The stock market is not our biggest problem.  If the economic powers act in concert, this crisis can be overcome and the stock market will revive (though perhaps not to the heights of last year for some time).

From DeLong today.

The first good thing about this situation is that it does not call for different central banks and Treasuries to do different things, but rather for them all to do the same thing in unison without fouling each other's oars.

In an ideal world, Richard Cheney would resign, George W. Bush would appoint Barack Obama vice president, George W. Bush would then resign, and President Barack Obama would recall the congress to set it to work. We don't live in an ideal world. In a less-ideal world, this would happen on November 5. I don't think we live in a less-ideal world. But we should do what we can.

I think we'll get a big rally when Obama wins.

The global market economy continues to evade all our attempts to make it foolproof--in large part because our greater fools are so ingenious. But there is not yet any requirement that this global economic downturn reach the magnitude of 1982, or even 1975.

We are near the bottom of the panic now (or so I hope).

Most of the big things he wants to do costs money.  Lots of it.

The govt has just taken on huge obligations.  And, as of today, it hasn't worked.  Which means it probably will get worse.   Which means more govt obligations.

Tax Revenues will dive.  There will be a huge drop in capital gains at any rate for  long time. Unemployment will increase dramatically.  Spending by all will contract.  All this means lots less tax revenues.

Same for municipalities.  They will be hurting.  

Less money means govt will have to downsize or be realistic along with everyone else at many levels.

If you believe the "rich" hold all the financial assets, then they have just been crushed.  Raising taxes on the upper 5% next year IMHO would be a big mistake at this point.  That would make things worse.  Risk is a 4 letter word right now.  We will want people who have the means to do so to take risk and do things that create jobs and stimulate the hoped for recovery.  High tax rates, removal of the caps on Soc Security et al is not the way to do that right now.   If interest rates and tax rates increase, muni bonds will start to look awfully attractive to many.  Why should one take risks, especially if the upside is cut way back?  That does not create new jobs and growth.

The elderly have been crushed.  With the disappearance of defined benefit plans and the reliance on defined contribution and individual plans, many with no hope of earning it back are in a deep hole.  Many were in far riskier positions than they should have been because of low interest rates.  Losses become permanent when you need to deplete your portfolio to live on.

I think Obama knows this.  I hope he focuses on "fixing" the economy for the first year or two.  Then he can move onto the wish list.  Done right, he'll have a strong presidency which will bode well for democrats the long term.  I do not think plans made on the assumption of a strong economy should be forced upon a very very weak one.   It's not a flip-flop when you change because circumstances have changed so dramatically.  Even though this means many promises will not be kept, I hope the left lets him do so.  

Maybe its just not in Bush's DNA to be the leader who is cool and collected.  His administration has been based on exploiting fear, so, maybe, asking him to do a 360 is too much to ask.  

"And late Thursday, a federal judge ordered Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner to verify the identity of newly registered voters by matching them with information in databases maintained by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles or the Social Security Administration.

1.  Obama (and hopefully democrats with him) should win by a landslide rather than just eking out a win.

2.  Things will improve under Obama since they've gotten so bad, so he and democrats generally are more likely to win 4 years from now too.

He's been more focussed on the direct equity injection in troubled banks.  

Now we hear folks insisting that although the 2004 election was indeed stolen, the way to win this one is to send so many people to the polls that any dirty tricks will be overwhelmed by the wave of electoral support for Obama/Biden.

Whoa!  Hold the phone!  For years, we've been telling these guys that the election was indeed stolen, and we've been ridiculed and ignored.  Now, all of a sudden they're admitting it as if everyone already knew it?

Win by numbers and never mind the dirty tricks? Heh.  I've got NEWS for them:  That's exactly what they said in 2004 when we warned them of the election stealers' dirty trick then! Yep, we knew about them in 2004.  We've been studying them since about November, 2000.

And....WHO won in 2004?  Think about it.

You cannot count on sheer numbers to win the presidency for Obama.  Voter purges, voter challenges, funny voting machines and vote totals that are made in secret by Republican-supporting companies, chains of custody of ballots and machines that would be utterly shameful if used for evidence in any trial, tricks of the ballot design, tricks of reporting, and scare tactics to keep voters home--- long, long lines, not enough machines, breakdowns, absentee and provisional ballots that aren't even counted---that combined with blatant lies designed to intimidate would-be voters and suppress the vote, and label one party as engaging in voter fraud---

To blithely say that our sheer numbers will outweigh all of these (and more) ill-begotten schemes is either terribly naive or deliberately misleading.

Do NOT vote the straight Democratic party ticket!

A couple of states have separated the presidential race from the straight party ticket, which could cause some people to forget to vote for President.

With plenty of other states, the software is questionable and your vote may not be properly recorded.