Blue Waves and Red Waves

[Leonhard]

The only way I can reasonably believe what you're saying is if Trump started in 2009 and all the job growth from then until now and be almost entirely attributed to him. Because from 2009 and until 2018 there's largely a slow linear decrease in unemployment.

Still no response to this?

[Sparko]

Horse hockey...

index.jpg

[carpedm9587]

We?

Yes - we as a nation. We can do a LOT better.

[Cow Poke]

Yes - we as a nation. We can do a LOT better.

That's very noble, but not very helpful.

And i'm already doing WAY bettererererer than you!

[carpedm9587]

Still no response to this?

So I'll respond, but I think you and I are on the same page. Obama inherited a nasty economy. The labor market shed almost 4 million jobs in his first year, and it took the next three years just to break even. If you look at his entire presidency, the labor market grew by 121K jobs/month. If you exclude his first year, it rises to 187K jobs/month. If you focus on his second term, it's an amazing 217K jobs/month. So far Trump's average is 191K jobs per month. The labor market is considered healthy at 150K/month. So under the Trump administration - healthy, but not as good as Obama.s second term.

As for unemployment, it peaked at 10% in October of 2009. When Obama left office it was at 4.8%, a drop of 5.2% or just below .07%/month. As of July, unemployment was at 3.9%, a further drop of 0.9% in 18 months, or .05%/month. Most of the happened in the first 15 months, and it has been flat for the last 3. To be fair to Trump, Obama had it near record lows (it crossed into record lows after Trump took office), and there was only so much more it could drop.

Wage growth is another major issue. Under Obama, high unemployment kept wages from growing significantly (employer's market). Again, if you take Obama's entire presidency, wage growth averaged 0.0420%/month. Exclude the bad first year and it only rises slightly to 0.0426%/month. Focus on his second term and you still only rise to 0.0467%/month. No big surprise. We did not see unemployment drop to 5% until late 2015. Under Trump, it has averaged .0589%/month. Can Trump take credit? Of course he will, but stronger wage growth is expected when unemployment drops very low (employee's market). Wage growth under Obama from the time unemployment hit 5% averages 0.0544%.

When the GOP/Trump passed the tax bill, economists noted that the economy would see an immediate bump, sort of like hitting an engine with nitrous-oxide. They also warned that the long term impact could not be sustained due to the impact on the deficit. So the economy is doing pretty well, but not substantially better than it was in Obama's last two years. Meanwhile, we have all of the rest of the negatives about Trump, and they are again impacting his approval, which has been tanking in the past couple weeks. And yesterday's primaries slid two more districts into the leans/likely/solid Democrat column, for a total of 201 districts to the Republican's 191 with 43 districts in "toss-up, 41 one of them currently held by Republicans. Of those 201 districts, 9 are current Republican districts deemed likely to flip, and only 1 of those in the Republican column are currently Democratic, and all of that despite the incredible gerrymandering that resulted from operation Red Map. Indeed, it is now entirely possible that gerrymandering will end up favoring Democrats.

Even the Senate is now more in play, though still a long shot. Not too long ago the Dem had 45 seats in leans/likely/solid Democrat and the Republicans had 49 seats with 6 at toss-up, requiring the Dems to take all six seats to take the Senate. As of today there are 44 seats in leans/likely/solid Democrat, and 47 in the Republican column, with 9 now toss-ups. So the Dems now need to take 7 of 9 instead of 6 of 6. And the Republicans need 3 seats instead of one. The trend continues to be towards a very serious wave election in November, and we are even seeing it re-appear in news cycles.

I have to wonder what Woodward's book will do. Unlike most of the other books, Woodward is a serious journalist/author with solid credentials and a history of writing (and not pulling punches) about both parties.

[carpedm9587]

A typical left wing meme

I do hear it more from the left than the right, probably because I hear "whataboutisms" more from the right than the left.

[carpedm9587]

That's very noble, but not very helpful.

And i'm already doing WAY bettererererer than you!

Are not

[Cow Poke]

I do here it more from the left than the right, probably because I hear "whataboutisms" more from the right than he left.

Who left? And what did he leave?

[Cow Poke]

I do here it more from the left than the right, probably because I hear "whataboutisms" more from the right than he left.

"Whataboutism" is a sissypink goofus way of trying to excuse hypocrisy. Only beanhead turdrollers use "whataboutism".

[rogue06]

I do here it more from the left than the right, probably because I hear "whataboutisms" more from the right than he left.

"Whataboutism" is a leftist whine that ... well see my brudder's post directly above

[carpedm9587]

Who left? And what did he leave?

Stop editing my posts to make them look stupid...

[carpedm9587]

"Whataboutism" is a leftist whine that ... well see my brudder's post directly above

Whataboutism is a flawed argument. It doesn'tmatter who does it.

Look at what X is doing!
Yeah - well what about Y?

That someone else did something equally wrong/immoral/stupid doesn't justify the person in question. Its just a distraction so folks don't actually have to look at the person in question. It's a common tactic on Fox. John Oliver had a hilarious segment on it several months ago.

[KingsGambit]

"Whataboutism" is a leftist whine that ... well see my brudder's post directly above

I've mostly seen the term used on National Review.

[Cow Poke]

Stop editing my posts to make them look stupid...

You don't need any help, brother.


(Neither do I)

[carpedm9587]

"Whataboutism" is a sissypink goofus way of trying to excuse hypocrisy. Only beanhead turdrollers use "whataboutism".

No. It's a simple way to call out an irrelevant sidetrack from the topic at hand.

When I say, "Trump X," "what about Obama" or "what about Clinton" is a pointless sidetrack. You cannot accuse me of hypocrisy unless you know what my stated position was about Obama or Clinton relative to the discussion at hand.