Where Are the Jobs? The South and Midwest
show comments
  • thibaud

    Good news for Team Obama. Romney’s chances of running the tables on the swing states, incl Ohio, are slim and getting slimmer by the week.

  • Kenny

    I’m in Ohio and neither Obama nor Sherrod Brown is going to prevail in November.

    Recall, in 2010, the GOP won ever statewide race in Ohio, gained control of the state assembly and increased its majority in the state senate. That momentum has not disparate and will carry over to this year’s election.

    Then there was a statewide referendum essentially calling for the repeal of ObamaCare in 2011. It won easily.

    As for jobs, credit for the improved employment numbers in Ohio is going to Gov. Kasich (and the GOP legislature) who eliminated the $8 billion (inherited deficit from Democrat Ted Strickland) while decreasing taxes.

    Furthermore, the GOP here is all behind fracking while the Democrats drag their feet, make war on coal (another Ohio industry) and still push for squandering money on windmills.

  • Where are the Right to Work states? The South & Midwest.

    Coincidence?

    I don’t think so.

  • thibaud

    The demographics have already shifted, Kenny. The math puts any GOP challenger, except maybe a Latino woman challenger, at a significant disadvantage from the get-go. As the GOP strategists like to say, your party is too old, too fat, too white.

    Romney has to win Ohio – AND Virginia, AND North Carolina, AND Florida, and Colorado, and Wisconsin and Iowa.

    The only way that this will happen is if there is a massive, nationwide shift in Romney’s favor. The only way that would happen is if the economy gets worse – ain’t happening – or there’s another version of 1980’s “October Surprise”.

    Perhaps you’re not old enough to recall, but the Iranians refused to release the hostages and the rescue mission failed.

    These two blows, plus ABC News and Nightline reminding the voters every day (“Day 99 of the Iranian hostage crisis… Day 100.. Day 200…) were what tipped the blue-collar Democrats in favor of an old man whom they had previously viewed as a doddering old reactionary corporate tool. The election had been very close up till the last weekend.

    Perhaps there’s an October Surprise in the works this year, but given Obama’s sterling record in the WoT, in the unlikely event that such a surprise occurs, I seriously doubt it would work in Mitt the Twit’s favor. If the swing voters focus on any foreign news events at all this year, the Seals’ Abbottabad Doubletap will be at the top of the list.

  • Jbird

    Thaibaud: that “doddering old reactionary corporate tool” turned out to be quite a good president, huh? You ran the approval #’s for the living presidents to show W. to be unpopular. I wonder what Reagan’s #’s would be. In 2002 it was 73%. Quite a bit more than the Clinton # you gave of 66%. Since you approvingly quote post-presidential approval numbers as proof of effectiveness, I’ll assume you agree with the idea that Reagan was one of the best of all time.

  • thibaud

    Jbird – a good summary here – scroll down and look at the color-coded chart, far right hand column, for the aggregate rankings of about a dozen surveys of US historians in recent years.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

    Reagan’s aggregate ranking (#17) puts him in the middle of the second quartile, behind John Kennedy (11) and Lyndon Johnson (14) and just in front of George Herbert Walker Bush (22) and Bill Clinton (20).

    Carter was ranked in the third quartile, at #27. George W Bush was ranked in the upper tier of the bottom quartile, at #34.

  • thibaud

    “Since you approvingly quote post-presidential approval numbers as proof of effectiveness”

    Nope. I merely pointed out the silliness of our host’s sneer (“What are they thinking?”) concerning the political logic of inviting a popular ex-president to speak at a party’s nominating convention.

    Fwiw, I think it likely that George W Bush’s reputation in future decades will likely rise somewhat, maybe to the middle of the third quartile near Carter. For one thing, he tried manfully to stem the disastrous rise of starve-the-state lunacy in his party.

    If/when the Norquist and TP faction is beaten down and made irrelevant, as the Birchers were by WF Buckley’s generation of GOPpers, then some of the credit may rub off on W.

  • If/when the Norquist and TP faction is beaten down and made irrelevant, as the Birchers were by WF Buckley’s generation of GOPpers, then some of the credit may rub off on W.

    Apples and oranges, thibaud … the Tea Party movement is both broader, and more common-sense, than the Birchers ever were.

    And we have risen up in response to the very thinking you continue to promote here … that detailed governance by an elite few is better for us … than limited governance, managed by a few of us, that concentrates on securing our unalienable rights so that the rest of us can handle the details ourselves and/or with our neighbors – who are in a far better position to get the answers right than an elite few at the top.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.