September 01, 2003
Ready, Set...Who?
No matter when I started working for a particular campaign, Labor Day was always the equivalent of the green flag at the start of a Nascar race. And it didn’t matter how many laps you had to go - there was something different once Labor Day arrived.
So in that vein, I found a couple of great articles about the upcoming election. This article (registration required) from the New York Times is worth reading. And while I put no stock in polls, I did find this one interesting. Last but not least, ABC offers a nice wrap-up of how the “unknowns” of the Democratic field spent their Labor Day. Only 14 months to go!
Posted by 9thwave at September 1, 2003 11:21 PMWell, I did get relentless popup adds and spam from the links provided and what I did not get was a relevant article that I will not register for in the Old York Times. Most people (conservatives) will not register for the Old York Times because it is a liberal rag and all one has to do is to look at the current scandals revolving around factual information and the papers lack of responsible journalism.
The Washington post was a no-go as well (just answer a few questions so we can spam you) and the ABC article really doesn’t help much.
I’m sorry, what was that point again?
I think “evil pete” wakes up in the middle of the night (3:10AM) and uses Pete’s computer. Pete, please lock the computer room door and hide the key before you go to bed, “evil pete” really never has anything to say and he seems to get his kicks out of saying nothing in vicious, empty posts.
/observation
Posted by: Stephen VanDyke at September 2, 2003 10:41 AMWell I work late. All I got from the links was popups and registration forms. What would be good is to have an excerpt or two so i can get the point of the article. What was the point? By the way, It may have been 3:10 AM Eastern time but it was midnight my time. If you look at my comments a lot of them are that late because I work until that time and then before I retire for the evening, I comment on watchblog. I am “evil-pete”
and he,is I…..**growl** **snarl**
Hum check this out. Generic Democrat beats Bush yet again.
On the linked Washington Post article
When all potential voters were asked whether President Bush will definitely be re-elected, 38 percent said yes, but 50 percent said they think a Democrat can win. When voters were asked the same question about Bush’s father in October 1991, 66 percent said yes, but that number dropped 20 points in the next month. The first President Bush lost to Bill Clinton.
Posted by: Jake of 8bitjoystick.com at September 2, 2003 03:04 PMI meant no disrespect to 9th wave, I just thought it was really bad to link to an article that has no relevance because I won’t access it for privacy reasons. I think that we need some excerpts like Jake made.
At least he took the time to do it.
Again, No offense meant by my comments, I just didn’t get it and was faced with poups and demands for registration….which always sucks.
-pete
I think this article in Salon deserves its own post but since it nicely summarizes the NYT article, decided to add it here instead.
Pete, no need to apologize. But don’t call a link to the New York Times a “really bad link” because you refuse to register. And since I have no control over annoying pop up ads or a site survey, there was no possible way to offend me over this.
But I would suggest in the future, young grasshopper, that you take the time to hit the X or CLOSE button and read the articles before submitting a comment or saying something has no relevance. Your philosophical refusal to register notwithstanding.
BTW, as a former journalist I love to bash NYT as much as the next guy - but it doesn’t stop me from reading it. Like it or not, it has some of the finest political reporters and writers in the world. And if you don’t read it, how do you know….oh never mind.
Posted by: 9thwave at September 4, 2003 02:06 PMWith all due respect to those that without jobs.
9 Million is roughlt 3.25% of the latest census of 280+ Million Americans.
Let’s put things into perspective, eh?
Posted by: Jeff at September 5, 2003 09:01 AMJeff - I was going to let this go since I’m not sure what your comment has to do with the original post, but as one of the growing class of “discouraged workers,” I can’t. You’re comparing apples and oranges. The total U.S. population is 280+ million - one third being under 14 or past retirement age (not that that means people over 65 aren’t working). The total U.S. workforce is 137 million people.
And the soundbites of this story are not providing a complete picture. The unemployment figures only count those actively seeking work. According to DOL, an additional “1.7 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, 209,000 higher than a year earlier. These individuals wanted and were available to work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed, however, because they did not actively search for work in the 4 weeks pre-ceding the survey. Of the 1.7 million, 503,000 were discouraged workers—persons who were not currently looking for work specifically because they believed no jobs were available for them. The number of discouraged workers has risen by 125,000 over the year.”
So in my book, the actual unemployment rate is more than eight percent - a number similar to 1930. The following year, the unemployment rate doubled to 16 percent. The one-month at a time view is pointless. Jobs have disappeared at a rate not seen since the Depression. While 93,000 jobs may not seem like a big deal, it’s so far off the expert’s projection of a gain of 12,000 jobs that it’s not even funny.
Make no mistake - jobs and all the attendant issues such as offshore outsourcing, use of “temp” personnel, rising cost of benefits - will be a major issue, if not THE major issue in November 2004. If I’m wrong, drinks are on me.
