The kids decided to do their own Halloween poll of the neighborhood. The 6 year old dressed up as a donkey and the 8 year old was an elephant (he had to be talked into that one). At each house they asked people to put the treats into one of three bags labeled Obama, McCain and Undecided/Other. The results are shown graphically below

Obama 60
McCain 21
Undecided/Other 12
MOE: +/- 4 Snickers

They also scored two campaign stickers from a neighbor running for state rep.

Sure there was some stuffing of the ballot bags (on both sides) and I'm not sure if Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com would approve of the methodology, but the results were tasty.

Obama could say something like this

You know, I've noticed that whatever positions I take, Republicans end up taking them too. But only after they've held the wrong positions for years.

Two years ago when I said we should send more troops to Afghanistan, John McCain thought we could muddle through. Now he has adopted my position & wants to send more troops.

When I said we should go after bin Laden in Pakistan, John McCain called me naive. But now George Bush has adopted my position & is attacking there.

When I said we should have a timeline for getting troops out of Iraq, the Republicans attacked me. But the Iraqi government wants our troops out & the Bush administration has agreed to set a timeframe.

When I said I would negotiate with Iran, I was attacked by Republicans. But you know what's coming next. The Bush administration is talking to Iran and even Henry Kissinger now supports my position.

When I said I would change the government, John McCain ran in the primaries as someone who would follow George Bush's policies to the letter. Now suddenly, he's taken my position and decided he wants to change the lobbyist-run Washington that he helped create.

When I said 6 months ago that we needed to be careful about the impact of subprime mortgages, John McCain's chief economic advisor was Phil Gramm, the man who called us whiners. More importantly he was the author of the legislation that allowed the banks to get to this point. And John McCain strongly supported that. Now after 26 years of saying that banks should be deregulated, John McCain has done a 180 and adopted my position.

I'm flattered that the Republicans have become such big fans of my positions, but I kind of get tired of them following me around everywhere I go.

Seriously, don't you want a President that knows what to do about the economy before the crisis, instead of one who encourages failed policies for years, then comes up with an entirely new position after the stuff hits the fan?

Don't you want a President who will lead instead of follow?

OK, it's only Seattle, but a local columnist Danny Westneat who had been a big McCain fan just wrote an article titled Where has McCain's Honor Gone.

Some excerpts

It was 1997 when I had my John McCain moment.

That's when as a member of the press you swoon a bit as you realize this guy is different from the rest.

...

I ran into McCain heading to the meeting [with Indian tribes]. He had no aides with him. He was off to "go stand with the tribes," he said.

Go back and read the treaties, McCain said. It's obvious what we agreed to. We took millions of acres of their land and, in turn, signed these deals. To unilaterally rewrite the terms now is another act of deception, betrayal, bad faith.

Our honor is at stake, he said. Not theirs. Ours.

I've been a McCain fan ever since. The tribes had no clout then, and there were no TV cameras around. Here was a politician doing something not for his own benefit, but because it was right.

Which makes the detestable campaign he's now running difficult for me to come to grips with.

A number of readers have chided me for it. How can I keep calling McCain honorable?

I can't anymore. Not after last week.

...

This is the presidency. And this time it isn't lies from an independent group or anonymous blog. It's from the candidate himself.

What happened to McCain? Maybe he has many sides. Or maybe I judged him wrong. But I remember the reason he impressed me was because he showed me, in person, how he believed in something intangible, a principle beyond the game of politics.

Now I can't tell what he believes in. Beyond winning. Any sleazy way he can.

Some say the democrats should ignore Sarah Palin. I disagree. They can't get the press to treat her like any other pol if the campaign won't. Here's what Joe Biden should say about Sarah Palin

Do you know how many questions Sarah Palin has taken from the press since she's been nominated? One. That's right one.

If Sarah Palin is so tough, how come she's afraid of George Stephanopolous?

If Sarah Palin is prepared to be president, how come she's not even prepared for an interview with Katie Couric?

The McCain campaign says that Sarah Palin needs to be treated with "deference" by the press. Why? They don't treat me with deference. Do you think Vladimir Putin will treat her with deference? Let's get real.

If she was really prepared, she wouldn't have to hide out and learn what she's supposed to say. If she was really prepared she wouldn't need puff pieces from the press, she'd have to answer the real questions.

She'd have to answer why she supported a group that wanted her state to secede from the union. Why she raised taxes as mayor. Why she says she opposes earmarks, when she aggressively sought them. She would have to answer why she thinks girls should be forced to have rapists babies.

And she'd certainly need to answer when she learned what a Vice President does all day.

There are lots of questions. But she's hiding from them. What does that say?

Does anybody remember how much heat Michelle Obama took for saying even once "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country."

Now it turns out that Todd Palin is so proud of his country that he was member of a crazy party trying to get his whole state out of the union for 7 years.

Don't you think he should feel similar heat?

I know Obama says families are off limits. But this isn't peronal, it is political.

Palin is trading at 80. Everybody else is down in the single digits

http://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/contractSearch/index.jsp?query=Republican+VP#

The Republican insiders are betting and giving away the surprise.

James Carville, anoying as he is, did one thing right. He focused Bill Clinton's first campaign on one simple theme "It's  the Economy Stupid." Obama's team also needs to be less reactive and focus on a theme. Their theme should be

It's the USA Stupid

Or more officially "What's good for America". We know what's good for America. Health Care, an economy that doesn't fall deeper and deeper in debt to China, energy independence. And competence and realism generally.

Because if this election is about what is good for America, Obama wins. If the election is about Georgia or Russia or who is the biggest celebrity, or the hottest date, I don't know. But everybody knows Bush has been bad for America, and McCain doesn't give a single thought to what happens within these borders. It just doesn't interest him.

Obama should say, "John McCain wants to make this election about celebrity or name calling and distortions. That's because if this election is about what's good for America, I win. I win because I am focused on fixing the American economy, expanding American jobs and giving Americans health care. John McCain's experience makes a fine member of the Senate Armed forces committee, but to lead America, your focus needs to be on America."

Indeed even all of the foreign policy issues suddenly turn in Obama's favor if they are framed in terms of "What is good for America?" Iraq? Spending billions at home, instead of there is good for America. Having friends instead of enemies abroad? Good for America.

So there you have it. If the Obama campaign starts to drift, they should start thinking

It's the USA Stupid.

In the same Kansas City Star interview where McCain said Obama was an extremist, there was also this exchange about the gas tax (5:00 minutes remaining).

Dan Helling: A lot of experts say this is just not a good idea.

McCain: A lot of experts are driven to work in chauffered limousines. A lot of experts live in Georgetown and walk to work.

My two reactions to this are
1) Here we go again. As with the Bush administration on Iraq, global warning & health care, McCain regards expertise as something to be mocked instead of as, well, expertise.

2) Somebody better have a memorable, simple explanation of why the gas tax holiday won't lower gas prices. I've seen Obama muff this and everyone needs to understand why the experts are right. To that end here's my attempt:

Here's why the gas tax won't save you any money. The oil companies already know they can sell all the gas they have at over $4.00 a gallon. If there's no tax, they will still sell all  the gas they have at $4.00 a gallon, but they'll pocket the difference. Instead of using the money for infrastructure or energy independence, oil company executives will be laughing all the way to the bank.

In any  case, I'd like to take a poll. If you are an expert, especially an economist, do you ride a chauffeured limousine to work? If not, why not?

Washington, April 2014

Five years after President Hillary Clinton became "Commander In Chief of the Economy".
Americans are reviewing the legacy the war.

LEAD UP TO THE WAR
Early in 2009, dramatic increases in the price of High Fructose Corn Syrup shocked soda-drinking
Americans. Though many economists attributed the rise to the increased use of corn for Ethanol and
a "stubborn sweet tooth", the Clinton administration saw a graver threat to the economic well
being of America. Regulators were sent in to the leading futures exchanges to see if they could find
trades of mass disruption. No such trades were found.

While some in congress argued that we should continue to let the regulators do their jobs, the administration pressed for rapid action. President Clinton pointed to the price high fructose corn syrup as a threat to our way of life, saying "our children cannot live in fear that one day they may wake up and find a refrigerator completely void of Red Bull".

Particularly influential in the build up to the war were articles by New York Times correspondent Judith Shiller. The articles pointed to the existence of large stockpiles of aluminum cans that could easily be filled with HFCS, but were lying empty. Subsequent analysis showed that the tubes lacked tops and bottoms so could not be technically called cans.

AUTHORIZATION TO USE ECONOMIC FORCE
In the face of increasing pressure from the White House, Congress passed the Authorization to Use Economic Force on April 1 2009. The AUEF officially named Clinton "Commander in Chief of the Economy".

Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin pointed out that Clinton and her allies had been planning a takeover of the economy prior to the HFCS crisis and even before she was elected president.  In keeping with longstanding Senate tradition, Feingold was ignored.

Though Clinton was formally "Commander in Chief of the Economy", the economy was even less responsive to her desires than the famously change-averse armed forces. To ensure that the economy properly followed orders, Clinton combined her two roles and dispatched troops to enforce order in the marketplace.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
Shortly after the war began, President Clinton stood on the completely pacified floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and declared the end of major trading.

THE INSURGENCY
Though in the days immediately following "mission accoplished" most economic activity had been pacified,
an insurgency rapidly arose. The insurgency was composed of many tribal groups including corporate lackeys, entrepreneurs and ebay addicts, but the administration tended to simplify and tie them to Enron, a corporation
known to have been behind previous attacks on the American economy. When several reports indicated that Enron no longer existed, the administration changed tactics
and just began to call the opposition al-Qaeda, because, as one administration official admitted, "it worked before.".

As the level of insurgent economic activity rose, Clinton came under increasing pressure to end the war and let the participants in the economy trade in the absence of economic troops.

THE SURGE
Instead of sending the economic troops home, President Clinton proposed a dramatic surge. Unauthorized economic activity decreased again in the face of 30,000 more troops. It later turned out that tribal leaders were simply being paid off by the US government to dole out money to "local economic forces". While true believers continued trading, many corporate leaders were happy to be coopted, as they were already adept at making big money doing nothing.

Now five years into the war, critics are wondering whether the economic occupation will come to an end. Many Senators predict chaos if Americans are suddenly allowed to trade without troops ensuring order in the market. Others
want to bring the troops home so they are free to spend 100 years overseas. Most are sure that the next president will
be left holding the bag and the title "Commander in Chief of the Economy".