I guess we're rolling in completely different circles, but I've seen nothing but "mutual partisan respect" in my own life, and for the most part on the Internet as well. Like I've said a bunch of times before, I could have gone either way before McCain selected Palin; if it had been Hillary instead of Barack, I probably would have gone McCain/Palin. Most people I know have perfectly viable reasons for selecting either candidate, and honestly could have gone either way.

This election seems much cleaner to me than 2004. 2000 is all a blur to me, so I can't recall that one very well.

In my own group of friends (college, law school, work, etc.), definitely, I've seen what you described. Outside of those groups, though, things have been the exact opposite for me. My memory, which may be flawed, is that the past election cycles involved more of the mutual respect.

Again, that may just be my subjective perception, and it might not be an accurate picture of the reality of the situation.

Back to a topic from pages 2 and 3, about the comment from McCain that a questioner probably didn't know what Fannie Mae was. Here is the response from the questioner, as copied from Facebook on FirstRead:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...9/1523335.aspx

And one other fun part to quote from the same link:

Am I reading the reference to 'Ques' correctly, or is this something else?

This is clear, but only because of his stance that he will not raise taxes at all.

There is no evidence this is the case, this is simply your assertion.

Your evidence of this fact is George HW Bush. This could just as easily be turned around on Obama, by saying that if his tax on >$250k income doesn't produce the revenue he needs for his expanded programs (and there is certainly some evidence it will not), then he will be forced to tax the middle class, because there is only so much blood in the proverbial stone.

See how inane the argument becomes?

we can agree to that...I have 2 in my office that shares that view.

What percentage of voters do you think knew what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were six months ago? I think maybe a third. I think a higher percentage of voters had probably heard of them, but I doubt they knew what they did nearly as well as they do now.

While it was probably a condescending thing to say to any individual, I don't think McCain's comment was that far off the mark generally.

Most voters lived in happy ignorance of most of the institutions and practices that are failed/ are now failing.

My answer goes much farther than social class. The things he talks about are the things I care about. Perhaps a lot of it is political propaganda, but he is talking about the things that matter most to me. He has been pushing for equal pay for equal work for women. I'm in agreement with him on issues like abortion and embryonic stem cell research. I think his health care plan will be more effective than McCain's, although I'm not sure either is the perfect answer. I agree with his views on Iraq but I don't feel like he would be 'soft' if we really need to go to war with someone. I agree with him on energy issues (that we need to move away from oil not just find more and that wind and solar are preferable to nuclear). And, while it has been minimized as unimportant and lacking any real duties, his work as a community organizer has put him more in touch with the issues that occur in lower income urban areas. Perhaps some of it is even related to where they serve. Detroiters can certainly relate to Chicago and it's problems more than they can to Arizona. To us, Arizona is the warm nirvana where people go to retire. Many of us see Chicago as the city that Detroit should've/could've been. Both have urban grit, but Chicago has the business/shopping/tourist districts that Detroit so desperately wants to have. I would probably feel like I could relate more to someone who served in New York than in Montana too.

That's my short answer, because this hard-working single mom has to get some groceries before her she gets her kids back from their dad tomorrow :) I can also say that I have it MUCH easier than many single moms because their dad is very involved in their lives (we have 50-50 custody). Financially it makes it tougher, but experientially, it's a much better deal.

First, NEVER said it was the only reason, but one of the many. Just didn't think that they were all worth repeating. To me, just made a good point, as I was telling a coworker a story about a client I met with last night...just to make it short...one of the servicemembers involved in the rescue of McCain is a friend of one of my clients. McCain came back and signed his flight log book to thank him for searching for him. This was two years after he returned stateside. She (an Obama supporter) looked at me quizzically, "Who was a POW? McCain? I had no idea!" She's an obama supporter, because that's who her friends were voting for...she's 52.

It's been made very clear that everyone has different reasons for choosing who they choose, regardless of how legitimate or silly they are. I've heard people saying they are supporting Obama JUST because he had student loans. I've also heard people who are supporting McCain JUST because he was a POW. Neither is a good reason (in my opinion) to base your vote on, but hey, my vote only counts once!

Wow.

Obama: "no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase." (From his website)

Based on the above policy of Obama's and your own declaration of being wealthy according to Obama, (correct me if im wrong) it would mean that you and your husband make MORE THAN $250,000 yearly.

If a family were to make JUST $250,000 and have their taxes raised (throwing out a hypothetical percentage) that meant 20% (or $50,000) of their yearly income would be given to the government. It would still leave that family with $200,000 a year to live on. That can be broken down to roughly $16,600 a month or $33,000 per member (family of 6) yearly.

Given those rough numbers I have trouble understanding how a family that makes a MINIMUM of $250,000 a year (before taxes) would have trouble living comfortably???? :confused::confused:

If anyone can explain to how one would struggle to live a comfortable life on a $16,000 a month income, I would greatly appreciate the explanation.

^^^^^ Thanks for that. I think I live comfortably. I have a house (not huge, but it's in a nice neighborhood), I have no trouble putting food on the table. We have more TVs and computers than people living here. I have a (modest) car and will be buying another in a year so that my daughter can use my current car when she gets her license. I can't spend indiscriminately, but we aren't lacking for needs and we manage a vacation every year. I have to plan out when I'm going to make major purchases (furniture, home remodels) and sometimes I have to pay the Girl Scout dues out of the next paycheck because the current one is already spoken for. However, we are far more comfortable than my family was when I was a kid. We live on a budget, but that budget allows for cell phones for both kids and myself with unlimited texting and internet access. It allows for digital cable with almost all the premium channels. That's pretty comfortable. I don't buy designer stuff. My car (new) was $13K, my next one will be $20K, not $40K or $50K, but we're comfortable. I do all this on around 1/4th of the $250,000 salary. We can't buy everything we want the minute we want it, but we're not hurting either. I'm even putting money into a money market every month. If a person can get themselves debt free, other than a mortgage, it's very possible to live comfortably on much much less than $250K. It's why I cringe when co-workers of mine, who make twice as much as I do and who have a husband who makes more than them, complain about not having any money. I want to hit them over the head! I am not using credit cards for anything anymore, unless there is an emergency that costs more than I have in the emergency fund. If I don't have cash, we don't buy it. Few things can't wait two more weeks til the next paycheck. It's really liberating! I think we, as a society, have become far too materialistic.. never happy with what we have, always wanting more.

This is really a deep question with a lot of things to consider. $16,000 a month would go a lot further say in West Virginia than in New Jersey or New York. You really can't make it a blanket statement. You have to look at cost of living in each area. We're not comparing apples and apples.

I have a coworker than lives on $3500 (gross) per month in Rockland County, NY (where the median cost of a house is $499,000). My family doesn't have much more than that. I don't buy it.

No, not really. I see far more than 20% of my paycheck deducted each month, and I don't make 250K. If you do make that much, it's more like 33%...so, that ends up being about $13K a month. For 6 people (4 kids!), that's not that much. Also, don't forget:

-insurance premiums/deductions
-pre-tax deductions for retirement
-state/local taxes
-Social Security
-any other pre-tax deductions (for example, I get one for public transportation)

Also, you have to factor in regional costs of living. What's "comfortable" in Michigan is "middle class" in NYC/SF, and "honking wealthy" in Mississippi.

I was just respondong to what you reported your dentist said:
Yes, you've made clear that people have different reasons for supporting candidates, but of all the examples you have given of why someone might support Obama, I haven't seen any acknowledgement that some people might have good reasons for doing so -- just examples of silly reasons.

I agree. Isn't protecting our democracy, including our right to vote, part of what McCain served in the military to protect?

Maybe we should go back to the days when only white male landowners were allowed to vote.