs too much here) means he is a big loser.

You apparently can't do math. If you readjusted to D+3 it would be a tie. Tie doesn't equal loser.

Apparently Wonkish can't do math either.

Anybody that read that knew what I meant. That after the adjustment it's essentially a tied poll. Don't read more into things than are there for only the purpose of trying to hit at me. Especially considering how much stuff you've written that could fill this thread(a lot easier for me to do to you than you to me).

Also since there is likely crossover(Dem's finding Ryan winner and GOP finding Biden winner) the net affect of the shift would actually be less than 5 which means if you really wanted to be a stickler my math is probably very accurate(even in some weird universe where you can somehow predict what the exact sample should have looked like given the polls exact methodology).

A D+3 sample would've meant Ryan losing by one, not a tie. Your snidely castigating Griffin for "apparently not being able to do math", then immediately thereafter failing at basic arithmetic yourself, solidly warranted you post's inclusion here.

^^^This comment deserves to be here.

Equating someone who assesses 2 margin of errors adjustments to move a poll result in a completely different direction to someone that is looking at one margin of error and saying its essentially tied for being 1 pt off an exact tie, is just dumb.

I wouldn't expect a person who exactly fits the creation of this thread to understand this distinction though.