- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I didn't ignore what you said. I'm pointing out why it doesn't mean what you think it means.
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
AP-GfK Poll: Most expect GOP victory in November
- Thread starter American
- Start date
I didn't ignore what you said. I'm pointing out why it doesn't mean what you think it means.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That is crap. Part time jobs are not enough to live on
75 Percent Of Jobs Created This Year Were Part-Time Due To Weak Economy, Obamacare Concerns
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,676
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Well, lets play devil's advocate and put our critical thinking cap on, because "they're dumb" just isn't a realistic and reasonable answer to your query.
Jobs ---> There's been improvement over the past 6 years in unemployment numbers during Obama's term. At the same time, those numbers have still not reached what they were prior to the Economic Crisis (EC) that occured at the end of Bush/Begining of Obama's terms. So while there's been "improvement", it's still an improvement not felt by a number of Americans and thus may feel "hollow" if it's significantly pushed.
Think of it like losing $100 gambling, and then turning around and winning $70. Is it nice to win the $70? Yeah. But it doesn't change you still feel crappy that you've down $30. Its hard to get people excited about an improvement that still doesn't take them back to breaking even. Despite all the gains one could argue over the past 6 years, the reality is most polls don't show a swell of positive feelings in the public regarding jobs.
So I'd argue that it's possible that one reason they're not pushing the "improvements" in jobs is that said "improvement" isn't really being felt by many Americans and it's likely to cause a negative backlash ("Stop telling me we're doing better when I don't feel that way at all") because most people aren't comparing it aribtrarily to inaugation day 2009...but rather to the vast majority of time under the Bush Administratoin prior to the EC.
GDP ---> Again, I'd look to the fact that by and large the general sentiment of the public on our economy is very negative. Attempting to tell people "no your feeling is wrong" can often have a very negative reaction from the public. This is especially true when the way you're going about telling them they're wrong is talking about an issue that, frankly, goes over many average voters head (in terms of GDP).
Also, it's a tenuous argument to get into. Why it has been growing, it's arguably been growing at a slower pace since the momentary dip than it has at most other times of history.
Deficit ----> Again, I could see not pointing at this because it's ripe for a Republican counter and that's a bad thing when you combine the general negative outlook by voters on the economy. The deficits still have not reached the levels they were consistently at under the Bush Administration. The 2009 number is butressed in part by the Stimulus Package that is viewed as an Obama driven and pushed product. An argument that they've "improved" only compared to the artificially inflated "bad" point of 2009, and have still...after 6 years...failed to match the "norm" under the Bush Administration murkies this as a talking point.
See, here's the issue and why just immedietely going with "Because they're stupid" is well....stupid.
You're ignoring the fact that regardless of what you want to spin the facts as, how people are actually FEELING is going to impact how useful your messaging is. Also, let's be blatantly honest, the economy facts can be spun both positively and negatively right now and this ridiculous and egotistical attitude that your spin is actual truth and the other is false is ridiculous. This largely depends on how one is viewing the situation.
You, clearly, want everyone to basically forget 2000 - most of 2008 and focus on the end of 2008/2009 in terms of judging Obama. Which is a fine stand point to have, but a ridiculous one to act like it's the absolute gospel truth.
For many people in the voting population they're not going to just forget the other 7 1/2 years of Bush's administration due to the last half, and they're not going to compare Obama in their head singularly on that last 1/2 year. So regardless of how good you TELL them the past 6 years have been, it's not going to FEEL that way to them because it still feels significantly worse than prior to it.
Some will look at Obama coming into a "bad situation" and improving from such a bad spot, and for those people your suggested message would probably work.
Some will look at Obama coming into a "bad situation" and doing okay but failing to actually get us out of the bad situaiton, and for those people there's a legitimate chance your suggested message could turn them off because it either paints a picture that they're not experiencing (that he DID get us out) OR that they think is reaching (that improvement, but not fixing, over a 6 period is worthy of support). Whether or not it'll turn more people off then it would attract is the question.
Some will look at Obama coming into a "bad situation" and taking actions that made it worse leading to a slower recovery then should have happened. Those people probably won't be affected by your message.
I think just going "They're stupid" is ridiculous. I think, from a political science stand point, one could simply argue that they simply realize the arguments you're suggesting are not extremely strong and compelling counter arguments can be put forth...and that those arguments simply don't vibe with what the American people are actually feeling which could lead to a negative reaction from them if it's pushed...and thus that's why they're not trying to do it.
Essentially, they view "we've improved over the past 6 years" as similar to saying "Hey, we played a tough game and took the world champs to the wire" in a game where you lost. If the people hearing it are in the right mindset then that kind of moral victory can be good. But if they're not in the right mindset it's loser talk.
For those who weren't expecting Obama to simply "improve over the bad situation at the start", but expected him to FIX it and then actually improve things beyond that, saying "we've improved over the past 6 years" to the extent that we have is simply a moral victory...not a tangible one.
Jobs ---> There's been improvement over the past 6 years in unemployment numbers during Obama's term. At the same time, those numbers have still not reached what they were prior to the Economic Crisis (EC) that occured at the end of Bush/Begining of Obama's terms. So while there's been "improvement", it's still an improvement not felt by a number of Americans and thus may feel "hollow" if it's significantly pushed.
Think of it like losing $100 gambling, and then turning around and winning $70. Is it nice to win the $70? Yeah. But it doesn't change you still feel crappy that you've down $30. Its hard to get people excited about an improvement that still doesn't take them back to breaking even. Despite all the gains one could argue over the past 6 years, the reality is most polls don't show a swell of positive feelings in the public regarding jobs.
So I'd argue that it's possible that one reason they're not pushing the "improvements" in jobs is that said "improvement" isn't really being felt by many Americans and it's likely to cause a negative backlash ("Stop telling me we're doing better when I don't feel that way at all") because most people aren't comparing it aribtrarily to inaugation day 2009...but rather to the vast majority of time under the Bush Administratoin prior to the EC.
GDP ---> Again, I'd look to the fact that by and large the general sentiment of the public on our economy is very negative. Attempting to tell people "no your feeling is wrong" can often have a very negative reaction from the public. This is especially true when the way you're going about telling them they're wrong is talking about an issue that, frankly, goes over many average voters head (in terms of GDP).
Also, it's a tenuous argument to get into. Why it has been growing, it's arguably been growing at a slower pace since the momentary dip than it has at most other times of history.
Deficit ----> Again, I could see not pointing at this because it's ripe for a Republican counter and that's a bad thing when you combine the general negative outlook by voters on the economy. The deficits still have not reached the levels they were consistently at under the Bush Administration. The 2009 number is butressed in part by the Stimulus Package that is viewed as an Obama driven and pushed product. An argument that they've "improved" only compared to the artificially inflated "bad" point of 2009, and have still...after 6 years...failed to match the "norm" under the Bush Administration murkies this as a talking point.
See, here's the issue and why just immedietely going with "Because they're stupid" is well....stupid.
You're ignoring the fact that regardless of what you want to spin the facts as, how people are actually FEELING is going to impact how useful your messaging is. Also, let's be blatantly honest, the economy facts can be spun both positively and negatively right now and this ridiculous and egotistical attitude that your spin is actual truth and the other is false is ridiculous. This largely depends on how one is viewing the situation.
You, clearly, want everyone to basically forget 2000 - most of 2008 and focus on the end of 2008/2009 in terms of judging Obama. Which is a fine stand point to have, but a ridiculous one to act like it's the absolute gospel truth.
For many people in the voting population they're not going to just forget the other 7 1/2 years of Bush's administration due to the last half, and they're not going to compare Obama in their head singularly on that last 1/2 year. So regardless of how good you TELL them the past 6 years have been, it's not going to FEEL that way to them because it still feels significantly worse than prior to it.
Some will look at Obama coming into a "bad situation" and improving from such a bad spot, and for those people your suggested message would probably work.
Some will look at Obama coming into a "bad situation" and doing okay but failing to actually get us out of the bad situaiton, and for those people there's a legitimate chance your suggested message could turn them off because it either paints a picture that they're not experiencing (that he DID get us out) OR that they think is reaching (that improvement, but not fixing, over a 6 period is worthy of support). Whether or not it'll turn more people off then it would attract is the question.
Some will look at Obama coming into a "bad situation" and taking actions that made it worse leading to a slower recovery then should have happened. Those people probably won't be affected by your message.
I think just going "They're stupid" is ridiculous. I think, from a political science stand point, one could simply argue that they simply realize the arguments you're suggesting are not extremely strong and compelling counter arguments can be put forth...and that those arguments simply don't vibe with what the American people are actually feeling which could lead to a negative reaction from them if it's pushed...and thus that's why they're not trying to do it.
Essentially, they view "we've improved over the past 6 years" as similar to saying "Hey, we played a tough game and took the world champs to the wire" in a game where you lost. If the people hearing it are in the right mindset then that kind of moral victory can be good. But if they're not in the right mindset it's loser talk.
For those who weren't expecting Obama to simply "improve over the bad situation at the start", but expected him to FIX it and then actually improve things beyond that, saying "we've improved over the past 6 years" to the extent that we have is simply a moral victory...not a tangible one.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
It means more people than ever are not working
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Part 1 (character limits)
Winning an election is not just about warning of the evil of the other party (which both parties seem to forget sometimes). Winning an election is also about telling people how you will make it better (which was such a big part of Obama's first campaign). When you can go out and tell people you have made it significantly better and will continue to make it significantly better and can trot out statistics which support your position (regardless of how complete a story they tell), then you are giving people something definitive they can vote for. For example:
"Vote for *insert Democratic candidate here*. Since the Democrats took office, they have created more than 10 million jobs and *candidate* will continue to push policies which will bring more and better paying jobs to Americans."
At the end of the day, we both know no one is going to convince the die hard partisans. Both parties are going after people like me, people who just want improvement, regardless of which party provides it. So, instead of just telling me how bad the other person will make it (which certainly has its place, given how effective it has been historically), tell me also how what credentials you bring to the table to make it better.
Even if I'm someone who hasn't seen an improvement, if I know I'm "next in line", so to speak, then I'm willing to vote for who has shown the ability to make my life better.
I don't know, but apparently that's been the strategy of the Democrats this election year. They should have spent the last year screaming about how the economy has improved, screaming as loud as the Republicans screamed in 2009-2012 at how bad the economy was. The Democrats have not and it's going to be one of the primary reasons they will likely lose the Senate.
"10 million jobs created. GDP improvement of 7% (I'm just guestimating the lowest low to the relatively current high). Spending deficits slashed in half. Thank a Democrat".
Doesn't that sound better than "Well...if you vote Republican then you'll have gridlock because they won't vote like we do"? I certainly think so.
While you cannot undo the general belief (regardless of how inaccurate it may be) that Obama caused massive deficits, what you CAN do is show how Obama has cut the deficits in half. By showing Obama hates large deficits (given the fact he cut them in half), you can then go back and tie the original large deficits to Republicans once more. For example:
"January 10, 2009. The CBO says former President Bush has cost this country $1.2 trillion dollars in spending deficits. With President Obama in office, the CBO now says our deficit has been slashed by over 60%. Vote for *Democratic candidate* and support someone who believes in responsible spending. Don't vote for *Republican candidate* because he/she will just fight for policies we know failed under former President Bush".
The Democrats have done such a terrible job of allowing themselves to be characterized as reckless spenders, just as Republicans have done such a terrible job of allowing themselves to be characterized as the party of old rich white men. And just as the Republicans continually shot themselves in the foot by taking actions which would only allow the furthering of that belief in 2012, the Democrats have done nothing to reverse the image Republicans tagged them with. It's just dumb.
The point is the economy is ONLY being spun negatively right now and it goes against the party in power, which is currently the Democrats. And the Democrats, for their part, are running from the positives. Hence their stupidity.
Your personal attack is unjustified and a deterrent to quality debate.
But people don't care about 15 years ago. What they DO care about is what is current. So the job of the party in power should be to show how current conditions are significantly better than the conditions before they came in power.
This is pretty simple stuff.
No, it's truth.
I understand what you're saying, but I completely disagree.
Winning an election is not just about warning of the evil of the other party (which both parties seem to forget sometimes). Winning an election is also about telling people how you will make it better (which was such a big part of Obama's first campaign). When you can go out and tell people you have made it significantly better and will continue to make it significantly better and can trot out statistics which support your position (regardless of how complete a story they tell), then you are giving people something definitive they can vote for. For example:
"Vote for *insert Democratic candidate here*. Since the Democrats took office, they have created more than 10 million jobs and *candidate* will continue to push policies which will bring more and better paying jobs to Americans."
At the end of the day, we both know no one is going to convince the die hard partisans. Both parties are going after people like me, people who just want improvement, regardless of which party provides it. So, instead of just telling me how bad the other person will make it (which certainly has its place, given how effective it has been historically), tell me also how what credentials you bring to the table to make it better.
Even if I'm someone who hasn't seen an improvement, if I know I'm "next in line", so to speak, then I'm willing to vote for who has shown the ability to make my life better.
While it has significantly improved over the years, I agree with this assessment. But it's this mentality which you are trying to overcome. The sentiment that the economy is not doing well reflects poorly on the party who has had the power, which, in this case, has been the Democrats. So why would you allow people to think you've done a bad job and not do anything about it?
I don't know, but apparently that's been the strategy of the Democrats this election year. They should have spent the last year screaming about how the economy has improved, screaming as loud as the Republicans screamed in 2009-2012 at how bad the economy was. The Democrats have not and it's going to be one of the primary reasons they will likely lose the Senate.
It's not about telling people they are wrong, it's about showing them why you're right.
"10 million jobs created. GDP improvement of 7% (I'm just guestimating the lowest low to the relatively current high). Spending deficits slashed in half. Thank a Democrat".
Doesn't that sound better than "Well...if you vote Republican then you'll have gridlock because they won't vote like we do"? I certainly think so.
Which, again, the Democrats have done such a poor job of exploiting. They should have been shouting for 6 years about how the Bush Administration left this country in terrible financial conditions, leaving office with a projected $1.2 trillion deficit. And, to some extent, they have tried, but Republicans completely outmaneuvered them in getting people to believe it was Obama who caused the high deficit.
While you cannot undo the general belief (regardless of how inaccurate it may be) that Obama caused massive deficits, what you CAN do is show how Obama has cut the deficits in half. By showing Obama hates large deficits (given the fact he cut them in half), you can then go back and tie the original large deficits to Republicans once more. For example:
"January 10, 2009. The CBO says former President Bush has cost this country $1.2 trillion dollars in spending deficits. With President Obama in office, the CBO now says our deficit has been slashed by over 60%. Vote for *Democratic candidate* and support someone who believes in responsible spending. Don't vote for *Republican candidate* because he/she will just fight for policies we know failed under former President Bush".
The Democrats have done such a terrible job of allowing themselves to be characterized as reckless spenders, just as Republicans have done such a terrible job of allowing themselves to be characterized as the party of old rich white men. And just as the Republicans continually shot themselves in the foot by taking actions which would only allow the furthering of that belief in 2012, the Democrats have done nothing to reverse the image Republicans tagged them with. It's just dumb.
And you're ignoring the fact that so much of what people feel is strongly tied to the propaganda pushed by the two parties.
The only thing ridiculous is how you can call me egotistical while clearly missing the point.
The point is the economy is ONLY being spun negatively right now and it goes against the party in power, which is currently the Democrats. And the Democrats, for their part, are running from the positives. Hence their stupidity.
Your personal attack is unjustified and a deterrent to quality debate.
People don't care about 15 years ago. If they did, then Democrats should also be reminding voters of the economic boom times under Clinton, as well as the budget which was balanced under Clinton, and then show how the economy went into a dip when Bush took over in 2000 and collapsed under Bush in 2008.
But people don't care about 15 years ago. What they DO care about is what is current. So the job of the party in power should be to show how current conditions are significantly better than the conditions before they came in power.
This is pretty simple stuff.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Part 2
Seriously, this is not hard. I have a feeling you think Democrats are going to try and convince Republicans to vote for them. That would be a waste of time. Your job is not to convince those who don't want to move off what they already believe, your job is to convince those who are looking to be convinced.
That's why the Democrats should have been POUNDING the successes of the last several years. Instead of running away from the things you voted for, tell your constituents WHY you voted for them and show them how your policies have bettered America. You don't win by agreeing the other party's position is right, you win by telling the people YOU are right. Even when you are wrong, you are right.
But the Democrats haven't done that and they will likely lose the Senate. And maybe they didn't have a chance in the first place and they are playing their cards close to their vest. I don't know. But I do know they have done very little to try and convince people they are the right party to lead.
And those are the people you're trying to court, because those are the people who are undecided. Those who refuse to consider facts and will vote only on what they want to believe are not people you're going to win. Your job is to convince those who WILL listen to reason and facts.
Seriously, this is not hard. I have a feeling you think Democrats are going to try and convince Republicans to vote for them. That would be a waste of time. Your job is not to convince those who don't want to move off what they already believe, your job is to convince those who are looking to be convinced.
But we ARE out of the bad situation. If people don't believe that, then it is your job to show them. And you make clear that even if one person's particular situation hasn't gotten better, then *Democratic candidate* will fight for the policies which will make the benefits others have experienced come to you.
The problem with this thinking is that the arguments they are putting forth are not strong at all. If I have a Republican candidate telling me that the Democratic candidate will continue Obama's policies (which has been a consistent theme this year) and a Democratic candidate who tells me the Republican candidate will "just make things worse"...why incentive do I have to vote for the Democrat? If I'm predispositioned to believe voting for Obama's policies is bad, or if I see Democrats running away from Obama's policies they voted for (seriously, how stupid can you be to run from the policies you vote for...asinine logic), then what choice do I have but to vote for Republicans if I want things to get better?
That's why the Democrats should have been POUNDING the successes of the last several years. Instead of running away from the things you voted for, tell your constituents WHY you voted for them and show them how your policies have bettered America. You don't win by agreeing the other party's position is right, you win by telling the people YOU are right. Even when you are wrong, you are right.
But the Democrats haven't done that and they will likely lose the Senate. And maybe they didn't have a chance in the first place and they are playing their cards close to their vest. I don't know. But I do know they have done very little to try and convince people they are the right party to lead.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,676
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I'm sorry, but you demonstrate your issue again....your over valuation of your own opinion as objective fact.
"Significantly" better is not an objective term, it's a subjective term. What you view as "significant" may not be "significant" to another. A family that is still feeling the effects of the economic crisis, and who still do not feel they are on as stable of ground as they were during the Bush years, may not feel that it has been made "significantly" better over the past 6 years.
And if you're trying to throw out statistics that support your position, but your position and those statistics runs counter to what they're actually experiencing or feeling, then you create the possability of actually allienating their vote rather than gaining it because you're basically telling them "You're wrong, you're doing fine regardless of how you feel".
I'm not saying your argument or your example is a bad one. It's not. I'm saying there's definitely reasons one can come up with other than "They're dumb". Just because YOU think it'd be an effective campaign message doesn't mean it would be given the state of the psyche of the voters.
Again, I'm not saying your preference for them screaming about the economy being improved is bad or wrong. What I'm arguing against is your assertion that the ONLY reason why they wouldn't do such a thing is because "they're stupid".
There's a legitimate chance that, given the legitimate argument that the improvement is actually extermely lagging and still hasn't gotten back to where it was during the majority of the Bush years...mixed with the general maliase in the country towards the economy...that Democrats simply didn't feel that the benefit that could be reaped from pumping up the improvements they have done would equate to the amount of time, money, and focus they'd need to expend to do such.
That's a calculated risk of political campaigning, not simply "Being stupid".
It does, in an absolute vacuum not taking into account the way voters view those comments and the things relating to them at the moment along with not taking into account the Republican counter.
I'm going to go ahead and cut out all the rest of your post because by and large all it is is political spin of taking statistics, applying your world view to those statistics, and putting forth campaign suggestions based on that.
Which is fine (as long as you stop acting like your world view, your spin on the facts, and your opinion of those things together are somehow absolute objective truth)...but doesn't really address my argument.
My argument was not that your suggested campaigning ideas are inherently bad.
My argument was that there are legitimate reasons that could potentially have given the Democratic Party pause on attempting to use that as the primary message of their campaign this year other than being "stupid". Going on and on about how they could campaign this way or that way doesn't counter or change anything I said; it simply is you saying that, in your opinion, these other ways would be BETTER. Which is fine, but just because YOU think they would be better doesn't mean the only reason they'd disagree with your assertion and go a different direction is because they're dumb.
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,676
- Reaction score
- 35,460
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Again, this highlights your problem and why you're appear to be so narrow minded in your thinking of why Democrats are not going the way you're saying.
Let me make it clear, one more time.
Your opinion on subjective things is not objective truth
Whether or not we're "out of the bad situation" greatly depends on how one is defining the "bad situation" and how one is defining "out" of it. It's entirely as reasonable to say we're not out of the bad situation as it is to say we have gotten out; it's a matter of perspective and the context of what that phrase is referring to.
You can't figure out any other explanation for how the Democrats are acting now other than claiming they're stupid because you're...for some reason...blindly believing your opinion on things are facts that everyone just must naturally be operating under.
It's not.
I happen to agree with you that the Democrats would be better off right now trying to hype Democratic accomplishments in the economy (despite, personally, not feeling like they've been substantial or anything worth significantly giving a vote of confidence towards) then simply going with a "they'll make it worse" mentality. In general I'm of the political school of thought that says putting forth a positive message of why people should vote for you, rather than a negative message of why you shouldn't vote for the other guy, is better.
But I'm not so naive and egotistical to think that anyone who doesn't share that point of view must be basing their decisions on the fact that they're stupid.
There's plenty within the realm of politics who believe that negativity towards ones opponent, that villifying the opposition and using fear as a motivator, is a good tactic. And there's plenty of evidence with various races showing that such a tactic has suceeded. There's plenty of reason to think that you don't run on the economy when the country generally feels, right or wrongly, that you've done bad on the economy. Ditto in terms of job growth. While you may disagree with these kind of strategic decisions it doesn't mean the only reasons to think that way is because of stupidity.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
All you know is democrat talking points that are mostly deceptions and lies. Your partisanship is well seen
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
No, I'm not stating my opinion as objective fact, I'm stating objective facts and saying they should be used to the Democrats advantage in the election season.
I'm not sure where your confusion lies, but I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.
I'M not saying the economy is significantly better (though it is)...I'm saying the political party tells people it is significantly better and then uses the objective facts to show why it is significantly better.
I get the feeling you, on some level, believe I'm trying to debate the economy. I'm not. I'm debating campaign strategy. Maybe that helps a little?
Which is why you show them the economy HAS gotten better and the policies which have benefited others will come to them, if you just keep doing the things which have already shown themselves to have worked. And then, when you get to the negative portion of campaigning, you remind them it was under the Republican President which their hardships originated.
Your successes. Their failures. That's how you win an election. You don't win an elections solely by going around claiming "But...but...they have flaws too! And they won't vote like us!"
Which is why you explain to them how your policies work and they will work for those who have yet to recover next. Because, make no mistake about it, Republicans are going to advertise that Democrats are the reason those who are still suffering are suffering. It's not like you can ignore it and it will go away.
I understand that. But there are just some simple rules in life when it comes to winning an argument (which, essentially, is all a campaign is) and none of them are ever "Yes, I did vote for that but I don't want you to know it". And it certainly isn't "Yes, my opponent is right, but please vote for me anyways".
I get what you're saying, but I do not agree it is anything but poor strategy to not run on the successes you can claim. If you are the party in power and you cannot tell people why it is a good thing you are the party in power, then it doesn't speak well for your abilities in leadership.
But if you campaign around a fear of trumpeting your accomplishments, then I just don't see how you can ever win. There are times to "not rock the boat", but when you're the party in power and coming up on an election which historically bodes poorly for the party in power, it seems to me the last thing you should do is play not to lose.
But that's how I feel the Democrats have played this election. To borrow a sports phrase, they are not playing to win, they are playing not to lose.
The problem with the counter you keep mentioning is that I'm think there is an EFFECTIVE counter. There always exists a fine line between over simplified and too detailed and you have to be able to fit between them. If I say, "More jobs, better economy, more civil rights...vote us in and we'll make sure everyone benefits", then the counter, regardless of how accurate, can only be clumsy.
Look at the counters just provided in this thread. Ignoring for a moment those who tried to say the numbers are falsified (which would be a terrible argument in anyone's eyes who is not a blind partisan), most of the counters have been "The labor force participation has lowered" and "it's not as good as it was under the Republicans before the Republicans screwed it up". Both of those are clumsy counters (labor force is too detailed and the other sinks you before you start) and when you combine that with the fact the Republicans POUNDED the poor economy in the last election cycle, if you can show that having faith in the Democrats has caused things to continue to get better, that the policies Republicans denounced truly have worked for 10 million people, then it puts Republicans in quite a pickle.
Again, this is not about my personal belief regarding the economy, but rather campaign strategy.
Your argument, as I understand it, is that there could be legitimate reasons to not wanting people to know when you have successes (obviously I'm paraphrasing and parsing in a different way to illustrate how I see what you are really saying). In an election which historically goes poorly for the party in power, it makes no sense to me to not let people know when you did a good job.
The Democrats will likely lose the Senate and maybe some seats in the House. This was mostly expected the moment Obama won re-election. But aside from not wanting to rock the boat in order to prepare for the 2016 election, I don't see a good reason to run from the good things which have happened when you were in charge. It seems to me that, if you are in charge and want to stay in charge, then you give people a reason to want you to be in charge. And yes, I think it's dumb to run from giving people a reason to want you in charge.
How extreme does a person have to be on the political spectrum to think criticizing a political party means they are biased for that party?
I'm not using anyone's talking points. I'm using facts. I'm sorry if you want to pretend they aren't, but the facts are facts.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
But at the same time, more people than ever ARE working.
We have more people than ever.
We do not, though, have more people than ever unsuccessfully trying to find work.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You are using Obama talking points that are lies and deceptions. You are a partisan hack trying to act like you are intelligent
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Show proof
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
How is that possible? Unemployment is not proof when people that stop looking are not counted and that is why the rate falls not because people get jobs
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
How is what possible?
Not proof of what?
The UE rate is unemployed/(employed plus unemployed) so either scenario would cause the rate to go down.
not sure of your point, here.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Unemplyment is not proof of the real unemployment since it does not include those that gave up looking. I showed a link that showed labor participation during bush was higher so how can their be mor working now? Population has not increased that much in 5 years
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
I'm using statistics. You do understand what those are, correct?
I'm a partisan hack by using official statistics and criticizing the party to whom you say I'm loyal?
You make absolutely no sense. I'm sorry if you have trouble understanding things like math and statistics, but using facts/stats does not make someone a partisan hack. Ironically, criticizing someone for using statistics put out by a government agency by calling the agency untrustworthy while simultaneously using stats from the SAME government agency to call someone a hack DOES make a person partisan hack. In other words (don't worry, I'll break it down in simpler terms for you) cherry picking which numbers one believes are credible (despite coming from the same source) based solely upon whether they support your political party, makes one a partisan hack.
Those who are discouraged has dropped by nearly half in the last 4 years.
http://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpsatab16.htm
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Huh? Unemployed has always been defined as someone not working but looking for work. Retirees, full time students, stay home spouses, disabled, etc have never been considered unemployed because they're not trying to work. You can't just redefine what unemployed means and declare it the "real" definition.
But it's gone up by a larger percent than employment has and a larger percent than the labor force has. Shall we do the math?
January 2009:
Population= 234,739,000
Employed + Unemployed = Labor Force = 154,210,000
Labor Force/Population = Labor Force Participation = 65.7%
Employed= 142,152,000
Employed/Population = Employment-Population ratio = 60.6%
Unemployed= 12,058,000
Unemployed/Labor Force = Unemployment rate = 7.8%
Not in the Labor Force = 80,529,000
September 2014:
Population= 248,446,000
Employed + Unemployed = Labor Force = 155,862,000
Labor Force/Population = Labor Force Participation = 62.7%
Employed= 146,600,000
Employed/Population = Employment-Population ratio = 59%
Unemployed= 9,262,000
Unemployed/Labor Force = Unemployment rate = 5.9%
Not in the Labor Force = 92,584,000
So Population has gone up 5.8%. Employment has gone up 3.1% Unemployment has dropped 23.2% and the labor force has gone up 1.1%
So, since population has gone up more than the labor force and employment, the labor force participation rate and the employment-population ratio have both dropped.
And because unemployment has dropped and the labor force has gone up, then the UE rate has gone down.
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I forgot to give my source: Table A-1. Employment status of the civilian population by sex and age using seasonally adjusted data for everything except population.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
You are using democrat talking points
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Unemployment has gone down because people are no longer looking not because they got jobs
Big Downside to April Jobs Report | Fox Business
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 7,301
- Reaction score
- 3,402
- Location
- Northern Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Sort of. People leave the labor force for many many reasons: family issues, going to school, retirement, transportation issues, injury/illness/pregnancy, stay home with kids, etc.
So yes, people who stop looking will cause unemployed to go down faster than the overall labor force, but that doesn't, by itself, mean anything bad. The UE rate is just supposed to measure the unused supply of labor. People not trying to work are not a supply of labor.
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
You're not even trying anymore to support your ridiculous claims.
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2009
- Messages
- 13,156
- Reaction score
- 1,038
- Location
- melbourne florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
That is crap. The reason is there are no jobs that you can support a family on. When 70% of the jobs created are part time that does not help