Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

What do the dems say now (JOBS)?

Old 11-05-04, 09:04 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 8,229
What do the dems say now (JOBS)?

In case you haven't seen 450K additional jobs in the report

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthr...hreadid=394430
matchpenalty is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 09:05 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,981
i dont think there are many dems that want us to lose jobs. i'm guessing they are happy too.

also, bush isn't the reason these jobs were created.
Venusian is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 09:11 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 8,229
Originally posted by Venusian
i dont think there are many dems that want us to lose jobs. i'm guessing they are happy too.

also, bush isn't the reason these jobs were created.
he isn't but he also wasn't responsible for the loss of jobs after 9/11..
matchpenalty is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 09:12 AM
  #4  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,602
I'm hoping the job market picks up in the next 4 years. I keep hearing the technology sector is set for record growth between now and 2010, but companies are still wary of adding staff. Keeping my fingers crossed that more solid growth will allay those fears.
VinVega is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 10:10 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
McJobs?
Nazgul is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 10:20 AM
  #6  
bhk
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Right of Atilla The Hun
Posts: 19,749
Wait, just a few days ago, we were on the cusp of another Great Depression.
bhk is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 10:37 AM
  #7  
Premium Member
 
bfrank's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: So. Cal
Posts: 20,623
Originally posted by bhk
Wait, just a few days ago, we were on the cusp of another Great Depression.


I think as venusian said. The reps fully exaggerated the state of the economy as did the Dems for political reasons.

Seems like some here are following suit.
bfrank is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 10:38 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 52,505
Any positive or negative report after an election is suspicious.
DVD Polizei is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:10 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Exaggerated?

Ray Fair's economic model forecast for the Presidential Election plugs in a bunch of economic numbers to arrive at the percentage of the two party vote a candidate will probably get. Fair is a Yale professor and was a Kerry supporter, but his model showed a Bush landslide. If you look at the table of what his model forcasts, it's been accurate to within 2 points of the amount of the two party vote the incumbent should get throughout the twentieth century - the average for each election is something like 1.8 points variance between the forecast of the model and the actual vote.

Previously, the worst Fair's model was off was 5 points. This was by FAR the biggest variance in what his economic model predicted from the actual result. The elder Bush got 5 points of the two-party vote lower than the model predicted. That was in 1992, Bush I, when the actual economy was clearly on the mend yet it was so savagely talked-down by the media and the Democrats that people believed it was much worse than it actually was, and thus the actual vote deviated from the model to a degree unheard of before.

The models held up very well in 1992, 1996, and 2000. But in 2004, the model had its worst performance ever. It predicted Bush would receive almost 58% of the two party vote, but he was over 6 points down from that.

Remember, a bunch of economic indicators are used to get this formula, and the same indicators have been used for the last 100 years worth of elections - and Bush's model number was among the highest predicted for any of the candidates - why? Because the economy is simply so good, that plugging the numbers into that model produced such a high predicted number for him.

In other words, according to Fair's model of elections, based on a strict counting of ECONOMIC indicators, Bush was set to receive one of the largest percentages of the two-party vote his models have been able to predict - because his economy is among the best of the bunch.

Yet the model was at its worst variance ever with the actual vote for over 100 years of elections, because this very healthy economy was talked-down and demagogued so relentlessly by the Democrats and by the press in an effort to get Kerry elected, that many people actually believed the "worst since Hoover" nonsense.

How we can have 3.7% GDP growth, have gained 2.2 million jobs in just over a year coming out of a recession, and have such low inflation to boot, and STILL have people say this isn't a very good economy is beyond me.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:17 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Too little too late.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:22 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Michael T Hudson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Formerly known as "BigDaddy"/Austin, TX
Posts: 11,370
I think this is good news but I agree Bush had as much to do about this as Clinton did in the 90's.
Michael T Hudson is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:24 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Th0r S1mpson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 36,443
Bush was the first President to lose jobs in like 80 years.
Th0r S1mpson is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:34 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Garden State
Posts: 8,229
Originally posted by Thor Simpson
Bush was the first President to lose jobs in like 80 years.
jury is not out yet... still have 2 1/2 months to go and the 'job deficit' is down to 100k... very likely it will wind up being some growth..

and natesfortune.. i agree w/you..


one thing I have been wondering is if there has been any BLS political tilt.. the back month revision (august) was very very high..

Maybe the newsweek guy was right and they gave Kerry 15 points with the media spin??

Last edited by matchpenalty; 11-05-04 at 11:38 AM.
matchpenalty is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:38 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally posted by Thor Simpson
Bush was the first President to lose jobs in like 80 years.
Not likely now. He's almost there, and has two and a half more months to go.

These numbers are over twice expectations. Pretty confident he can make up 100K in three months.

Kerry wasn't even right about that talking point.
natesfortune is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:43 AM
  #15  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,602
nate, the economy talk wasn't the only thing that brought down Bush I. Ross Perot was a big factor too among other things (perception of Bush that he was out of touch with mainstream, and 12 years of continuous Republican rule, etc), but your economic assessment is pretty good though. I think the main problem is that we're still comparing today to the dot bomb days and it will take a few more years for that to work its way out of our consciousness.
VinVega is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:55 AM
  #16  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
VRWC
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-05-04, 11:56 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,639
Originally posted by VinVega
nate, the economy talk wasn't the only thing that brought down Bush I. Ross Perot was a big factor too among other things (perception of Bush that he was out of touch with mainstream, and 12 years of continuous Republican rule, etc), but your economic assessment is pretty good though. I think the main problem is that we're still comparing today to the dot bomb days and it will take a few more years for that to work its way out of our consciousness.
I can't argue with any of that, and I think you're spot on here.

And Perot was certainly a big factor in knocking down Bush in 1992 - people say that wasn't a factor in getting Clinton elected, but I disagree. Forget the actual polls of Perot voters in November and who would've gone to who had Perot not been there.

The most important contribution for Perot was giving Clinton the perfect political storm by bowing out of the race RIGHT BEFORE, just days before, the Democratic National Convention. Perot was equal or ahead of these other guys throughout most of the campaign - when he left the race that first time, it created a huge political vaccuum that Clinton was very lucky to be right there to fill.

That means his convention got extra hype, attention and consideration from the voters and the media, and that combined with a good convention and good candidate gave Clinton the "pefecct storm" which enabled him to get something like a 30 point bounce coming out of that convention(he got virtually all of the Perot vote at that time - remember, Clinton ran as a "centrist 'New' Democrat").

Bush did chip away at that bounce afterward, but it proved an insurmountable thing to recover from for him.

That and the October Surprise which Dick Morris, who was with Clinton at the time, admits is what got Clinton into office in the face of a surging Bush near the end.

But that just goes to show how unprecedented this vote was versus the economic forecasts of past Presidential votes.

According to Fair's models using economic indicators, Bush's should've gotten about 6 points more of the two party vote than he did - he was projected to get one of the top levels of any President in that model because the economy is doing so well.

That is far and away a farther disparity than ever before, especially if you take away the 5 point disparity(which was previously the worst the model had been off by FAR) in 1992, because of those other factors.

Taking 1992 out of the picture, this election more than doubled the error margin of the model for the next "most off" forecast.

And that's because this good economy has been so relentlessly savaged by the other party and the press that they've gotten peoeple to believe it, and thus the vote came out the way it was.

Talking down an economy to such a degree is not healthy for the econimic health of the nation or the happiness of its citizens - convincing people that the sky is falling and they can't get along in life when it's just not true isn't very cool.

Hopefully, now that the election is over, a more honest accounting of the economy will come from the other party and the press, and then we can unshackle this economy even further and all reap the benefits.
natesfortune is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.