2004 Democratic Primary

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Time remaining: 7 Hours 23 Minutes

tick...tick...tick...tick...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Poll shows Barbour with lead

http://www.clarionledger.com/news/0310/26/m01.html

tick...tick...tick...tick...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

US ECONOMY GROWS 7.2% in Q3, fastest pace in 19 YEARS!!!!!

Nonresidential fixed investment rose at a 11.1-percent annual rate, following the second quarter's 7.3-percent pace, a sign of continuing strength in BUSINESS SPENDING.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

---

tick...tick...tick...tick...KABOOOOOOOOOM!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Realpolitik:<<jmfcst can spin things anyway he want's.
The fact's are simple: the U.S economy is in a mess.
Finis. >> (6:03 am on July 26, 2003 (about midway thru 2003Q3)

jmfcst: <<2003Q3 GDP is released this Thursday (10/30)....we're all about to find out just how "simple" Realpolitik's facts are!  LOL!>>

US ECONOMY GROWS 7.2% in Q3, fastest pace in 19 YEARS!!!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

---

Realpolitik,

How should I put this?....Your grasp of reality......SUCKS!

Finis.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

US Senator Zell Miller (Dem, GA) Endorses BUSH in 2004

SENATOR ZELL MILLER OF GEORGIA said he will endorse President Bush for re-election in 2004 and campaign for him if Bush wishes him to.

The next five years "will determine the kind of world my children and grandchildren will live in," Miller said in an interview. And he wouldn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates with governing during "that crucial period," he said. "This Democrat will vote for President Bush in 2004."

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<A cruel responce to that would be Bush's poor polling numbers.>>

I think you meant a cruel "addition"  to that would be Bush's poor yet winning poll numbers:

Bush has a lead of 6 percentage points over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (Mo.)

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/9494.htm

----

jmfcst: <<The economy turned around in June and is beginning to pick up steam.  Solid job creation should begin to show up by early Q42003.  In the meantime, Bush's approval numbers may creep down into the high 40's>> (quoted from Old Forum, 2004 US Presidential Election, What's that hissing sound? 5:37 pm on July 18, 2003)

As you can see, Bush's approval rating is slightly better than I predicted 3 months ago.

The difference between you and me (besides your total ignorance of economic reality) is that I am a very good judge of political undercurrents (things affecting public opinion going FORWARD)...And the political undercurrents (both economically and socially) for Bush in the next 12 months are EXTREMELY POSITIVE.

Barring another major terrorist attack on the US mainland, Bush's reelection is a given.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Senate GOPers Fail to Break Pickering Filibuster

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101698,00.html

This will certainly help Barbour.

tick...tick...tick...tick...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here's what is really important about the GDP figures just released:

--Business spending increased by 11.1% in Q3...meaning, contrary to media spin that Q3 growth was "led by consumer spending", business spending increased at TWICE the rate of consumer spending.  

--Despite business spending increasing by 11.1%, inventories continued to be depleted.  Without the decline in inventories, final sales rose at a 7.8 percent pace in the third quarter, the strongest rate since the second quarter of 1978....meaning, with inventories already at or near historic lows, business will have to replenish their stocks which will support the hard-hit manufacturing sector.   The 0.6% difference between sales (7.8%) and GDP growth (7.2%) will be added to GDP growth in the next 6 months as manufacturing ramps up to meet demand.

--Government spending, which contributed mightily to the second quarter's 3.3% growth rate, slowed down. Defense spending, which grew at a 45.8% pace in the second quarter, driven by spending on the war in Iraq, was flat in the third quarter...meaning, the 7.2% growth in GDP is the TRUE reflection of the private sector of the US economy.

--Despite growth in consumer spending, the savings rate actually INCREASED in Q3....meaning the 7.2% growth didn't come at the expense of the consumer's debt burden.

--Inflation is still historically very low....meaning, interest rates will remain low, thus spurring even more GDP growth.

---

Conclusion....this report is about as good as it gets, the private sector increased sales (without decreasing savings) at the fastest pace in 25 years!  Furthermore, there is a BUTT LOAD of momentum in this report that will carry the economy forward thru 2004.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

TCash,

I fail to grasp how your analogy has anything to do with Bush cutting taxes by 1% of GDP and the GDP increasing 7.2%.

Are you saying that Bush turned a 1% GDP tax cut into 7.2% GDP growth?!  If so...then YEAH, I would consider that very much worthy of praise.

PLUS, consider that the Fed taxes 20% of GDP, 0.2 x .072 = 0.0144....in other words, Fed rax receipts would increase by 1.44% of GDP.....meaning that Bush turned a 1% of GDP tax cut into a tax revenue stream amounting to 1.44% of GDP.....that would be a 44% return.

But, then again, Bush does hold degress from Yale and Harvard...so we shouldn't be shocked.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<For one thing, the Q3 growth will have to be sustained for a couple more quarters such that we actually start to see an increase in jobs, which we have not yet seen.>>

you just don't get it, do you?

1st)  >4% GDP growth is already baked into 2003Q4 and 2004Q1.

2nd) GDP growth precedes Job growth.

3rd) We have ALREADY started to see an increase in jobs,  +57k were created in Sept2003.  And that's just the tip of the iceberg...Also that employer survey is pretty lame, it does NOT count jobs held by the self-employed, like myself, nor does it count jobs created by small businesses.  The governments household survey, which DOES track ALL jobs, shows +130k have been created since Bush took office, in contrast to the -2.7M jobs loss according to the employer survey.  

---

<<Are you better off than you were 4 years ago? still holds true>>

If things are so bad, then why is home-ownership at an all-time high?

Also, as the stock market recovers (50% of American's own stock), wealth is being built back up.

---

tick...tick...tick...tick...

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Jobless claims fall

The Labor Department said 386,000 people filed for benefits in the week ended Oct. 25, compared with a revised reading of 391,000 in the prior week.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/30/news/economy/jobless/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<What matter isn't what the economy is doing, it's what voters think the economy is doing.>>

I beg to differ with you...What matters isn't what the voters think the economy is doing NOW, rather it is what the voters think the economy is doing in Nov 2004.

Those Nov 2004 opinions will be formed by today's "undercurrents" - the underlying progress that is being made but not yet reflected in the current headlines (surface conditions).

For example:  Reagan trailed Mondale by 30% in 1983, but the undercurrents would bring Reagan a 49 state sweep in 1984.

Economic undercurrents:  Rebounding business spending, Interest rates at 40 year low, inflation at 35 year low, well above average GDP growth, more tax cuts (already passed) phasing in....Dean is proposing raising everyone's taxes - a sure LOSER of a position.

Social undercurrents: "under God" Pledge, partial birth abortion, gay marriage....all strongly in Bush's favor and gay marriage remains a ticking time bomb threatening to turn 2004 into a blood bath for the Dems.

Geopolitical undercurrents:  Good progress *IS* being made in Iraq and Iraqi public opinion is swinging against the terrorists and toward the US.  Iraq's WMD will be traced to Syria....the Dems are offering no alternatives except retreat.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I can only find links to sites stating Reagan trailed Mondale by 9 points in 1983.  Im not sure where I heard the 30% figure (maybe I was thinking of Clinton trailing Dole in 95, or maybe Im thinking Reagan in late 82).  

But, even trailing by 9% in 83 and winning by 18% in 84, shows that the undercurrrents during 83 were tilted heavily toward Reagan.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Michigan sentiment index rises
 
Closely watched measure of consumer confidence revised slightly higher in October.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/michigan/index.htm

---

Chicago PMI gains
 
Closely watched index of manufacturing activity in the Chicago region gains in October

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/chicago_pmi/index.htm

---

Consumer income rises, spending dips in September

(note: these numbers are for Sept, so they're very stale)

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/31/news/economy/personal_income/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

There has been speculation by Dick Morris and others that Al Sharpton will run as an independent, but the topic hasn't been talked about much since.

But checking out what Al has been up to lately, one has to wonder what he is up to.

Al attacked Jesse Jackson Jr for his endorsement of Dean.  Now he is calling black supporters of white candidates "Uncle Toms" while receiving standing ovations.

http://msnbc.com/news/952445.asp?0cv=CB20

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

nym90

Posts like your last one are aggravating because I don’t feel like explaining clear and recent history to you!

---

The Economy:  

Bush’s economic policies did NOT take effect until 2001Q3, the PRECEDING four quarters saw GDP growth at +0.6% (2000Q3), +1.1% (2000Q4), -0.6% (2001Q1), and -1.6% (2001Q2).  Therefore, it is DISHONEST of you to blame Bush for the recession since there were no changes in policy; rather Bush inherited an economy in decline following a boom (which Bush was warning about in during the Fall of 2000).

In contrast to the liberals blaming Bush, I do NOT blame Clinton for the recession because I am HONEST.  There is STILL something called the “business cycle.”  The economy was simply extremely overextended by the summer of 2000.

Bush’s policies were signed into law in 2001Q3 and were followed by an attack worse than Pearl Harbor (Sept 2001), corporate scandal (Summer 2002), and a long lead up to war (June 02 – April 03).

In retrospect, any HONEST (key word) person would have to say that the economy has held up remarkably well giving everything that has come against it.

Also, Bush’s policies were signed into law in 2001Q3, every single quarter of GDP growth after 2001Q3 has outperformed every one of the four quarters prior to 2001Q3.



The Deficit:

During the boom years of the stock market, Capital Gain taxes were generating between $200B-$400B PER YEAR of tax revenue.  With the bursting of the stock bubble, a bubble that simply was NOT sustainable, we’ve lost that tax revenue.

And that revenue will NOT be coming back anytime soon since losses are carried forward each tax year.  I, myself, still have $120k in losses that I carry forward, since I am only able to deduct $3k in capital gains losses per year on my tax returns.  Meaning…I will have to generate $120k in additional stock market gains to even begin to start paying taxes on Capital Gains again!!!

The economic slowdown that Bush inherited (though NOT Clinton’s fault, but simply a function of the normal business cycle) has drained other tax revenue from the Fed, stemming from lower corporate profits and personal income.

The events of 9/11 and the war on terror have meant an 80% increase in defense related spending, amounting to an addition cost $200B per year!

The tax cuts account for only $100B of the deficit.

…but, it takes HONESTY to view the deficit in this manner.


Iraq:

Success in Iraq is NOT measured by the number of US combat causalities.  If that were the case, victory could have been “won” by not fighting in the first place. Instead, true and honest progress is measured by the US ability to build better lives for the Iraqi people.  

HONESTY dictates the realization that terrorists’ attacks in Iraq are NOT stopping the US from restoring electricity, water, and basic economical functions to the Iraqi people.  And the Iraqi people are realizing that the terrorists are the enemies of Iraq, not the Americans.

But, the success of the terrorism in Iraq is measured at home, because certain liberal “Metrosexuals” are trying to use images of the attacks to weaken the American resolve, in order to gain political power.  

Albert Einstein reportedly once said that someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over, thinking they will get a different result, is insane...The voters saw through the Dem geopolitical weakness in 2002, and they will see through it again in 2004.

As far as Iraqi WMD ending up in Syria, google the topic.  Israel had given the US heads up as early as last Spring, and the US has come around to the same conclusion.  But, Bush doesn’t have to go after Syria, all he has to do is give the green light to Israel, which is why we just saw Israel strike deep into Syrian soil for the first time in 30 years.

---

The Liberal motivation:

There are two ways to deal with the shame of sin:  

…One can repent, which requires effort and humility…

or,…One can try to outlaw morality so that everyone is morally corrupt.  Therefore, instead of coming to terms with one’s shame, the person can merely pass it off to someone else.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<Don't you mean "democrat"?>>


No, rather Im talking about a large portion of Southern Dems that reject the national Democrats.

You really need to read Zell Miller's book.  He compares the modern Dem party with the Whigs.

here is an excerpt:

"...I own a fiddle that supposedly belonged to Zeb Vance, the great North Carolina mountaineer who was elected that state's governor in 1862. He opposed much of what Confederate President Jefferson Davis was doing in Richmond. He was too young to be involved in the Whig Party at the height of its popularity, but he had been "born a Whig" and many thought this moderate, independent-minded, vigorous young leader might be the one to keep the party alive in the South.

When he was approached to do so in 1865, Vance was typically direct: "The party is dead and buried and the tombstone placed over it and I don't care to spend the rest of my days mourning at its grave."

Like that Whig Party of the late 1850s, the Democratic Party of today has become dangerously fragmented, and considering the present leadership it can only get worse. Compromise will become increasingly difficult and no leader's goal will be to reach consensus or common ground. Instead, they will more than ever blindly champion this group and that group...."

Sounds a lot like the Cal recall, doesn't it?!

---

Zell continued...

"...A demagogue is defined by Webster as "a political leader who gains power by arousing people's emotions and prejudices." Isn't that exactly what some of them are doing? Some of the liberal media excuse these actions by calling them "populism." Populism, my butt! Its demagogy, pure and simple.

Howard Dean, while not alone, is the worst offender, and it says a lot about the current Democratic base that he has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. He likes to say he belongs to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but I say he belongs to the whining wing of the Democratic Party...."


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1103/02miller.html

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Nor do I like explaining Economics 101 to you.

<<Unemployment started going up dramatically after Bush's tax cuts took effect.>>

I love how you only point to lagging indicators.  Did it ever occur to you that rising unemployment FOLLOWS poor GDP performance?  

If not, look at a historical chart plotting GDP growth against Unemployment.  Even a liberal like you should be able to see the correlation!

And, while you're at it, chart GDP and Job growth after the major tax cuts of Kennedy (3% GDP tax cut) and Reagan (2% GDP tax cut)

---

<<Jobs are what matter to most people, not GDP growth.>>

That's about as dumb as saying, "Harvest is what matters to most farmers, not planting."

Where are the jobs if there is no growth?

---  

<<Corporate profits that don't lead to hiring don't help the poor and middle class much>>

Are you 12 years old or something?

Again, find a historical chart plotting corporate profits against employment gains.

The real scary thing about you is that most people understand, WITHOUT HAVING TO HAVE IT EXPLAINED TO THEM, that businesses are more likely to hire when business is good (good in business means making money) and more likely to fire when business is bad (bad means profits are dropping).

---
 
<<when you look at the economic records of the past 25 years, it is obvious (to any honest person, as you would like to say) that the economy has performed better under Democratic administrations than under Republican administrations>>

I guess you are 12 years old!

Carter left us in a absolute chaos that is not comparable to ANYTHING since he left office!  

Reagan's deregulation (credited by even Clinton)  led the economy from double digit unemployment, inflation, and interest rates to the longest boom in American peace time.

Bush41 walked away from Reagan's tax policies and a recession began in August 1990, 18 months AFTER Regan left office.  The economy started growing again in March 1991, two years BEFORE Bush41 left office.  1992 GDP growth was +3.0% and in 1992Q4 GDP growth was +6.0%.

Clinton inherited an economy two years into expansion.  And 1993 & 1995 saw GDP growth BELOW 1992 (Bush41's last full year).   Although the economy broke Reagan's record for the longest expansion, it was also declining into recession when Clinton left office.  

Of these four presidents, Reagan made by far the most fundamental changes.  In fact, aside from Bush41's and Clinton's tax increases, one could easily make the argument that Bush41 and Clinton followed Reagan's lead.

Even Clinton, in a brief moment of honesty, attributed much of the credit of the 90's boom to Reagan's free market policies.

---

<<Even in the summer of 2001, after 2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage, the economy was still doing decently well (still much better than it had been when Clinton took office).>>

2 straight quarters of GDP shrinkage is definition of a RECESSION.  Clinton did NOT take office in a recession.

---

<<As for the other reasons that you state for the poor economy, if the long lead up to war is to blame for the economy, that's still Bush's fault since this is his war.>>

In all reality, the US has been continually at war with Iraq since August1990.  Bush simply finally chose to try to bring it to a close due to the realization that the middle east had to be overthrown.

But, I do blame Bush taking 9 months in the lead up to invading Iraq.  Bush41 took only 5 months and moved twice as many troops into position.

---

<<As for corporate scandals, Enron had close ties to Bush and the GOP.>>

I had even closer ties, before and after, since I work in the Energy Trading industry and wrote some of their trading systems.  I was even working in Enron's headquarters for 7 months.

But, having a relationship with Enron does NOT mean that I had anything to do with their decisions to break the law.

Truth be known, it&#8217;s the accounting companies that dream up these schemes.

And Enron had very close ties to a lot of Dems also.  Enron was smart and gave huge sums to BOTH parties.  

You're a HACK!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

ISM index surges
 
Closely watched measure of manufacturing activity stronger than expected in October.
 
"This is the best report that we have seen in quite some time in terms of the overall strength of manufacturing," said Norbert Ore, chair of the ISM Manufacturing Business Survey Committee. "The picture continues to improve, and it appears that manufacturing will finish 2003 on a very positive note, assuming the recent trend continues."

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/news/economy/ism/index.htm

---

Construction spending hits record

http://money.cnn.com/2003/11/03/news/economy/construction.reut/index.htm

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

***IMPORTANT NOTE***

Notice that the Economic Cycle Research Institute's US Weekly Leading Index (the first chart on post #1 of this thread) had reported a 20-year high in August.

When the 3Q GDP was reported Oct 30, it also showed a 20 year high!

In other words, this is *THE* index to watch.  It accurately told us what was going on MONTHS before the official reports came out.

It also has, by far, the best track record of any other index.

---

Currently, the rate of growth in the index has slowed from it's 20-year high of +13.2% (8/21/2003) to +10.3% (10/24/2003).

To give you an idea of how fast the economy is currently growing, the index never went above +8.2% during the 90's boom.

http://www.businesscycle.com/freedata.php

So, although we may not see 7.2% GDP growth in Q4 like we did in Q3,  >4.5% GDP growth in certainly in the cards for Q4, and 6% GDP growth for Q4 is NOT out of the question.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Semiconductor Industry Association said chip sales rose 6.5 percent in September from a year earlier, the biggest gain in about 13 years. Sales in the third quarter rose 17.5 percent from the same point a year earlier.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

<<corporations could be mechanizing work to reduce the number of employees that they need>>

That's called increasing productivity and that is the ONLY free lunch the economy has.

Productivity is the engine for real economic growth, and productivity increased in 2002 at a 6% rate, the fastest since 1950.  In 2003, productivity is growing even FASTER.

Increased productivity is a sign of America's economic might and lays the foundation for much higher living standards in the future.  It is not an accident that the US has BOTH the highest standard of living AND the highest productivity of any major country.

---

<<Yes, I realize that unemployment is a lagging indicator. But unemployment has steadily risen throughout Bush's entire term...despite better GDP growth after Bush's tax cuts went into effect, unemployment still continued to rise.>>

That's because from 2002Q2-2003Q1, the economy had three quarters of <1.5% GDP growth (due largely to the Iraq war).  That hardly covers population growth, much less the growth of productivity.  The economy will have to string together multiple back-to-back >3% growth quarters in order to create jobs.

So, even though you CLAIM to understand that employment is a lagging indicator, you keep complaining about job growth when we are just NOW producing constistent > 3% growth.

---

<<Supply-side economics doesn't work>>

LOL!  Throwing cash into the hands of CONSUMERS is not what I would call "supply-side" economics.  Neither is increasing government spending.

The cut in dividend taxes are supply-side...so Bush has included a mix of supply-side and demand-side stimulus.

---

<<Demand creates supply, while supply has very little effect on demand.>>

The idea behind supply-side economics is that government has artificially restrained the ability to generate opportunity (supply).  If you give someone the opportunity to find a better, more productive solution, then he can bring a completive product to market (increasing supply).   In turn, that will lead to lower prices, higher productivity&#8230;and ultimately, a higher standard of living.

As far as demand goes&#8230;.there are only so many hamburgers one can eat, and so many shoes one can wear.  What the modern public &#8220;DEMANDS&#8221; is a supply of products that can make life more productive and/or enjoyable &#8211; A.K.A. &#8220;innovation&#8221;.  

Without innovation (supply of new and better products), demand will stagnate at the rate of population growth.  And since the demand for innovation is ALWAYS present, regardless of economic conditions, allowing people the freedom to create innovations is the whole idea behind &#8220;supply-side&#8221; economics.

&#8220;Supply-side&#8221; does NOT mean to increase the supply of the same quality of good; rather it means to increase the supply of INOVATION by allowing people the opportunity to succeed to their ability.  

The motivation to innovate is belief in the ability to be awarded according to one&#8217;s productivity.  For example:  Bill Gates has built a company selling products that have greatly increased economic productivity.  In turn, he has been rewarded proportionately.

---

<<Keyensian economics works much better; government should increase spending to get the economy moving>>

Well, if that&#8217;s the case, Bush is engaged in the largest Keyensian experiment ever dreamed up.

---

<<And tax cuts do decrease government revenue, not increase it as many ardent supply-siders argue. I'm glad to see that you admitted to that much, although some conservatives still insist that the deficits would be larger if not for Bush's tax cuts.>>

You misunderstood my comments&#8230;.granted tax cuts reduce revenues in the short term.  But the idea is to plant a seed that will produce a harvest many more times than what was planted.

---

<<How about tying the tax cuts directly to job growth, by giving corporations a tax credit for each job that they create?>>

I&#8217;d rather allow companies to spend the tax cut in the manner in which they see best.  Some companies may be in a position to hire, but others may be in a competitive disadvantage and need investment in productivity in order to SAVE EXISTING JOBS.
 
---

<<Bush 41 didn't walk away from Reagan's tax policies until October of 1990; the economic recovery was starting to occur just as the Bush tax increases were beginning to take effect&#8230;What doomed Bush in 1992 was that the economy wasn't recovering fast enough and jobless rates were still relatively high&#8230;>>

Maybe there was a correlation between the slow recovery and tax increases.

---

<<As for Kennedy's tax cuts, he cut the top rate from 91% down to 70%. A 91% tax rate on the wealthy is too high; at that point, high taxes do stifle economic growth. But, with tax rates on the wealthy of 70% in the 1960's, the economy still did quite well>>

The Fed government took in a MUCH lover % of GDP in taxes than it does today.  

Also, go and look at the countries around the world that have the most &#8220;progressive&#8221; income tax rates, with top rates of 50 percent or more.  You&#8217;ll find that their income taxes bring in very little money.  In contrast, the US top rate is 40% and those taxes generate 55% of Federal revenue.  Why the difference?  Because the US system is extremely good at generating WEALTH.  And where there is wealth, there is tax revenue.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Prediction:

Kentucky: GOP gain
Mississippi: Too Close(50% chance of under 50%)
Lousiana: Too Close

You should remove your LA prediction, the election isn't until Nov 15th, so there is no need yet to post a prediction.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

final predictions:

MS - GOP pickup 51.5% (R)- 48.5% (D)
KT - GOP pickup 56% (R) - 44% (D)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Presidential Candidate Al Sharpton to Host 'Saturday Night Live'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,102149,00.html