Ah, I hate debating you, you always nail me.
That’s not dishonesty though, that’s just poor judgment and McCain’s impulsiveness, which I admit were major flaws of his. Clinton has flaws too. Namely dishonesty and most importantly for her prospects, a hostile relationship with the media.
Again, I don’t believe that Hillary is more dishonest than any of her potential Republican foes (nor McCain, Romney, or others). I believe, in fact, that Hillary is more honest than these folks. That’s what the data suggests.
It doesn’t even come close, but let’s not go page after page with this.
Assuming that you’re right, how would she go about changing that perception of her that seems to be fixed in voters’ minds?
I’m not sure if it’s “fixed” in people’s minds, but maybe it is. She should strive to be more honest (as should all politicians), and own up to her mistakes. She definitely has a lot of room for improvement.
And if it is fixed in minds and can’t be changed, then she should point out all the other reasons to vote for her (or against the Republican). Even if I truly believed she was way more dishonest than Republicans, I would still easily vote for her (and enthusiastically so), because the Republicans would be so bad for the country.
Let us be clear. The statement made was not: “there are some economists who think that raising the raising the minimum wage causes job loss” but that “most economists … do” .
Your linked cite confirms that such is untrue:
This is weird. The part you quoted actually says, in full (emphasis added):
So you clipped the quote to make a claim by some politicians seem like a statement of fact.
What gives?
In some voters’ minds. Be more careful about generalizing, especially from your own well-established experience.
Some minds cannot be changed on the subject, but, given the numbers, they don’t have to be, do they?
“Bomb, bomb Iran”
If she hopes to win the Democratic primary, perhaps not. If she hopes to win the general election, it appears so.
Having 61 percent of independents respond that she’s not honest and trustworthy does not bode well and she needs to change that perception.
Reality be damned, humans are emotionally driven creatures and routinely act based upon their perceptions regardless of whether those perceptions are well founded.
There are very few real independents. Most of those who say they are vote pretty reliably for one party.
Electoral politics are relative, not absolute. She’s still well ahead of any challenger. Remember the GOP has been trying to create that impression of her for literally decades, and it has yet to work. Remember also that they have their own credibility problems to address.
Yes, and, reality or not, the overall perception among the electorate is that all the anti-HRC stuff is just more of a constant smear campaign that ultimately works against them.
I don’t know about that. How about when he selected his VP? Or, when he couldn’t remember how many houses he owned?
What gives is that it is a statement of fact, echoed by Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman “Zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of the minimum wage on employment,” and not disputed by the CBO report itself which “acknowledges that long-term conclusions on the effect of the minimum wage are difficult to predict.”
Nothing in that article supports a statement that most economists agree that raising the minimum wage causes job loss. The article in fact has the CBO stating it is hard to predict.
The actual CBO report btw is interesting reading.
It emphasizes the uncertainty of their predictions and clearly states that real world impacts are contingent upon which specific best guess assumptions are made, for example: “if CBO’s forecast of wage growth for low-wage workers between 2013 and 2016 is either too high or too low, the result will be an underestimate or an overestimate, respectively, of the number of workers … the ripple effects could be smaller or larger than CBO projects …” and so on.
It notes that while teen employment elasticity is fairly well studied, there is insufficient research to actually determine elasticity of adult low wage worker demand so they “synthesized the teen elasticities with broader research to construct elasticities for adults” … obviously a large leap of faith that requires making some best educated but still wild assed guesses.
In any case what the CBO report does not do is endorse a carte blanche statement that raising minimum wage causes greater unemployment. It instead states that for the specific good faith assumptions they make, which they readily admit could be wrong, there would in this economy at this time be a modest decrease in employment rates, “concentrated more among teenage workers” (pg 30) in their simulation.
Everything in economics is hard to predict. And a lot of possible outcomes could be described as “reasonable”. Saying that the results are hard to predict or that zero is a reasonable outcome is not the same thing as predicting that the results will be zero.
It’s also worth noting that Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman is an Obama administration official, and not some independent neutral economist. More to the point, he is not “most economists”, he is one economist.
Bottom line is that whether or not the cite supports adaher’s claim, it also does not support your claim either. Your claim again was that *“[adaher’s] linked cite confirms that such is untrue”. *In reality, the cite does not confirm that adaher’s claim was untrue.
And, returning to my earlier post, you clipped the quote in a way that misleadingly presented a statement by politican partisans as if it was a statement of fact by the article’s authors. I found this surprising, from you.
If it seemed misleading I apologize. Such was not the intent.
In any case the CBO report itself (always love going to source material) contradicts the simplistic concept that adaher posits. As does the Department of Labor, the CPER, and the assessment of The Economist. No it is not High School Econ level simple that increased price must equal decreased demand … the devil is in the specific details.
You seem to be confusing McCain and Romney.
Pay attention to what adaher’s claim was. It was not “raising minimum wage increases unemployment.” It was that economists agree that raising minimum wage increases unemployment. His citation proves otherwise.
No, that was McCain.
Oh, yeah, forgot about that. I was trying to add up all the home states Romney has (four by my count, and he lost three of them), and all the homes he owns.
His pick of Ryan as running mate was undistinguished as well, although not as comical.
Pay attention yourself.
The claim was not that “economists agree” as you put it here. It was that “most economists agree”.
The cite doesn’t prove anything about what most economists agree to.
Let’s not forget “Bomb bomb bomb Iran.”
Eh, “undistinguished” isn’t a bad thing in a VP. There wasn’t really anything wrong with Ryan as a running mate, beyond the fact that he was a Republican (which of course he was going to be).