|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 536 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 299 of 536:
| 
Nov 6 17:09 UTC 2003 |
(My, my, Mr. richard. We are crushed!)
A runoff election within one month?? How would Mr. richard assure, for
example, that active duty servicemen outside of the U.S. would have
ample time to receive, execute, and return absentee voter ballots? (Or
would he just as soon disenfranchise them, a la Algore in 2000?)
|
gull
|
|
response 300 of 536:
|
Nov 6 18:54 UTC 2003 |
(It's necessary to strictly follow the rules if it means disenfranchising
regular Florida voters, but it's okay to bend the rules to avoid
disenfrachising overseas servicemen. One of the many things I learned from
watching the Republicans during the 2000 election.)
|
tod
|
|
response 301 of 536:
|
Nov 6 19:28 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
polygon
|
|
response 302 of 536:
|
Nov 6 20:38 UTC 2003 |
Re 296. No, no, let's not schedule additional elections. We ask a lot
of our voters as it is. The focus of national political attention is
on the single November presidential/congressional election date, and
additional elections on other dates will only draw a smaller and less
representative turnout.
Re 297. I had in mind that some of the existing electors would be
redesignated. But, whatever, obviously the math would be a little
different if the number of electors were changed.
Re 298. Why, exactly, would it be "a terrible idea" to federalize the
list of candidates for President of the United States?
I did say that there is a range of options available, including doing
nothing about the candidate list. Doing nothing would require that
the candidates and parties conform their state by state nominations
so that their votes would all "count" correctly on the federal level.
An example of failure to do this is George Wallace's candidacy in 1968.
Because he didn't have a VP nominee in time, his Michigan VP candidate
on the ballot was an unknown placeholder. Strictly speaking, the votes
for Wallace & Placeholder shouldn't be counted in the totals for
Wallace & LeMay.
|
tod
|
|
response 303 of 536:
|
Nov 6 21:01 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
jp2
|
|
response 304 of 536:
|
Nov 6 21:03 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 305 of 536:
|
Nov 6 21:35 UTC 2003 |
It does? Tell that to the leader of the Republican Party, who also
happens to be the head of the federal government.
|
klg
|
|
response 306 of 536:
|
Nov 7 17:44 UTC 2003 |
Unfortunately (for you Democrats, that is) it appears that some
excellent news on the economy was released earlier today:
November 7, 2003
CNN/Money
NEW YORK - U.S. payrolls grew in October for the third straight month,
the government said Friday, trouncing Wall Street expectations . . .
Unemployment fell to 6.0 from 6.1 percent in September, the Labor
Department reported, while payrolls outside the farm sector rose by
126,000 jobs after rising by a revised 125,000 in September.
|
tsty
|
|
response 307 of 536:
|
Nov 8 08:58 UTC 2003 |
wow - trickle *through* works .. whoda thunk it?!!!
|
polygon
|
|
response 308 of 536:
|
Nov 8 19:03 UTC 2003 |
Re 304. Excuse me, but that wasn't the question. Please try again.
|
jp2
|
|
response 309 of 536:
|
Nov 8 22:45 UTC 2003 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 310 of 536:
|
Nov 9 01:17 UTC 2003 |
re #306: Job numbers going up just as the holiday retailing
season begins? Boy, that Bush fella must be a real magician
to pull that off.. Surely this unprecedented and unexpected
news is enough to discredit his critics..
|
klg
|
|
response 311 of 536:
|
Nov 9 03:20 UTC 2003 |
Mr. mcnally,
For your edification, please be informed that unemployment statistics
are adjusted to take into account normal seasonal variations. Also, as
noted in the response, the statistics are for the month of September.
It is rather unlikely that hiring for "the holiday retailing season"
begins at such an early date. It appears to us that if anyone is
discredited here, it is you, sir.
klg
|
keesan
|
|
response 312 of 536:
|
Nov 9 03:56 UTC 2003 |
A friend's brother just lost his job. My brother has not yet found one.
Perhaps skilled jobs are in short supply but there are more unskilled ones?
|
polygon
|
|
response 313 of 536:
|
Nov 9 04:16 UTC 2003 |
Re 309. Since you refusd to state any, I conclude that you don't actually
have any good reasons against the federalizing of the list of nominees for
president and vice president of the United States. Just your pretended
"federalism".
|
slynne
|
|
response 314 of 536:
|
Nov 9 18:37 UTC 2003 |
resp:311 - I work for a large retail company. The holiday hiring starts
in August and really heats up in September. They try to have all the
people they are going to need for the holiday by the end of September.
|
klg
|
|
response 315 of 536:
|
Nov 10 03:17 UTC 2003 |
We did not know that.
But, we ask, are you referring to hiring or to actual active employment?
If the new employees are put to work immediately, what sort of items
are they selling more than two months in advance of the traditional
Thanksgiving start of the holiday shopping period?
You, of course, would concur with the assertion that unemployment data
are adjusted to remove the effect of normal seasonal variations, would
you not?
|
slynne
|
|
response 316 of 536:
|
Nov 10 04:09 UTC 2003 |
The biggest number of extra holiday help comes from the temporary
stores we set up. Basically, if there is empty space in a mall, we try
to rent it out just for a few months from august-sept until january-
february. I *think* we set up around 800 of those every year. That is,
btw, just about double the number of Waldenbooks stores. They need a
lot of staff for those sites. But, the sales actually start increasing
in the fall anyway so they also hire additional staff for the year
round stores too. There is a lot of work that needs to happen during
October just to prep for the holidays. They stock a lot more books and
generally get ready.
My department in the corporate office hires extra seasonal help too for
tech support. Those people are hired in August and September. I think
my team's extra help was hired in September. October is a very busy
month for us because all the stores dust off all the equipment they
dont use for the rest of the year and a lot of it is broken.
I dont know if the specific data that is being discussed has been
adjusted for normal seasonal variations or not. I suspect it has not
been. They say specifically that there has been an increase since last
quarter. A real data point would be if there has been an increase since
this same time last year. FWIW, I think that there has been but I
imagine that it isnt as large as some people might claim.
The economy is clearly improving. However, that could be just a normal
fluctuation. I am interested to see how this fourth quarter turns out.
If it is significantly better than last year, the news will definately
be good for Bush. However, the improvement will have to continue at
least through the first quarter of 2004 and preferably (for GWB)
through the second and third quarters as well in order to really help
him in the election.
|
polygon
|
|
response 317 of 536:
|
Nov 10 14:11 UTC 2003 |
I think the seasonal adjustment of employment data is probably pretty
good. I don't quarrel with the assessment that the economy is actually
improving.
|
keesan
|
|
response 318 of 536:
|
Nov 10 16:31 UTC 2003 |
I have seen Christmas lighting, and Christmas decorations for sale in the
stores, since about November 1 this year. Also Christmas craft sales at local
churches. We even stopped by one recently. Perhaps the loss of daylight
savings time triggers the lighting instinct around Halloween.
|
klg
|
|
response 319 of 536:
|
Nov 10 17:09 UTC 2003 |
Ms. slynne,
The Bureau of Labor Statistics does, indeed, adjust its Unemployment
Rate for seasonality; however, the jobs statistics are raw data.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 320 of 536:
|
Nov 10 17:36 UTC 2003 |
So a figure such as "payrolls outside the farm sector rose by
126,000 jobs after rising by a revised 125,000 in September,"
would be based on that seasonally-affected unadjusted raw data,
and the change in the adjusted data you report in #306 would be
just the 0.1% fluctuation in the unemployment rate?
|
gull
|
|
response 321 of 536:
|
Nov 10 19:51 UTC 2003 |
Re #307: Actually, I ahve to wonder if the economy is recovering *because*
of Bush's policies, or in spite of them. It's been one of the slowest
recoveries on record.
(Not that it will really matter, with Rove spinning the data like crazy.)
|
scott
|
|
response 322 of 536:
|
Nov 10 20:13 UTC 2003 |
Small changes in the economy will be swamped by the debt from the war and the
tax cuts for the rich.
|
slynne
|
|
response 323 of 536:
|
Nov 10 20:25 UTC 2003 |
resp:319 - Thanks. That is good information to have.
Honestly, I think people generally think that presidents have much more
control over the economy than they actually do have. While there are
things that they can do which can have an effect on the economy (either
in the short term or the long term), the truth is that presidents can
only control certain aspects of things.
I am not convinced that Bush is responsible for either the recent
recession or the recovery.
The war debt and tax cuts for the rich probably wont really have an
effect until Bush is long gone. I am sure some other president will get
blamed for economy when those things really start to have an effect.
|
