Obama Wins Minnesota

Voters in Minnesota on Tuesday cast their ballot for Barack Obama, giving him the state's 10 Electoral votes.

Barack Obama won Minnesota’s 10 electoral votes on Tuesday, defeating Republican Mitt Romney.

CBS News has called the Minnesota race for the President shortly after 9:30 p.m., about the same time ABC News projected Minnesota for Obama, after Obama took a more than 40,000 vote lead with about 10 percent of precincts reporting. The Associated Press also called the Minnesota race for Obama before 10 p.m., according to the Pioneer Press.

Obama's 12 percent lead would match his margin over John McCain in 2008.

In the 2008 presidential election, the state voted for the Democratic candidate, and since the 1990s has voted for the overall winner of the presidential race 3 out of 5 times.

It has voted Republican only once in the last 50 years.

Romney and Obama did not campaign aggressively in Minnesota. The state has typically been a Democratic stronghold in recent presidential elections. 

The economy was a key issue for many voters in the state, as was the two amendment issues–Voter I.D. and Marriage–on the Minnesota ballot this election.

Nick December 19, 2012 at 01:06 PM
Joyce wrote, "And, by the way, Markus, the phrase: 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' is not in the Constitution." Neither is "separation of Church and State".
Nick December 19, 2012 at 01:13 PM
Why would you wonder that? You're implying that just because they are rich, that it not about giving for them. When you donate money, even with the deduction, you're still out most of the money. If they were greedy and it wasn't about giving, they would just keep all of the money for themselves.
Smokin' Joe December 19, 2012 at 01:16 PM
The wealth tax is already here in the form of negative real interest rates. This way they can pat themselves on the back for making mortgages affordable and stimulating the economy while putting the screws to those who haven't lived beyond their means.
Smokin' Joe December 19, 2012 at 01:23 PM
I noticed that we're likely getting yet another light rail line that I'd never heard any discussion over. While I'm not fundamentally averse to transportation options, it occurs to me that at a billion dollars a shot not including continual operating losses, there are probably better options. Anybody know where the impetus is coming from for these projects? Metropolitan Council?
Jim Flaherty December 19, 2012 at 01:24 PM
Smoken’ Jo said, My best guess is that the administration has already sent us a signal in the ACA when they set up subsidies for those at 400% of the poverty level and below. About $90K for a family of four. That's what the eventual line will be, and they don't have to adjust it for inflation. What a blessing for those who always wanted to be rich. As I stated earlier this is the Obama plan for socializes health care. Start by making it cheaper for the people to get into a government health plan them a private plan. Then when there are more people in the government plan then not in a government plan eliminate the non-government plan. What I’m saying is that when you combine the number people on Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Government employees and the 50 million people who don’t have insurance you will have over half the people in the country. Again as stated earlier the government will claim it will save the people money if all the programs are combined into one Federal program and it will be funded through the Medicare fund and a tax on the wealthy. I know there are people out there that don’t believe this but give it 20 years and see where we’re at. The Ted Kennedy national health plan would be a good name.
Amy Paddock December 19, 2012 at 01:26 PM
He stated it many times, CBO also calculated that way. Are you implying that the President would say this, then have the IRS calculate it differently without, somehow everyone knowing about it? In addition, our tax system is calculated as such. All tax rates are applied in that way. If the negotiations do not go well with the GOP, I expect all of the tax rates may go back to the original amounts before the temporary tax cuts were made. The income amounts were: $200,000 for single, and $250,000 for married.
Jim Flaherty December 19, 2012 at 01:41 PM
Amy, I have heard the President say he wants to raise taxes on people that make over $250,000 many times but I have never heard him say that the tax increase would only be on the amount over $250,000. What has he said V what your interpretation of what he said?
Susan December 19, 2012 at 01:47 PM
I disagree. If they are 'getting back' $35 per $100 in the form of a tax credit, I think that's a pretty good motivator to have the government "pay" 35% of their personal donation.
Smokin' Joe December 19, 2012 at 02:13 PM
Some yes, some no, as with anything else, people have different motivations for their decisions. I'd prefer dropping the deduction entirely. There's no reason for anyone else to subsidize my donations or for me to subsidize theirs.
Markus December 19, 2012 at 02:55 PM
Donald wrote: "I recommend a wonderful book - Money - by John K. Galbraith" I just ordered it. One of the reviews stated it was written by an "old school Keynesian". I expect to bristle a little when I read it, (kinda like when I read Joyce's articulate but decidedly egalitarian nonsense) but it sounds entertaining at the very least.
Susan December 19, 2012 at 03:30 PM
I'm torn on this issue, Joe. When I came up with my imaginary tax plan a while ago, I said absolutely no deductions. Then I was talked into it for children as dependents and charities because I think the deduction does promote charitable giving. I just don't know on this one, which is why I make the personal choice not to take the deduction. As long as we have our complex and asinine tax system, it doesn't make much of a difference to talk about one specific deduction.
Joyce December 19, 2012 at 03:56 PM
Jim Flaherty asked: "When Did the President say that his proposed tax increase was only for the portion if income over $250,000.00. For all we know the increase is for the entire amount. You can believe the increase is only for the overage but that has never been said. Do we believe what the president has said or what we think he means." Are you not familiar with the concept of marginal tax rates, Jim? http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/07/when-250000-isnt-actually-250000-2/
Susan December 19, 2012 at 04:00 PM
Nck and Markus have found this, but wondering if everyone else has...not sure if this one is on everyone's homepage... http://stillwater.patch.com/articles/newtown-school-shooting-mccollum-urges-immediate-congressional-action-to-end-epidemic-of-gun-violence#
Joyce December 19, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Jim Flaherty wrote: 'Start by making it cheaper for the people to get into a government health plan them a private plan. Then when there are more people in the government plan then not in a government plan eliminate the non-government plan.' What government plan? There is no "public option" in the ACA, and there is no option to buy into Medicare before you are old enough. That leaves Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the indigent and disabled (and you have to be truly indigent to qualify) plus the VA and the military health care system, both of which restrict access. Even health insurance for members of Congress and other federal employees is covered by private companies.
Jim Flaherty December 19, 2012 at 07:11 PM
Why yes I am Joyce. But when and where did Obama say it would be an increase in the marginal tax rates. He has said he wants to raise taxes on people that make more than 250K; he did not say he wanted to change the marginal tax rates just make people that make 250K pay more. And I’m sure the Times would report the whole truth.
Jim Flaherty December 19, 2012 at 07:12 PM
Not yet. But give it time.
Donald Lee December 19, 2012 at 07:44 PM
You'll probably hate the political allusions, and the conclusions he draws, as well as the policy prescriptions scattered throughout the book, but the history and the writing are absolutely not to be missed. I particularly like the history, which boils down to the story of the utter, complete, and total failure of economists and central bankers to "manage" economies throughout history. That Galbraith is an unrepentant lefty makes it even more entertaining.
Susan December 19, 2012 at 08:56 PM
Well Donald, with this last comment, you've made me want to read it! Actually, I had already put it on my list. :-) We may disagree, but I'm always interested in good, clear information, no matter what 'side' it's from. Well, unless its a philosophy or position based solely on religious ideology, then it's probably not for me. So, thanks for the recommendation.
Amy Paddock December 20, 2012 at 12:33 AM
Jim, your last question you asked me if I heard the President say he didn't want to allow the tax cuts to expire on those making lower then the 200/250 income threshold. He has said he did not want that to happen at this time, and has said it more then once. He wanted the cut off at 200/250 thousand per year. To answer your question more fully: The President does help negotiate and try to set policy, but saying that he wants to, then having an agreement - it still goes through congress. In addition, the tax code that includes rates for each income margin, even without resetting them, means there are cut off of rates at those thresholds. I am not sure if you are asking this, but it seems that you are asking if even if this passes, how do we know that is really happening, or that it won't change? Everything is will be on the bill that goes through congress, and even if something changes - you will usually know if you are paying attention. So: Answer - tax codes play a role in that cut off threshold, and how taxe rates are applied, as well as what congress does. Right now, it's a plain and simple cut off threshold on income on rates. Will this change? Well, if you are watching what is happening - it may be the case.
Amy Paddock December 20, 2012 at 12:45 AM
I heard and participated in some very interesting conversation today about the incidents of mass shooting and guns to day from Vets. Men who served. It was nice to hear their point of view, but pov's went beyond what was being discussed on TV or in other venues. None of it had anything to do with them saying what political party they supported. I have to say I was surprised.
Joyce December 20, 2012 at 04:09 PM
Jim Flaherty asked: 'But when and where did Obama say it would be an increase in the marginal tax rates[?]' It's not may fault you haven't been paying attention, Jim.
Smokin' Joe December 21, 2012 at 12:26 AM
Let the redefinining begin. With regard to the proposed tax hikes on Medicare benefits for the "wealthy": "I think wealth is in the eye of the beholder," said Tricia Neuman, a Medicare expert with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. "This premium affects people with incomes starting at $85,000, but in the discussion over taxes $85,000 is not generally considered high income."
Jim Flaherty December 21, 2012 at 02:07 AM
In other words Joyce YOU DON’T KNOW, But you think that is what is being purposed and that is good enough for you.
Edward Smith December 21, 2012 at 03:02 AM
Jim - the President's exact plan is here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf The relevant part is on page 201: Reinstate the 36-percent and 39.6-percent rates for upper-income taxpayers.—EGTRRA split the 15-percent statutory individual income tax rate bracket of prior law into two tax rate brackets of 10 and 15 percent, and replaced the four remaining statutory individual income tax rate brackets of 28, 31, 36 and 39.6 percent with statutory tax rate brackets of 25, 28, 33, and 35 percent. These tax rate brackets provided in EGTRRA, which were scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010, were extended through December 31, 2012, under the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The Administration’s adjusted baseline assumes that these tax rate changes are made permanent. The Administration proposes to replace part of the 33-percent tax rate bracket and all of the 35-percent tax rate bracket with the prior law tax rate brackets of 36 and 39.6 percent. These rate increases would apply to married taxpayers filing a joint return with income over $250,000 (at 2009 levels) and to single taxpayers with income over $200,000 (at 2009 levels).
Susan December 21, 2012 at 07:07 PM
I have a quick question for the Republicans. I understand you may not want to get into the gun debate, and I won't argue with you, I am sincerely interested your thoughts on this one item. I just saw a couple pieces (not all) of the NRA statement today. Apparently their suggestion is that the government approve funds for armed guards at every school. I did a couple quick searches and calculations. With almost 100,000 public schools, it would cost nearly $4 billion a year (at $40,000/year for salary - this is no more than a guess) to implement. Thoughts? Thanks.
Smokin' Joe December 21, 2012 at 07:53 PM
I'm not particularly a Republican but I'll give you some thoughts. We pay dearly for our existing police forces. Part of what we pay for is their expertise in threat assessment. Hopefully they know more than our politicians or the lobbyists from the NRA. If our local police force in conjunction with the Sherrif's Department, the State Patrol, the Park Police, the DNR, the Metro Transit Police, and the FBI believe there to be a reason for an armed guard at a school it would be under their purview to staff that position. Your figure may be a bit high as some schools already have done this, and it's not a full-time positon. District 196 already has policemen in the high schools, although I'd suspect that's more to keep order than to guard against outside threats. After seeing the disaster that the TSA has evolved into there's no way we want yet another agency involved.
Susan December 21, 2012 at 08:03 PM
Thanks Joe. Yeah, I thought about it after I posted the comment, and I would like to hear from anyone willing to answer...doesn't matter what party, or anything in between.
Randy Marsh December 21, 2012 at 08:11 PM
It's an absurd suggestions, nearly as ridiculous as their constant whining about a waiting period for certain weapons purchases being a violation of the second amendment. Also, don't forget to add another 20 percent to your estimate for benefits. After what happened to that poor officer in Cold Spring, I don't think the rent-a-cop option is a very good idea.
Susan December 22, 2012 at 03:43 PM
Amy, why did you delete?
Amy Paddock December 22, 2012 at 04:37 PM
Susan, I actually meant to correct what I wrote, but got distracted by something else, then finally went to bed. Been feeling sick really & suddenly became extremely tired. Anyway, I assume it is still there via email notification. I do think that right now everyone needs to feel protected. If we spend a little more on some security at our schools right now, under the circumstances, that is reasonably justified. Having every school armed as suggested, and long term b/c of this isn't reasonable - not the way NRA says so either. I am still very annoyed about how they responded. Pretty arrogant in my opinion. I don't want to take everyone's right away to have guns for hunting, or for protection. I am getting a little tired of the crazy "right to bear arms" arguments - that goes overboard too. That discussion I encountered with the Vets the other day, really put more light to the thoughts on this as well. They were talking abt some of these people who have those type of weapons, and hyper romatic attitudes about them, have no idea of what could go wrong. In the end, my mind and heart are with those who lost their children and loved ones.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something