Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Republicans Should Be Careful What They Wish For

Republicans Should Be Careful What They Wish For

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

When John Boehner steps out these days for a smoke break, his thoughts probably turn to the day in January when he hopes to accept the gavel as the next speaker of the House.

He’s probably not imagining, as he lights his next Camel Ultra Light, all the ways that the GOP two years from now likely will come to rue the day they won majority status.

But rue it, they will, because while Republican heads are filled with visions of 1994, the year they really should be thinking about — hard — is 1996.

That’s the year a Democratic president won re-election by effectively turning the American public against the Republican Congress.

And Republicans have to understand that as easily as they can reconstruct the GOP wave of ’94, Barack Obama will recreate the political environment of 1996, and use it to sail to a second term in 2012.

Indeed, Obama likely will have an even easier rebound than Bill Clinton, since so many of this year’s tea party candidates are so much more extreme, and even more determined, than Newt Gingrich and his crowd 16 years ago.

This makes the coming inevitable Republican overreach make the GOP of ’95 seem the picture of sensible moderation by comparison.

Republicans apparently are going to turn even more quickly to shutting down the government than they did 15 years ago. Tea party favorite Joe Miller, quite likely to be the next senator from Alaska, already is discussing it openly, in eager anticipation.

And in the ultimate Republican re-run, conservatives already are plotting the impeachment of Barack Obama. (If you thought the Republicans of 1997 had a thin case against ol’ Slick Willie, just see the massive amount of nothing they’ll use to indict Obama.)

What Republicans don’t seem to understand, or care, is the deja vu backlash they’ll face for all this.

The GOP has a high capacity for believing its own PR, such that Boehner, et. al., will truly believe that 2010 will harken some “permanent realignment” of voters back to their column.

That will be the furthest thing from the truth, and once again, Republicans will learn just how fickle independent voters can be.

Independents, who are turning back to the GOP purely out of frustration over the lingering high unemployment and their own economic anxiety, predictably will once again recoil at a government shutdown or impeachment.

Please remember, that for all the hype surrounding the tea party, independent voters really don’t think very much of it, given that a tea party endorsement makes most independents want to vote against a tea party candidate.

When these independents, who want economic progress, see instead partisan retribution, they’ll swing back to Obama’s side. (For all his faults, real and perceived, Obama always is the picture of reasonableness.)

Having won back independents disgusted with naked GOP partisanship, and with a re-energized Democratic base looking to recapture Congress, Barack Obama in 2012 once again will have amassed a winning coalition.

In the end, Boehner may well get that speaker’s gavel. But, so too, will Obama be raising his right hand to take his oath come Jan. 20, 2013 — and Republicans will have helped him get there.

Powered by

About Scott Nance

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    What you’re not factoring in here is that many Republicans are fully aware that this election is the beginning, not the end of our work. And that work begins with fixing our own party and other goals only come after the GOP is put back on the right track.

    The same leaders who want to use this year’s momentum to push idiotic agendas are the ones who reform-minded Republicans plan to vote out in 2012.

    Dave

  • zingzing

    too damn bad, dave. you’ve made your move. maybe you should have waited. that’s the way things go.

    oh, you didn’t have the time? what do you care? you’ve got a pool. relaxxx.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    Don’t you see the brilliant plan laid out by Dave?

    The same leaders who want to use this year’s momentum to push idiotic agendas are the ones who reform-minded Republicans plan to vote out in 2012.

    Vote in all the crazies, and that will “put the GOP back on right track” and somehow enable all the perfectly sensible Republican moderates to vote out the crazies in 2012!

    Absolutely brilliant, I say! It’s right up there with Vietnamization and phlogiston!

    Sarcasm aside, I’d say that Dave took the wrong tack in his reply. If I’d been him, I would have pointed out that regardless of what happened in 1996, the presidential election was still stolen – ahem, WON – by the Republicans in 200l. With a little help from the Supreme Court, of course….

  • Arch Conservative

    It’s the economy stupid!

    If the economgy is looking good going into 2013 Obama’s re-election chances will increase. However voters won’t want to upset the apple cart by going back to the Dems controlling everything. In fact I’d venture to say the ONLY way Obama gets re-elected is if the GOP continues to control Congress.

    Oh and Glenn there are just as many people out there who think that Nancy Pelosi is crazy as there are that think the Tea Party is crazy. The fact that you may not like or admit it does not make it any less real.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    “Please remember,” Scott Nance writes on page 2, “… a tea party endorsement makes most independents want to vote against a tea party candidate.”

    Really? Try clicking his hyperlinked most independents to find the basis of that statement. You’ll be redirected to Scott’s own blog On The Hill, which refers to “the results of a Harris poll of 2,775 adults surveyed online between Aug. 9 and 16.”

    However, if you take the additional precaution of actually tracking down said poll, you’ll find that Nance has misstated the results to suit his own political agenda.

    In fact, Harris Interactive reports that among independents it surveyed, “two in five (41%) say they are less likely to vote for a Tea Party endorsed candidate and 36% would be more likely.” The remaining 23% are “not at all sure.”

    Obviously, 41% does not constitute “most independents,” as Nance would have us believe. In any statistical population, 41% is a minority.

    In this case, the majority (59%) either would be more likely to vote for a Tea Party-endorsed candidate or are not at all sure.

    Admittedly, this refutes just one paragraph in Scott Nance’s Blogcritics article. But if he’s willing to lie to us in that paragraph to bolster his argument, why should we trust the rest of what he writes?

  • zingzing

    “In this case, the majority (59%) either would be more likely to vote for a Tea Party-endorsed candidate or are not at all sure.”

    of course, al, the majority would also be less willing to vote for a tp-endorsed candidate or are unsure. the magic powers of statistics.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/alan-kurtz/ Alan Kurtz

    See how the liars twist in the wind. Scott Nance did not write, “the majority would also be less willing to vote for a tp-endorsed candidate or are unsure.”

    He wrote, “a tea party endorsement makes most independents want to vote against a tea party candidate.”

    Being unsure is not the same as voting against. Except, of course, to the tipplers amongst us who’ve had a few too many.

  • zingzing

    you’re missing the point alan. he didn’t say “majority,” did he? let’s see. 41% would vote against. 36% would vote for. 23% are unsure. so more would vote against than would vote for or are unsure. so the reaction that MOST independents would have is to vote against, is it not?

    “Being unsure is not the same as voting against.”

    and being unsure is not the same as voting for.

    “Except, of course, to the tipplers amongst us who’ve had a few too many.”

    no it isn’t. dunno why you’d think it was.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    Oh and Glenn there are just as many people out there who think that Nancy Pelosi is crazy as there are that think the Tea Party is crazy.

    Ah…so are there ANY Democrats out there who take positions like:

    – “let’s use the barter system’ for health care”

    – “no abortion even in cases of rape or incest…but just learn to make lemonade our of lemons!”

    – “the government has developed mice with fully functioning human brains”

    – “Climate change is a vast conspiracy!”

    – “Obama’s really a Muslim!”

    And let’s not forget the birthers that comprise over a third of the Republican party!

    No, Arch, when it comes to crazy/stupid candidates, we Dems have nothing like what the Republicans are selling these days.

  • Anarcissie

    I suppose the Democratic platform, ‘We may not look like much, but we’re the ones who aren’t crazy’, is likely to prevail. It’s odd for a country in some sort of economic crisis for the two major parties to offer nothing but more of the same, but there it is. 2008 was just a warning, though. Interesting times are ahead.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Speaking of crazy, NOW we know why Texas is the reddest of red states, and why they’ve got more Republican testosterone than any other state!

    (my apologies, but this was just too good to pass up!)

  • Clavos

    Oh and Glenn there are just as many people out there who think that Nancy Pelosi is crazy as there are that think the Tea Party is crazy.

    There are more.

    Far more.

    That’s why the Tea party/Republicans are going to win this midterm.

  • Baronius

    Scott – Why do you think that Republicans don’t understand the potential for backlash? If you wanted to write an article saying that a Republican win in 2010 could help Obama in 2012, that would be fine. But what makes you think that the same House members who were there in 1994-1996 don’t remember what you do?

    Of course there are people talking about impeaching President Obama. People talked about impeaching every president since Nixon. Although I note that the article you linked to didn’t mention anyone in particular talking about impeachment, and the article it linked to (at least the portion of it available to non-subscribers) mentioned one congressman who talked about it last year. Not much of a groundswell on which to base one of your only two examples.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    There are more? I guess that’s why examples of stone-cold crazy liberal beliefs are plastered all over BC what with all the conservatives here.

    Funny…there don’t seem to be too many wacko liberal beliefs listed…

    …so I’ll list a few other wacko Republican/Tea Party political statements:

    – “Sharia law’s already being implemented in cities in America!”

    – “More regulations cause MORE disasters!”

    – “Get rid of Medicare” AND “Leave my Medicare alone!”

    – “Obamacare will have death panels!”

    – “Privatize Social Security and the VA!” (boy, wouldn’t that have worked wonders in the 2008 meltdown? “I’m sorry, Mr. Jones, but the company you trusted your Social Security to is now bankrupt. Here’s some cat food to get you by for now.”)

    – “Abstinence-only sex ed in schools!”

    I could go on for days.

    No, Clavos – the Republicans and the Tea Party people have gone off the deep end, left the reservation…you get the idea. I’m so glad I woke up and saw what was happening twenty years ago. I just have to wonder how it is that well-meaning conservatives plainly see how wacked-out so many of their politicians are, yet vote for them anyway. The idea that a Republican who happens to be loony is better in office than a Democrat who is sane and rational…is a loony concept in and of itself. Garbage in, garbage out. Loonies in, and you get lunacy as a result…and I assume you’ve supervised enough people to know that if you send an idiot to do a job, it’s very unlikely that he’ll do the job well.

    But the Republicans are wanting to send idiots to Congress. Garbage in, garbage out.

  • Clavos

    Thanks for the long-winded lecture, Glenn.

    All I said was that there are far more people who consider the Wicked Bitch of the West to be crazy than there are who consider the Tea party to be crazy, which according to the current polls, is demonstrably true, so not sure why you favored me with your diatribe…

  • zingzing

    clavos, do you really have such a high opinion of america’s political consciousness that you think a high percentage of those polled could even name nancy pelosi (or would have any clue about where she’s from)?

    she has become something of a witch to those within the tea party, but then again, the tea party is the national (and international) joke.

    the polls, of course, aren’t nancy pelosi vs the tea party.

  • Clavos

    Actually I don’t have a high opinion about anything American, but my point (for the third time) was that, according to the polls, there are far more likely voters for the Tea party and Republican candidates in the midterms than there are for the democrats, therefore the likelihood of a higher number of Pelosi-haters is strong.

  • Clavos

    the tea party is the national (and international) joke.

    And the joke is winning…

    Cool.

  • zingzing

    they haven’t won much yet. we’ll see next week. then we’ll see what they’re really like. i’m not certain you’ll actually like it.

  • zingzing

    “the likelihood of a higher number of Pelosi-haters is strong.”

    even if they don’t know it, i guess. toe the line, toe the line.

  • Clavos

    zing, I would prefer Machiavelli himself to that lying demagogue who’s currently sleeping in the WH.

  • zingzing

    then you don’t know “the prince” well enough. and if you put it that way and mean it, you don’t know machiavelli either. he wrote “the prince” as a satire while he stayed in prison after his arms were broken while he was being tortured by the medici family. machiavelli was actually one of the early proponents of democracy. “the prince” was a warning, not a guidebook.

    and what exactly has obama lied about? do you think he’s trying to destroy america? or become dictator? no?

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Calling the prez a “lying demagogue” is a bit much. If anything, I wish he would go all populist on the Tea Party’s ass. He resists this for whatever reason.

    Sarah Palin, now there is a lying demagogue. And a barely literate one. The term would fit Glenn Beck quite well too. And Newt Gingrich, one of the lyingest, most opportunistic and insincere slimeballs of our time.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    so pollsters aren’t asking “who you would vote”” but instead the meaningless question “who’s crazier?” That’s sounds like a pile of road apples unless you have a link

  • Clavos

    what exactly has obama lied about

    From his 2010 State of the Union:

    [Obamacare would]”…preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan…” Medicare’s chief actuary estimates 14 million will lose their employer coverage. Seniors are already losing Medicare Advantage plans.

    Same speech:

    “Let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time home buyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. As a result, millions of Americans have more to spend on gas, and food,and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers.”

    Reply from the Cato Institute: [Obama] “could hardly have cut taxes for 95% of Americans, since more than 40% pay no income taxes. The administration has simply counted increased subsidy checks to members of these groups as tax cuts. But refundable tax credits are unearned subsidies, not tax cuts.” Obama dishonestly called spending increases “tax cuts.”

    He lied.

    Same speech:

    Obama said that beginning in 2011, he would “…freeze government spending for three years” except for national security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.

    Cato Institute calculated that the “freeze” only covers 13% of the total federal budget, and none of the spending in the stimulus bill.

    He lied.

    These are just a few of the many examples. He lies almost every time he opens his mouth.

  • Arch Conservative

    “No, Arch, when it comes to crazy/stupid candidates, we Dems have nothing like what the Republicans are selling these days.”

    And yet, the Democrats, by all accounts, are in for an epic bloodbath at the polls in under two weeks.

    Tell me Glenn……”you Dems”…..does it keep you up at night…..the knowledge that even though you’re so much smarter, so much more enlightened……so much more progressive…….and you still can’t make all bend to your will…………

    Just how angry does it make you that not everyone thinks exactly as you do?

  • Arch ConscienceStain

    Just how angry does it make you that not everyone thinks exactly as you do?

    That sad thing is that this shouldn’t make anybody angry. Even sadder is the notion that a person holding a differing point of view is somehow less intelligent.

    Big deal, democrats will lose. Republicans will then puff out their chests further than usual, claim a mandate, and then proceed to fuck things up like they usually do, all while waving a tattered copy of the constitution in their right hand (their left hand is busy jerking off Glenn Beck).

  • Clavos

    First:

    Even sadder is the notion that a person holding a differing point of view is somehow less intelligent.

    Then:

    Republicans will then puff out their chests further than usual, claim a mandate, and then proceed to fuck things up like they usually do, all while waving a tattered copy of the constitution in their right hand (their left hand is busy jerking off Glenn Beck).

    How could the Republicans not find you “somehow less intelligent”??

  • Arch ConscienceStain

    How could the Republicans not find you “somehow less intelligent”??

    To be clear, Mr. Clavos, I am speaking of Democrat and Republican politicians, who seem to be able to embarrass themselves on a regular basis with their behavior, statements, and overall lack of self-awareness.

    There are clear-minded, intelligent people on both “sides,” but they are drowned out by all of the yelling.

    You are right, I should not have said “jerking off,” since the activity will be closer to genuflecting or bowing or something.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    And the joke [the Tea Party] is winning…

    So did the Whigs for a while. And so did the Know-Nothings. Both made a big splash for a few years…and then they were consigned to the dustbin of history. Remember that, Clavos.

    How could the Republicans not find you “somehow less intelligent”??

    Well, so far the Republicans think that 97% of the world’s climatologists are somehow ‘less intelligent’ for saying that humans are a (or the) major cause of global warming.

    A significant portion of Republicans (including a few of the candidates that Republicans vote for) think that evolution is wrong…and that creationism should be taught in schools.

    There there’s the little fact that the level of education in red states is generally LOWER than in blue states (which of course is due to the fact that the blue states are more urbanized and thus are home to the great majority of the better universities).

    And have you heard about “Glenn Beck University”?

    Sure, Clavos – the Republicans can ‘think’ that I’m less intelligent, and other than laying claim to an understanding of history that certain others don’t have, I don’t think you can find ANYWHERE that I’ve bragged about my intelligence. But regardless of what my intelligence may or may not be, at least I’m making my decisions based on facts…which cannot be said of most Republicans.

  • Clavos

    at least I’m making my decisions based on facts…which cannot be said of most Republicans.

    And you’ve investigated and studied this “phenomenon” with hard facts — not just correlated informal observations as is your wont.

    How about showing us your research — average results of Republican intelligence tests, average and highest levels of education among declared Republicans, GRE scores of Republicans who go to university, percent of all Republicans who attend university — who are awarded a degree — percent of doctoral degrees — percent of Republicans who have only a high school diploma — percent of dropouts — average new worth of declared Republicans.

    Unless you have real data, you’re, as usual, just speculating.

    And, to put it in good ol’ “Mississippian:”

    It don’t mean shit..

  • zingzing

    clavos, medicare advantage plans skyrocketed last year because people were getting let go from work or didn’t want to pay for their cadillac insurance plans anymore. the gov’t pays insurance companies to take care of the medicare advantage accounts. but now that they’ve become so much more popular, insurance companies are demanding more money while dangling peoples’ lives on the line. it’s the insurance companies that are doing this. we’ll see what happens with it. can’t go on forever.

    on tax cuts and the cato institute: you really want to use the cato institute with me? find something else. also, you’re really going to quibble with words here? yeah, yeah, he may say tax cuts, but you know he just means more money in peoples’ pockets. “tax cuts” is the phrase the people like to hear. it’s stump shorthand. you know that. and do they really think he’s including children? even people on unemployment pay income taxes. do you know anybody that doesn’t pay income tax? (should they have an income. old people on ss and 12-year-old girls obviously don’t count.)

    i never heard about this gov’t freeze thing, but it hasn’t even happened yet and there’s the cato institute calculating and calculating about something they know nothing about. and why would a freeze in 2011 cover a stimulus bill from 2010 or 2009? how much of that spending will still be going on?

    if you can’t find anything better than those, the majority of which aren’t even scheduled to have happened yet, so YOU DON’T KNOW IF HE LIED OR NOT, then i’m afraid you’re just making stuff up at this point. not quite lying, but seeing into a future that hasn’t yet arrived and drawing conclusions you have no right to draw at this point.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    None of those examples are lies. You are in the mood to sling mud, which was not always the case with you.

    You don’t talk about why “14 million” would lose their coverage, or what will then happen. Not all the same circumstances, and not all the same results. You make it sound as though people will be thrown into the street [that’s actually more of a Republican idea].

    If an employer no longer offers a plan, employees have to choose another. Happens all the time, has happened to me several times — all before Obama was even elected.

    And Medicare Advantage plans are egregious corporate welfare which you should oppose as a fiscal conservative. Anyone ‘losing’ an Advantage plan will still have full Medicare coverage and you know it. Advantage plans cost the government more — funneling cash to insurance companies.

    The stimulus bill wouldn’t be part of the 2011 budget. It was a two year plan. That last one isn’t even close to a lie. Your description of it is a deliberate distortion. Are you turning into Dave Nalle now?

    Obama is a politician and he is no doubt guilty of spin, multiple times. But if those are the worst examples you can come up with to demonstrate that he is a noteworthy liar compared to other politicians and even other recent presidents….you either need to try harder or give up. Calling a tax subsidy a tax cut? This is worth yelling about now?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Since you don’t want to do your own research, here’s the hard, cold numbers from the 2010 census. It’s hard to read because I can’t format it in a way to where it’s easily read, but it is accurate.

    First column is percentage (by state) of high school grads, second is percentage of those with bachelor degrees, and the last is percentage of those with advanced degrees. The list as a whole is ordered by the second column of percentages.

    In the top fifteen, only Colorado, Virginia, and Minnesota are red states. The bottom sixteen are ALL red states…except for maybe Ohio which can’t seem to make up its mind.

    State…….High School grads……Bachelors Degree……Advanced Degree

    District of Columbia 85.7 47.5 26.0
    Massachusetts 88.4 37.9 16.0
    Maryland 87.4 35.2 15.7
    Colorado 88.9 35.0 12.5
    Connecticut 88.0 34.7 15.4
    New Jersey 87.0 33.9 12.7
    Virginia 85.9 33.6 13.7
    Vermont 90.3 33.6 12.9
    New Hampshire 90.5 32.5 11.5
    New York 84.1 31.7 13.5
    Minnesota 91.0 31.0 10.0
    Washington 89.3 30.3 10.8
    Rhode Island 83.0 29.8 11.8
    California 80.2 29.5 10.5
    Illinois 85.7 29.5 11.0
    Hawaii 89.4 29.2 9.9
    Kansas 89.1 28.8 9.8
    Utah 90.2 28.7 9.1
    Oregon 88.0 28.3 10.3
    United States 84.5 27.5 10.1
    Nebraska 89.6 27.5 8.8
    Georgia 82.9 27.1 9.5
    Montana 90.0 27.0 8.6
    Maine 89.4 26.7 9.2
    Delaware 87.4 26.1 10.4
    Alaska 90.5 26.0 9.9
    Florida 84.9 25.8 8.9
    Pennsylvania 86.8 25.8 9.9
    North Dakota 89.0 25.7 6.4
    North Carolina 83.0 25.6 8.6
    Wisconsin 89.0 25.4 8.5
    Arizona 83.5 25.3 9.2
    Texas 79.1 25.2 8.2
    South Dakota 88.2 25.0 7.0
    New Mexico 82.3 24.8 10.2
    Michigan 87.4 24.7 9.5
    Missouri 85.6 24.5 8.9
    Idaho 88.4 24.5 7.6
    Iowa 89.6 24.3 7.5
    Ohio 87.1 24.1 8.8
    South Carolina 82.1 23.5 8.2
    Wyoming 91.2 23.4 7.7
    Oklahoma 84.8 22.8 7.6
    Indiana 85.8 22.1 7.9
    Tennessee 81.4 21.8 7.6
    Nevada 83.7 21.8 7.5
    Alabama 80.4 21.4 8.0
    Louisiana 79.9 20.4 6.6
    Kentucky 80.1 20.0 8.0
    Arkansas 81.1 19.3 6.5
    Mississippi 78.5 18.9 6.4
    West Virginia 81.2 17.3 6.6

  • Baronius

    Can you guys at least acknowledge that the “jobs created or saved” numbers are, if not lies, then conjecture? And that the president was probably aware that there were no “shovel-ready” jobs some time before he admitted it last week?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Oh, and Clavos –

    You mentioned Mississippi in a disparaging manner. I’ve often told people that Mississippi is a wonderful place to be away from.

    That, and if I’m so wrong, then please ‘splain just how it is that conservatives are SO much better for America…but the educational attainment rates in states that have been under conservative governance for GENERATIONS are generally so much WORSE than the educational attainment rates in blue states?

    Remember, this is NOT a new statistic, but one that’s held true for GENERATIONS, state after state after state, year after year after year. Don’t try your ‘logical error’ claptrap, because that only holds true for single events or data points. In this case, however, the educational attainment rate of each and every state, each and every year is a SEPARATE data point…resulting in five hundred discrete events every decade since the 1960’s, far more than enough to verify the overall trend.

    P.S. I publicly gave you the answer a long time ago, but since I’m a stoopid liberal which means that it’s absolutely impossible that I could be right in anything by pointing out any area in which conservative governance is not the gold standard for all humankind, I suppose I can count on you to ignore the obvious facts (which are all obviously falsified by the stoopid guv’mint anyways, I guess), to take righteous umbrage at the information I posted in my previous comment.

    Some things just never change.

  • Clavos

    Some things just never change.

    Foremost among them is your incessant repetition of the same meaningless red state/blue state “data.”

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Meh.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Saying there were no shovel-ready jobs, or that they are hard to find, doesn’t mean there were no infrastructure projects funded by the stimulus. It just means they took longer to get started. At least $80 billion was spent in 2009-2010 on 30,000 different projects.

    If people are employed rather than unemployed, and the reason is that stimulus funds were available to pay for their jobs, it makes sense to include those who escaped layoffs because of the money as well as those who were newly hired with the funds. That’s “jobs created or saved.

    The president’s words about shovel ready jobs and jobs created or saved are not lies. Claiming that the stimulus funds were useless…that’s a lie.

  • zingzing

    clavos: “Correlation does not imply causation.”

    but it does say something. not every college graduate in a blue state is a dem. but… come on. it’s not meaningless. you can deny it all you want, but damn if that’s not a damning fact. maybe it means we’re indoctrinated at a majority level. or maybe it means something else. it certainly doesn’t mean nothing. like that conservatism leads to ignorance. if it doesn’t, why do you have such an issue with universities and higher learning?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Foremost among them is your incessant repetition of the same meaningless red state/blue state “data.”

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    I knew you’d try to make that claim, Clavos. That was why I said this in comment #36:

    Remember, this is NOT a new statistic, but one that’s held true for GENERATIONS, state after state after state, year after year after year. Don’t try your ‘logical error’ claptrap, because that only holds true for single events or data points. In this case, however, the educational attainment rate of each and every state, each and every year is a SEPARATE data point…resulting in five hundred discrete events every decade since the 1960’s, far more than enough to verify the overall trend.

    So for your edification, The Causation/Correlation is a logical fallacy because there are at least five possibilities:

    1. A may be the cause of B.
    2. B may be the cause of A.
    3. some unknown third factor C may actually be the cause of both A and B.
    4. there may be a combination of the above three relationships. For example, B may be the cause of A at the same time as A is the cause of B (contradicting that the only relationship between A and B is that A causes B). This describes a self-reinforcing system.
    5. the “relationship” is a coincidence or so complex or indirect that it is more effectively called a coincidence (i.e. two events occurring at the same time that have no direct relationship to each other besides the fact that they are occurring at the same time). A larger sample size helps to reduce the chance of a coincidence, unless there is a systematic error in the experiment.

    See that last sentence? As I implied above, the data set involved for the past forty years would include two thousand separate data points…all of which generally support what I’ve pointed out.

    And THEN I asked you to provide an alternate explanation. You have so far refused to do so.

    Why?

    Because you can’t.

    All you can do is deny, deny, deny…and provide NO alternate explanation – even AFTER I gave you the real causation in the comments to the article where I first approached this topic wherein I pointed out that red states generally have lower educational levels, lower income levels, higher teenage pregnancy rates, higher crime rates, higher murder rates, higher poverty rates, et cetera. It has to do NOT so much with conservative or liberal politics, but it has everything to do with the level of urbanization…and this holds true in every country in the world.

    Funny thing is, the greater the level of urbanization, the greater the likelihood that liberal policies (or what passes for liberal policies in the local culture) will be supported by the general populace. This is ALSO true in every country in the world.

    Frankly, I strongly suspect you do understand the truth of what I’ve posted, but your dislike for Democrats and liberals in general is so strong that you cannot allow yourself to agree. But unlike the rest of my comments under this article, that’s mere speculation.

  • zingzing

    think someone just got told.

  • Clavos

    And THEN I asked you to provide an alternate explanation. You have so far refused to do so.

    Why?

    Because you can’t.

    No.

    Because I don’t have to. You haven’t proven anything. There is no alternate explanation for nothing, which is what you have so far.

  • zingzing

    40 years of data is nothing? why not?

    if you try to use demographic data at any point, i’ll try to be there.

    i’ve lived in both the (deep) south and the north (east and west), clavos. the south is backward. it’s alright, it’s got a lot to recommend, but it’s dumb as a brick in the end. that’s not necessarily because of conservative politics, but goddamn if that doesn’t hurt the place. people are still kept in their place. it’s all suburban white gated communities and hard-way-out ghettos. look at cities in red states. name a conservative cosmopolitan city. name a city with an arts scene that’s not a liberal hotspot. name a place that makes any real contribution to culture or society that’s a conservative stronghold.

    yeah, maybe you don’t consider that a goal. but that’s why you hate humanity. because you don’t appreciate how awesome it is. of course that’s why you ended up conservative.

  • Baronius

    “Saying there were no shovel-ready jobs, or that they are hard to find, doesn’t mean there were no infrastructure projects funded by the stimulus. It just means they took longer to get started. At least $80 billion was spent in 2009-2010 on 30,000 different projects.”

    Fine, but I wasn’t talking about how long they took to get started. I was talking about the false impression that there were shovel-ready jobs.

    “If people are employed rather than unemployed, and the reason is that stimulus funds were available to pay for their jobs, it makes sense to include those who escaped layoffs because of the money as well as those who were newly hired with the funds. That’s ‘jobs created or saved.'”

    That’s a small portion of the total number they’ve been counting. The people you describe account for less than 100,000 of the total, and even in those cases there’s a lot of wiggle room (for example, a teacher paid with stimulus money may never have been in danger of losing his job). As for the 2-3.5 million figures often cited, they include estimates of the indirect impact of the stimulus bills. Speculation. (more below)

    “The president’s words about shovel ready jobs and jobs created or saved are not lies. Claiming that the stimulus funds were useless…that’s a lie.”

    That’s not a lie. It’s speculation based on economic theory, just as the projections of saved or created jobs are speculation. The people trying to make the stimulus look good emphasize its positive indirect effects, while the other side emphasize its negative indirect effects.