What happened to the "It's the economy, stupid"?

[_JS]

It might behoove you to try and understand voters and the political science behind their actions a little more and play the victim card a little less.

But then advice is worth what you pay for it. You can walk around with a glow-in-the-dark victim t-shirt if it brings meaning to your world I suppose.

[sirs]

It's always amazing when pointing out reality of the mainstream media, and the overt bias that permeates their news stories is "playing the victim card".  You're right Js, next time I get the chance to personally talk to 120million potential voters, I'm sure I'll be better able to understand them         

[_JS]

It's always amazing when pointing out reality of the mainstream media, and the overt bias that permeates their news stories is "playing the victim card".  You're right Js, next time I get the chance to personally talk to 120million potential voters, I'm sure I'll be better able to understand them

I'll start with the last sentence first. Of course it is a ludicrous notion that you have to study an entire population to determine trends. I assume you knew that already. As I said, there are studies that have been done that show that people look at their own personal economics when it plays a factor at the polls.

As for your first statement, there is no objective reality there. Look at Plane's post. Where did his story come from? MSNBC. It doesn't get more media than that. The point is that people don't care about budget deficit projections when it comes to casting their ballot. If they do, they probably have already determined who they were voting for long before the election.

To chalk it up as media bias and hiding a great economy (which it isn't) shows either a lack of understanding or a playing of the victim card.

By the way, where are the examples of stories that I asked for?       

[Plane]

Regardless, I don't think people who vote on economics are going to be overly concerned with budget deficit projections.

Shall we say that all of the unemployed ought to vote Democratic?

Then lets say that all of the employed ought to vote Republican.

If the present economy is bad , what was good about the Clinton economy?

[sirs]

As I said, there are studies that have been done that show that people look at their own personal economics when it plays a factor at the polls.

And as I said, there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not, and thus push such polling data downward in direct contrast to the economic #'s going upwards

As for your first statement, there is no objective reality there

That'd be your opinion.  I've posted piece after piece after piece after piece of studies that have demonstrated how 24/7 news reporting, titling of stories, and "polling" actually becomes the news, and exposing the insidious anti-GOP bias, anti-Bush bias.  Minimizing positive aspects of the economy while perseverating on the negative, promotes a negative perception of the economy.  It's a simple as this JS, Bush's economy is in many respects far and away greater than when Clinton was President, outside of the deficit of course.  When Clinton was President, the postive news of the economy was repeated adnauseum, yet Bush's economic #'s are even better, lower unemployment, record Fed tax income into the reserve, roaring stockmarket, % of the debt to the GDP at something like 2%, Home ownership at all time high, wages up across the board, yet somehow, someway, this is supposedly "the worst economy since Hoover".

Now, how the hell is that?

[_JS]

And as I said, there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not

Example?

When Clinton was President, the postive news of the economy was repeated adnauseum, yet Bush's economic #'s are even better, lower unemployment, record Fed tax income into the reserve, roaring stockmarket, % of the debt to the GDP at something like 2%, Home ownership at all time high, wages up across the board, yet somehow, someway, this is supposedly "the worst economy since Hoover".

Increase in federal revenue receipts? That's a trend that has kept pace since the mid 1960's. It would be more remarkable if they had fallen, which they actually did in real terms for part of the Bush term, which is a rare trend in U.S. history.

Home ownership is shaky because foreclosures are also at an all-time high and the housing bubble is something all economists are watching.

The stockmarkets are hardly "roaring." In fact they aren't even close to what they were under President Clinton's term. If you count real terms the Dow would have to be somewhere around 13,000 just to show stagnation with the stock market when Bush took office. That doesn't take in the Nasdaq and other market indicators.

Wages are up? Well, in nominal terms of course they are. In real terms they are drastically reduced as wage inflation has failed to keep up with real inflation. Most poor and middle class earners are lucky if any raises they get pay off the increases in health insurance premiums.

Sorry Sirs, you have to look deeper than that and yelling at the media for this one. I'm not claiming this economy is "worse than Hoover's" nor am I claiming that Clinton was an economic wizard. Yet, Bush's economy is not anything special and why do you think the Republican candidates aren't using it as a campaign item?

[sirs]

[Plane]

"The point is that people don't care about budget deficit projections when it comes to casting their ballot. If they do, they probably have already determined who they were voting for long before the election. "

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


So someone who would run on a slogan saying "Its the Economy Stupid" is stupid?

[_JS]

So someone who would run on a slogan saying "Its the Economy Stupid" is stupid?

No. You are confusing the state of the economy with a single variable of budget deficit projections. And when a politician says "Its the Economy Stupid" he or she most likely means one's personal vantage point of the economy. So, it would depend when one uses the term. Right now it might work well, except a good deal of American voters tend to vote without regard to their economic interest.

Sirs, have you found examples of

there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not

yet?

It has been a week. Or are you too busy playing media victim?

[sirs]

Sirs, have you found examples of

there are studies that have been done that show that many respondents to these polls, will indicate that they're doing ok, put they perceive their neighbor as not

yet?

Actually given you conclusions on how everything is how you say it is, I figured such reports, if I could find them would be rationalized away yet again.  Probably commentary on how bogus the poll must have been, or how easy it is to make someone answer a certain way on the poll.  No?  But you know, I really should try to find some of those anyways, since so many of the reports and conclusions we post are rationalized away anyways, yet we still provided them for the masses who do read our commentaries, and actually have an objective dispostion.  This weekend I'll endeavor to find some of those polls/stories, for those folks

[_JS]

I don't "rationalize away" Sirs. I think critically.

I have no partisan agenda in this mess and would be glad to read any good economic reports or statistical studies that illustrate your hypothesis.

If you have an example of me "rationalizing away" then by all means let's discuss it.

[sirs]

I don't "rationalize away" Sirs. I think critically.  I have no partisan agenda in this mess and would be glad to read any good economic reports or statistical studies that illustrate your hypothesis.  If you have an example of me "rationalizing away" then by all means let's discuss it.

This whole thread has been examples of precisely that Js.  Your defense of the media, sarcastically calling those who criticize them as "victims of the media".  Whether you wish not to believe it, your partisanship is indeed quite transparent at times, though I concede you're at least more rationally minded that the rest of your leftist brethren.  To the point though, as I have time this weekend, I'll see if I can come across some of those stories, then sit back and watch you attempt to torpedo it after you've "thought critically" about it

[_JS]

I'm not sure why this is personal. The issue for me is that I see things like "political correctness" and "media bias" as skirts the right wing tend to hide under when they don't have a decent argument otherwise. It is victimisation, maybe the right wing learned it from the left back in the 1970's, I don't know (and frankly don't care) but that doesn't change what it is. I apologise for any personal insults and maybe I crossed that line and it was not fair. Yet, you're fond of the saying "calling a duck a duck" and that is exactly what I intend to do when I see those things Sirs.

Victimisation isn't the sole purview of any one segment of the population or the political spectrum. I've observed that the modern right wing use it to a great extent when they say things like "Christians are under attack." So to me, with a noticable absence of any real valuable academic study on the subjects, the use of "political correctness" as in "we can't express the truth anymore because of the modern Politically Correct era" and the use of "media bias" as in "the war in Iraq is going far better than anyone realizes but the constant liberal media bias doesn't show it" are just more victimisation efforts by the right wing.

Does that mean the left doesn't use their own versions? No, of course not. But that won't stop me from calling out the ones on the right.

In this set of arguments on the economy I haven't once used any such illogical tactics. If you want to talk economy and public finance I can do it. We can get into details that would make you vomit with the tedious boredom of it all. It is one field I feel rather comfortable discussing. So let's discuss, but let's leave the media bias, PC, stuff out of it.

I'm a leftist. I'm not going to lie about it. But I'm not a Democrat and certainly not a Republican. And I can make a rational, logical determination.

[Plane]

"I'm a leftist. I'm not going to lie about it. But I'm not a Democrat and certainly not a Republican. And I can make a rational, logical determination. "



Can you have it both ways?

[_JS]

Is that a joke or something?

Of course you can.