Either way, there’s a reason why we take the vote/play the game and don’t rely in surveys and predictions, no matter how seemingly well informed.

I tend to think it was the former (and I’m certainly not accusing you of anything here…), but I would be curious about your thoughts on this. What made you say he was polling 3x higher than he was? Are you sorry you did? Is he? What do you say to people who, based on this, will now doubt your veracity on certain subjects? All subjects?

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-voegli1-2009nov01,0,825554.story

One might imagine that govts won’t simply waste money or spend it on cronies, but in this world, that’s what they do. They’ll cut education and other worthy things to do so.

> It costs money to make money.

Not always. More to the point, spending money doesn’t mean that you’ll make money.

I’m reading your book WWGD and it is fascinating. That said, I have a question for you regarding this post. I don’t object to you you’re supporting as you can support who you wish. I’m just curious as to your thoughts on what this does in the larger scheme of national politics. This election if your candidate wins will obviously be used to attack the person you voted for last year who is now the President.

Thanks,

Jason

http://www.politickernj.com/matt-friedman/34725/democrats-admit-paying-pro-daggett-call-obama-records-robocall-corzine .

Once only tax eaters and politicians live in your state you will have done as much as you possibly can for Illinois.

The States doing the best in this recession are governed by Republicans (mostly). Please do not elect a Republican. Please. For the sake of Illinois.

In any case it is not the Governor that counts. It is the legislature.

A vote for Corzine is a vote for more of the same.
A vote for Christie is just another flavor of failure.
A vote for Daggett is a vote for New Jersey!

My friend’s a councilman in Mass. trying to get municipalities to cooperate right now. Any significant project takes upwards of 5 years, even when the municipalities undoubtedly benefit from the exchange. But, if your local government is telling you that your kids can’t walk to school anymore because they’re being sent to another district, do you think you’re going to cooperate? No, you’re going to form a coalition and sandbag the entire endeavor. It’s likely that those “new efficiencies” are going to be rejected by voters through one democratic mechanism or another (i.e., electing school boards or zoning boards, etc.). So Daggett will strap cities of resources and city voters will reject the natural “incentive” to become more “efficient” (i.e,. take away service and eliminate needed bureaucracy).

Taxes are necessary sacrifices that solve collective action problems. If you don’t believe that, say it. But don’t bury a political preference in pseudo-descriptive “incentives” talk, of the type used to justify Prop. 13 in California. It costs money to make money. Taking away funding won’t ALLOW, let alone FORCE, municipalities the time and resources it would take to create “new efficiencies.” And people certainly aren’t voting for Daggett because they want new efficiencies. They just want to stop sacrificing. Daggett is the political artist willing to tell rich New Jersey residents they can have their cake and eat it too.

(btw, I don’t think the Republican or the guy from Goldman Sachs are any better. I just reject that this Daggett guy is any different if he had any hand in you using this talking point to defend him.)

Something needs to change, and a vote for Daggett is at least a start.

Think about it: raise taxes in one area to reduce taxes in another. It’s silly, even if he is your neighbor.