Speaking of fiscal policies, even the faithful are getting pretty fed up:
And i still can’t understand how we are “at war” if we’re also “Mission accomplished”. Hmmm…
Three words for you:
doublethink
Or possibly Dubyaspeak 
Three?
three.
Yup. One plus one.
Yeesh. I’m going back to counting the value of my portfolio. Less thought involved.
Uhhuh. And when presented with a pile of details about the current sorry state of the job market, your tactic apparently is to ignore most of the stats presented, and simply say that I’m “just repeating the Democratic fallback position, which is that the recovery isn’t ‘real’ unless unemployment is at some magically low number.” (Which bore no more than the most superficial resemblance to any part of what I was saying.)
You’re right, John.
What they can relate to is stuff like, how secure their present job is, what their prospects are of obtaining a comparable job relatively quickly if they should lose their present job, whether they’ve got a good hand if they ask for a raise, or whether they’re pretty much stuck with it if the boss says they’re going to have to take a pay cut. They know what’s happening to people they know and work with - whether their friends and co-workers are being laid off, whether they’re having to work longer hours to cover for the laid-off colleagues, what sort of jobs people are getting instead, all that sort of stuff. Or in good times, whether their friends are jumping, every six months, to a job paying $15K more than they were getting at the previous job.
But that’s a hard thing to debate here. The people I know aren’t the people you know. So instead, we debate the unemployment rate and related numbers. In our debates, the abstract statistic is standing in for all those experiences that do bear on people’s daily lives, and that will affect how some of them vote.
True. Job insecurity is an issue. And maybe people will be short-sighted enough to think that “job insecurity” is some new phenomenon, appearing only in the last 3 years. Most of us have been hearing, reading, and talking about this for much, much longer. Perhaps Dr. Dean can convinve enough people that he will somehow make their jobs “secure”. He won’t convince me of that. The economy is not something that can be managed. I tend to agree with 'luci on that point-- it can generally be messed up by government action, but rarely made better. (My apologies to 'luci if I paraphrased him incorrectly.)
Well, of course, it can’t convey the depth of my intellect nor the keen probity of my analysis, but its roughly correct.
Yeah, but the parties each make sure they repay their constituencies, which is what’s behind this whole unemployment debate.
Democrats’ constituency is the lower half of the economic spectrum, to whom jobs are most important, whereas Republicans’ constituency is the upper half, to whom taxes are most important.
Not surprisingly, if you take an equal number of years from the series RTFirefly presented us, omitting the outliers in the early 80s, which of course actually favors Republicans because it leaves out the ultra-high unemployment at that time, you get the following averages:
25 years of Democrats: avg unemployment of 5.12%
25 years of Republicans: avg unemployment of 5.76%
(Average being the mean, before someone yells at me for something.)
It’s not that the Republicans want more people to be unemployed so much as that their policies are designed to repay their upper half constituency. So you quite literally pays your money and takes your choice.
Needless to say, the above is prima facie evidence that the economy does better under Democrats, natch.
::Ducks & Runs::
If you looked at Republican Congresses vs. Democratic Congresses, the number favors Republicans in a big way. Then again, there aren’t that many Republican years since WWII.
Part of the problem with being utterly incompetent is that sooner or later, someone goes public on you, in this case the former Treasury Secretary..
I like the “blind man” line. Not a particularly original insight about Bush the Unready, rather an obvious one actually, but it is mildly witty, so he gets points for execution.
Then there’s the latest jobs report:
Link to story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3918633/
The BLS summary: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
The response from the Bush Administration? Keeping in mind why O’Neill was sacked, you have to ask?
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3924565/
Tax cuts, tax cuts, and more tax cuts. That message is going to get older and older as we get closer to the election and the loss of jobs under Bush becomes more and more of an issue. Even if future reports begin to show progress, the message is there: he’s had three years now, and even now, with allegedly “good” numbers elsewhere, the ordinary American worker is seeing nothing. That’s not going to change in the ten months left to the election from here.
Probably wrong, as job growth is generally the last thing to recover after a recession.
But Bush’s approval ratings are high now, even in these early stages of a recovery. The idea that the unemployment rate is going to become “more and more of an issue” is likely to be wishful thinking unless it rises. If Bush is doing as well as he is now, an improving economy is only going to help him.
Nice weaseling there - you are claiming that voters have already given up on Bush. For which there is no evidence. The idea that even if the economy continues to recover from the recession Bush inherited, that he is still going to be blamed for it, is wishful thinking.
Voters have short memories. Unless the Democrats come up with something new, they are doomed to significant defeat come next November. And Dean is doing nothing to help his chances with his latest spate of gaffes.
The question of the OP is wrong. It shouldn’t be “Can Bush win?” It should be “Can he lose?” I have seen nothing to suggest that he can lose. The Dems have ten months to come up with something, and I don’t mean a manufactured scandal or another ten months of “Bush lied! Bush lied! Bush lied!” That ain’t getting you anywhere fast.
Regards,
Shodan
Not the ones who lost their jobs and had to take ones with much lower wages, or the ones who are their friends, families, and former co-workers.
Me, I’m still actually figuring Bush will win with something less than 55% of the vote. But that bet became a lot dicier with this jobs report. It will become dicier still as people refocus on the still bloody events going on in Iraq.
The O’Neill stuff illustrates the point, which was proven with the capture of Saddam, that this President only focusses when something is threatening to hit the fan, because otherwise his default position is “out to lunch”. November, as you may recall, was an awful month in Iraq, and morale by the end of the month was scraping bottom. Suddenly, in December, Saddam is captured. Me, I’m positive this was because the President, or possibly Rummy, shook everyone up and told them to get him or heads would roll.
I’m still betting that if, come the beginning of October, it’s looking like a close race, this same dynamic will be played out re Osama.
And, Shodan, I almost want your boy to win. Made myself a nice piece of money betting against the success of his economic policies so far, and I almost don’t want to give up those easy profits. It’s really a one-way bet.
Unfortunately, outside of my investments, I have to live with the consequences of his actions. Terribly inconvenient, really.
You’re comparing apples and oranges, though. Parliamentary systems produce much less variation in party policy over time than the American system. It ought to be the other way around, given the fact that a Prime Minister has an automatic majority in his legislature, whereas an American president does not, but it does. Largely, this is a product of the party system; Europeans (and presumably, Ozzies) vote for party platforms; Americans vote for individuals.
Well, Bush can win if Kerry keeps giving horrible interviews like he did today on Meet The Press. Example exchange:
<Clip of Kerry testifying that he took part in atrocities in Vietnam>
Russert: Atrocities. War crimes. Did you commit atrocities in Vietnam?
Kerry: Hey, what I want to know is where did all that dark hair that kid had go?
No kidding. That’s what he said. My jaw just about dropped on the floor. Then he gave a very unsatisfactory answer to the question after his joke was met with uncomfortable silence.
It was a stupid fucking question on Russert’s part. Kerry should have told him to fuck right off.
I don’t think soooooooooo. From the Gallup organization (Link):