Part 1 (character limits)
No, it's truth.
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.
...
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.
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.
---> Again, I'd look to the fact that by and large the general sentiment of the public on our economy is very negative.
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.
Attempting to tell people "no your feeling is wrong" can often have a very negative reaction from the public.
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.
----> 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.
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.
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.
And you're ignoring the fact that so much of what people feel is strongly tied to the propaganda pushed by the two parties.
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 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.
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.
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.