The Republican Nomination For President: The Race For The Race For The White House

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I doubt the general public knows a ******* thing about that aspect of it though, lol, the topline number is what matters to most 'low-information' voters.

I think you have a mistaken view of how unemployment affects elections. It doesn't work through the "general public" reading the newspaper. It works through individuals asking themselves: "Do I have a job or don't I? Are my wage and benefits better than they were four years ago or aren't they? So do I want four more years of the president who got me in this place or don't I?"

There are no low-information voters when it comes to these questions. Individuals know exactly what their answers are. And if one of the answers is that no, I don't have a job, it doesn't matter if the BLS categorizes this individual as unemployed or as a frustrated worker. Either way, this individual is unlikely to vote for the incumbent office holder. The "general public", and hence the outcome at the polls, only exists as an aggregation of these individual decisions.

And that's why it matters if the reduction in unemployment comes from people finding jobs or people giving up looking.

I just looked up the original data in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employment Situation Summary. The number to look for is the labor-force participation rate. As you will see, it's unchanged since the previous month, very slightly lower than a year ago. As I suspected, it's basically a wash from the standpoint of working people, and hence for their motivation to re-elect the president. The rest is hype.

FOR THE RECORD:
I favor making and running attack ads.
David

The End Of Republican Fusionism?



Today, the Boston Globe endorsed Jon Huntsman, a mixed blessing for New Hampshire Republicans, but surely a net plus for him. And if he had run a decent campaign and emerged strongly in the debates, you can see how, in an alternative universe, and one I hoped for last summer, this could have been a tipping point. But, sadly, it probably isn't. In the last few polls, Huntsman's support has actually been slipping slightly, and he's being overtaken by Santorum.

What's notable about New Hampshire is Gingrich's collapse over the last month, which wasn't caused in New Hampshire by the Bain Super-PAC. And what's more striking to me is that two candidates have been making steady gains there for the last month at Newt's expense: Romney and Paul. Santorum is soaring, after Iowa, but he still has only half of Paul's support in this libertarian-minded state. Remember also that all these events are currently proportional - so Paul's third and second places add up, especially if you have mastered the caucus process and, unlike some others, actually got on the ballot in every state.

What we're seeing, I think, is Romney as the last, dying gasp of Republican fusionism. The old aliiance - free market capitalism, social conservatism and anti-Communism - has morphed into a new one - libertarianism, Christianism and anti-Jihadism. Each faction has become more extreme as they have marinated in their own media complex, and responded to their fantasies about president Obama. And there is therefore no fusion possible between them. Maybe a charismatic figure like Reagan could somehow bind them together again; but such a figure comes along rarely.

Romney's problem is that he understands he has to unite all these strands, but so obviously sees each of them as merely marketing tools for Romney Inc. that he inspires real confidence from none of them. They may get over it. But this feels like a loaf that won't rise in the oven. The fusionist yeast has disappeared. And Obama, far from uniting them all, seems only, in his inimitable way, to drive them into suicidal distraction.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I doubt the general public knows a ******* thing about that aspect of it though, lol, the topline number is what matters to most 'low-information' voters.

I think you have a mistaken view of how unemployment affects elections. It doesn't work through the "general public" reading the newspaper. It works through individuals asking themselves: "Do I have a job or don't I? Are my wage and benefits better than they were four years ago or aren't they? So do I want four more years of the president who got me in this place or don't I?"

There are no low-information voters when it comes to these questions. Individuals know exactly what their answers are. And if one of the answers is that no, I don't have a job, it doesn't matter if the BLS categorizes this individual as unemployed or as a frustrated worker. Either way, this individual is unlikely to vote for the incumbent office holder. The "general public", and hence the outcome at the polls, only exists as an aggregation of these individual decisions.

And that's why it matters if the reduction in unemployment comes from people finding jobs or people giving up looking.

Perhaps the most obnoxious aspect of Progressive politics is the implicit conviction that their political elite alone knows what is good for the rest of us. Cyclo exhibits that ignorant arrogance of that viewpoint extraordinarily well.

One here is reminded of Ronald Reagan's rhetorical question to his audience during the 1979 campaign, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

One here is reminded of Ronald Reagan's rhetorical question to his audience during the 1979 campaign, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"

What cost Carter the presidency was the Iran hostage crisis combined with his Rose Garden campaigning policy.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

What cost Carter the presidency was the Iran hostage crisis combined with his Rose Garden campaigning policy.

Of course; no cared about stag flation; that was OK.
The Misery Index was fine too. Everyone knows that.