Speaking of signage, here in a well-off North Shore of Long Island town, I’d say the signs are probably 60/40 Obama/McCain. But I also agree that in sheer numbers there are very few. In fact, many houses have signs out front for the local races, judges, etc., but without a Presidential sign in the mix. I don’t recall that ever happening before.

One thing I do know is that socially, having a McCain/Palin sign would be a stigma and open you to “friendly” abuse. Democrats are always more willing to chastize Republicans than the other way around, and in New York, even in the suburbs, Bush has been a social embarassment. It takes a very brave person to admit voting for W. People would definitely be more hesitant to make their McCain support public, so maybe that makes the real mix closer to 50/50. I don’t know.

But I agree with John Work that you saw far more Bush/Kerry signs out in 2004. Are the campaigns just not putting the money into signs? (Though it’s hard to believe the Obama camp lacks the money for anything.) Or are people afraid to voice their opinions?

Or, since this is New York, an Obama victory is a given, so maybe the O camp figures “why bother, it’s in the bag,” and the McCain camp figures, “why bother, we’ll never win the state.” But then a Kerry victory was a given too and you saw a lot of Bush signs.

Strange times.

On the subject of O’s “electability,” I’ll say again what I said on a thread some time ago. What if after he wins the election someone finds definitive proof that he wasn’t eligible? Does it go to Biden? And do the streets go up in flames?

The (dis)honorable Judge Surrick, by the way, is a Clinton appointee. Shocking that.