Getty Images
We talked last week about Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) delivering a message to his constituents: the state's economy is improving, jobs are being created, and there's reason for optimism. It is, of course, the exact opposite of what Mitt Romney wants Ohioans to believe right now.This week, Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) was similarly unhelpful to the larger GOP cause.
"Today's unemployment report adds to the series of encouraging indicators that Florida's economy is steadily moving in the right direction. With 243,594 job openings listed by various help-wanted websites and our unemployment rate down 2.2 points to 8.7%, more Floridians are finding new jobs throughout the Sunshine State. [...]
"With a strong start to 2012, our economy is situated for even brighter days during the summer season."
You can almost hear Romney shouting in the background: "You guys are screwing this up royally. We need people feeling depressed and hopeless, not excited about 'brighter days.'"
This keeps happening. Many of the nation's key swing states -- Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Nevada, Wisconsin, Iowa, Pennsylvania -- are led by Republican governors, each of whom are eager to tell their constituents that the economy is looking up. They're hoping to boost their own fortunes, but inadvertently, they're also helping President Obama in an election year in which the economy is easily the nation's top issue.
What's more, Bloomberg News reported this week, "The unemployment rates in a majority of the 2012 battleground states are lower than the national average as those economies improve." In Ohio, the jobless rate is down to 7.4%. In Virginia, it's improved to 5.6%. Even in Nevada, where the unemployment rate is still a crushing 11.7%, the figure has dropped two points in one year, which represents rather extraordinary progress.
Obviously, folks like Kasich, Scott, and Bob "Ultrasound" McDonnell don't want the president to get credit for the fact that the economy improved after his administration and congressional Democrats pulled the nation back from the brink of a catastrophe. But that doesn't change Romney's central challenge: telling voters in these key states not to believe their lying eyes.
"Things are obviously getting better," he'll argue, "though I need you to believe they're getting worse." It's no easy task.
Leave a Comment:
The American economy is by no means out of the woods and these numbers are so sign of permanent growth or prosperity for everyone. Huge gaps in the recovery remain. But jobs are being created on a healthy scale and on a scale that, if sustained, will be enough to foment economic stability. What the jobs data shows is that the meme of "uncertainty" peddled by conservatives is a fallacy, and the idea that only Republicans can fix the economy is absurd. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Is it any coincidence that the mentioned states have Republican governors?
Ohio benefited greatly from the GM being saved. Other states also improving due to national forces. The American Recovery Act helped them a lot too. Locally, the Republican governors policies are causing problems--e.g. divert money from college education so you build more prisons, and maybe even try to privatize them since there are companies will to make campaign contributions so they can get those contracts from the state. No real consideration for the long term health of their states or the country.
These Republicans with their dark agenda keep wanting to pull the biggest scam yet, just as they always have done. They want to privatize education into charter schools under the pretense of saving money and better education. But what will happen, the cost of education will sky rocket but at the excuse of the teachers. Which of course they will slash the teachers wages, safety, and benefits as that continuing excuse as our quality of education decreases. But of coarse these charter schools will still be making huge amounts of money and at the expense of teachers, parents and taxpayers. Than they will privatize Social Security and give it to Wall Street with no regulation at all so they can really take it all from the elderly. Plus let’s not forget replacing Medicare with that $8,000 coupon so the elderly can get their own healthcare now and out of pocket costs of the elderly will skyrocket. I am sure a stoke ridden and paralyzed elderly person who can barely talk and struggling economically will find it really easy to do that. And it just keeps getting worse at everything the Republicans want to do that leads to destruction and despair of everybody, except the greedy rich. The rich want the easy thing at the labor and expense of everybody else and to get free money from the taxpayer without having to pay the price of any kind. And the Republicans whine and cry – oh no, we would never think of doing such things, listen to what we say and not what we do. There must be a lot of reserved seats in hell by now for these people.
People keep thinking oh things are different now you can trust these people who are power craving, hypocrites, greedy, corrupt, deceivers, and arrogant. But no, human nature doesn’t change and when you give such people an inch they take a mile and the end result is despair and destruction. People who are foolish to think otherwise are just fools themselves. And just give it time, as in these charter schools they only have kids who do want to excel. But when these charter schools get all the kids that are in a public schools the results will be actually the same or worse. And they will still use the teacher as an excuse with no avenue for the teachers, parents and/or taxpayers to have what is right.
I'm sorry but any improvement in employment prospects, or general business mood brightening is because Romney looks like the eventual winner.
Puhlease stop drinking the FAUX NOISE Kool-aide. Do your own research for the truth. You may not like this President, but you cannot dismiss the FACTS. Then again if you're a GOTP'er, you probably can.
Please don't feed the trolls, it only encourages them
Plus it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. All it does is waste your time and annoy the pig.
;}
So this is what they're passing off as "news" on FOX. The media surveys are quite correct, Fox News addicts are dumber than a box of rocks.
Ya and while we're at it why hasn't Faux Nooze been giving President Obama credit for the falling gas prices? Because surely if he caused them to go up he must be responsible for them dropping.
....so you're saying that businesses haven't been hiring not because of taxation or because of regulation or because of lowered demand or any other reason, but because they have been using their ability to hire workers as a form of protest against the United States government? And that is supposed to be a good thing? You do realize that by making this argument, eap, you have just invalidated every single claim you have ever made about taxation and regulation w/ regards to businesses and how they hire, yes?
I just want to point out that eap is now on the record as saying that he thinks it's patriotic for anyone who doesn't agree w/ this administration to renounce US citizenship and that it's patriotic for businesses to use hiring as a means of protesting the Obama presidency. Apparently eap represents the Republican constituency who believe that it's patriotic to destroy society at the expense of their own selfish demands. Good to know.
Bad economic statistics are because a Democrat is in the White House.
Good economic statistics are because a Republican is in the White House.
(I found the above in a Fortune 500 cookie)
I am still waiting for the Republicans to explain to me why my small business thrived under Clinton and is thriving again under Obama, but nearly tanked when Bush was in office. Any explanation will do...
The talking point will be that it the mild improvements are due to the actions of these GOPer governors, not by anything done at the Federal level.
Still works against Romney's theme that everything suxxxx, but I'm sure that a President Romney would be happy to take credit for how quickly things improved in just his first month in office.
Yeah, how in the world could the success of Republican strategies of Republican governors help the Republican Presidential candidate? I don't know...I'm stumped.
Romney has made a point of stating that the economy is worse because of President Obama and his policies. If those policies have made the economy worse then gains in the state would be counter-intuitive to this claim.
Your implication, for the record, would also be counter-intuitive. You are invalidating any argument you can make at the national level by saying that the states can singularly manage the issue. You are aware of how contradictory in logic this is, yes?
No, my argument matches reality even if you disagree with my conclusion.
These states are doing better, are they not? There must be a reason for the success, yes? It can't be the federal government because there are dozens of other states who are doing much worse operating under the same federal policies.
So, what makes the difference? It must be something being done at the state level.
We can argue about exactly what that "something" is but my argument is sound, even if you do not think it is the state level of Republican leadership making the difference.
Your claim here, Rob, is that a state can do something to supercede what the federal government does to create jobs. If this is the case then you cannot argue that what the federal government does affects states. If that is the case then you cannot make the claim that Romney can do anything for jobs. That was the point. Thank you, for YET AGAIN, not listening to what I actually said, but listening for what you wanted to hear so that you could argue a phantom position. If you are going to reply to me then take me in context. Otherwise you might as well be talking to a brick wall since that appears to be your only goal.
1. Employment has gone up in all 50 states so this is a flat out lie
2. If the states can supersede anything the federal government does then that means it's entirely stupid for Romney to argue that PBO is to blame for the poor condition of the economy which was the point I was making. By making this statement you just proved me correct. So now you've openly acknowledged the exact point I was making which you are still apparently trying to argue against. You're either being hypocritical here or are purposely turning on a blinder so as not to see how contradictory your thinking is.
Okay, let's see if we can reach agreement on a few things without arguing or misunderstanding. See if you agree with the following:
1. The federal government laws/policies have an impact on the health of state finances/employment.
2. The state's government laws/policies have an impact on the health of the state finances/employment.
3. .It is possible for both the state and federal to have a positive impact on the state's finances/employment. It is possible for both the state and federal to have a negative impact on the state's finances/employment.
4. It is possible for the state's laws/policies to have a positive impact on the state's "health" and the federal laws/policies to have a negative impact. (And vice versa.)
5. Just because the financial/employment health is improving does not mean the laws/policies are responsible. Other factors could be driving the positive direction and the laws/policies could actually be slowing that progress.
Let me know if you disagree with any of these statements. These statements are Democrat/Republican neutral.
I believe that if you agree, then it is possible for the federal government policies to be slowing growth and certain state policies working to counter that effect, thus increasing the state's health/growth.
I await your feedback. Thanks.
The article argues that if you claim that the states create jobs independent of the federal government then this immediately means that any claims you're making about the federal government costing jobs or creating jobs are voided. You then attempted to make a smart remark by saying that Republicans touting job creation in states where they have control would help Romney, but not hurt Romney. I countered by explaining that if Romney claims PBO has made the economy worse and then Republican legislators/governors go out and state that their state is doing better this then means they are invalidating Romney's claim. I then added that by reaffirming this position you are also contradicting Romney's assertion. You then responded by insulting me saying that my argument is not "reality based" (real mature on that one btw) and then reasserted the exact same point you made initially. Which means you re-affirmed my statement that you were contradicting Romney's premise. I then, again, explained exactly what I am explaining nowand your response was to...reassert your initial premise. You are either not understanding the hypocrisy here or are ignoring it.
If you argue that states have lost jobs because of PBO then this means states who have gained jobs are invalidating your argument. If you argue that your state was able to create jobs and this was done solely by asserting Republican policies at the state level then you are invalidating claims that what was done at the federal level (the implication being Democratic policies) affected jobs. You cannot then make this second assertion and maintain that PBO has been bad for the economy or that Romney will make the economy better. Either what the federal level does impacts jobs and therefore it is false for you to argue that Republican policies are the sole reason for job successes in the states (your initial claim) OR you must acknowledge that Democratic policies have helped job creation at the national level (thus invalidating Romney's assertion). You cannot argue both premises as they are contradictory in nature.
The last rebuttal that you gave is not the premise you started w/. Your premise was not that there are things that can be done at both national and state level to create jobs. Your premise was that the states are doing better because they are Republican controlled which means those states are invalidating the Democratic policies you are arguing have hurt the economy. This, you then reason, means that a Republican POTUS will be better for the country. But in order to argue that a Republican POTUS would be better for the country economically you must first redact your statement about the states operating independently. You do not want to seem to do this and so your argument remains incoherent.
This argument is even further contradictory and confusing. Argument number 5 invalidates arguments 1 through 4. It is also a refutation of your initial premise which is that Republican policies have lead to better jobs.
Just so I'm clear, are you saying you agree with statement 1 thru 4 but not statement 5? That's all I was asking first.
Second,
So, even though states have policies/laws that affect financial health/employment, and the feds have policies/laws that affect the financial/employment health of states, other things can't come into play like specific industries trends, industry diversity, skill/ed level of workers, etc?
I never stated I agreed w/ or disagreed w/ your assertion. You are now putting words in my mouth. And you are, YET AGAIN, not addressing the issue. Rather than admit the inherent hypocrisy and therefore admit that Benen was right you are simply attempting to scapegoat the conversation off topic. You don't get to derail the comment simply because you don't want to admit that Maddowblog had a point.
Romney cannot run on the fact that Obama has been terrible for jobs while simultaneously asserting that jobs are better in Republican states. It is incoherent to do so. You arguing that Republican policies have invalidated bad Democratic policies to then spur job growth at the state level is equally incoherent. Both are inherently contradictory. Either address the issue or we're done w/ this conversation- I'm not going to be derailed for a 5th time. It's rude and intellectually dishonest.
I never stated that you agreed, I asked what you were saying. There's a question mark at the end of the sentence. Deep breath, both of us.
It is not incoherent. In a bad national economy, some states can be doing fairly well. Just like in a good national economy, there can be states doing very poorly. Why is that?
It could be a number of reasons, one of which could be the actions taken by the states themselves. Agree?
It sounds like some GOP governors are looking after their own future political interests first. Pretty basic. So how does Romney campaign with them in key states like Ohio and Florida? Take Ohio. Maybe one day Kasich says things are turning around, and the next day Romney says they aren't? That would seem to make a coordinated Republican campaign problematic...
These governors are in a tight spot. They have to weigh Romney's election over their own re-election.
I'm sure, like most politicians, they will put themselves first.
Unemployment is down in a lot of states, but happen to be somewhat better in swing states. The fact that these states have Republican governors may have something to do with the rate but not all of the decline. Otherwise, unemployment would be unchanged in many states that include Dem governors. Correlation is not causation.
Given the stupidity of the American voter, the money will overwhelm the truth and Americans will get the theocracy they deserve, the corruption in government they love, and the screwing from the power elite they always get. I think Canada and Mexico better be preparing for a mass exodus of folks who don't want their lives to be in danger simply because they don't agree with their neighbor's religion, that is why their ancestors left Europe, and why the descendants of those immigrants will be forced to leave the USA.