Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
No, that's not a rhetorical question, I genuinely want to know why you keep bringing up something I never said.
Furthermore, as I've already said, referencing a declining labor participation rate without investigating WHY the rate is declining is pointless. It's a well known fact a significant portion of those who are leaving the labor force are doing so due to retirement.
You could not be more wrong. I am 100% correct in everything I said.
Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
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.
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.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
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.
GDPWhile 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?---> Again, I'd look to the fact that by and large the general sentiment of the public on our economy is very negative.
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.Attempting to tell people "no your feeling is wrong" can often have a very negative reaction from the public.
"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.
DeficitWhich, 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.----> 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.
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.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.
The only thing ridiculous is how you can call me egotistical while clearly missing the point.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.
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.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.
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.