|
Post by john on Nov 16, 2009 15:06:50 GMT -5
Look at the stats. Obama *lost* the white vote by a wide margin (McCain won whites by 12 points, while Obama won blacks by 91 points, Hispanics by 36 points, and Asians by 27 points--CNN). Sure a white dem candidate would have brought out the (past) typical %age of minority voters (and voting much more split ticket than in 2008), but nothing like the numbers and homogeneity Obama was able to bring to the polls. And yes, the dems *may* have won regardless...but it would have been much more of a squeaker than it was. I wouldn't have been surprised to have seen HC go down, in retrospect, but we'll never know of course... heck, if HC was the nom, Palin could well still be the obscure gov of alaska...never tapped in the first place. Anyway, none of the factors of 2008 is operative for 2010. It is reversed infact--midterms have less minority and more white turnout--less young more old. And the economy this time will be owned by the dems not the repubs. IOW more conservative by far. A miraculous economic turnaround--ON MAIN STREET--could save the dems in 2010 but what are the odds...really? Just to state the obvious, though, the size of the white vote is trending down due to the change in demographics.
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 16, 2009 15:40:02 GMT -5
Give it another thirty years. Aren't whites supposed to be a minority by 2040 or so?
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 16, 2009 15:54:20 GMT -5
Back to the economy. Sure, it's a long road back, and for a lot of reasons, it's not going to be very good for a very long time. The recovery will be spotty, as the economy always is. If it was booming in all sectors, we would be wandering mindlessly into a recessionary buzzsaw. Now that some sectors have turned up, others will follow. Homebuilders are looking for lots for the first time in close to three years around here. It has nothing to do with the auto industry. Meanwhile, a weak dollar is inflationary on the one hand, but it also removes the need for the fed to increase interest rates, since money is leaving the country in the form of payments for goods like oil. It is good for the economy, since it makes our exports cheaper for others, and it makes our debts cheaper to repay, since they are in dollars, assuming we can earn some hard currency like yuan or euros.
If the economy is looking much stronger by October 2010, we will have a barn burner of an election cycle. The Republicans will likely pick up seats, simply because the historic trend is for the minority party to pick up seats in an off year, but the losses will be far less than it would seem, based on current economic data.
Americans vote with their emotions, and their emotions are almost entirely controlled by whether they can afford a new TV. Sick, but true.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 16, 2009 17:37:08 GMT -5
Something to season this with, looking locally, will, is that the puget sound metro areas (about all of them from Oly to Everett) are sitting in the top 10% of urban areas nationwide in Milken's 2009 Best Performing Cities report (ranks U.S. metropolitan areas by how well they are creating and sustaining jobs and economic growth).
So we are in what can only be described as a "least impacted" area, nationally. And it still is pretty sucky...
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 16, 2009 17:51:16 GMT -5
We've all heard your "that nigger jumped his place in line" argument. Give it a rest. FU, Jim. My post was about facts. Project your BS racist bile on someone else (I suggest the image in your mirror.) If there is a mirror in this discussion, it's me. We can only count our blessings that Hillary Clinton is not nearly so small. Otherwise, we'd all be fucked.
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 16, 2009 20:12:41 GMT -5
Something to season this with, looking locally, will, is that the puget sound metro areas (about all of them from Oly to Everett) are sitting in the top 10% of urban areas nationwide in Milken's 2009 Best Performing Cities report (ranks U.S. metropolitan areas by how well they are creating and sustaining jobs and economic growth). So we are in what can only be described as a "least impacted" area, nationally. And it still is pretty sucky... You are absolutely right, although the kinds of work I usually pursue will lag, most likely until 2011. So, it's going to be a year of doing other kinds of projects. Change is good. But even if Seattle is doing better than most places, the data I was looking at, with the exception of building lots, is national. My guess is the national picture for residential construction is improving as well as everything else. We WILL see employment pick up in 2010. I'm not going to go out on a limb and say how much. That's BHD's domain, but I will say it's going to be a whole lot better by this time next year.
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 16, 2009 21:25:31 GMT -5
The black vote was extremely motivated in 2008 and that was *only* because a major prez candidate was black. Without that minority turnout--which was completely unprecedented, Obama would have lost. Simple as that. No, it's not, and even by the low standards I have for your arguments this is a real disappointment. The surge of black voters last year was modest at best. Nationally, blacks made up 13% of the electorate last year. In 2004 they accounted for eleven percent. They supported Kerry in 2004 by a margin 88-11, and last year they went to Obama by 95-4. Run the numbers. A seven-percent swing among 13% of the electorate is one point change in the overall outcome. About the two point increase in blacks as part pf the electorate: All other ethnic groups increased their share of the electorate by one point between 2004 and 2008, which means that blacks grew by one percentage point more than the other minority groups. (However, blacks make up 13.5% of the US population so they were not overrepresented in the 2008 vote.) If you presume that all of that increased turnout among black voters came from support for Obama, that still means the increased support for Obama and the higher turnout among blacks gave Obama a net gain of two points in the popular vote. He won by seven points. Had blacks voted in the same way as 2004 and had the same share of the overall electorate, Obama would have won by 52-47 instead of 53-46. Obama won the national vote because pulled out a narrow win over McCain among men and blew him out among women voters. In 2004, Bush won a second term by three points because he won men by eleven points and Kerry only won women by three. Last year Obama beat McCain by one point victory among men and won the women's vote by thirteen points. But we don't elect presidents by popular vote, and when you dig into the electoral college and the exit polls by states your claim that Obama only won because of the black vote becomes even more ridiculous. For starters, most of the states with the highest percentage of African-Americans were won by...John McCain. Obama didn't win Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee or Arkansas despite those states having a higher percentage of black residents than the US as a whole. Then there is Maryland, Delaware, New York and Illinois - states that also have a higher-than-average percentage of black residents but states that Obama won by margins much too large to be explained by the black vote. Obama would have won those states handily even if the black voters stayed home. Only three states were close enough for the black vote to even make the outcome close: Florida, North Carolina and Indiana. Obama could have lost all of those states and he still would have won the election, so there's the short answer to your claim. But if you dig into the exit polls, the increased support for Obama wouldn't have changed the outcome in Florida. If blacks voted in the same numbers and the same level of support for Obama that they gave Kerry, Obama would have still won Florida by one point. That leaves North Carolina and Indiana. North Carolina is a strange case. Obama won the black vote by ten points more than Kerry, but blacks made up a 12% smaller share of the electorate - 26% in 2004 vs. 23% in 2008. An 85% share of 26% of the electorate is more votes than 95% of 23%. Barack Obama won North Carolina only because he did eight points better among white voters than Kerry. And Indiana. Here, finally, is a state where a major increase in the black vote and a big increase in support among black voters for the Democrat changed the outcome! Well, no. Blacks made up the same share of the electorate in 2004 and 2008, and Kerry actually did better than Obama. It takes some effort to be absolutely, totally wrong on everything you claimed. Congratulations. (Correction - In the original post I mistakenly wrote that McCain won the men's vote by one point. Obama actually beat McCain among men by 49-48.)
|
|
|
Post by bizarro on Nov 16, 2009 22:52:25 GMT -5
Would I be engaging in 'gang-like behavior' if I said, "Oh...... dayum....'
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 17, 2009 0:28:15 GMT -5
According to the AP, consumer spending is up in October. Holiday season? Not yet. Stocks soar. Bets on unemployment falling in January seem like they would be pretty good, although I still think it's going to take until the second quarter. Sure enough, the stimulus seems to be working its way through the system. Beats me how to do a poll, but it would be interesting to see when we all think the unemployment rate will start to fall again. This is bad news if you want to see the Republicans do well in 2010, but good news if you want to see the Democrats strengthened. Remember when we had this conversation in September?I'm a little more optimistic about the economy (almost) every day. The unemployment numbers are still horrible, but on the other side the productivity numbers are just off the charts and there is a historical trend of productivity and unemployment peaking very close to one another. I agree with the analysis that employers are waiting to see if there is actual growth in the private sector, and if we see that in the fourth quarter we'll probably see hiring pick up late in the first quarter of 2010. If there isn't private sector growth in this quarter then we're looking at unemployment in the 10-10.8% range into next summer at the earliest. One effect of unemployment going over ten is that it has Congress and the administration looking seriously at a jobs bill for early in the new year. If it happens, and it probably will, one area you'll hear a lot about is financial aid to the states to avoid cutting jobs and maybe bringing some people back. That's going to be a hugely important area. The states are just getting killed and that's leading to a double whammy of layoffs and cuts in services when they're needed most. I also expect to see tax credits for expanding payrolls and maybe some revival of an auto incentive program.
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 17, 2009 9:40:47 GMT -5
FU, Jim. My post was about facts. Project your BS racist bile on someone else (I suggest the image in your mirror.) ;D I think we're off and running.
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 17, 2009 9:47:32 GMT -5
The black vote was extremely motivated in 2008 and that was *only* because a major prez candidate was black. Without that minority turnout--which was completely unprecedented, Obama would have lost. Simple as that. The question is: what will motivate a repeat (or even a near repeat) of that unprecedented 2008 minority turnout that was key to virtually all dem victories nationwide in 2010? Various establishment white guys dukeing it out doesn't seem to be the right recipe for any repeat performance of *that*. Add to this the dem satisfaction losses ongoing in the "independent voter' segment and 2010 looks like fingertips-on-a-cliff edge for the dems. The only *motivated* voters are the white block--the worse, the most reactionary part of that block (and the one with the most corp media exposure--great for recruiting you must admit...). That's just not so. In a nutshell, if you think the blacl vote is what got Obama in you'd better think again. You completely ignore the near complete disgust the electorate had with the GOP and with Bush in particular. Bushco killed the GOP. Yes, the black vote came in strong, but to say it was the sole reason....well, you're just out to lunch on that one.
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 17, 2009 10:03:11 GMT -5
The states and local communities are basically nullifying the effort that the stimpak is supposed to provide. Rather than get the money out into the community they're using stim money to balance their budgets. (The towns can't even do that.) Moreover, the money that they still are short of, states and townships, which obviously must balance their budgets, are looking to increase taxes to achieve that goal.
What the fed giveth, the states and local communities are trying to taketh away.
In my little community, the city council is thinking about putting a tax measure on the ballot because they say they can't pay the sheriff's bill to patrol our streets - about $250,000 / yr. The chance of it actually going through is slim to none. With 10% of the real estate in town in foreclosure, 14 percent unemployment, the local International Paper mill shutting down, pink slipping 300 more people, there's no way people will vote to tax themselves. Plus, a tax measure needs a minimum 50% vote turnout and a majority of that 50% have to approve the measure.
In an off-year election? I don't think so.
The Oregon Legislature is thinking along the same lines. Oregonians are NOT going to tax themselves while in this economic shape. So...these government types are going to have to figure out where to cut overhead. They need to start earning their incomes.
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 17, 2009 11:56:51 GMT -5
The black vote was extremely motivated in 2008 and that was *only* because a major prez candidate was black. Without that minority turnout--which was completely unprecedented, Obama would have lost. Simple as that. No, it's not, and even by the low standards I have for your arguments this is a real disappointment. The surge of black voters last year was modest at best. Nationally, blacks made up 13% of the electorate last year. In 2004 they accounted for eleven percent. They supported Kerry in 2004 by a margin 88-11, and last year they went to Obama by 95-4. Run the numbers. A seven-percent swing among 13% of the electorate is one point change in the overall outcome. About the two point increase in blacks as part pf the electorate: All other ethnic groups increased their share of the electorate by one point between 2004 and 2008, which means that blacks grew by one percentage point more than the other minority groups. (However, blacks make up 13.5% of the US population so they were not overrepresented in the 2008 vote.) If you presume that all of that increased turnout among black voters came from support for Obama, that still means the increased support for Obama and the higher turnout among blacks gave Obama a net gain of two points in the popular vote. He won by seven points. Had blacks voted in the same way as 2004 and had the same share of the overall electorate, Obama would have won by 52-47 instead of 53-46. Obama won the national vote because pulled out a narrow win over McCain among men and blew him out among women voters. In 2004, Bush won a second term by three points because he won men by eleven points and Kerry only won women by three. Last year Obama beat McCain by one point victory among men and won the women's vote by thirteen points. But we don't elect presidents by popular vote, and when you dig into the electoral college and the exit polls by states your claim that Obama only won because of the black vote becomes even more ridiculous. For starters, most of the states with the highest percentage of African-Americans were won by...John McCain. Obama didn't win Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee or Arkansas despite those states having a higher percentage of black residents than the US as a whole. Then there is Maryland, Delaware, New York and Illinois - states that also have a higher-than-average percentage of black residents but states that Obama won by margins much too large to be explained by the black vote. Obama would have won those states handily even if the black voters stayed home. Only three states were close enough for the black vote to even make the outcome close: Florida, North Carolina and Indiana. Obama could have lost all of those states and he still would have won the election, so there's the short answer to your claim. But if you dig into the exit polls, the increased support for Obama wouldn't have changed the outcome in Florida. If blacks voted in the same numbers and the same level of support for Obama that they gave Kerry, Obama would have still won Florida by one point. That leaves North Carolina and Indiana. North Carolina is a strange case. Obama won the black vote by ten points more than Kerry, but blacks made up a 12% smaller share of the electorate - 26% in 2004 vs. 23% in 2008. An 85% share of 26% of the electorate is more votes than 95% of 23%. Barack Obama won North Carolina only because he did eight points better among white voters than Kerry. And Indiana. Here, finally, is a state where a major increase in the black vote and a big increase in support among black voters for the Democrat changed the outcome! Well, no. Blacks made up the same share of the electorate in 2004 and 2008, and Kerry actually did better than Obama. It takes some effort to be absolutely, totally wrong on everything you claimed. Congratulations. (Correction - In the original post I mistakenly wrote that McCain won the men's vote by one point. Obama actually beat McCain among men by 49-48.) What I take away from this is 1) that you are obviously not a demographer and 2) that you somehow--oddly--think you are. Here's some education for you-- from people who *are* professional demographers (and actually know what they are doing/talking about): "How Did Race Affect the 2008 Presidential Election?" Research Report 09-688. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Population Studies Center (September 2009)Note how the question "So did minorities really win the election for Obama?" is answered. Here's the takeaway: Obama won by <10 million votes. 2008 compared to 2004, there were a )2.1 million more black voters, b) black voter turnout increased by 8% over 2004, c) dem margin among black voters went from 71% to 91% in 2008, d) the eligible pool of black voters grew by 6.8%--but the percentage increase in those voting was more than double that figure, e) whites dropped a point in turnout and f) the other minority groups added what remains to Obama's victory margin. Quite a difference between lay and actual expert opinions to say the least. At least I know when it is appropriate to consult those with real expertise when forming a view on reality....saves me some embarrassment at least....
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 17, 2009 12:09:40 GMT -5
What I take away from this is 1) that you are obviously not a demographer and 2) that you somehow--oddly--think you are. Here's some education for you-- from people who *are* professional demographers (and actually know what they are doing/talking about): "How Did Race Affect the 2008 Presidential Election?" Research Report 09-688. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Population Studies Center (September 2009)Note how the question "So did minorities really win the election for Obama?" is answered. Here's the takeaway: Obama won by <10 million votes. 2008 compared to 2004, there were a )2.1 million more black voters, b) black voter turnout increased by 8% over 2004, c) dem margin among black voters went from 71% to 91% in 2008, d) the eligible pool of black voters grew by 6.8%--but the percentage increase in those voting was more than double that figure, e) whites dropped a point in turnout and f) the other minority groups added what remains to Obama's victory margin. Quite a difference between lay and actual expert opinions to say the least. At least I know when it is appropriate to consult those with real expertise when forming a view on reality....saves me some embarrassment at least.... The salient point here is the one BHD makes in his analysis. We do not elect presidents via the popular vote. By your demographer's logic, Al Gore won the 2000 election, as he got more votes nationally than Bush. Election's require one to look at what happens within the states. Your demographics folks obviously didn't do that.
|
|
|
Post by will on Nov 17, 2009 12:13:57 GMT -5
Remember when we had this conversation in September?I'm a little more optimistic about the economy (almost) every day. The unemployment numbers are still horrible, but on the other side the productivity numbers are just off the charts and there is a historical trend of productivity and unemployment peaking very close to one another. I agree with the analysis that employers are waiting to see if there is actual growth in the private sector, and if we see that in the fourth quarter we'll probably see hiring pick up late in the first quarter of 2010. If there isn't private sector growth in this quarter then we're looking at unemployment in the 10-10.8% range into next summer at the earliest. One effect of unemployment going over ten is that it has Congress and the administration looking seriously at a jobs bill for early in the new year. If it happens, and it probably will, one area you'll hear a lot about is financial aid to the states to avoid cutting jobs and maybe bringing some people back. That's going to be a hugely important area. The states are just getting killed and that's leading to a double whammy of layoffs and cuts in services when they're needed most. I also expect to see tax credits for expanding payrolls and maybe some revival of an auto incentive program. I sure do remember the conversation. It's why I mentioned your analysis in another post. I fully expect to see growth in 4Q2009, and my guess is it will be fairly decent. The delay between market, economy, and employment seemed longer, but I'm beginning to think they may hold to historic patterns again. My general rule of thumbs regarding the press got skewered pretty badly, since we didn't start pulling out until well after everyone admitted we were in the tank, but the numbers are similar to previous recoveries, now we have hit bottom. The pattern: 1. Market heads north again. 2. Six months later, the economy hits bottom and heads back up (recession over, economy at its worst point). 3. Six to eight months later, unemployment peaks and heads back down. Productivity figures are the best indicator yet, since productivity means employees are working their butts off. When there is more demand, they can't do much more than they are doing now, so companies have to start hiring or start turning down business. I probably didn't mention productivity before, but it's another statistic I watch pretty carefully. When it skyrockets, as it has done recently, the economy is poised for better days. I'm not convinced we are in for a long jobless recovery, as some I talk to are. The more the press talks about it, the more I'm convinced it won't happen as described.
|
|