President Obama, Democrats, Struggling With Women Voters

"Nate who? LOL! Silver is also a leftist nutjob who's irrelevant. NOBODY CARES what he thinks,"

He's only the best election forecaster in the game.

I realize it hurts to see your bogus survey exposed, foggy.

But do try to control yourself.

October 7, 2009. A WJR reporter demonstrates the deep economics knowledge of an Obama supporter hoping to get her hands on some stimulus money at a federal aid center in Detroit, Michigan:

REPORTER: Why are you here?
WOMAN #1: To get some money.
REPORTER: What kind of money?
WOMAN #1: Obama money.
REPORTER: Where's it coming from?
WOMAN #1: Obama.
REPORTER: And where did Obama get it?
WOMAN #1: I don't know, his stash. I don't know. (laughter) I don't know where he got it from, but he givin' it to us, to help us.
WOMAN #2: And we love him.
WOMAN #1: We love him. That's why we voted for him!
WOMEN: (chanting) Obama! Obama! Obama! (laughing)

That was a year ago. I wonder if Think Progress, Media Matters, or Daily Kos will follow up with these women to learn what prosperity "Hope and Change" has brought them in the past year. You know, for some promotional footage to help Democrats get re-elected.

What does Obama expect? Lies told that anyone can see, on the stimulus, today on the oil scam, "Cash for clunkers" joke, pay offs and bribes-to vote and NOT to run, and NOW the outlandish Healthcare bill that NO candidate will talk about EXCEPT the ones that said "I DIDN'T VOTE for it"! "Healthcare Stumbles" is the headline in my newspaper! People were lead to believe it was free, and now that they found out if you have a pre-existing condition it will cost $5000. on the deductible and $500. a month and tons of paper work! California expected 20,000 people to sign up but fewer than 450 when they found out the price and Wisconsin expected about 8,000 to sign up but fewer than 300 has applied! They CANNOT afford this! Plus it cut 500-700 out of medicare for the ones who REALLY need it! Got to change these radical ways and the people will vote for someont that can balance a budget-which the White House has NOT even submitted a budget for this year yet!! Unbelieveable!!!

"Problem is, as with most things right wingers tout, it gives you a false sense you're on the right track."

Posted by: progressive mama | Oct 7, 2010 10:18:11 AM

Uh huh...

Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment at 10.1% in September

Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, increased to 10.1% in September -- up sharply from 9.3% in August and 8.9% in July. Much of this increase came during the second half of the month and therefore is unlikely to be picked up in the government's unemployment report on Friday.

Mary, did you actually read the survey or not? I'm thinking not as its 100-some pages. Don't be intimidated. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the most obvious problems. Read the first page about interpretation. Then read the part about question selection. Then google, the author's names alongside the word criticism. It got ripped. Deservedly so. It was more like an unprofessional online survey than anything from which conclusions can be drawn.

Now, I have no doubt you'll attack those with a critique if you don't agree with them politically--- or if they happen to be Australian (one ripping occurred by an Australian) because of the epistemic closure on the right, but I can back up my assertion, and in this instance, I'm absolutely right. Perhaps those sources you read weren't motivated to look into it that much because it inflated them as it has you. Just a thought. Problem is, as with most things right wingers tout, it gives you a false sense you're on the right track.

Posted by: Ryan C | Oct 6, 2010 8:18:32 PM

Nate who? LOL! Silver is also a leftist nutjob who's irrelevant. NOBODY CARES what he thinks, except for the Kool Aid drinking sycophants who are watching their progressive ideas imploding around the globe.

It's clear progressives don't have a clue about economics just by looking at the results of their fiscal policies which have created record poverty and record chronic unemployment since they took over both chambers of Congress in January 2007.

Since Obama took office (and Democrats had supermajorities in both chambers of Congress), the top 1% has gotten wealthier, the middle class has dramatically shrunk, and the ranks of the poor have grown.

Ouch, that definitely left a mark.

Maybe because women get the sense that Obama doesn't really have their children's interests at heart. Or could it be because Obama together with the Head of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Lieter, are lackluster about protecting their children from terrorism. We hear for the second time from the administration in as many weeks the announcement yet again, that "the country was capable of withstanding another terrorist attack and bouncing back". This kind of knowledge should be kept behind closed doors between the President and his counterterrorism analysts. Whether it's true or not isn't the issue. Our enemies receive this kind of public statement as a taunt. They conclude, 'America thinks it is too tough to frazzle, we'll see about that'. That kind of statement from the administration could only harm our security. This is probably why most women don't trust the man.

Are you suggesting there is a better system that has produced better results than America?

-------

I'm suggesting you can't tell a straightforward story. You have to embellish and get the facts wrong. Funny the bizarro conclusions and "challenges" you jump to when that's pointed out.

Must be a right winger.

(See Ryan C's post @ 7:50:02 PM; he gets it right)

"It was ripped? By whom?"

How about Nate Silver foggy?

You can check out his article

"Are You Smarter Than a George Mason University Economics Professor?"

Two key passages

"Here's what Klein and Buturovic did. They took a survey using one of Zogby's internet panels, which is by far the worst polling instrument that they could have selected. The panel was not weighted and was not in balance"

"So basically, what you're left with a number of questions in which people respond out of their ideological reference points because the questions are ambiguous, substanceless, or confusing. Klein is blaming the victims, as it were."

Ouch that had to leave a mark.

progressive mama: "Meanwhile, TP's report yesterday..."

Think Progress? Yeah, there's an unbiased source. Why not just quote Hugo Chavez? LOL!

progressive mama: "The study you cite has been ripped because it was clearly based on a methodology and a conception of “economic enlightenment” that was biased solely in favor of neoclassical economics."

It was ripped? By whom? Jonathan Chait? He's a leftist nutjob with no background in economics who is as irrelevant as the New Republic.

"Therefore, it's more than accurate to say America has "lead" the rest of the world since its founding"

So is the claim now that America led the way on capitalism?

The English might have a bit to say about that.

But surely you realized we were not really a world power until the late 19th century and not a leader until post WW2.

Which reminds me, our experience with laissez faire capitalism in the 19th century is why we have moved away from that model preferring the mixed economic system that made us a superpower.

progressive mama: "Anonymous did you really say, "since our founding"? You believe that-- that we've led the world economically since our founding?"

Are you suggesting there is a better system that has produced better results than America? Our constitution and capitalist economic system have proven superior to any other. Therefore, it's more than accurate to say America has "lead" the rest of the world since its founding. Again, I challenge you to cite a better system. Like many of my challenges to liberals, I won't hold my breath waiting for an answer.

Take for instance what I already quoted Krugman as saying: business aren't hiring because there is lower demand. The government can increase demand by spending. So the government can increase hiring indirectly by spending. It's not a straight job for dollar transaction. Tax cuts are more indirect because the saved potential revenue may be used in a variety of ways including heading overseas as Foggy pointed out earlier.

----

Exactly. Its the weak aggregate demand.

Meanwhile, TP's report yesterday on the US Chamber of Commerce is interesting. (See " Foreign-Funded ‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Running Partisan Attack Ads "):

"The Chamber has repeatedly sent out issue alerts attacking Democratic efforts to encourage businesses to hire locally rather than outsource to foreign counties."

Posted by: Mary |

Mary, you just love that rigged survey. But that's the thing. The study you cite has been ripped because it was clearly based on a methodology and a conception of “economic enlightenment” that was biased solely in favor of neoclassical economics. If you don't agree with neoclassical economics on a particular question, they claim you're unenlightened and/or got the question "incorrect" as you put it. Highly reputable economists often
arrive at conclusions that differ from those of neoclassical economists and would be considered unenlightened by these clowns.

Its not a very scientific study, and citing it just proves you're in over your head.

"Again, the people know better how to spend their money. It's condescending and tyrannical to suggest otherwise"

Then why do we have taxes at all?

"Anonymous did you really say, "since our founding"? You believe that-- that we've led the world economically since our founding?"

That's not too too bad.

On another thread a rwer is arguing that we're not a representative democracy because those words don't appear in the Constitution.

Anonymous did you really say, "since our founding"? You believe that-- that we've led the world economically since our founding?

Why don't you all know a darned thing about the constitution or history?

I mean, really.

The b.s. is unbelievable. Stick to the facts. They're actually pretty good. No need to lie and embellish.

Anonymous: "The fact is that the people will always spend their money better, fostering an economy based on true market conditions, not artificial politically motivated pork spending."

Skip: "There you go again with that 'always' stuff. If people spend the extra money they have from tax cuts on products from overseas it will do little to spur job creation in this country. Government spending can be deliberately targeted toward domestic markets."

Even products made in other countries create jobs in America through shipping, sales, service, etc. If the people spend their tax cuts on foreign products, that's what the market naturally dictates based on quality products that are in demand. In a capitalist system, the market is "always" right because it's based on true market conditions (supply and demand of various products), even if the money isn't fully spent where you'd like it to be. Success is rewarded, and failure is not. If we want more money spent here, we need to encourage the innovation of better, more competitive products and services by getting out of the way and giving more of the people's money back to them. Robbing Peter to pay Paul through taxation isn't going to get us there. And, neither is more liberal pork spending that only stimulates Democrat pocket books.

Again, the people know better how to spend their money. It's condescending and tyrannical to suggest otherwise. Just trust the people and our great capitalist system, and we will continue to lead the world as we have since our founding.

"There you go again with that 'always' stuff."

Nice touch skip.

Now Skip wants to bring back protectionist policies. Bring on Smoot-Hawley 2! Let's see how high we can get this unemployment rate to go!

"The fact is that the people will always spend their money better"

There you go again with that 'always' stuff. If people spend the extra money they have from tax cuts on products from overseas it will do little to spur job creation in this country. Government spending can be deliberately targeted toward domestic markets.

at 43% approval rating seems women aren't the only ones Obama is struggling with. lol!

Skip: "A government run fire department and police department make the neighborhoods they serve more valuable compared to neighborhoods without them. Property values are higher, and for good reason."

Property values aren't a generation of wealth, they are wealth, and Fire and Police just help maintain that wealth. Again, government produces no wealth. Next false example, please.

Skip: "So the government can increase hiring indirectly by spending."

I don't think anyone is saying government can't provide short-term stimulus via spending. They're saying that the people can spend their money better than the government based on real market conditions, not political pay-backs and other pork spending, especially during such difficult economic times. If the government is so great at spending the people's money, why doesn't the government spend all of the people's money? The fact is that the people will always spend their money better, fostering an economy based on true market conditions, not artificial politically motivated pork spending.

Back in May, Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and Daniel Klein, a professor of economics at George Mason University, asked 4,835 respondents (all American adults) eight survey questions about basic economics. They also asked the respondents about their political leanings.

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Conservatives/libertarians on average incorrectly answered 18.8% of the time as compared to the progressives/liberals who incorrectly answered questions on basic economics a whopping 67.6% of the time.

According to the researchers, the left had trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

The conclusion of the study is that liberals/progressives don't understand basic economics. The posts we read here in the ABC blogs only confirm their findings.

A government run fire department and police department make the neighborhoods they serve more valuable compared to neighborhoods without them. Property values are higher, and for good reason.

"The government can increase demand by spending. So the government can increase hiring indirectly by spending."

How'd that work out? I mean unemployment never went above 8%, right?

"You basically said the equivalent of this:"

Not quite Dave. Take for instance what I already quoted Krugman as saying: business aren't hiring because there is lower demand. The government can increase demand by spending. So the government can increase hiring indirectly by spending. It's not a straight job for dollar transaction. Tax cuts are more indirect because the saved potential revenue may be used in a variety of ways including heading overseas as Foggy pointed out earlier.

Skip: " the public sector generates a significant amount of wealth in various ways too."

Tell us how and give exaamples. Thanks.

Again it's all a matter of degrees, I think I've done a much better job of representing basic economic concepts than you have by repeating right-wing ideology.
---

Ah yes, the economic concept of stimulus spending reducing unemployment!

A TOTAL Democratic implosion next month. The Republicans are TOTALLY fired up and will destroy the Democrats in the election. Obama has ruined many political lives with his dictatorship. "We the People" are kicking out the Democrats next month, followed by Obama in 2012. Its over, Dems...give it up! Your leader, Obama, has failed you.

Skip: here's why you're losing the argument. You basically said the equivalent of this:

Neither aspirin nor ibuprofen has been shown to cause cancer, but if you want to decrease your risk of cancer you should use aspirin instead.

If you have already stated that neither of them cause cancer risks, you can't then say that one of them is safer than the other.

"Then, don't cite phantom Economics 101 books like they're fact, if you can't even represent them accurately"

Again it's all a matter of degrees, I think I've done a much better job of representing basic economic concepts than you have by repeating right-wing ideology.

"Either there's a correlation or not, direct or otherwise"

You're trying to frame it in absolutes again neglecting the concept of indirect effects.

Skip: "I said DIRECT correlation. I think we've devolved into word games again."

Whether you said "direct" or not, doesn't change the fact that you can't say there's "no direct correlation" between government spending and unemployment, and then turn around and say government spending has "a much better chance of beneficial effects." Either there's a correlation or not, direct or otherwise. You can't have it both ways. If you don't like word games, stop the double-speak.

Anonymous: "Your dishonest appeal to authority doesn't make any sense"

Skip: "What's dishonest about it? I may not be able to paraphrase basic economic concepts perfectly but I'm not intentionally misrepresenting them."

Then, don't cite phantom Economics 101 books like they're fact, if you can't even represent them accurately. If you're claiming negligence, it too is a form of dishonesty. You've answered your own question.

Skip: " the public sector generates a significant amount of wealth in various ways too."

No, Skip, it doesn't. It's a leech that inefficiently consumes private sector dollars to operate (and destroys wealth in the process). Without a viable private sector, the public sector simply couldn't exist. See the Soviet Union.

OBAMA please RESIGN
---

It would be nice for him to do that just before he heads home for that 10 day pity party on Nov 4. I'll bet he doesn't even have the stones to acknowledge the message he's being sent. There is absolutely no hope he'll acknowledge that he's destroyed the Democratic Party.

Oh well, there is absolutely no danger of another community organizer being nominated potus this century.

Skip: "We've been over this point before Mary, the public sector generates a significant amount of wealth in various ways too."

When government takes money from the private sector to pay employees from the public sector, that isn't generating wealth, and neither is simply spending private sector money in the private sector. That's called redistribution of wealth, or socialism. Remember how Obama tried to convince us and Joe the Plumber that redistribution of wealth is really good for the economy? Redistribution of wealth is even worse with deficit/debt spending, like we have now, which requires us to incur interest to spend. In that case, we aren't redistributing wealth, we're losing it.

"Your dishonest appeal to authority doesn't make any sense"

What's dishonest about it? I may not be able to paraphrase basic economic concepts perfectly but I'm not intentionally misrepresenting them.

ProMa. Remember there have been many Progressive Republicans throughout history.

-------

But they've been purged. Which is probably where you got the idea that others also ought to purge, and that its a nifty thing to do.

Personally, I love America's diversity and think purging sounds very Salem Witch Trials, etc.

As for the rest of your post, Noz, truth is I was very amused by Thacik's observation. While its over the top, I like fire and passion, and fiery language (remember I totally support Grayson, using right wing tactics against right wingers) there's some truth to it, imho. Thacik: "One of the last things that America really has going for it as a country are some really spectacular places to visit and maybe even live. The right gets off on vilifying anyone who lives in those places for stupid and incredibly minor crap...because they are bitter angry people who grew up believing sex, by virtue of being the only fun thing to do in a place like Wasilla until Oxycontin came along, must be evil. A creepy visceral distrust of aesthetic beauty, in nature and art and architecture and language, underpins so much of what they do—ha, like remember Jim DeMint’s crusade against nature trails—and yet no one ever calls them out on it, “centrist” cowards that they all are."

Do you agree with DeMint that single women who have sex shouldn't be allowed to be teachers???

If there's "no correlation"

I said DIRECT correlation. I think we've devolved into word games again.

"The public sector does not create wealth. It's a LEECH"

We've been over this point before Mary, the public sector generates a significant amount of wealth in various ways too.

OBAMA please RESIGN. You cant do the job and the best way to win women over right now would be for you and you cronies to take a 50% cut in pay or resign. Plain and simple

"Posted by: Mary | Oct 6, 2010 12:47:53 PM"

Foggy's version of reaching out to women voters.

Pretending to be one.

"since my wife is a women ( ya never know these days)she and her friends believe he is a very smart man and what he is doing is by design rather than by incompetence."

Wow I'm used to right wingers thinking lowly of women but to say that about your wife on a public forum is cringe inducing.

"his talk to students equating slavery to the fight for his change was over the top."

Except he did not do that.

He was calling for patience and reminding progressives of the patience in past causes when the progressives beat back the conservatives including slavery, suffrage and civil rights.

Those fights took time and patience as the present and future fights of progressives against conservatives will.

"I never said that, you just did"

Well it sounded like it to me. Your statements have an absolute instead of marginal tone to them in my opinion.

Skip: ". . . pick up almost any econ101 textbook. It will tell you that there is no direct correlation between tax cuts or government spending and unemployment rates but government spending has a much better chance of beneficial effects"

If there's "no correlation" between government spending and unemployment, how does government spending have "a much better chance of beneficial effects." You can't have it both ways. Your dishonest appeal to authority doesn't make any sense. It's this sort of double-speak the American people are tired of. We're going to trust in the honesty inherent in the market, this election season, not the dishonesty inherent in liberal politics.

krugman is a joke and has been proven wrong just as roemer was. we all knew this going into the stimulas as we screamed and yelled. the stimuals was payback to the unions and nothing more. since my wife is a women ( ya never know these days)she and her friends believe he is a very smart man and what he is doing is by design rather than by incompetence. his talk to students equating slavery to the fight for his change was over the top.

unless you're one of those big monetary thrill seekers. For them I recommend Vegas.

Posted by: Skip |

An odd comment from someone who advocates that Washington borrow (from whom?) another trillion or two to stimulate us again.

We would be better off with no more porkulus bills. We could send Skip to Vegas with the savings.