News Vote for Something? Risks of Taking Slogan Too Far

[Dooga Blackrazor]

I saw a commercial that said "Vote for Something" while displaying a bunch of issues. I think this slogan is taking the essentiality of voting too far, and could result in a poor President being elected. Other thoughts?

 

[dekoi]

"could result in a poor President being elected" ?

How would voting for the best choice (out of the two candidates or however many) going to result in a poor president? Not voting at all could result in a poor president.

If you were to vote randomly, without any thought, that would indeed "result in a poor President being elected".

Voting is essential to a healthy democracy. An unhealthy democracy is just as good as totalitarianism.

 

[wasteofo2]

I think he's saying that it might consider people to just vote for something, anything, without really considering the issues.

Like they see a Bush commercial saying "George Bush, strong on defense, fighting to kill the terrorists wherever they are, fighting for America." and decide "Yeah, I don't want terrorists to attack the USA, and killing the is a good idea. Plus, I also like America. George Bush seems to be the man for me.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

That's one of the fundamental concerns within the US government. It has been faurly well addressed by the creation of two fairly difference legislative groups and the electoral college.

The Congress was set up with the primary notions of balancing out individual state power and the avoidance of a government run by those elected by uneducated or disinterested masses.

The Senate is the direct representatives of the people, and thus can be as simple or brilliant as the people they represent.

The balancing point, when it works, is that people are represented well without allowing the masses to overthrow reasonable thinking.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I honestly am mad about the increase in voter turn out...

the reason
most people don't know what in the hell is going on in the world, have no ideas what each candiate is for. They make their opinions based on tradidtion and social pressure. Don't get me wrong I am for voters... just voters who know what they are voting for...

I would say if you don't know what's going on

THAN

DON'T VOTE
--
if you want to vote
find
then

FIND OUT WHATS GOING ON

don't go register to vote just so you can say that you did it

 

[GENIERE]

Not fair! It eliminates too many potential Democratic voters.

 

[Tom McCurdy]

I would argue that it would elminate a fair number of bush voters too...

i have asked kids in my school who they are voting for
answer: bush
question: why
answer: I don't know... he likes guns he seems cool

 

[check]

Tom, that's so sad.

 

[GENIERE]

Last two presidential elections; from US Census Bureau

-----------------------1996----------2000
------------------Dem---Rep----Dem----Rep

Grade school . . . . . 88 - - 12 - - 74 - - 26
High school . . . . . . 64 - - 36 - - 54 - - 46
College . . . . . . . . . 49 - - 51 - - 50 - - 50


By an overwhelming margin, the least educated vote Democratic!



..

 

[check]

You only have data from two election years. I would argue that if you were to look back farther you'd see that it's most likley the less educated vote for the incumbent party.

 

[wasteofo2]

Not fair! It eliminates too many potential Democratic voters.

The whole world hates us, there's been a net loss of jobs, everything's going up in price and wages on average are going down, the gap between rich and poor is widening and widening, and you're saying the people who want a change are the ignorant ones?

I saw an interesting poll lately that said voters in Louisiana or Tennesse or something like that who say they're voting for Bush only end up actually agreeing with 40% of his stances and only 20% of those saying they're voting for Bush could identify which position he took on 5 different issues, I'll see if I could drag that up.

And come on, use common sense, you must know that generally states that vote Republican have horrible education rankings etc.

 

[motai]

I honestly am mad about the increase in voter turn out...

the reason
most people don't know what in the hell is going on in the world, have no ideas what each candiate is for. They make their opinions based on tradidtion and social pressure. Don't get me wrong I am for voters... just voters who know what they are voting for...

I would say if you don't know what's going on

THAN

DON'T VOTE

don't go register to vote just so you can say that you did it

According to Verba and Nie's classifications, your description is that of voting specialists. The best way I can put it is imagining an old lady who has no idea about the intricacies of political issues, but decides to vote anyway. These people tend to have less education than people such as activists, and have the tendency to be older than the general population. Politically, voting specialists only vote and do little else.

 

[omin]

I saw a commercial that said "Vote for Something" while displaying a bunch of issues. I think this slogan is taking the essentiality of voting too far, and could result in a poor President being elected. Other thoughts?

I think there should be no personality voted in. We should only be voting on issues. And, on each issue, there should be an intelligence test, where the score gives you your magnitude of influence as a voter, on that issue. The candidates must write there own theory on the issues and state there positions. The candidate who comes closest to identifing what the people want overall, gets the job as leader. The issues would be there primary job duty as president. This would be a true intelligence based opportunity based leadership versus incestual aristrocracy and incestual financially based political deforms existing now.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

The whole world hates us, there's been a net loss of jobs, everything's going up in price and wages on average are going down, the gap between rich and poor is widening and widening, and you're saying the people who want a change are the ignorant ones?

I saw an interesting poll lately that said voters in Louisiana or Tennesse or something like that who say they're voting for Bush only end up actually agreeing with 40% of his stances and only 20% of those saying they're voting for Bush could identify which position he took on 5 different issues, I'll see if I could drag that up.

And come on, use common sense, you must know that generally states that vote Republican have horrible education rankings etc.

I'm a fairly in-between on the candidates, but I have to call you on this spin.

First off, to suggest that it is the republicans who are uneducated about issues based on non-comparitive data is blatant spin. The truth of the matter is that a vast majority of people don't know the issues. I heard a statistic saying something like 70% of people vote like their parents, both sides.

Secondly, the economy issue is not what its being made out as. Here's the rest of the story:

First off, the job creation historically is low in the August through November months, and even more so during election years (Bureau of Labor Statistics). The trend shows a routine that sees a return to roughly 250,000 new jobs per month in December.

The unemployment rate has been consistantly around 5.4% since January (Census Bureau), which is equivolent to the lowest point of the Clinton Administration (all 8 years).

As for the wage levels, check your numbers. You're making a claim of lost jobs and reduced wages. Meanwhile, you have these numbers to contend with.

Wages and benefits of workers in 2001 Q4 were $5.9 Trillion. Wages and benefits of workers are currently at $6.5 Trillion. So while wages and benefits increased by $.4 Trillion, we also lost jobs and are being paid less? The math doesn't add up. (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities).

Frurther supporting this are the Census Bureau's numbers which show a change small enough to be declared unchanged, as it fell within their margin of error. The change they reported was -$1,535 in Median Household income from 2000 to 2003.

Not enough for you? According to the Bureau for Labor Statistics, average hourly wages, Jan '01 was $14.27 and $15.70 in Jul '04, or a 10% pre-inflation increase. After inflation, this number is adjusted to a 2.5% increase in pay.


If you want to attack Bush on economic issues, it should be deficit and debt...

Not that I would predict much better based on Kerry's plans.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

For the most part it is not possible to make a truly informed decision. It never has been. Pick the ten, five, or just the single most important issue, and take your best shot. Pick at least one thing and Vote: The act in itself is important.

 

[wasteofo2]

First off, the job creation historically is low in the August through November months, and even more so during election years (Bureau of Labor Statistics). The trend shows a routine that sees a return to roughly 250,000 new jobs per month in December.

I didn't attack him specificially for a few months, over his whole term, he's had a net loss of jobs. These recent months have actually been gaining back jobs, it's his overall policy, not the past few months, that I'm talking about.

The unemployment rate has been consistantly around 5.4% since January (Census Bureau), which is equivolent to the lowest point of the Clinton Administration (all 8 years).

That is untrue, I think I know what you're talking about though. You're repeating Republican rhetoric that the unemployment rate is lower than the AVERAGE of the Clinton administration. Here are the unemployment rate numbers:

1992 (Bush Sr.'s last year): 7.3
1993 (Clinton's first year: 6.9
1994: 6.1
1995: 5.6
1996: 5.4
1997: 4.9
1998: 4.5
1999: 4.2
2000 (Clinton's last year): 4.0
2001 (Bush's first year): 4.7
2002: 5.8
2003: 6.0
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt[/URL]

So, Bush Sr. fuked it up so badly, that Clinton had to do ALOT to get jobs back, and ended up creating more than 22 million jobs in 8 years. The reason that the unemployment rate now is lower than the average of the Clinton administration is that Bush is still benefiting somewhat from the prosperity Clinton brought, and couldn't have lost jobs quick enough to make it lower than Clinton's average. The only reason Clinton's average unemployment rating was so high was that there were so few people employed when he took office.


[QUOTE=onegermanbeerglass]
As for the wage levels, check your numbers. You're making a claim of lost jobs and reduced wages. Meanwhile, you have these numbers to contend with.

Wages and benefits of workers in 2001 Q4 were $5.9 Trillion. Wages and benefits of workers are currently at $6.5 Trillion. So while wages and benefits increased by $.4 Trillion, we also lost jobs and are being paid less? The math doesn't add up. (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities).

Frurther supporting this are the Census Bureau's numbers which show a change small enough to be declared unchanged, as it fell within their margin of error. The change they reported was -$1,535 in Median Household income from 2000 to 2003.

Not enough for you? According to the Bureau for Labor Statistics, average hourly wages, Jan '01 was $14.27 and $15.70 in Jul '04, or a 10% pre-inflation increase. After inflation, this number is adjusted to a 2.5% increase in pay.[/quote]
I mispoke, what I said was wrong. What I meant to have said was that:

There has been a job loss under the Bush administration (you're not going to rebut that, are you?). Many jobs have been lost, and on average, the jobs that are being created to replace these lost jobs pay about $9,000 less.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

factcheck.org has already covered that $9000 less figure as false. Sadly, the issue is so old, the article has dropped off the site. You can still find references and links to it (that no longer work) on their site.

Also, I'm not sure where that link you provided came from, but traditionally, the unemployment figures come from the Census Bureau, and the 5.4% figure I gave came from the Census Bureau, not a rhetoric or republican source.

Lastly, keep in mind the 5-7 years swing on economic planning supported by most economists.

Lastly, 2.26 million jobs were lost to the recession caused by the reduced spending from the "balanced budget" and 9/11. So if you factor these into your numbers, you'll see job growth given Bush's policies.

 

[wasteofo2]

factcheck.org has already covered that $9000 less figure as false. Sadly, the issue is so old, the article has dropped off the site. You can still find references and links to it (that no longer work) on their site.

Also, I'm not sure where that link you provided came from, but traditionally, the unemployment figures come from the Census Bureau, and the 5.4% figure I gave came from the Census Bureau, not a rhetoric or republican source.

Lastly, keep in mind the 5-7 years swing on economic planning supported by most economists.

Lastly, 2.26 million jobs were lost to the recession caused by the reduced spending from the "balanced budget" and 9/11. So if you factor these into your numbers, you'll see job growth given Bush's policies.

The link was from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a government agency.

So...

We've lost jobs.

But, the way you see it, we've gained jobs.

Ok...

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

No, I'm saying you blame Bush's policies for a loss in jobs, but if remove the effects of jobs lost due to recession pre-Bush policy introductions and the job losses caused by 9/11 (2.26 million) this shows the actual effects of Bush's policies, thus job growth.

Overall, yes, we've lost jobs, but because of recession and the worst terrorist attack in history, not because of policies.

Also, if you'll go to www.bls.gov[/URL] you'll see the current unemployment at 5.4%

 

[wasteofo2]

No, I'm saying you blame Bush's policies for a loss in jobs, but if remove the effects of jobs lost due to recession pre-Bush policy introductions and the job losses caused by 9/11 (2.26 million) this shows the actual effects of Bush's policies, thus job growth.

Overall, yes, we've lost jobs, but because of recession and the worst terrorist attack in history, not because of policies.

Also, if you'll go to www.bls.gov[/URL] you'll see the current unemployment at 5.4%[/QUOTE]
What recession did we have before Bush's policies were introduced? Other presidents have been through recessions before, there have been several since the Great Depression, but all have managed to get through it and create jobs. According to Bush, this was the mildest recession in recent history thanks to him, and yet, he STILL lost jobs.

Yes, we lost jobs due to 9/11, but Bush fought 2 wars, and war-time is traditionally a time for huge economic growth, and yet, no such luck...

I never disagreed that the unemployment rate is 5.4%, what I said was wrong was the assertion that 5.4% is lower than Clinton's lowest point, since Clinton had that rate in 1996 and continually reduced it to 4.0% throughout his second term.

 

[onegermanbeerglass]

The recession that ended November 2001, began before this administration's policies took place. Yes, it has been among the mildest, and to get the record straight, here's why:

About 75% of the cause: Greenspan's reduction of the Fed. Interest Rate.

About 25% of the cause: Balanced tax cuts (i.e. for all classes).


I stand corrected on the Clinton administration's unemployment rate. The 5.4% was the Clinton Administration average, not lowest point, you are correct.

Regardless, 5.4% is a great point to be at, historically, and shows that there is job growth and a growing economy.


Also, while it may be possible to increase job & economic growth, we have to be careful in these approaches. With the Fed. Interest Rate so low, rapid economic growth is seriously dangerous and can yield another recession or even a depression. (Martin Barnes, economist & managing editor Bank Credit Analyst)


We can't just look at these issues and say, I/we want more, we have to look at what's good for the country and plan for the long run. Neither side should be running on pagoratives.