# Let's discuss the Democratic Convention! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 27, 2004, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036 "2004-07-27T02:43:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/61 "2004-07-28T16:37:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Simply put, not many Pubs would vote for a Black Democratic candidate, but LOTS of Dems would vote for a Black Republican candidate. Wow, with one sweeping statement, you have branded Republicans as shallow, and Democrats as stupid. Thank goodness most voters are far more perceptive than you give them credit for. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/62 "2004-07-28T18:07:17Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I think the first Black President will almost certainly be a Republican. Simply put, not many Pubs would vote for a Black Democratic candidate, but LOTS of Dems would vote for a Black Republican candidate. Do you honestly think the Democrats wouldn’t put up a black candidate at the same time the Republicans do? ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/63 "2004-07-28T19:09:06Z")
Channel 5 in Boston did a pretty good job. What was fascinating to me…the convention is pretty meaningless…what is REALLY important are the after-hours, $5000 a plate PRIVATE parties (press NOT invited). This is where the REAL action is…where the party hacks figure out who will get the plum jobs in the new administration. The FOX reporters tried to get in to one such party (held at the state house) they were told (and not very politely) to screw! The convention is all about resurrecting the political dead (Carter, kennedy, etc.) it has no significance anymore…the platform they vote on is ignored as soon as the new administration starts, and the candidates are already picked. $100 million for this?? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/64 "2004-07-28T22:40:47Z")
> [@Eva Luna](#): > > And boy, the feeling that all the speakers were desperately trying to get themselves psyched up enough to get other people to vote for Kerry was almost palpable. Whatever his stands on the issues may be, he has all the charisma of a wet noodle. Which puts him on an exactly equal footing with Bush. But it’s their running mates who tip the balance: Bush and Kerry have zero charisma. Edwards has positive charisma. Cheney has **negative** charisma – it’s hard even to look at him, let alone listen to him, without feeling one’s flesh crawl. I can’t wait for the Edwards-Cheney debate. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/65 "2004-07-28T22:56:05Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Which puts him on an exactly equal footing with Bush. But it’s their running mates who tip the balance: Bush and Kerry have zero charisma. Edwards has positive charisma. Cheney has negative charisma – it’s hard even to look at him, let alone listen to him, without feeling one’s flesh crawl. I can’t wait for the Edwards-Cheney debate. Totally disagree with you here BG, and I think your prejudices are blinding you. I don’t personally like Bush either, but the man has charisma, loads of it. Its the ‘good ole boy’ variety, and it strikes a VERY distinct cord with people. Basically he doesn’t ACT like a politician and comes across as ‘every man’, even if patently he isn’t. Cheney has zero charisma, true enough, and Edwards oozes charisma, again, true enough, but unfortunately Kerry is flat. Thats why I keep saying the smartest thing for him to do is to let others carry the water and do the heavy lifting and just kick back and look ‘presidential’. If he keeps his mouth mainly shut I think he’s got a very good chance of being the next president, gods help us all. For me this is a devil and the deep blue sea situation…oh well, I’m sure the nation will weather it reguardless of who wins. I HOPE there is a debate…it will be intersting to see if there is one. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/46a35a/32.png) [@Live\_Better\_Electrically](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Live_Better_Electrically)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/66 "2004-07-28T23:21:50Z")
Obama was electrifying! It seems like everyone has been talking about him today. The new [Get Your War On](http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war38.html) mentions him, too. I thought Dean’s speech was disappointing, but he’s had some funny moments at other times throughout the convention. Not a bad show, overall. I’m looking forward to Edwards tonight. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 28, 2004, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/67 "2004-07-28T23:40:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I HOPE there is a debate…it will be intersting to see if there is one. Four debates have been scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates ([http://www.debates.org/](http://www.debates.org/)): First presidential debate: Thursday, September 30, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. Vice presidential debate: Tuesday, October 5, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. Second presidential debate: Friday, October 8, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. Third presidential debate: Wednesday, October 13, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/68 "2004-07-29T01:54:45Z")
> [@Munch](#): > > Do you honestly think the Democrats wouldn’t put up a black candidate at the same time the Republicans do? Barack Obama vs. Colin Powell! ---
**Author:** ![thermalribbon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@thermalribbon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thermalribbon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/69 "2004-07-29T02:40:41Z")
Well, Edwards just promised to raise the minimum wage. Despite well-known and well-founded economic theory that states that raising the minimum wage only creates additional competition for the lowest paying wages, they are proposing raising the MW in exchange for votes. If that isn’t the most priceless thing I’ve heard. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/70 "2004-07-29T03:08:46Z")
> [@thermalribbon](#): > > Despite well-known and well-founded economic theory that states that raising the minimum wage only creates additional competition for the lowest paying wages . . . . Cite? ---
**Author:** ![thermalribbon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@thermalribbon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thermalribbon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/71 "2004-07-29T03:20:59Z")
I didn’t think that this was the type of issue that needed a cite. Kinda like asking for cite for someone stating that the sky is blue. But perhaps this is convincing. [Basically confirms that minimum wage laws are, at best, ineffective, and at worst, harmful](http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/14/) ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/72 "2004-07-29T03:23:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Four debates have been scheduled by the Commission on Presidential Debates ([http://www.debates.org/](http://www.debates.org/)): > > First presidential debate: Thursday, September 30, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL. > > Vice presidential debate: Tuesday, October 5, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH. > > Second presidential debate: Friday, October 8, Washington University, St. Louis, MO. > > Third presidential debate: Wednesday, October 13, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Actually, I meant it more in “I hope there will be an INTERESTING debate”…i.e. I hope there will be a debate, no just a lot of political posturing and bullshit. I’ve been following the convention as much as possible and it seems that the Democrats are really trying to position themselves as moderates. They are really avoiding anything that smacks of ‘liberalism’, and even trying to portray themselves as the ‘military’ party (with the flag level officers they trotted out, as well as several references to military topics). I’m just wondering if they are being a touch dishonest in courting the center and staying away from the left. Same way the Republicans try and court the center and stay away from the right I suppose…it just seems kind of blatant to me this year I guess. In years past I remember a lot more left leaning topics and speeches I guess. BTW, I think the strategy of not directly bashing (or even really mentioning) the current administration is a master stroke…its really setting off a contrast with the current ads running by Bush. I wonder if the Republicans will be smart and do the same thing at their convention? -XT ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/73 "2004-07-29T03:24:33Z")
Mark Shields and David Brooks said Edwards didn’t bring his A-game tonight. Whatever - that was one damned fine speech, even if he’s done it better on other nights. His A-game must be quite something! ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/74 "2004-07-29T03:32:47Z")
> [@thermalribbon](#): > > they are proposing raising the MW in exchange for votes. If that isn’t the most priceless thing I’ve heard. No, that would be the second most priceless thing; the first is promising tax cuts for votes. Gored oxen, you know. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/75 "2004-07-29T03:56:55Z")
> [@thermalribbon](#): > > I didn’t think that this was the type of issue that needed a cite. Kinda like asking for cite for someone stating that the sky is blue. > > But perhaps this is convincing. [Basically confirms that minimum wage laws are, at best, ineffective, and at worst, harmful](http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/14/) You have cites, I have cites. Check out this one from the Economic Policy Institute: [http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides\_minwage\_minwagefacts](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts) > [@](#): > > **A minimum wage increase would help reverse the trend of declining real wages for low-wage workers.** > > Between 1979 and 1989, the minimum wage lost 31% of its real value. By contrast, between 1989 and 1997 (the year of the most recent increase), the minimum wage was raised four times and recovered about one-third of the value it lost in the 1980s. > > Wage inequality has been increasing, in part, because of the declining real value of the minimum wage. Today, the minimum wage is 33% of the average hourly wage of American workers, the lowest level since 1949. > > **A minimum wage increase is part of a broad strategy to end poverty.** > > As welfare reform forces more poor families to rely on their earnings from low-paying jobs, a minimum wage increase is likely to have a greater impact on reducing poverty. > > A recent study of a 1999 state minimum wage increase in Oregon found that as many as one-half of the welfare recipients entering the workforce in 1998 were likely to have received a raise due to the increase. After the increase, the real hourly starting wages for former welfare recipients rose to $7.23. > > The federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) combined with the minimum wage helps to reduce poverty, but the EITC is not a replacement for a minimum wage increase. For example, in 1997, a single mother of two children working 40 hours per week year-round at the minimum wage would have earned $9,893 (after Social Security and Medicare taxes) and would have been eligible for the maximum EITC of $3,656, which would have put her family income at $13,549, a mere 5% above the 1997 poverty threshold of $12,931 for a family of three. But because the minimum wage has not kept up with increases in the cost of living since 1997, the same family is now below the poverty line. In 2003, a single mother with two children would have combined earnings and EITC of $14,097, or 5% below the 2003 poverty threshold of $14,824 for a family of three. > > The minimum wage raises the wages of low-income workers in general, not just those below the official poverty line. Many families move in and out of poverty, and near-poor families are also beneficiaries of minimum wage increases. > > \ > > **There is no evidence of job loss from the last minimum wage increase.** > > A 1998 EPI study failed to find any systematic, significant job loss associated with the 1996-97 minimum wage increase. In fact, following the most recent increase in the minimum wage in 1996-97, the low-wage labor market performed better than it had in decades (e.g., lower unemployment rates, increased average hourly wages, increased family income, decreased poverty rates). > > Studies of the 1990-91 federal minimum wage increase, as well as studies by David Card and Alan Krueger of several state minimum wage increases, also found no measurable negative impact on employment. > > New economic models that look specifically at low-wage labor markets help explain why there is little evidence of job loss associated with minimum wage increases. These models recognize that employers may be able to absorb some of the costs of a wage increase through higher productivity, lower recruiting and training costs, decreased absenteeism, and increased worker morale. > > A recent Fiscal Policy Institute (FPI) study of state minimum wages found no evidence of negative employment effects on small businesses. > > **Sources** > > Appelbaum, Eileen, et al. 2004. The Minimum Wage and Working Women. > > Bernstein, Jared, and Chauna Brocht. 2000. The Next Step: The New Minimum Wage Proposals and the Old Opposition. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. > > Bernstein, Jared, and John Schmitt. 1998 Making Work Pay: The Impact of the 1996-97 Minimum Wage Increase. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. > > Bernstein, Jared, Heidi Hartmann, and John Schmitt. 1999. The Minimum Wage Increase: A Working Woman’s Issue. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. > > Card, David. 1992. Using regional variation in wages to measure the effects of the federal minimum wage. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 22-37. > > Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 1994. Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review. Vol. 84. No. 4. pp. 772-93. > > Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. > > Card, David, and Alan B. Krueger. 2000. Minimum wages and employment: a case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: reply. American Economic Review. Vol. 90, No. 5, pp. 1397-1420. > > Chasanov, Amy. 2004. No Longer Getting By: An Increase in the Minimum Wage Is Long Overdue. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. > > EPI. 2000. Datazone. > > Fiscal Policy Institute. 2004. State Mminimum Wages and Employment in Small Business. Available at [www.fiscalpolicy.org](http://www.fiscalpolicy.org). > > Fortin and Lemiuex. 1996. As cited in Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein, and John Schmitt. The State of Working America 1998-99. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. > > Rasell, Edith, Jared Bernstein, and Heather Boushey. 2000. Step Up, Not Out: The Case for Raising the Federal Minimum Wage for Workers in Every State. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute. > > Sawhill, Isabel, and Adam Thomas. 2001. “A Hand Up for the Bottom Third.” Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution. > > Thompson, Jeff. 1999. Oregon’s Increasing Minimum Wage Brings Raises to Former Welfare Recipients and Other Low-Wage Workers Without Job Losses. Oregon Center for Public Policy. ---
**Author:** ![thermalribbon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@thermalribbon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thermalribbon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/76 "2004-07-29T04:20:48Z")
Well then why’d you ask? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/77 "2004-07-29T10:32:22Z")
> [@thermalribbon](#): > > I didn’t think that this was the type of issue that needed a cite. Kinda like asking for cite for someone stating that the sky is blue. Absolutely. Very often the sky is not blue. So if you want to claim the sky was blue at a particular time, or is always blue under particular conditions, you need a cite. And if you or your cite says the sky is always blue, you run up against the reality that most of us have been rained on. > [@](#): > > But perhaps this is convincing. [Basically confirms that minimum wage laws are, at best, ineffective, and at worst, harmful](http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/pps/14/) You seem to be citing an _argument_, and one that’s quite lengthy. Can you summarize the argument? Or quote the particular parts that you expect us to be convinced by? Because without that, it’s like waving a book in the air, and saying, “this book supports my views and refutes yours.” The burden of proof is on the person waving the book to illustrate why that’s so. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/78 "2004-07-29T10:48:49Z")
Back to the convention. The first speaker of note was Al Sharpton. Al is a very compelling speaker. He went off script and over time in his speech. Line of the night from him was (perhaps not an exact quote) " if George Bush had appointed the Supreme Court in 1954, Clarence Thomas would never have gotten in law school." Ouch. Tying Mr. Bush to the old time segregationists. This is going to hurt somebody. Also, looking back to the reconstruction promise of 40 acres and a mule, he noted that they never got the 40 acres and “we never got the mule, so that’s why we’re riding this donkey as far as it will go” (again not an exact quote but my memory of it). I think he did a great job and I don’t see a lot of black vote being siphoned off by Bush. Edwards. He did a good job and can give a great speech without bringing his A game. My first thought on seeing him last night was too bad for John Ritter’s death, he’d be a natural to play Edwards in a movie some day. My second thought was that he seemed to be borrowing Jimmy Carter’s teeth. What a smile. The speech was well written, but he didn’t seem natural delivering the line to AlQaeda “we will destroy you.” He’s going to be the good cop to Kerry’s bad cop. The line “Hope is Coming” looks like a great slogan. Overall a very positive message. Republicans hoping that the convention would be a mean-spirited Bush bash-a-thon are going to be disappointed. ---
**Author:** ![NurseCarmen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/5daacb/32.png) [@NurseCarmen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NurseCarmen)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/79 "2004-07-29T13:39:27Z")
I’m the only one who found Edwards speech boring? ---
**Author:** ![thermalribbon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@thermalribbon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thermalribbon)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2004, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036/80 "2004-07-29T13:41:24Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Absolutely. Very often the sky is not blue. So if you want to claim the sky was blue at a particular time, or is always blue under particular conditions, you need a cite. And if you or your cite says the sky is always blue, you run up against the reality that most of us have been rained on. > > You seem to be citing an _argument_, and one that’s quite lengthy. Can you summarize the argument? Or quote the particular parts that you expect us to be convinced by? Because without that, it’s like waving a book in the air, and saying, “this book supports my views and refutes yours.” The burden of proof is on the person waving the book to illustrate why that’s so. Well, then why ever cite anything. My argument is that miniumum wage laws often do the opposite of their intention. Often, minimum wage laws create more hardship at the low-end of the wage ladder. As a matter of theory, when an employer is forced to pay more for labor, there then is less incentive to purchase that labor. As a matter of practice, this has been proven - at least as far as attempts to raise the minimum wage is concerned. When people are willing to work for $5.00 and the gov’t says you must pay them $7.00, then as the employers hire less of the $7.00 workers, competition for the $7.00 jobs rises and the people that the law was created to protect are harmed. There are simply less jobs to go around. The cite I gave basically supports this argument. But, Econ 101 covers this. My original point was that this is pretty much agreed upon. There have been economists who have attempted to refute this conventional economic wisdom, but their arguments have been tenuous at best. As it relates to the OP, I was commenting on the convention and how Edwards threw that in during his speech. My comment was intended as a comment on the obvious pandering that was going on. I mean, raising the minimum wage. That’s the oldest one in the book. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-discuss-the-democratic-convention/257036.md?page=5)