2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vacante

[Rover]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Aside from maybe Reagan in 1984 I don't ever remember someone running for re-election without the same old tired "oh his supporters are disappointed" line. I liken it to your expectations for your college hockey team at the start of the season. 4 months into the year you might not feel the same optimism about the team as you had going in but that doesn't mean you stop going to the games. Does anybody with a brain go into journalism anymore?

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

I wouldn't exactly call it a good sample, given the number of people on here of the left persuasion. It'd be like conducting a mayoral election survey poll at a post office when one of the candidates is a postal worker.

Wait, you mean the entire country isn't filled with college hockey fans? So THAT'S why it's so easy to get tickets to games...

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

So THAT'S why it's so easy to get tickets to games...

Given your college hockey loyalties, I sense a bit of irony in this sentence.

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Aside from maybe Reagan in 1984 I don't ever remember someone running for re-election without the same old tired "oh his supporters are disappointed" line.

It's basic concern trolling. When running against an incumbent you try to drive down their repeat vote by talking about how the candidate broke all his pledges and "disappointed" his supporters. The Dems actually tried it against Reagan. Mondale's famous "they won't tell you taxes have to be raised, I just did" line was part of an attempt to win deficit hawks with "hard truths" (sound familiar?) by saying Reagan's credit card military spending spree was irresponsible. That failed miserably because Reagan's supporters were actually pretty happy with him and didn't care that he drove deficits through the roof and broke his promises to "shrink government." What the voters really liked and trusted was not Reagan's policies, but Reagan, personally. They thought he was a decent guy trying to do an honest job.

The opposition has to try to cleave off existing support. Usually they make a less obviously silly argument than these guys are. The internet means every incumbent is deluged with this sort of false flag attack from their flank. I'm sure right now every incumbent House member of either party has people from the other party "helpfully" trying to remind their supporters of how badly they got jobbed.

[LynahFan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Given your college hockey loyalties, I sense a bit of irony in this sentence.

Well, in the grand scheme, even a Cornell hockey ticket is a lot easier to find (and pay for) than big time football or basketball.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Well, in the grand scheme, even a Cornell hockey ticket is a lot easier to find (and pay for) than big time football or basketball.

Given the second half of the NFL season and where I am, you could have fooled me.

[Kepler]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Well, in the grand scheme, even a Cornell hockey ticket is a lot easier to find (and pay for) than big time football or basketball.

This is one of the great ironies of life. Books, beer and college hockey are cheap. There is really nothing else necessary.

[SJHovey]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

It's basic concern trolling. When running against an incumbent you try to drive down their repeat vote by talking about how the candidate broke all his pledges and "disappointed" his supporters. The Dems actually tried it against Reagan. Mondale's famous "they won't tell you taxes have to be raised, I just did" line was part of an attempt to win deficit hawks with "hard truths" (sound familiar?) by saying Reagan's credit card military spending spree was irresponsible. That failed miserably because Reagan's supporters were actually pretty happy with him and didn't care that he drove deficits through the roof and broke his promises to "shrink government." What the voters really liked and trusted was not Reagan's policies, but Reagan, personally. They thought he was a decent guy trying to do an honest job.

The opposition has to try to cleave off existing support. Usually they make a less obviously silly argument than these guys are. The internet means every incumbent is deluged with this sort of false flag attack from their flank. I'm sure right now every incumbent House member of either party has people from the other party "helpfully" trying to remind their supporters of how badly they got jobbed.

I didn't see it but a friend at lunch today said Jon Stewart had a "man on the street" bit where democrats were asked, in five words or less, to describe their candidate. The responses were things like, "it's not all his fault," or "doing the best he can." That's what politics has come to.

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Someone at the Huffington Post actually criticized one of Michelle Obama's claims!

During her speech at the Democratic National Convention Tuesday night, first lady Michelle Obama painted her husband as a president who has created jobs like those held by her father and his grandmother, jobs they used to give their families greater opportunities.

“He brought our economy from the brink of collapse to creating jobs again -- jobs you can raise a family on, good jobs right here in the United States of America,” Obama said Tuesday night.

The only problem: that’s not exactly true.

The unfortunate reality is that most of the jobs created under President Barack Obama’s administration pay low wages. About three-fifths of the jobs created during the economic recovery are low-wage, while most of the jobs lost during the recession paid middle-wages, according to a recent study from the National Employment Law Project. More than 40 percent of the jobs created during the economic recovery have been in low-paying sectors like retail, food and employment services.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Someone at the Huffington Post actually criticized one of Michelle Obama's claims!

Set him adrift.

I'm not your friend, buddy!
I'm not your buddy, guy!
He's not your guy, friend!
I'm not your friend, buddy!

[jmh]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Someone at the Huffington Post actually criticized one of Michelle Obama's claims!

That's a bit of a misleading claim by Mrs. Obama, but couldn't the criticism be countered by the fact that new hires, across all fields, are generally lower-paid than more experienced employees, so it's only natural that a large group of new hires would tend to be lower-paid than a large group of experienced workers who'd lost their jobs?

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

That's a bit of a misleading claim by Mrs. Obama, but couldn't the criticism be countered by the fact that new hires, across all fields, are generally lower-paid than more experienced employees, so it's only natural that a large group of new hires would tend to be lower-paid than a large group of experienced workers who'd lost their jobs?

If they completely changed fields (e.g. going from a design engineer to a burger flipper), then yes. However, in many of the fields that are being represented here, if you remain within the field but go to another job, your pay will be rated based upon the number of years in the field, regardless of company. This is, of course, if a collective bargaining agreement does not get in the way. Obviously, the Obama administration wants one to get in the way.

[unofan]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

If they completely changed fields (e.g. going from a design engineer to a burger flipper), then yes. However, in many of the fields that are being represented here, if you remain within the field but go to another job, your pay will be rated based upon the number of years in the field, regardless of company. This is, of course, if a collective bargaining agreement does not get in the way. Obviously, the Obama administration wants one to get in the way.

Look, I admire you for sticking to your guns, but are you honestly trying to lay the blame for wage stagnation on unions at a point in time when union membership is at an all time low?

Besides, I've been told in the past by certain posters on here that unions cause employees to earn too much pay, not too little.

[Foxton]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

Look, I admire you for sticking to your guns, but are you honestly trying to lay the blame for wage stagnation on unions at a point in time when union membership is at an all time low?

Besides, I've been told in the past by certain posters on here that unions cause employees to earn too much pay, not too little.

Unions are on the side of whatever is negative, dontcha know?

[Old Pio]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election Part II -- Charlotte, a National Treasure or sede vaca

We get it. "Obama's buddy" can't control his town.

Guess what, it happened under Daley too.

Actually, my point, as explained several times, doesn't have anything to do with the mayors of Chicago. It has to do with a president who made a BFD out of the arrest of his loud mouthed professor buddy by a white cop in Cambridge (he subsequently had to eat a generous portion of crow with his trumped up "beer summit.") He similarly injected himself into the unfortunate Trayvon Martin shooting. Again, black "victim," white shooter.

But in Chicago we're seeing a horrific epidemic of black on black shootings. Many deaths. Many injuries. Many totally innocent victims, including little boys girls. And the president has said not one single word publicly about this tsunami of violence. Why? Racial politics? Don't be crass. However, it's undeniable that If he were to speak up on these tragedies, he might actually have to point the finger of blame at the gang thugs doing the killing. And they are black. And that would be counter productive to ginning up the black vote in November. Got a different explanation for his silence? Let's hear it.