HENDERSON, Nev./WASHINGTON (Reuters) – First came the foreclosure crisis. Next, gas prices went through the roof. Now, beleaguered Americans living on the edge of metropolitan areas face a third plague: politicians.
Political campaigns call Carrie Mercherle's sewing machine shop in the Las Vegas suburb of Henderson four or five times a day, seeking her vote in the presidential election on November 4.
Mercherle generally hangs up before they can start their pitch.
"We're just very tired of it," Mercherle said. "It's like, just get (the election) over with already."
Fast-growing "exurbs" like Henderson, commuter towns outside the traditional suburban belts surrounding cities, have emerged as a crucial battleground in the 2008 election as Democrats consolidate their hold on older, inner-ring suburbs, many of which once voted reliably Republican.
Exurban and outer-suburban counties, many outside the reach of urban public transportation systems, make up 72 of the 94 most contested counties this year, according to a study by Virginia Tech's Metropolitan Institute.
Millions of voters have moved to new developments in sprawling exurbs over the past decade, trading longer commutes for larger or less expensive houses.
But many of those houses now stand empty, thanks to the foreclosure crisis and those that do find buyers sell for less than what they would have fetched a year ago.
Soaring gas prices also made those long driving commutes more expensive.
Republican President George W. Bush carried exurban areas handily in 2000 and 2004, but Democrats narrowed the gap in the 2006 midterm elections that handed them control of Congress.
But Democrats see an opportunity to win these areas this year, as economic issues dominate the presidential race.
NEW TOWNS AND CITIES
Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama and their vice-presidential running mates have campaigned heavily in cities and towns that barely existed 10 years ago.
Both recently held rallies in the outer reaches of Virginia's Washington suburbs, areas that backed Bush in 2004 but have since voted for Democratic candidates for governor and senator.
Voters are less likely to be swayed this year by social issues like abortion or gay marriage that had pushed them toward Republicans in the past, experts say.
"These are economic conservatives, they're not social conservatives," said George Mason University professor Michael McDonald at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia.
In Nevada, places like Henderson hold the balance between heavily Democratic Las Vegas and conservative rural areas. Both of the major party vice presidential candidates, Republican Sarah Palin and Democrat Joe Biden, have made stops here.
"If those areas break Democratic, that will be determinant," said Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada in Reno.
Henderson's population has grown by more than one-third since the turn of the century, as new residents have flocked to Las Vegas' booming job and real estate market.
But as of last month, 3.5 percent of all housing units in the Las Vegas metro area were in foreclosure -- the second-highest rate in the country.
With recession looming, Mercherle's store is often empty.
"The biggest issue for me is the economy. We can't survive without the sales," said Mercherle, who plans to vote for McCain.
At a cafe a few blocks down the street, Alica Hudson, 18, was considering a vote for Obama. She likes his health care plan, she said, but is less enthusiastic about his stance on taxes.
"I'll make up my mind when I get to the polling station," she said.
(Writing by Andy Sullivan, editing by Patricia Zengerle)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Monday, October 27, 2008
McCain gains on Obama in Poll
One poll moves (a lot); the rest stay mostly flat
Over the weekend, there wasn’t much change in the poll numbers in the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama.
Obama still enjoys more than a 7-point lead in the Real Clear Politics national poll average, with McCain’s standing up just a touch from 42.5 percent to 43.1 percent.
There are more than five daily national tracking polls, and only one — the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll — had significant movement over the weekend. You probably saw the headline on Sunday: Obama lead drops to 5 points. As recently as Thursday, Obama held a 12-point lead in the Zogby poll, but McCain gained 5 points since then, while Obama dropped 2.
There was one other poll that showed a smaller noteworthy move this morning. Rasmussen Reports released a poll this morning that has McCain gaining two points to put Obama's lead down to 5 from a high of 8-points on Sunday.
For the record, Gallup's tracking polls held steady overnight with only a point fluctuation depending on the voting model used. The Diageo/Hotline poll has Obama holding at 50 percent to McCain's 42 percent. The Washington Post/ABC News poll has Obama up by 7, although it's worth noting that is the closest margin for that poll since it began a week ago.
Remember: Day-to-day activity isn’t as important as what the polls do over time. Losing or gaining single points here and there can be a function of statistical “noise.” To really tell whether or not the state of the race is changing, we need to look at the trend.
Right now, the aggregated movement still looks to be in Obama’s favor —– even with the Zogby poll included.
The graph below shows the Real Clear Politics poll average plotted over time, demonstrating each candidate's polling trend in relation to the other. The current course (Obama holding between 5 and 8 points ahead of McCain) started in late September.
Alt Text
Real Clear Politics Poll Averages
Of course, the national polls don't break out specifics on what might happen in the electoral college. So, the Yahoo! News Political Dashboard uses state poll averages, where Obama currently holds leads in many swing states, to project the electoral college winner on the map below.
Over the weekend, there wasn’t much change in the poll numbers in the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama.
Obama still enjoys more than a 7-point lead in the Real Clear Politics national poll average, with McCain’s standing up just a touch from 42.5 percent to 43.1 percent.
There are more than five daily national tracking polls, and only one — the Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll — had significant movement over the weekend. You probably saw the headline on Sunday: Obama lead drops to 5 points. As recently as Thursday, Obama held a 12-point lead in the Zogby poll, but McCain gained 5 points since then, while Obama dropped 2.
There was one other poll that showed a smaller noteworthy move this morning. Rasmussen Reports released a poll this morning that has McCain gaining two points to put Obama's lead down to 5 from a high of 8-points on Sunday.
For the record, Gallup's tracking polls held steady overnight with only a point fluctuation depending on the voting model used. The Diageo/Hotline poll has Obama holding at 50 percent to McCain's 42 percent. The Washington Post/ABC News poll has Obama up by 7, although it's worth noting that is the closest margin for that poll since it began a week ago.
Remember: Day-to-day activity isn’t as important as what the polls do over time. Losing or gaining single points here and there can be a function of statistical “noise.” To really tell whether or not the state of the race is changing, we need to look at the trend.
Right now, the aggregated movement still looks to be in Obama’s favor —– even with the Zogby poll included.
The graph below shows the Real Clear Politics poll average plotted over time, demonstrating each candidate's polling trend in relation to the other. The current course (Obama holding between 5 and 8 points ahead of McCain) started in late September.
Alt Text
Real Clear Politics Poll Averages
Of course, the national polls don't break out specifics on what might happen in the electoral college. So, the Yahoo! News Political Dashboard uses state poll averages, where Obama currently holds leads in many swing states, to project the electoral college winner on the map below.
FIVE MYTHS ABOUT THE ELECTION & STOCK MARKET
Five Myths About the Election and the Stock Market
by Ben Steverman
Saturday, October 25, 2008provided by
With the Obama-McCain contest nearing the finish line, BusinessWeek debunks some Wall Street notions about bulls, bears, elephants, and donkeys
For the first time in 76 years, a financial crisis is occurring at the same time as a Presidential election. Based on recent polls, the coincidence seems to have boosted the chances that Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, will defeat Republican Arizona Senator John McCain on Nov. 4.
The financial crisis has affected the Presidential race, but how is the election affecting the financial markets? Pundits offer endless theories on that question, and their answers are often suspiciously similar to their political views.
Thus, right-leaning market experts insist Obama's tax proposals would be disastrous for investors. More liberal Obama supporters insist the market will celebrate if he is given the job of leading the world out of the financial crisis.
Some of these claims are impossible to prove or disprove. But there are some myths about the election and the stock market that need clearing up.
Myth No. 1: The stock market is waiting to see who wins.
Stock traders are used to looking at the data, weighing probabilities and making investing bets based on them. Among fund managers, analysts, and other market professionals interviewed in the past week, there is little doubt which is the more likely outcome of the 2008 Presidential election.
Consider two pieces of evidence the "smart money" on Wall Street would be likely to take seriously: On the Iowa Electronics Market, traders can put up money to make bets on the outcome of the Presidential race. On Oct. 3, Obama was given a 70% chance of winning. On Oct. 23, it was 87%.
Then there are the polls. Nate Silver, who first achieved renown in the area of baseball statistics, runs a sophisticated daily analysis of all polling data that incorporates state-by-state demographic factors, historical data and polling firms' past track records. On Oct. 23, Silver's site, www.fivethirtyeight.com, rated Obama's victory a 93.5% likelihood.
That's not to say that McCain can't win the election. (Google the name "Thomas E. Dewey" when you have a spare moment.) He still has a chance, but based on the forecasts the Street is watching, the probability of a win is so small that very few investors are going to bet money on a McCain victory.
Myth No. 2: Wall Street is disappointed at Obama's lead in the polls, because it always wants the Republican to win.
There is anecdotal evidence that investors in some sectors are worried about an Obama victory. With Democrats in control, Washington could squeeze profits for health-care firms or energy companies, for example.
And it's true that it's not hard to find a Republican on Wall Street: Wealthy investors and financial professionals tend to favor low taxes and deregulation, planks of the Republican party platform.
However, Obama has plenty of supporters among investors, too. Berkshire Hathaway Chief Executive Warren Buffett is an Obama supporter, and many hedge fund managers and others have contributed to his campaign. In fact, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, donors in the securities and investment industry have given $11.1 million to Obama's campaign, and only $7.7 million so far to McCain.
A 2004 academic study (by Scott Beyer, Gerald Jensen, and Robert Johnson) found that, from 1926 to 2000, the broad Standard & Poor's 500-stock index actually performed better under Democrats than Republicans, 15.24% vs. 10.78%. However, that Democratic advantage evaporated when the impact of the Federal Reserve—which sets interest rates—was taken into account.
Myth No. 3: Investors and traders are watching the election closely, following the candidates' proposals and rhetoric.
"Truly I don't think the market is paying much attention," says John Merrill, chief investment officer of Tanglewood Wealth Management, when asked about the election. "Today the market and the economy are shaping events much more than the Presidential election."
It's not that the Presidential election doesn't matter to investors. It's just that other events—particularly the financial crisis and the economic slowdown—have taken center stage. "We have so many other things on the table right now that we haven't even thought about the election," says Greg Church, president of Church Capital Management.
Wall Street often shows a healthy skepticism to candidates' rhetoric and party platforms. American history is full of examples of politicians who abandon campaign promises once in office. McCain, if victorious, would have trouble getting his proposals through a Democratic Congress, observers say. And both candidates would need to adjust their policies to the realities of the financial crisis and recession. What matters is "less who is elected than what policies they pursue," says Andy Bischel, president of SKBA Capital Management and co-manager of the AHA Socially Responsible Equity Fund.
Myth No. 4: The market is alarmed by prospects the capital-gains tax rate could be raised.
Earlier this year, some were worried about a stock market sell-off if Obama was elected, due to his proposal to raise taxes on capital gains for wealthy investors. The theory was that investors would rush to sell stocks before the higher tax rate took effect.
Though higher taxes can be a burden on the economy, this theory of a short-term impact from Obama's tax plans was always open to question. "You try not to let tax implications dictate [investment] decisions," says financial planner Micah Porter of Minerva Planning in Atlanta.
As stock prices plunged the last two months, those worries have mostly evaporated. The S&P 500 closed at 908.11 on Oct. 23. In the last 10 years, the market has traded above this mark for all but a brief period, from July 2002 to April 2003. If you bought stocks at any other time, there's a good chance you have no capital gains to be taxed.
Myth No. 5: Wealthy investors can breathe easier because the next President wouldn't dare raise income taxes in a recession.
Investors don't like paying taxes, so Obama's proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy are a frequent subject of conversation among market professionals. Economists and Washington observers, however, see few prospects to avoid higher taxes—even if McCain is elected.
One reason is the federal government's bailout plan, which adds $700 billion or so to an already bloated federal budget deficit. Even before the crisis hit, President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress had been unable to extend Bush's tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010.
While higher taxes can hurt, a huge budget deficit is "really a problem in the long run," says Victor Li, an economics professor at the Villanova School of Business. "Whoever wins, the revenues have to be raised somewhere. Taxes have to be raised."
Many hope that Obama—or McCain, cutting a deal with a Democratic Congress—can delay this tax-raising until the economy revives. Obama "needs to be really realistic about raising taxes in an economic environment that could be really nasty," Church says.
"Right now, the focus of the Democrats is on stimulating the economy," says Daniel Clifton of Strategas Research Partners. However, a tax increase during a recession wouldn't be unusual, he adds. "Generally the government has to raise taxes in a recession because the federal deficit gets so big."
Steverman is a reporter for BusinessWeek's Investing channel.
Copyrighted, Business Week. All rights reserved
by Ben Steverman
Saturday, October 25, 2008provided by
With the Obama-McCain contest nearing the finish line, BusinessWeek debunks some Wall Street notions about bulls, bears, elephants, and donkeys
For the first time in 76 years, a financial crisis is occurring at the same time as a Presidential election. Based on recent polls, the coincidence seems to have boosted the chances that Illinois Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, will defeat Republican Arizona Senator John McCain on Nov. 4.
The financial crisis has affected the Presidential race, but how is the election affecting the financial markets? Pundits offer endless theories on that question, and their answers are often suspiciously similar to their political views.
Thus, right-leaning market experts insist Obama's tax proposals would be disastrous for investors. More liberal Obama supporters insist the market will celebrate if he is given the job of leading the world out of the financial crisis.
Some of these claims are impossible to prove or disprove. But there are some myths about the election and the stock market that need clearing up.
Myth No. 1: The stock market is waiting to see who wins.
Stock traders are used to looking at the data, weighing probabilities and making investing bets based on them. Among fund managers, analysts, and other market professionals interviewed in the past week, there is little doubt which is the more likely outcome of the 2008 Presidential election.
Consider two pieces of evidence the "smart money" on Wall Street would be likely to take seriously: On the Iowa Electronics Market, traders can put up money to make bets on the outcome of the Presidential race. On Oct. 3, Obama was given a 70% chance of winning. On Oct. 23, it was 87%.
Then there are the polls. Nate Silver, who first achieved renown in the area of baseball statistics, runs a sophisticated daily analysis of all polling data that incorporates state-by-state demographic factors, historical data and polling firms' past track records. On Oct. 23, Silver's site, www.fivethirtyeight.com, rated Obama's victory a 93.5% likelihood.
That's not to say that McCain can't win the election. (Google the name "Thomas E. Dewey" when you have a spare moment.) He still has a chance, but based on the forecasts the Street is watching, the probability of a win is so small that very few investors are going to bet money on a McCain victory.
Myth No. 2: Wall Street is disappointed at Obama's lead in the polls, because it always wants the Republican to win.
There is anecdotal evidence that investors in some sectors are worried about an Obama victory. With Democrats in control, Washington could squeeze profits for health-care firms or energy companies, for example.
And it's true that it's not hard to find a Republican on Wall Street: Wealthy investors and financial professionals tend to favor low taxes and deregulation, planks of the Republican party platform.
However, Obama has plenty of supporters among investors, too. Berkshire Hathaway Chief Executive Warren Buffett is an Obama supporter, and many hedge fund managers and others have contributed to his campaign. In fact, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, donors in the securities and investment industry have given $11.1 million to Obama's campaign, and only $7.7 million so far to McCain.
A 2004 academic study (by Scott Beyer, Gerald Jensen, and Robert Johnson) found that, from 1926 to 2000, the broad Standard & Poor's 500-stock index actually performed better under Democrats than Republicans, 15.24% vs. 10.78%. However, that Democratic advantage evaporated when the impact of the Federal Reserve—which sets interest rates—was taken into account.
Myth No. 3: Investors and traders are watching the election closely, following the candidates' proposals and rhetoric.
"Truly I don't think the market is paying much attention," says John Merrill, chief investment officer of Tanglewood Wealth Management, when asked about the election. "Today the market and the economy are shaping events much more than the Presidential election."
It's not that the Presidential election doesn't matter to investors. It's just that other events—particularly the financial crisis and the economic slowdown—have taken center stage. "We have so many other things on the table right now that we haven't even thought about the election," says Greg Church, president of Church Capital Management.
Wall Street often shows a healthy skepticism to candidates' rhetoric and party platforms. American history is full of examples of politicians who abandon campaign promises once in office. McCain, if victorious, would have trouble getting his proposals through a Democratic Congress, observers say. And both candidates would need to adjust their policies to the realities of the financial crisis and recession. What matters is "less who is elected than what policies they pursue," says Andy Bischel, president of SKBA Capital Management and co-manager of the AHA Socially Responsible Equity Fund.
Myth No. 4: The market is alarmed by prospects the capital-gains tax rate could be raised.
Earlier this year, some were worried about a stock market sell-off if Obama was elected, due to his proposal to raise taxes on capital gains for wealthy investors. The theory was that investors would rush to sell stocks before the higher tax rate took effect.
Though higher taxes can be a burden on the economy, this theory of a short-term impact from Obama's tax plans was always open to question. "You try not to let tax implications dictate [investment] decisions," says financial planner Micah Porter of Minerva Planning in Atlanta.
As stock prices plunged the last two months, those worries have mostly evaporated. The S&P 500 closed at 908.11 on Oct. 23. In the last 10 years, the market has traded above this mark for all but a brief period, from July 2002 to April 2003. If you bought stocks at any other time, there's a good chance you have no capital gains to be taxed.
Myth No. 5: Wealthy investors can breathe easier because the next President wouldn't dare raise income taxes in a recession.
Investors don't like paying taxes, so Obama's proposals to raise taxes on the wealthy are a frequent subject of conversation among market professionals. Economists and Washington observers, however, see few prospects to avoid higher taxes—even if McCain is elected.
One reason is the federal government's bailout plan, which adds $700 billion or so to an already bloated federal budget deficit. Even before the crisis hit, President George W. Bush and a Republican Congress had been unable to extend Bush's tax cuts beyond their scheduled expiration in 2010.
While higher taxes can hurt, a huge budget deficit is "really a problem in the long run," says Victor Li, an economics professor at the Villanova School of Business. "Whoever wins, the revenues have to be raised somewhere. Taxes have to be raised."
Many hope that Obama—or McCain, cutting a deal with a Democratic Congress—can delay this tax-raising until the economy revives. Obama "needs to be really realistic about raising taxes in an economic environment that could be really nasty," Church says.
"Right now, the focus of the Democrats is on stimulating the economy," says Daniel Clifton of Strategas Research Partners. However, a tax increase during a recession wouldn't be unusual, he adds. "Generally the government has to raise taxes in a recession because the federal deficit gets so big."
Steverman is a reporter for BusinessWeek's Investing channel.
Copyrighted, Business Week. All rights reserved
Monday, October 20, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Tuesday August 27th, 2008
My 4 month old has a bad cold so running back n forth from pc to check on him. Market up 100+ but ZERO trades out there! Probably good!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
