Early Voting Poll Results for 2012

One of the more interesting election innovations in recent years is the advent of "early voting".  Early voting rules vary considerably from state to state.  Many states now allow "no excuse" in person voting (meaning that unlike traditional absentee voting, you don't need a reason, such as being out of town, to vote early) at selected polling places as much as a month before election day; other states allow voters to mail in their ballots; and some have loosened their rules on absentee voting.

Political science Prof. Michael McDonald, at George Mason University, has been tracking early voting in recent years.  He estimates that 41 million Americans voted before election day in the 2008 presidential campaign, and that even more will do so in 2012.   While Prof. McDonald has done an excellent job tracking data from the states on early voters, a logical question is who benefits the most from early voting?

In 2008, the Curmudgeon supplemented Prof. McDonald's work by tracking pre-election polls that reported results for the subsets of their samples who had already voted.  In 2008, early voting clearly benefitted Obama and the Democrats; or perhaps it simply reflected the enthusiasm for Obama that led to his large victory over John McCain. 

Now, in 2012, we're once again tracking the pre-election polls and excerpting the data on early voters.  Below, you'll find the data organized in reverse chronological order for national polls and for each state in which there is data available (primarily swing states, as that's where most of the polls are conducted).  We hope you'll find the data useful.  New results in each update are highlighted in yellow.

At this point in the election, it is clear that, at least in swing states, Obama is again benefitting from the early vote, but not to the same extent as in 2008--just further confirming evidence that this is going to be a much closer election.  Winning the early vote doesn't mean winning the election, but it does reduce the amount of "get out the vote" work that needs to be done on election day, and avoids some problems, such as bad weather, that can reduce turnout on election day.

We think that over time, this poll data will be valuable in analyzing election trends.

NOTE:  We had a glitch with Blogger, as a result of which we lost quite a bit of data.  We've done our best to recreate what we can, but some poll data is probably missing, especially during the period between Oct. 20-Nov. 1.

NATIONAL POLLS

Nov. 4-5:  GWU/Politico--33% already voted
36% of Romney supporters and 33% of Obama supporters (not sure what this really means)

Nov. 3-5:  Rasmussen--??% already voted
43% Dem; 35% Rep.

Nov. 3-5:  Gravis--28% already voted
Obama 52%
Romney 44%

Nov. 1-5:  IPSOS Daily Tracking--41% (of likely voters) already voted
Obama 51%
Romney 45%

Nov. 1-4:  Daily KOS--23% already voted
Obama 53%
Romney 47%

Nov. 1-4: Democracy Corps--23% already voted (no breakdown by preference)

Oct. 31-Nov. 4:  IPSOS Daily Tracking--33% already voted
Obama 51%
Romney 45%

Nov. 5:  ABC/WAPO--27% of national sample have voted; 35% have voted in eight swing states.

Oct. 31-Nov. 4:  Pew Research--34% already voted.
Obama 48%
Romney 46%

Oct. 29-Nov. 1:  GWU/Battleground--26% of sample has already voted; no breakdown.

Oct. 29--31:  Wash. Times/JZ Analytics--25% already voted.
Obama 53%
Romney 45%



Oct. 22-24: IPSOS Daily Tracking--17% of sample already voted

Obama 53%

Romney 42%
 

Oct. 21: ABC News/Wash. Post--4% of sample already voted; no breakdown of presidential preferences of those voters.

Oct. 18-21: Monmouth--12% of sample already voted
Obama 41%
Romney 44%

NOTE--this is the ONLY poll we've seen in 2012 or 2008 in which the Republican candidate had a lead in national early voting.
Oct. 15-19: IPSOS Daily Tracking--10% of sample already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 39%

Oct. 14-18: IPSOS Daily Tracking--10% of sample already voted

Obama 53%

Romney 44%
 

For comparison, the earliest national poll with such data in 2008 was conducted Oct. 25-28. In it, 18% of respondents had already voted, favoring Obama by 53%-43%.  The final national polls (taken in Nov. 2008) showed Obama up from between 1% and 19%, with 20-36% of the samples having already voted.

 

COLORADO EARLY VOTING

 

Nov. 3-5:  IPSOS--76% already voted
Obama 55%
Romney 42%

Nov. 2-4:  Keating--69% already voted
No breakdown of early voter preferences

Nov. 1-3:  IPSOS--60% already voted
Obama 50%
Romney 43%

Oct. 31-Nov. 2:  IPSOS--60% already voted
Obama 51%
Romney 43%

Oct. 31:  Survey USA--?% voted

Obama 49%

Romney 46%

Oct. 29-31: IPSOS--61% already voted
Obama 50%
Romney 43%

 

Oct. 29:  Rasmussen--69% already voted

Obama 50%

Romney 47%

Oct. 25-28: ARG--31% already voted
Obama 47%
Romney 52%

Oct. 23-24: Purple Poll--40% already voted
Obama 58%
Romney 32%


For comparison, a poll taken by Public Policy Polling in 2008 as of Nov. 1 showed that 65% had already voted, favoring Obama by 58%-41% over McCain.

 

 

FLORIDA EARLY VOTING

 

Nov. 4-5:  Gravis--50% already voted
Obama 52%
Romney 47%

Nov. 3-5:  IPSOS--51% already voted
Obama 51%
Romney 44%

Oct. 30-Nov. 2:  Mellman--48% already voted
Obama 51%
Romney 41%

Nov. 1-3:  IPSOS--42% already voted
Obama 51%
Romney 46%

Oct. 31-Nov. 2:  IPSOS--38% already voted

Obama 52%

Romney 45%

 

Oct. 31:  Quinnipiac--??% already voted

Obama 50%

Romney 44%

 

Oct. 29-31:  IPSOS--35% already voted

Obama 53%

Romney 45%

 

Oct. 25-27:  Survey USA--23% already voted

Obama 57%

Romney 42%

 

For comparison, the final Survey USA poll taken in Florida in 2008 (over the three days before the election) showed that 58% had already voted, by a margin of 58%-40% in favor of Obama.

 



GEORGIA EARLY VOTING

 

Nov. 1:  Better Georgia--46% already voted

No breakdown of preferences of early voters

 

Oct. 25-27:  Survey USA--28% already voted

Obama 48%

Romney 51%

 

INDIANA EARLY VOTING

 

Nov. 1:  Rasmussen--20% already voted

Obama 49%

Romney 47%

 

IOWA EARLY VOTING

Nov. 2-4:  ARG--44% already voted
Obama 54%
Romney 46%

Nov. 3-4:  Public Policy Polling--47% already voted

Obama 61%

Romney 39%

 

Nov. 1-2: Grove--??% already voted
Obama 59%
Romney 33%

Oct. 30-Nov. 1:  Mellman--41% already voted
Obama 51%
Romney 36%



Nov. 1:  Gravis--34% already voted
Obama 63%
Romney 28%

Oct. 30: Rasmussen--42% of sample already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 39%

Oct. 29-30:  Public Policy Polling--42% already voted
Obama 64%
Romney 35%



Oct. 21: Rasmussen--31% of sample had already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 41%
 



Oct. 17-19: PPP--31% of sample had already voted
Obama 66%
Romney 32%

Oct. 18: NBC/WSJ--34% of likely voters and 28% of registered voters have already voted. No breakdown of who they voted for.





For comparison, in 2008, Survey USA conducted a poll on Oct. 29, at which point 32% had already voted, with Obama leading 69%-29%.

MICHIGAN EARLY VOTING

Nov. 4:  Mitchell Surveys--33% already voted
Obama 57%
Romney 41%

Oct. 31-Nov. 1: Grove--?% voted

Obama 49%

Romney 39%

MONTANA EARLY VOTING

 

 

Oct. 29: Rasmussen--49% already voted

Obama 49%

Romney 46%



NEVADA EARLY VOTING

Nov. 3-4:  Public Policy Polling--74% already voted
Obama 55%
Romney 44%

Oct. 23-29: Survey USA--43% already voted
Obama 52%
Romney 46%

Oct. 22-24: Public Policy Polling--34% already voted

Obama 61%
Romney 39%

Oct. 23: Rasmussen--35% already voted

Obama 51%

Romney 47%

For comparison, in 2008 Roper conducted a poll on Oct. 22-26 in which 51% of Nevadans had already voted, favoring Obama by 56%-33% over McCain.

NEW HAMPSHIRE EARLY VOTING

 

 

Nov. 1:  Gravis--6% already voted

Obama 63%

Romney 37%

NEW JERSEY EARLY VOTING

Oct. 19: Survey USA--19% of sample already voted

Obama 63%

Romney 29%

 

NORTH CAROLINA EARLY VOTING

 



Nov. 4-5:  Gravis--52% already voted
Obama 49%
Romney 47%

Nov. 3-4:  Public Policy Polling--62% already voted
Obama 54%
Romney 45%

Oct. 29-31: Public Policy Polling--52% already voted
Obama 58%
Romney 41%

Oct. 29-30:  Survey USA--40% already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 43%

Oct. 23-25:  Public Policy Polling--30% already voted
Obama 57%
Romney 42%

Oct. 21-26:  Elon U.--22% already voted
Obama 55%
Romney 37%

For comparison, in 2008, the final poll for Survey USA had 57% already voting, with Obama up 56%-41%; and the final Public Policy Polling survey had 63% already voting, with Obama up 55%-45%. This is one of the few states where Obama may be running ahead of his 2008 early voting totals.

PENNSYLVANIA EARLY VOTING

 

 

Nov. 4-5:  Gravis--3% already voted

Obama 61%

Romney 31%

OHIO EARLY VOTING 

Nov. 4-5: Gravis--30% already voted
Obama 55%
Romney 42%

Nov. 3-5:  IPSOS--38% already voted
Obama 59%
Romney 37%

Nov. 4: Rasmussen--40% already voted
Obama 60%
Romney 37%

Nov. 3-4: Public Policy Polling--34% already voted
Obama 60%
Romney 39%

Nov. 1-4:  Survey USA--33% already voted
Obama 58%
Romney 38%

Nov. 1-3:  IPSOS--36% already voted
Obama 61%
Romney 33%

Oct. 24-Nov. 3: Columbus Dispatch--37% already voted
Obama 57%
Romney 42%

Nov. 1-2:  Grove--??% already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 39%

Oct. 31-Nov. 2:  IPSOS--33% already voted
Obama 59%
Romney 35%

Oct. 30-Nov. 1:  CNN--??% already voted
Obama 63%
Romney 35%

Nov. 1:  Rasmussen--40% already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 41%

Oct. 30-Nov. 1:  CNN--?% already voted
Obama 63%
Romney 35%

Oct. 26-29:  Survey USA--25% already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 40%

Oct. 29-31:  IPSOS--32% already voted
Obama 60%
Romney 32%

Oct. 29-30:  Public Policy Polling--33% already voted

Obama 62%

Romney 35%

 

Oct. 29-30:  CBS/Quinnipiac--?% voted

Obama 60%

Romney 34%
 

Oct. 28: Rasmussen--32% already voted
Obama 62%
Romney 36%
Note: Not sure how to square this result with the Rasmussen poll just three days earlier!!
 

Oct. 25: Rasmussen--35% already voted

Obama 52%

Romney 46%
 

Oct. 23-25--ARG--28% already voted

Obama 55%

Romney 44%

Oct. 23-25: Purple Strategies--26% already voted

Obama 58%

Romney 32%
 

Oct. 25: CNN--59% EXPECT to vote early, no breakdown beyond that.

Obama 59%

Romney 39%

Oct. 23: Rasmussen--31% already voted
Obama 53%
Romney 43%



Oct. 22-23: Time--20% already voted
Obama 60%
Romney 30%




Oct. 20-22: Survey USA--26% already voted
Obama 58%
Romney 39%



Oct. 21: Suffolk Univ.--20% already voted
Obama 54%
Romney 41%

Oct. 21: CBS News--20% already voted
Obama 54%
Romney 39%Oct. 18-20: Public Policy Polling--21% already voted
Obama 66%
Romney 34%

Oct. 16: Survey USA--18% already voted
Obama 57%
Romney 38%

Oct. 12-13. Public Policy Polling--19% already voted.
Obama 76%
Romney 24%

Oct. 5-8. Survey USA--11% of sample had already voted.
Obama 59%
Romney 39%

By comparison, the final Survey USA poll in Ohio in 2008 reported that 36% of Ohioans had already voted, favoring Obama by 60%-36% over McCain.  Obama ultimately carried Ohio by 51-47%.

VIRGINIA EARLY VOTING

 

 

Nov. 3-5:  IPSOS--14% already voted

Obama 59%

Romney 39%

 

Nov. 1-2:  NBC/WSJ--15% already voted
Obama 59%
Romney 38%

Oct. 30-Nov. 2:  Mellman--10% already voted
Obama 53%
Romney 38%
 

Nov. 1-3:  IPSOS--11% already voted
Obama 53%
Romney 43%

Oct. 31-Nov. 2:  IPSOS--10% already voted

Obama 51%

Romney 45%

 

Oct. 29-31: IPSOS--13% already voted

Obama 68%

Romney 30%

 

Oct. 23-25:  Purple Strategies--9% already voted

Obama 47%

Romney 51%

 

For comparison, the final Public Policy Polling survey in Virginia in 2008 had 16% already voting, with Obama up by 63%-36% over McCain.

 

WASHINGTON EARLY VOTING

 

Oct. 18-31: KCTS-TV--33% already voted

Obama 60%

Romney 37%

 

For comparison, in 2008 Survey USA's final poll in Washington had 72% already voting, with Obama leading by 58%-39% over McCain.



WISCONSIN EARLY VOTING
 

Oct. 30-31:  Rasmussen--25% already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 41%

Oct. 18: Rasmussen--???% already voted (Rasmussen doesn't say what % of sample had already voted)

Obama 43%

Romney 54%
 

By comparison, as of Oct. 29 in 2008, a Survey USA poll had 19% of Wisconsinites already voting, by a margin of 61%-34% for Obama.  

Ohio Early Voting Continues to Favor Obama Heavily

With Ohio becoming such a pivotal state in the now very tight race for President, numerous organizations are conducting polling of Buckeye state voters.  Ohio has early voting, and Ohio voters have been casting ballots now for several weeks. 

Many of the polls in Ohio report data on the preferences of those early voters.  We also have a pretty extensive archive of polls with similar data from the 2008 race.  So what can we conclude, so far?

First off, the early claim by Romney's campaign that they were running neck and neck with Obama in early voting clearly does not hold up to scrutiny.  We now have data from more than a dozen polls (all listed in reverse chronological order below) in Ohio, every one of which shows Obama with a significant lead over Romney among early voters, ranging from a high of 76%-24% to a low of 52%-46%.

Moreover, the margin of Obama's lead has not changed significantly as the number of early voters has increased over time.  For example, Survey USA has conducted four polls in Ohio during October.  In the first, Obama was ahead among early voters by 59%-39%; in the second it was 57%-38%; in the third it was 58%-39%, and in the most recent it was 56%-40%.

The most recent polls suggest that between a quarter and a third of Ohio likely voters have already gone to the polls, so Romney will have his work cut out for him come election day to make up that deficit.  In seeing how likely that is, it is instructive to look at the 2008 data.  When averaging the polls, it does appear that Obama's 2012 advantage among early voters is about 4 points lower than in 2008.  Since Obama won by 4% in 2008, this could be a very close race.  However, it appears that a greater percentage of voters are voting early this time around, so Romney has a smaller base to use on election day to climb back in it.

Finally, we can do a little head-to-head comparisons between 2008 and 2012 with polls taken by the same organizations.

Survey USA conducted polls in 2008 and 2012 that were concluded eight days before the election. In 2008, 22% of it's sample had already voted, favoring Obama by 56%-39% over McCain.  In 2012, 25% of the sample had already voted, favoring Obama by 56%-40% over Romney--basically no difference.

Likewise, Public Policy Polling conducted polls in 2008 and 2012 that were concluded about a week before the election.  In 2008, 30% of it's sample had voted, going for Obama by 65%-34% over McCain.  In 2012, 33% had already voted, favoring Obama by a margin of 62%-35% over Romney.

We wish we had some data from 2008 from Rasmussen to compare to it's 2012 polls. However, even in 2012 alone, Rasmussen appears inconsistent.  On Oct. 25, it reported that 35% of it's sample had already voted, giving Obama the edge by 52%-46% over Romney--the smallest margin in any Ohio poll so far.  But three days later, Rasmussen reported another Ohio poll.  This time, 32% had already voted, but Obama's margin was 62%-36%--a big swing from three days earlier.  So, which Rasmussen poll to believe?

Obviously, both campaigns are in high gear in Ohio right now.  But time is running out, as many Buckeye voters have already cast their lot.  It's pretty clear that Romney's campaign will have to get it's voters out on election day to catch up.  That's still quite possible, but for now Obama retains an edge.

OHIO EARLY VOTING



Note:  As of today, we have 17 polls from Ohio with early voting data. We compared the average of those polls to the average of all similar polls from Ohio in 2008. While Obama, on average, has a big lead in the early voting in Ohio this time around (average of 59%-37%), his lead in 2008 was even bigger, at 60.5%-34% over McCain. 

Oct. 26-29: Survey USA--25% already voted
Obama 56%
Romney 40%

Oct. 29-30: Public Policy Polling--33% already voted
Obama 62%
Romney 35%Oct. 29-30--CBS/Quinnipiac--doesn't say what % of survey already voted
Obama 60%
Romney 34%

Oct. 28: Rasmussen--32% already voted
Obama 62%
Romney 36%
Note: Not sure how to square this result with the Rasmussen poll just three days earlier!!

Oct. 25: Rasmussen--35% already voted

Obama 52%

Romney 46%

Oct. 23-25--ARG--28% already voted

Obama 55%

Romney 44%

Oct. 23-25: Purple Strategies--26% already voted

Obama 58%

Romney 32%

Oct. 25: CNN--59% EXPECT to vote early, no breakdown beyond that.

Obama 59%

Romney 39%

Oct. 23: Rasmussen--31% already voted
Obama 53%
Romney 43%




Oct. 22-23: Time--20% already voted
Obama 60%
Romney 30%



 
Oct. 20-22: Survey USA--26% already voted
Obama 58%
Romney 39%





Oct. 21: Suffolk Univ.--20% already voted
Obama 54%
Romney 41%

Oct. 21: CBS News--20% already voted
Obama 54%
Romney 39%

 
Oct. 18-20: Public Policy Polling--21% already voted
Obama 66%
Romney 34%

Oct. 16: Survey USA--18% already voted
Obama 57%
Romney 38%

Oct. 12-13. Public Policy Polling--19% already voted.
Obama 76%
Romney 24%

Oct. 5-8. Survey USA--11% of sample had already voted.
Obama 59%
Romney 39%

Storm surge potential for Hurricane Sandy likely to flood NYC subway system

In Landstrike, my fictional version of a major hurricane striking New York City, one of the more devastating effects of the storm was flooding of the NYC subway system due to storm surge up the Hudson River.

Fictional hurricane Nicole in Landstrike was predicated on a worst case scenario for New York--a strong hurricane striking just south of the city, thereby forcing the greatest storm surge up the Hudson River.

It now appears that Hurricane Sandy may bring that disastrous scenario to real life.  Here's what meteoroligist Jeff Masters had to say earlier today about the storm surge potential:

"This evening, as the core of Sandy moves ashore, the storm will carry with it a gigantic bulge of water that will raise waters levels to the highest storm tides ever seen in over a century of record keeping, along much of the coastline of New Jersey and New York. The peak danger will be between 7 pm - 10 pm, when storm surge rides in on top of the high tide. The full moon is today, which means astronomical high tide will be about 5% higher than the average high tide for the month, adding another 2 - 3" to water levels. This morning's 9:30 am EDT H*Wind analysis from NOAA's Hurricane Research Division put the destructive potential of Sandy's winds at a modest 2.9 on a scale of 0 to 6. However, the destructive potential of the storm surge was record high: 5.8 on a scale of 0 to 6. This is a higher destructive potential than any hurricane observed since 1969, including Category 5 storms like Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Camille, and Andrew. The previous highest destructive potential for storm surge was 5.6 on a scale of 0 to 6, set during Hurricane Isabel of 2003. Sandy's storm surge will be capable of overtopping the flood walls in Manhattan, which are only five feet above mean sea level. On August 28, 2011, Tropical Storm Irene brought a storm surge of 4.13' and a storm tide of 9.5' above MLLW to Battery Park on the south side of Manhattan. The waters poured over the flood walls into Lower Manhattan, but came 8 - 12" shy of being able to flood the New York City subway system. According to the latest storm surge forecast for NYC from NHC, Sandy's storm surge is expected to be 10 - 12' above MLLW. Since a storm tide of 10.5' is needed to flood the subway system, it appears likely that portions of the NYC subway system will flood. The record highest storm tide at The Battery was 10.5', set on September 15, 1960, during Hurricane Donna."

We suspect that subway flooding is only part of the story, as there are many low lying areas of NYC and its surrounding communities along the Hudson River.  We don't think it will be quite the magnitude of Landstrike, which was a more powerful and concentrated storm than Sandy, but we do think the coming disaster will cost billions and have long-lingering effects.

Ohio Early Voting Favors Obama

Note:  For more up to date info on Ohio (with over a dozen polls) and other states, see our more comprehensive post, updated daily, Poll Results for Early Voters.

If you're wondering why Republicans have been so keen to shut down early voting in Ohio, just look at the data.  So far we've found two polls that include early voting in their data.  In both, Obama has a commanding lead among those who have already voted:

Survey USA did a poll on Oct. 5-8.  In its sample, 11% of respondents said they'd already voted.  Of those, 59% voted for Obama, 39% for Romney.

Public Policy Polling, which tends to lean Democratic, conducted a survey on Oct. 12-13.  In its sample, 19% said they'd already voted.  Of those, 76% were for Obama, 24% for Romney.

And most recently, Survey USA conducted a poll on Oct. 16, in which 18% of the sample had already voted, with a 57-38 split in favor of Obama.

This is no surprise.  At about this point in the 2008 election, Survey USA reported that 12% had voted, and that they had gone 57% for Obama and 40% for McCain.  Ultimately, Obama comfortably carried Ohio in 2008, wining 51%-47%.

In the 2008 election cycle, we collected data from more than 80 polls that included information on early voting, and posted it HERE. 

We will look at this year's polls from here on out and begin posting anything interesting.  Early voting is already on quite a pace in Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa and Maine according to early voting expert Michael McDonald, a professor at George Mason University, (see here), so the results should be interesting.

There Ought To Be MORE Undecided Voters

To hear the election pundits, it's a surprise that there are still voters out there who, so close to the presidential election, remain undecided.  As in, what more will these voters learn in the next few days and why haven't they already made up their minds?

The real surprise, however, is that there aren't MORE undecided voters.  After all, both candidates are pretty disappointing, and neither has a particularly realistic vision of what can be done in the next four years.

Perhaps if we had more undecided voters, the quality of discourse in debates and campaign appearances would be greater.

To be sure, the Curmudgeon will be voting for Obama.  Not because we think he's done a great job in his four years in office, but because he is decidedly better than the alternative.  We probably would have been okay with the moderate Mitt Romney who served as governor of Massachusetts, but that Mitt disappeared in the bowels of the Republican primaries and is not likely to return, beholden as he is to the GOP right.  In any event, Mitt's prescription for restoring the economy is a true disaster--it really is more of what got us into the problem to begin with.  Obama is no Bill Clinton, but at least he'll stalemate a largely Republican Congress.

Let's take last night's debate as an example of why there should be more undecided voters.  Face it, neither candidate answered the questions.  Obama was asked what he would do about $4 a gallan gas, and proceeded to brag about increased domestic production of oil and gas, which is a result of the prior administration's policies.  But that has not reduced gas prices--and it won't. 

Our guess is that voters don't want to hear that government policies have little to do with the price of gas.  They also have short memories.  Gas was at $4 a gallon near the end of the Bush administration.  Then it plummeted to less than $2 a gallon at the beginning of the Obama administration because the economy tanked--not because of any policy of Obama or Bush.  It is now BACK to $4 a gallon because DEMAND has recovered (in line with the economic recovery that Romney says hasn't occurred).

Romney didn't have anything better to say.  He would increase domestic production, but there's not much more increase to be had, and in any event oil is a fungible global commodity, the price of which depends on global demand.

Another question went to Romney, concerning his tax plan.  Romney says he will lower tax rates, but offset that with elimination of deductions and credits.  That is certainly feasible, but Romney truly has never said which deductions and credits he would eliminate.  The questioner asked quite specifically about certain deductions--mortgage, charitable, childcare, education.  Of course, Romney completely dodged the question. 

Romney threw out there that perhaps one way to do it would be to allow a total deduction of a limited amount that could be spread among whatever deductions apply to you.  Huh??  When has he EVER said that was part of his plan before?  And if it is, let's have the DETAILS.  Our bet is that some taxpayers would be winners in that, and some losers, but you'd have no way of knowing under his "plan"--more like a vague sketch.

In any event, the fundamental premise of Romney's tax sketch is fatally flawed.  He says that by lowering rates, we will create jobs because small businesses will have more money to do so.  WHAT?  That is not economics.  Business owners don't create jobs because they have more money--that's absurd.  They create more jobs because demand for their products and services have increased to the point that they MUST add jobs.  No business owner wants to add employees just for the sake of it.  If anything, they want to eliminate employees and operate more efficiently.  The goal of business is to make money, not create jobs.

Now, if you want to create jobs with government policy, the best way to do so is to stimulate demand for goods and services.  With tax policy, that can be done by reducing taxes for the the largest number of taxpayers, putting more spending money in their pockets.  That was in large part the theory of the stimulus.  But since--as Romney has pointed out--47% of Americans pay no income taxes, reducing income taxes won't help about half the people to demand anything else.  Further, since income tax payments are concentrated in the wealthiest Americans, reducing income taxes puts money disproportionately into the pockets of the wealthy, who already have more than enough discretionary income to buy whatever they want.  In other words, it does not lead to economic stimulus.

In short, Romney's tax sketch is not likely to create many jobs.  On the other hand, Obama doesn't have room, given the current deficit situation, to do much either.  And neither candidate spoke about the real elephant in the room:  the fiscal cliff.

We could go on and on--both candidates dodged gun control, Romney lied about his positions on health care and Obama evaded on Libya.  The fact of the matter is that the President can only do so much in our deliberately divided government, with all its "checks and balances."  Congress is gridlocked, and will remain so.  The President can be a cheerleader, but that's about it, other than on foreign policy.  That, more than anything else, probably explains why this election seems more likely to be decided on style and emotional issues (such as contraception coverage) than substance.

As for you remaining undecided voters--good for you, you may be the only sane people in our electorate!

Inside The Virginia Derecho

By now, many of you have heard the term "derecho" used to describe the intense meteorological event that wreaked havoc across much of Virginia and the metro DC area Late Friday night.

A derecho is a long-lived, fast moving line of intense thunderstorms with straight line winds in excess of 60 mph. The line is often bowed. It is a warm weather phenomenon--the storms get their intensity and propulsion when the colder air associated with the storms clashes with warmer air in front of the line.

Friday's derecho started near Chicago in the early afternoon and raced southeastward at about 60 mph, fueled by an intense mass of steamy hot air that set records throughout the mid-Atlantic that day.

To its credit, the intrepid weather bloggers at the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang issued an alert late Friday afternoon (about 4:00 pm) that there was a 50 percent chance of "storms capable of producing damaging winds and/or hail" coming through between 10 pm and 2 am, after already pummeling parts of the midwest. I doubt if too many people took notice, as they were mostly just trying to survive the hottest June day ever recorded in DC.

As the night progressed, the wife and I were watching Wimbledon highlights on television, while I surfed the weather radar. The derecho was clearly headed our way, and looked powerful on the weather maps. The wife was a bit dubious about my explanation of a derecho and what this might cause.

Right around 11:00, with Roger Federer coming back in his Wimbledon match, the lights began to flicker and dim. The derecho was clearly evident just a few minutes away on radar. We stepped outside and it was deadly still, muggy and hot. But we could see some pretty intense lightning flashes to the west.

Just minutes later, out of nowhere, an intense wind gust caused our front door to pop open. Then all hell broke loose in an instant. It was if we had been in the calm of the eye of a hurricane one moment, then experienced the back side of the hurricane coming through the next. The wind was howling, loose items were careening down the street, trees were swaying and tree branches snapping. Torrential rain (we got .60 of an inch in 20 minutes) was blowing in sheets sideways, punctuated by bits of hail. The lightning was strobing in non-stop white flashes with blinding blue flashes every few seconds as transformer after transformer blew.

Right at the outset, the power went out, then flickered back on. Then it went for good--everything around us, including the brightly lit commercial district a block from our home, was dark, but for the brilliant white and blue flashes illuminating them. Unfortunately, our automatic, natural gas fed generator failed to kick in.

The storm was at least as intense as anything we saw during the height of Hurricane Isabel a few years ago, but it only lasted about 20 minutes, if that. We watched the intense trail of lightning tail off to the east as an eerie dark quiet settled over Arlington. After the remnant rain settled to a sprinkle, I checked on the generator--no luck, it was definitely kaput, the victim of maintenance neglect.

At least it had cooled off, so we had a fine night of sleep.

The next morning, reality set in. More than 60% of Arlington was without power. Our Verizon FIOS service was out. Cell phone coverage was spotty, wi-fi down. We couldn't get any cash--ATM's either lacked power or were temporarily disabled due to network problems. We found an open diner for an early breakfast, but they couldn't process credit cards. By the time we left the diner (after charging a couple phones) there was a huge line out front.

We decided to get a hotel room nearby. We were just in time, as a line was forming there too. Since their systems were down, it was cash only also. Fortunately, we had the cash!

So now it's Monday, a full three days later. Our power has partially returned at home, but only some circuits are working. Apparently we're on a dual circuit with the power company, only one of which is working. Unfortunately, that does not include any air conditioning, nor our washer, dryer, dishwasher, or basement freezer. And our internet and cable are still out as well, but we do have our hotel room!

We're luckier than many. Huge swaths of Arlington still lack power. I went to our local Target store today to get some items and it was operating on a generator, leaving the back parts of the store eerily dark. Many traffic lights are still out, and gasoline is scarce (glad the Prius had a nearly full tank-- should last awhile). Our house, especially the upper two floors, is sweltering. We figure it will be the end of the week before things get back to "normal".

Sit could have been worse. If the storm had hit late afternoon, it would have caught a lot of people outside, or trapped on roads in their vehicles. Thousands of spectators at the AT&T Open in Bethesda would have been at risk. In that respect, we were lucky, although the storm still managed to take more than a dozen lives.

So that's it, for now, inside the derecho zone.

What I Learned From 50 Shades of Grey

Ok, so after seeing that practically every woman in the U.S. was reading Fifty Shades of Grey and its offspring over the past few months, I decided to see what all the fuss was about.

It was very instructive.  I learned that:

• Women are as shallow as men
• Women's literary standards are no higher than men's
• Women, apparently, will totally degrade themselves sexually and emotionally IF a man is utterly handsome, extraordinarily rich and uses expensive body wash

I also learned that IF--and apparently only IF--a man is utterly handsome, extraordinarily rich and uses expensive body wash, then a woman will:

1.  Have an orgasm during intercourse with him EVERY TIME, right before he climaxes.

2.  Doesn't need any meaningful foreplay.

3.  Doesn't require or desire any kind of oral foreplay.

4.  Will have sex with him at any time of the day or night.

5.  Will have sex with him during her period.

6.  Doesn't mind being controlled and dominated, or spanked and flogged.

Also, said man will automatically be well endowed.  And, he can "do it" at any time of day or night, up to at least six times in one day.  (Wait'll you get older, buddy!)

Furthermore, said man's brother and sister will also be hot; the woman's friend will be hot.  In fact, everyone will be hot.

Finally, the other guy who is the same age as the woman, who cares for her, does nice things for her, and apparently is at least also attractive, will lose out every time.

I won't be reading the rest of the trilogy, thank goodness, as my writing skills would surely deteriorate.  Back to spy thrillers and weather disasters for me!

CRITICAL: Tracing The Deficit--It's Bush's Fault

For anyone remotely interested in national politics, the Washington Post buried an incredibly important economic analysis deep inside its "A" section yesterday.

Entitled, "Doing The Math On Obama's Deficits," the article, by Ezra Klein, analyzes the federal government's recent budget deficits to determine what proportion came from policies of George W. Bush, and what from Obama.  [There's also a follow-up today, here.]

What we find is that since W Bush became President in 2001, his policies have added $5.1 trillion to the national debt, while Obama's policies have added $983 billion.  And that's generous, because the analysis tagged Obama for $620 billion for the two-year extension of the Bush tax cuts.

All told, the Bush tax cuts have added about $2.5 trillion to the national debt since being enacted.

Let's not forget that when Bush took office, he inherited a budget surplus of more than $200 million per year.

So when the Republicans label Obama as fiscally reckless, let's look at the facts.  Can our nation afford another period of Republican rule?  Borrow and spend is not good policy.

Bondi Compounds Her Tax Problem

Melissa Bondi is now facing scrutiny from the "mainstream" press about her tax problem, or should we say problems.  Her response is not encouraging.

The worst thing a candidate for public office can do when faced with a question about their personal behavior is to lie about it.  Yet, that appears to be the path Bondi has chosen, and it will undoubtedly exacerbate the problems for her campaign.

Here's the two tax problems Bondi has:
1. A nearly $20,000 IRS lien for failure to pay taxes on income earned a few years ago; and
2. The apparent failure to pay personal property taxes on a car she garaged in Arlington for a couple of years.

As an aside, commenters on various blogs and news sites have raised other questions, but they seem beside the point.  She was late on some car tax payments a few years ago--ok, but she paid them, and a lot of people are late at some point in paying bills.  Another candidate, Kim Klingler, had the same problem, but really it shouldn't be disqualifying.  Also, some commenters have complained that Bondi is now not an Arlington taxpayer at all, suggesting that should disqualify her for office.  We don't see that as very pertinent--an Arlington resident who rents her abode and has no car can still be an excellent County Board member. 

However, not paying taxes, and then evading the truth about it, is serious. 

As for the IRS lien, Bondi's story is that until the tax judgment appeared on the Arlington Yupette blog a few days ago, she didn't know about it.  That is pretty hard to believe.  The IRS is far from perfect, but they don't file a tax lien without first making mulitple efforts to notify you of the tax delinquency and offering you an opportunity to negotiate the delinquency, all the while threatening the dire consequences that will befall you if you fail to act.  Also, when you get hit with a tax lien--which is public--all kinds of lawyers and other types come out of the woodwork offering to "help" you with the IRS.  Since the lien judgment has Bondi's correct address, it's hard to see how she somehow missed all that correspondence--some of which, by law, is required to be sent by certified mail.

Most telling is that in today's Washington Post article on the issue, Bondi "would not say" whether she received notices or warning letters. So, in other words, maybe she didn't know about the lien (still hard to believe), but she certainly knew about the delinquency.  It would be one thing if she was in correspondence with the IRS disputing the delinquency and the IRS upped the ante by filing a lien--they will do that; but that doesn't appear to be her story.

The car tax issue is also problemmatic.  Apparently, sometime in 2006 Bondi gave up her own car, but used a car that belonged to her father, who lives out of state.  The fact that a car is registered out of state, however, does not exempt it from personal property tax.  If the car is garaged in Arlington, it is subject to the tax. Bondi hasn't yet said anything to clear up this issue.  While the amount of money is probably quite small, we do think it says something about someone who wants to serve on Arlington's Board.  Paired with the other tax issue, it says volumes.

Now, people make mistakes, and if we only elected perfect people to public office, we wouldn't have any public officers.  We're more troubled at this point, however, with how Bondi is handling her mistakes. 

With four other committed Democrats running for the Board nomination, we think Arlington Democrats have better choices.

[The Curmudgeon is supporting Terron Sims.  But we'd change horses in a nanosecond if he had Bondi's type of problems.]

Bondi's Tax Problem

According to a posting on Arlington Yupette, County Board candidate Melissa Bondi has a tax problem with the IRS, which resulted in a judgment of nearly $20,000 against her back in March. (And public records confirm the judgment:  http://landrec.arlingtonva.us/public/ViewDoc.aspx?popView=false&hideForm=&docId=1621576&fileId=1479128&id=53&cat=j&origin=retrieval )

We'd like to know more about this inasmuch as Bondi has been reported as a frontrunner in the five-way race for the Democratic nomination to replace Barbara Favola on the Board.  The Democratic nominee will most likely win the seat; in turn, the Democratic nominee will be selected by a tiny percentage of the electorate at a "firehouse primary" type of caucus, probably by a plurality vote.  Since there is very little turnover on the County Board, it's important to know more here.

So far, the news outlets that cover Arlington politics--the Sun Gazette, Arlnow.com, to some extent the Washington Post--have been mum.  Some suggestions in comments on the Yupette page suggest it had to do with unreported income from some form of self employment.  It's pretty significant, however, that whatever the source, the IRS had to litigate and go to judgment--and we wonder if the judgment has been paid.

Our concern is about getting someone on the Board whose ethics are suspect.  Arlington has long been blessed by good government, without significant scandals, unlike some of our neighbors, such as D.C. and P.G. County.  Paying your taxes is a civic responsibility, and electing representatives who fail in this basic obligation is a clear path to trouble.

We'll be looking for more on this one in the days to come--much better that it come out before the caucuses, rather than after, lest Democrats find a way to blow the special election in March.