I still don't see evidence that Kerry or Edwards can beat G.W.
Isn't this ironic....your hero is a huge democrat.
Quote:
Almost 15% of the people who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 thought they were voting for his father, so you be the judge.
Now that's ****ing funny. Pretty telling.
Quote:
All the democrats are even bigger fools.
Hard to believe(unless you're from Texas)
. When you have books written about how you completely murder your native language-"nukular", "hispanicly", "subliminable" -and have time after time proven to be pretty ignorant in the general knowledge department...you're in a league of your own.
Some nuggets:
"They misunderestimated me"
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream".
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family".
"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican"
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
How can anyone read that press briefing and conclude that it reflects favorably on the White House?
How can anyone think that the voters would be upset that the economy added say 2.4 million jobs instead of 2.6 million jobs and thus declare the policy behind it bad, and toss the man behind the policy out?
It will be fun watching the Republicans start to dig into Kerry's ideological dirty laundry though. The rumblings I have heard already sound pretty good. Likewise, I'm glad to see that the president is so unpopular that he has only been able to raise $100 million dollars. If he gets any more unpopular, he might have to take a loan out on the ranch to keep his campaign going.
I'm glad to see that the president is so unpopular that he has only been able to raise $100 million dollars. If he gets any more unpopular, he might have to take a loan out on the ranch to keep his campaign going.
Nick
I can't believe you're using campaign money as an indication of popularity. I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is from the likes of Halliburton or Enron.
How can anyone think that the voters would be upset that the economy added say 2.4 million jobs instead of 2.6 million jobs and thus declare the policy behind it bad, and toss the man behind the policy out?
Are you seriously claiming that the economy will create 2.4 million jobs before the end of year?:
I can't believe you're using campaign money as an indication of popularity. I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is from the likes of Halliburton or Enron.
The donor demographics for Bush, Kerry and Edwards is roughly the same. Dean relied much more heavily on donations of less than $200.
i understand that every candedate has a buzz phrase or 12 for the stump but what was whith the line in every dean speach i have seen, it goes like this,
"...We need to take back the flag from falwell and limbaugh..."
was a candidate acualy implying that 2 men controlled the flag, or defined what is and isnt patriotic?
The donor demographics for Bush, Kerry and Edwards is roughly the same. Dean relied much more heavily on donations of less than $200.
My complaints about that graphic aside, your statement is not true. Percentage of money donated from big contributors is significantly different as is proportion of big donors:
Bush: 38% of donors gave more than $2000
Edwards: 27% of donors gave more than $2000
Kerry: 24% of donors gave more than $2000
A VERY meaningful stat would be the mean donation, as would the median donation so we can see the skew of the donations. While we're at it, why not provide us with the real data - skew, kurtosis, and standard deviation so we can get a good idea of what's going on. If we had those numbers, I highly doubt you'd make such an assertion.
I can't believe you're using campaign money as an indication of popularity. I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is from the likes of Halliburton or Enron.
You don't have to wonder. You can just look it up here.
You see much less money from individual contributions, and also a lower quality of disclosure.
Who looks more likely to have something to hide hmmmm?
Money is a perfectly valid from of measuring popularity. Except for Dean, the candidates and their fundraising line up very well with their ability to win votes.
Are you seriously claiming that the economy will create 2.4 million jobs before the end of year?:
I'm not claiming anything. I don't have the data nor is it my job. My point is that you claim the backing away from this number would indicate some sort of credibility gap that the average voter would act on. That is nonsense.
If you and I went into a business partnership today, each putting in $10,000 and at the end if the year I promised, you would have $1.2 million dollars, and at the end of the year, we only had $1 million dollars, you could say I was wrong. You could also enjoy your million dollars and likely want to stay in partnership and business.
The unemployment rate is at 5.6% and falling. If for some reason around election time it is only at say 4.9% instead of 4.7%, I highly doubt that would cause Bush to not be reelected.
My complaints about that graphic aside, your statement is not true. Percentage of money donated from big contributors is significantly different as is proportion of big donors:
Bush: 38% of donors gave more than $2000
Edwards: 27% of donors gave more than $2000
Kerry: 24% of donors gave more than $2000
A VERY meaningful stat would be the mean donation...
Whatever the mean donations are, they eventually bump up against the legal limits. In other words, it's only going to skew so far. I wrote that the donor demographics for Bush, Kerry and Edwards were roughly the same. You haven't shown anything that contradicts that. Bush gets the same percentage of his money from small contributions as does Kerry. And four times of Bush's money comes from small contributions than does Edwards. Bush gets more from big contributors than does either Kerry or Edwards but not dramatically more. Edwards relies on large donors more than does Kerry but not as much as Bush does. Dean deviated sharply from this pattern which I also indicated in my post.
As for untruthful assertions, you were the one who suggested Bush was getting illegitimate contributions from Halliburton and Enron. Physician, heal thyself.
I never said the support was untrue. I was actually commenting on the perplexing fact that anyone likes him at all. The country is full of stupid people. That doesn't make them any easier to understand.
I want to be clear on this: are you stating that people who support George Bush are stupid? Is that what you are saying?
It will be fun watching the Republicans start to dig into Kerry's ideological dirty laundry though. The rumblings I have heard already sound pretty good. Likewise, I'm glad to see that the president is so unpopular that he has only been able to raise $100 million dollars. If he gets any more unpopular, he might have to take a loan out on the ranch to keep his campaign going.
The rumblings you have heard would be? As good as the Drudge infidelity allegations?
By the way, re: the money raised by Bush so far...I think it's more of a case of people/corporations knowing they'll get their money's worth and more in return.
Like an exotic dancer, he dances for whoever's paying the money. Or like a good hooker...they keep coming back for more. If Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel and the pharmaceutical companies are any indication....he gives great lap dances with the added benefit of "refunds"(tax credits)coming at a later date. It's win-win.
How can anyone think that the voters would be upset that the economy added say 2.4 million jobs instead of 2.6 million jobs and thus declare the policy behind it bad, and toss the man behind the policy out?
It's just that they've predicted millions of jobs every year, and instead there have been continued jobs losses. The differences between rosy scenario and reality have been quite large - in the millions, not the 0.2 millions.
After a lackluster 2003 in which job creation fell 2.1 million jobs short of the administration?s projections for the year, the President?s Council of Economic Advisers has responded with another overly optimistic projection. Not only did the 1.7 million increase in new jobs that the CEA had projected, on average, for 2003 fail to materialize, we actually lost 400,000 jobs.
The CEA?s new claim that in 2004 the average number of jobs will be 2.6 million higher than in 2003 is out of sync with labor market realities, according to three experts from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. Reaching that level of job creation would require growth averaging 460,000 new jobs every month from now through December 2004.
[edit] Wait a second, am I in the wrong thread? I thought this was the jobs thread. Where am I?
After a lackluster 2003 in which job creation fell 2.1 million jobs short of the administration?s projections for the year, the President?s Council of Economic Advisers has responded with another overly optimistic projection. Not only did the 1.7 million increase in new jobs that the CEA had projected, on average, for 2003 fail to materialize, we actually lost 400,000 jobs.
The CEA?s new claim that in 2004 the average number of jobs will be 2.6 million higher than in 2003 is out of sync with labor market realities, according to three experts from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. Reaching that level of job creation would require growth averaging 460,000 new jobs every month from now through December 2004.
460,000 new jobs per month from now through December 2004? Yeah, that's gonna happen. Can't believe some are actually buying that rubbish. Maybe they meant OVERSEAS jobs?
Quote:
"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. We're very used to goods being produced abroad and being shipped here on ships or planes. What we're not used to is services being produced abroad and being sent here over the Internet or telephone wires. More things are tradeable than were tradeable in the past and that's a good thing," Mankiw told reporters in a press briefing on Monday after the report's release.
Gregory Mankiw is the chairman of the president's_Council of Economic Advisers.
Comments
Originally posted by DMBand0026
You are correct sir. Go George!
I still don't see evidence that Kerry or Edwards can beat G.W.
Isn't this ironic....your hero is a huge democrat.
Almost 15% of the people who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 thought they were voting for his father, so you be the judge.
All the democrats are even bigger fools.
Hard to believe(unless you're from Texas)
. When you have books written about how you completely murder your native language-"nukular", "hispanicly", "subliminable" -and have time after time proven to be pretty ignorant in the general knowledge department...you're in a league of your own.
Some nuggets:
"They misunderestimated me"
"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream".
"I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family".
"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican"
"First, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill."
Originally posted by DMBand0026
You are correct sir. Go George!
I still don't see evidence that Kerry or Edwards can beat G.W.
Please explain, in coherent terms, why you think George Bush is good for our nation...and....what has he done so far that warrants your support?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Please explain, in coherent terms, why you think George Bush is good for our nation...and....what has he done so far that warrants your support?
Well for one thing, he's going to fight this gay marriage thingy.
Originally posted by Fran441
Almost 15% of the people who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 thought they were voting for his father, so you be the judge.
Please point me to data on this, if you wouldn't mind.
Originally posted by tonton
They're being optimistic (read Talking Points Memo).
How can anyone read that press briefing and conclude that it reflects favorably on the White House?
Originally posted by ShawnJ
How can anyone read that press briefing and conclude that it reflects favorably on the White House?
How can anyone think that the voters would be upset that the economy added say 2.4 million jobs instead of 2.6 million jobs and thus declare the policy behind it bad, and toss the man behind the policy out?
It will be fun watching the Republicans start to dig into Kerry's ideological dirty laundry though. The rumblings I have heard already sound pretty good. Likewise,
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
I'm glad to see that the president is so unpopular that he has only been able to raise $100 million dollars. If he gets any more unpopular, he might have to take a loan out on the ranch to keep his campaign going.
Nick
I can't believe you're using campaign money as an indication of popularity. I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is from the likes of Halliburton or Enron.
Originally posted by trumptman
How can anyone think that the voters would be upset that the economy added say 2.4 million jobs instead of 2.6 million jobs and thus declare the policy behind it bad, and toss the man behind the policy out?
Are you seriously claiming that the economy will create 2.4 million jobs before the end of year?:
Originally posted by torifile
I can't believe you're using campaign money as an indication of popularity. I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is from the likes of Halliburton or Enron.
The donor demographics for Bush, Kerry and Edwards is roughly the same. Dean relied much more heavily on donations of less than $200.
i understand that every candedate has a buzz phrase or 12 for the stump but what was whith the line in every dean speach i have seen, it goes like this,
"...We need to take back the flag from falwell and limbaugh..."
was a candidate acualy implying that 2 men controlled the flag, or defined what is and isnt patriotic?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
The donor demographics for Bush, Kerry and Edwards is roughly the same. Dean relied much more heavily on donations of less than $200.
My complaints about that graphic aside, your statement is not true. Percentage of money donated from big contributors is significantly different as is proportion of big donors:
Bush: 38% of donors gave more than $2000
Edwards: 27% of donors gave more than $2000
Kerry: 24% of donors gave more than $2000
A VERY meaningful stat would be the mean donation, as would the median donation so we can see the skew of the donations. While we're at it, why not provide us with the real data - skew, kurtosis, and standard deviation so we can get a good idea of what's going on. If we had those numbers, I highly doubt you'd make such an assertion.
Originally posted by torifile
I can't believe you're using campaign money as an indication of popularity. I wonder how much of that is legitimate and how much of it is from the likes of Halliburton or Enron.
You don't have to wonder. You can just look it up here.
Open Secrets.org
So as you can see it is perfectly legitimate.
Now when you check out this John Kerry character...
Kerry
You see much less money from individual contributions, and also a lower quality of disclosure.
Who looks more likely to have something to hide hmmmm?
Money is a perfectly valid from of measuring popularity. Except for Dean, the candidates and their fundraising line up very well with their ability to win votes.
Nick
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Are you seriously claiming that the economy will create 2.4 million jobs before the end of year?:
I'm not claiming anything. I don't have the data nor is it my job. My point is that you claim the backing away from this number would indicate some sort of credibility gap that the average voter would act on. That is nonsense.
If you and I went into a business partnership today, each putting in $10,000 and at the end if the year I promised, you would have $1.2 million dollars, and at the end of the year, we only had $1 million dollars, you could say I was wrong. You could also enjoy your million dollars and likely want to stay in partnership and business.
The unemployment rate is at 5.6% and falling. If for some reason around election time it is only at say 4.9% instead of 4.7%, I highly doubt that would cause Bush to not be reelected.
Nick
Originally posted by torifile
My complaints about that graphic aside, your statement is not true. Percentage of money donated from big contributors is significantly different as is proportion of big donors:
Bush: 38% of donors gave more than $2000
Edwards: 27% of donors gave more than $2000
Kerry: 24% of donors gave more than $2000
A VERY meaningful stat would be the mean donation...
Whatever the mean donations are, they eventually bump up against the legal limits. In other words, it's only going to skew so far. I wrote that the donor demographics for Bush, Kerry and Edwards were roughly the same. You haven't shown anything that contradicts that. Bush gets the same percentage of his money from small contributions as does Kerry. And four times of Bush's money comes from small contributions than does Edwards. Bush gets more from big contributors than does either Kerry or Edwards but not dramatically more. Edwards relies on large donors more than does Kerry but not as much as Bush does. Dean deviated sharply from this pattern which I also indicated in my post.
As for untruthful assertions, you were the one who suggested Bush was getting illegitimate contributions from Halliburton and Enron. Physician, heal thyself.
Originally posted by torifile
I never said the support was untrue. I was actually commenting on the perplexing fact that anyone likes him at all. The country is full of stupid people. That doesn't make them any easier to understand.
I want to be clear on this: are you stating that people who support George Bush are stupid? Is that what you are saying?
Aries 1B
Originally posted by trumptman
It will be fun watching the Republicans start to dig into Kerry's ideological dirty laundry though. The rumblings I have heard already sound pretty good. Likewise,
The rumblings you have heard would be? As good as the Drudge infidelity allegations?
By the way, re: the money raised by Bush so far...I think it's more of a case of people/corporations knowing they'll get their money's worth and more in return.
Like an exotic dancer, he dances for whoever's paying the money. Or like a good hooker...they keep coming back for more. If Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel and the pharmaceutical companies are any indication....he gives great lap dances with the added benefit of "refunds"(tax credits)coming at a later date. It's win-win.
Originally posted by trumptman
How can anyone think that the voters would be upset that the economy added say 2.4 million jobs instead of 2.6 million jobs and thus declare the policy behind it bad, and toss the man behind the policy out?
It's just that they've predicted millions of jobs every year, and instead there have been continued jobs losses. The differences between rosy scenario and reality have been quite large - in the millions, not the 0.2 millions.
Here's a good report on the administration's job forecasting.
After a lackluster 2003 in which job creation fell 2.1 million jobs short of the administration?s projections for the year, the President?s Council of Economic Advisers has responded with another overly optimistic projection. Not only did the 1.7 million increase in new jobs that the CEA had projected, on average, for 2003 fail to materialize, we actually lost 400,000 jobs.
The CEA?s new claim that in 2004 the average number of jobs will be 2.6 million higher than in 2003 is out of sync with labor market realities, according to three experts from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. Reaching that level of job creation would require growth averaging 460,000 new jobs every month from now through December 2004.
[edit] Wait a second, am I in the wrong thread? I thought this was the jobs thread. Where am I?
Originally posted by torifile
...skew, kurtosis, and standard deviation ...
Typical psychologist.
kurtosis...
Originally posted by BRussell
After a lackluster 2003 in which job creation fell 2.1 million jobs short of the administration?s projections for the year, the President?s Council of Economic Advisers has responded with another overly optimistic projection. Not only did the 1.7 million increase in new jobs that the CEA had projected, on average, for 2003 fail to materialize, we actually lost 400,000 jobs.
The CEA?s new claim that in 2004 the average number of jobs will be 2.6 million higher than in 2003 is out of sync with labor market realities, according to three experts from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Economic Policy Institute. Reaching that level of job creation would require growth averaging 460,000 new jobs every month from now through December 2004.
460,000 new jobs per month from now through December 2004? Yeah, that's gonna happen. Can't believe some are actually buying that rubbish. Maybe they meant OVERSEAS jobs?
"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade. We're very used to goods being produced abroad and being shipped here on ships or planes. What we're not used to is services being produced abroad and being sent here over the Internet or telephone wires. More things are tradeable than were tradeable in the past and that's a good thing," Mankiw told reporters in a press briefing on Monday after the report's release.
Gregory Mankiw is the chairman of the president's_Council of Economic Advisers.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
I want to be clear on this: are you stating that people who support George Bush are stupid? Is that what you are saying?
Aries 1B
I said exactly what I intended to. That this country is full of stupid people. Nothing more nothing less. What you interpret is up to you.