Support NeoGAF

[Particle Physicist]

Just noticed this detail from First Read:


Moving the date up, rather than back, in response to Palin's stalling tactics.

:lol awesome.

 

[gkryhewy]

Can anyone help me out here? I was arguing with someone about Clinton and his economic record. He said Clinton inherited a good economy and I told him there was a mild recession when Clinton entered office.

Besides the deficit, does anyone have a credible source that details how the economy was bad when Clinton became president?

Uhh... "It's the economy, stupid." Ring a bell?

 

[SpeedingUptoStop]

Wasn't Obama saying as late as July that the surge was a failure? It's obviously not.
.

As he explained, on a military level, it was a success. But it didn't help the Iraqi's earn their own way in any respect.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Uhh... "It's the economy, stupid." Ring a bell?

Yeah. I told him that, but nevermind. I found this:

1. The economy Clinton inherited: Shultz's contention that Clinton "inherited prosperity" is misleading; an objective assessment of late 1992 and early 1993 reveals a weak and highly uncertain economic environment.

Overall economic growth was extremely shaky in late 1992 and early 1993: GDP growth when President Clinton took office in the first quarter of 1993 was essentially flat – recorded as negative for most of the last decade, and revised to an extremely anemic 0.5 percent growth in a benchmark revision in December 2003. [BEA]

The unemployment rate stayed persistently high during 1992 and early 1993: Shultz's piece conveniently chose to ignore the unemployment rate, which hovered in the 7.6-7.8 percent range for much of 1992 and was at 7.3 percent when President Clinton took office. [BLS]

In some states unemployment was 10 percent or higher: For example, in West Virginia the unemployment rate in January 1993 was a whopping 11.1 percent and in California it was 9.7 percent. [BLS]

While job growth resumed in 1992, it was anemic: Average monthly job growth in 1992 was 118,000, half the 236,000 monthly job growth averaged for all eight years of the Clinton presidency. [BLS]

Many of the nation's top economic analysts concurred with the interpretation of a weak and uncertain economy in the second half of 1992:

James Cooper and Kathleen Madigan, Business Week: "To be sure, President-elect Bill Clinton inherits a struggling economy." [BusinessWeek 11/23/92

Bruce Steinberg, Merrill Lynch: "The economy is comatose and shows only the faintest signs of life right now." [Quoted in the Washington Post, 9/26/92]

Allen Sinai: "There are real signs here that the economy is sliding badly, surprisingly badly." [Quoted in the Washington Post, 9/26/92]

Fortune Magazine's Annual Economic Forecast: 11/2/92 "Everywhere executives are grumbling in disappointment – they had expected things to be better by now…The economy could be even weaker than the official figures show."

Washington Post, article by Steven Mufson and John Berry, 9/10/92: "Americans have been unable to mount a convincing economic recovery … the economy is crawling forward so slowly that it appears to be standing still … In some statistical categories .. there has even been a "triple dip."

What does BEA and BLS stand for the sources?

 

[ToyMachine228]

As he explained, on a military level, it was a success. But it didn't help the Iraqi's earn their own way in any respect.

Yeah, I can definitely see the point here. Did it make things slightly more stable in certain parts of Iraq? It sure did. But should we be pouring more troops into Iraq without a timetable to pull out and hand over control to the Iraqi government? Probably not. The surge has made Iraqi government even more relied on foreign forces. And now that we've surged, we still don't really have a plan. So now what? I think if we said, "All right, we'll surge, we'll help smooth things out, and during this period, you have to take control because when we're done surging, we're starting to pullout" that would have been a better plan. Instead we surged, and now what? Now nothing. Still in the same shitty situation.

 

[gkryhewy]

Yeah. I told him that, but nevermind. I found this:

1. The economy Clinton inherited: Shultz's contention that Clinton "inherited prosperity" is misleading; an objective assessment of late 1992 and early 1993 reveals a weak and highly uncertain economic environment.

Overall economic growth was extremely shaky in late 1992 and early 1993: GDP growth when President Clinton took office in the first quarter of 1993 was essentially flat – recorded as negative for most of the last decade, and revised to an extremely anemic 0.5 percent growth in a benchmark revision in December 2003. [BEA]

The unemployment rate stayed persistently high during 1992 and early 1993: Shultz's piece conveniently chose to ignore the unemployment rate, which hovered in the 7.6-7.8 percent range for much of 1992 and was at 7.3 percent when President Clinton took office. [BLS]

In some states unemployment was 10 percent or higher: For example, in West Virginia the unemployment rate in January 1993 was a whopping 11.1 percent and in California it was 9.7 percent. [BLS]

While job growth resumed in 1992, it was anemic: Average monthly job growth in 1992 was 118,000, half the 236,000 monthly job growth averaged for all eight years of the Clinton presidency. [BLS]

Many of the nation's top economic analysts concurred with the interpretation of a weak and uncertain economy in the second half of 1992:

James Cooper and Kathleen Madigan, Business Week: "To be sure, President-elect Bill Clinton inherits a struggling economy." [BusinessWeek 11/23/92

Bruce Steinberg, Merrill Lynch: "The economy is comatose and shows only the faintest signs of life right now." [Quoted in the Washington Post, 9/26/92]

Allen Sinai: "There are real signs here that the economy is sliding badly, surprisingly badly."

What does BEA and BLS stand for the sources?

BLS is bureau of labor statistics.

 

[Particle Physicist]

words used at conventions

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/us/20080905_WORDS_GRAPHIC/words_for_web.gif[/][/QUOTE]


where is POW and maverick??

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

BLS is bureau of labor statistics.

Damn I'm retarded. I knew that.

 

[BirdBomb]

As he explained, on a military level, it was a success. But it didn't help the Iraqi's earn their own way in any respect.

Successful beyond Obama's wildest dreams.

 

[Cheebs]

Can someone explain how McCain got A LOT more viewers than Obama? I understand Palin since she is new and fresh. But McCain destroying Obama's thursday numbers? It is not just football since apparently the cable networks all had increases as well as did ABC.

 

[tanod]

Can someone explain how McCain got A LOT more viewers than Obama? I understand Palin since she is new and fresh. But McCain destroying Obama's thursday numbers? It is not just football since apparently the cable networks all had increases as well as did ABC.

Energized Democrats who watched last week plus Republicans who didn't. Do we have numbers yet?

 

[ToyMachine228]

Can someone explain how McCain got A LOT more viewers than Obama? I understand Palin since she is new and fresh. But McCain destroying Obama's thursday numbers? It is not just football since apparently the cable networks all had increases as well as did ABC.

My guess would be that a lot of Obama supporters streamed the speech on the internet. A lot more than McCain supporters. Generation gap.

 

[Tim-E]

I just saw "Gallup Daily: Obama 49, McCain 42" scroll by on the bottom of the screen on MSNBC.

 

[scorcho]

Wasn't Obama saying as late as July that the surge was a failure? It's obviously not.

and it could be argued that the surge isn't what ultimately changed the security situation, unless the surge now means any military decision in Iraq.

 

[Cheebs]

I just saw "Gallup Daily: Obama 49, McCain 42" scroll by on the bottom of the screen on MSNBC.

thats yesterdays numbers

 

[Gaborn]

Can someone explain how McCain got A LOT more viewers than Obama? I understand Palin since she is new and fresh. But McCain destroying Obama's thursday numbers? It is not just football since apparently the cable networks all had increases as well as did ABC.

I think it's a hidden advantage of having a second convention. People that might've missed Obama's speech/the Dems convention live felt guilty and were more aware of McCain. In addition to the football game (and choosing a person's particular favorite channel for their analysis)

 

[theBishop]

O'Reilly wants him to admit he was wrong about answer 46 in a 100 answer quiz that he otherwise aced. Why should he play along with that red faced blowhard's absurd rhetorical trap?

Why didn't O'Reilly admit that he was dead wrong about every aspect of the war?

I wish democrats would get some damn balls on this issue. The surge did not work.

Our troops will have a well-defined mission: to help Iraqis clear and secure neighborhoods, to help them protect the local population, and to help ensure that the Iraqi forces left behind are capable of providing the security that Baghdad needs.

When this happens, daily life will improve, Iraqis will gain confidence in their leaders, and the government will have the breathing space it needs to make progress in other critical areas. Most of Iraq's Sunni and Shia want to live together in peace -- and reducing the violence in Baghdad will help make reconciliation possible.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070110-7.html

The surge was a two-step plan:
#1: Bring in more troops to lower violence (successful)

#2: Use the diminished violence to establish authority of Iraqi government (unsuccessful)

Gillette sells razors at a loss with the intention of making their money back on razor cartridges. If they sell a lot of razors, but not cartridges is the strategy a success? Obviously not.

Of course, this is still ignoring the most pertinent question: Success at what cost?

Even if the US achieves "victory" in Iraq, is it even possible that the cost in US dollars and US troops (let alone Iraqi citizens) could ever be justified? I wouldn't expect Obama to debate this with Bill O'Reilly, but it needs to be seriously addressed.

 

[Tim-E]

thats yesterdays numbers

I know, I was just hoping that maybe they got a leak of today's numbers and that they didn't change.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

and it could be argued that the surge isn't what ultimately changed the security situation, unless the surge now means any military decision in Iraq.

The surge encompasses any great thing that happens anywhere. Just get a promotion and a raise at work? All thanks to the surge!

And guess who opposed that surge? That slick talking suit Obama, that's who. So, when you're enjoying your higher discretionary income next payday, remember that Obama favors failure over victory.

 

[Cheebs]

My guess would be that a lot of Obama supporters streamed the speech on the internet. A lot more than McCain supporters. Generation gap.

That makes me realize something. A LOT of young people decided early to vote for Obama but I doubt they follow politics on TV. While McCain's base is older, much more likely to watch tv coverage perhaps?

It doesn't explain why in 2004 Bush and Kerry had near even tv viewership but McCain dwarfed Obama this time when youth support was behind Kerry like Obama and then they were even less passionate so less likely to watch coverage in 2004 rather than 2008 so I am back to square one. There has to be some logic behind it cause it wasn't Palin's night yesterday.

 

[Tamanon]

LOL, the reason for the green screen behind McCain was because it was a shot of a building, but it was supposed to be Walter Reed.

And it was Walter Reed, but they showed Walter Reed Middle School instead of Walter Reed Medical Center.:lol

 

[Cooter]

I haven't seen numbers for last night. Where are you guys getting them?

 

[PrivateWHudson]

Can anyone help me out here? I was arguing with someone about Clinton and his economic record. He said Clinton inherited a good economy and I told him there was a mild recession when Clinton entered office.

Besides the deficit, does anyone have a credible source that details how the economy was bad when Clinton became president?

I've heard that Clinton's economy was so strong because corporations were spending obscene amounts of money to upgrade everything to prepare for Y2K. Once the year rolled over and everyone was out of the woods, corporations were spent and the economy has been suffering ever since.

 

[Fatalah]

My guess would be that a lot of Obama supporters streamed the speech on the internet. A lot more than McCain supporters. Generation gap.

That's a very small portion of the population. I am more inclined to believe that Obama supporters watched the Republican Convention out of general interest in the opposition.

 

[CharlieDigital]

LOL, the reason for the green screen behind McCain was because it was a shot of a building, but it was supposed to be Walter Reed.

And it was Walter Reed, but they showed Walter Reed Middle School instead of Walter Reed Medical Center.:lol

Seriously? Seriously?? Did some high school dropout just Google image search that shit or something?

 

[Cooter]

The 90's were a boom for one reason mainly, the roll out of commercial internet.

 

[Cheebs]

That's a very small portion of the population. I am more inclined to believe that Obama supporters watched the Republican Convention out of general interest in the opposition.

That has never happened before. Conventions regardless who wins the elections tend to have very near even viewership.

 

[Fatalah]

I've heard that Clinton's economy was so strong because corporations were spending obscene amounts of money to upgrade everything to prepare for Y2K. Once the year rolled over and everyone was out of the woods, corporations were spent and the economy has been suffering ever since.

It had to do with a lot of things. And let it be known that Y2K wasn't an issue for companies until late into Clinton's second term.

I think the technological boom boosted expectations on the economy as a whole--creating new jobs and industries, opening the door to new retail products for consumers to buy, as well as creating an environment where investors felt comfortable spending.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

The 90's were a boom for one reason mainly, the roll out of commercial internet.

Thanks to Al Gore -- a Democrat.

You're welcome, Republicans.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Seriously? Seriously?? Did some high school dropout just Google image search that shit or something?

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/213806.php

Well, several readers have written in to tell me that the building is actually the main building on the campus of the Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood, California. And sure enough, this page on the school's website makes it pretty clear that they're correct.

Okay, seems like the finger-pointing is breaking out in the McCain campaign over the green screen / Walter Reed / McCain McMansion goof in last night's McCain speech. Last night at the Google/Vanity Fair party, McCain chief Rick Davis was telling people the whole thing was the fault of McCain ad man Fred Davis.

:lol

 

[Cooter]

What would we do without Al Gore? God bless him.

 

[Fatalah]

That has never happened before. Conventions regardless who wins the elections tend to have very near even viewership.

So why do you think Palin drew such high numbers? All the news stories?

 

[Tamanon]

You would never know it from the media coverage but John McCain is not one of America's greatest war heroes. He is a former POW who survived, heroically. He deserves to be honored for that heroism.

But one thing distinguishes McCain from other war heroes, the kind whose heroism changes history rather than their life stories.

America's two greatest war heroes were Ulysses Grant and Dwight Eisenhower. Grant saved the union. And Ike saved civilization.

And neither one ever bragged about their experience. (Can you imagine Ike smacking down Adlai Stevenson by saying that while Adlai ran a nice medium-sized state, he was the Supreme Allied Commander who ran D-Day, defeated Hitler, and liberated Europe?).

Impossible. Like Grant, Eisenhower did not brag.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/09/05/on_bragging_war_heroes/

It is a bit odd.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

It had to do with a lot of things. And let it be known that Y2K wasn't an issue for companies until late into Clinton's second term.

I think the technological boom boosted expectations on the economy as a whole--creating new jobs and industries, opening the door to new retail products for consumers to buy, as well as creating an environment where investors felt comfortable spending.

Yeah...That too. I just think we're still feeling the affect of massive spending for Y2K that was an investment with very little return.

 

[Revolver]

words used at conventions

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/us/20080905_WORDS_GRAPHIC/words_for_web.gif[/][/QUOTE]

It strikes me as odd how Afghanistan was barely mentioned. I remember hearing Obama make mention of it, but I don't recall it being mentioned once during the Republican convention.

 

[speculawyer]

So why do you think Palin drew such high numbers? All the news stories?

People wanted to know who the fuck is this person.

 

[Cheebs]

So why do you think Palin drew such high numbers? All the news stories?

I wasn't talking about Palin. I was talking about thursday night numbers. Obama vs. McCain speech. McCain beat Obama easily in the ratings, even discounting NBC due to the football game.

 

[speculawyer]

It strikes me as odd how Afghanistan was barely mentioned. I remember hearing Obama make mention of it, but I don't recall it being mentioned once during the Republican convention.

They focused on those people from Iraq that attacked us on 9/11.

 

[Cooter]

What were the numbers for last night Cheebs?

 

[CharlieDigital]

It strikes me as odd how Afghanistan was barely mentioned. I remember hearing Obama make mention of it, but I don't recall it being mentioned once during the Republican convention.

No oil/no profits = Republicans don't really care.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

I wish democrats would get some damn balls on this issue. The surge did not work.





The surge was a two-step plan:
#1: Bring in more troops to lower violence (successful)

#2: Use the diminished violence to establish authority of Iraqi government (unsuccessful)

Gillette sells razors at a loss with the intention of making their money back on razor cartridges. If they sell a lot of razors, but not cartridges is the strategy a success? Obviously not.

Of course, this is still ignoring the most pertinent question: Success at what cost?

Even if the US achieves "victory" in Iraq, is it even possible that the cost in US dollars and US troops (let alone Iraqi citizens) could ever be justified? I wouldn't expect Obama to debate this with Bill O'Reilly, but it needs to be seriously addressed.

The re-baathification law hasn't even been implemented yet for crying out loud. Oh and "lol" at the Gillette comment.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

So why do you think Palin drew such high numbers? All the news stories?

Well, this one is hardly surprising. She was a fresh face, and a female one at that. There was a lot of interest in that pick, be it from supporters and cynics alike, to see her for the first time on the national stage during prime time.

Whether you were tuning in as a Republican or a Democrat, as long as you're interested in politics, you probably wanted to see this speech.

 

[140.85]

Is there any HQ footage of the speech? I really wanna have a GAF green screen challenge.

 

[Cheebs]

Gallup

Obama 48 - McCain 44

This does not include last night's speech btw. It was 49-42 yesterday.

 

[Kildace]

Gallup

Obama 48 - McCain 44

This does not include last night's speech btw. It was 49-42 yesterday.

Good, only a moderate Palin Bounce that barely ate into Obama's numbers.

 

[typhonsentra]

Gallup in, lead down to four, three point boost is nothing to scoff at guys but at the very least it's unlikely McCain will top Obama when all's said and done, and this will be the last big event that can give him a boost in the campaign so don't worry too much about it.

 

[Cooter]

It's a rolling average and Palin's speech is just one of three nights. Give it time. She will get a good sized bounce.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Gallup

Obama 48 - McCain 44

This does not include last night's speech btw. It was 49-42 yesterday.

Yup, this reflects the full day after Palin's speech. Looks like McCain is starting to get a normal convention bump.

Which means everyone is going to panic.

 

[BenjaminBirdie]

Gallup

Obama 48 - McCain 44

This does not include last night's speech btw. It was 49-42 yesterday.

Awesome news. I was only hoping Bams could stay above 45.

 

[HylianTom]

Good, only a moderate Palin Bounce.

Furthermore, Obama's numbers are surprisingly buoyant. If he's still at 48% tomorrow.. well..