he actually said it, it's easy to latch onto, anyone can relay what he said, it alienates most people. it'll probably stick.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:Spin all you wish but you know the undecideds are essentially dolts that eat up sound bites. You have to admit it was a huge boner. Are you so entrenched that you can't see that?

Undecideds are usually not the most well informed voters. As a result of that they're unlikely to be paying attention right now. Given the fact that the underlying point he was making is perfectly fine and most people would agree with him, and he'll continue to make it throughout the campaign, it seems extremely unlikely that it will be a big deal in the general election campaign. There's a lot of poli sci research out there that argues very, very few gaffes have any tangible effect on the trajectory of political campaigns, and with a few exceptions (George Allen's Macaca bit, for example) even the gaffes that seem to matter may not have changed the outcome of the election. The 47% statement is probably one of the few counterexamples of a gaffe moving voters, but its effect was still fairly small and unlike this Jeb line, it occurred right in the heat of the general election campaign. Every cycle there are dozens of things commentators and opposing partisans latch onto as game changers, and their predictions of doom are almost always exaggerated if not entirely wrong. Is your understanding of campaign dynamics so poor that you can't see that?

jerseyhoya wrote:

My aspiration for the country — and I believe we can achieve it — is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows, means that people need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.

The difference between the 47% line and this is night and day. Romney said something dismissive about a large segment of the population. There wasn't any context to it that could make it better. Jeb is making a point talking off the cuff, and the clarification makes plenty of sense. This will remain part of his message throughout the primary and into the general if he makes it there.

If this lingers on at all into the general election, it might be like a Democratic partisan version of Obama's "You didn't build that" line. I think Obama could've made the point that we all owe our success in some part to the structures set up and maintained by the state without sounding dismissive, and if Jeb had a mulligan he'd go back in time and toss a qualifier like people "who want to need to be able to work longer hours." I doubt it will be a lasting thing though because he'll repeat the point about part time workers who want to work full time being given that opportunity many times in the next 16 months. Democrats can try to keep making it a thing, but I have a hard time seeing it moving any actual voters.

That's cool. Can you point to more examples where Jeb details how he'll pressure corporations, through legislation or otherwise, to avoid the practice of relegating employees to part time work in order to avoid paying benefits? I might be a Jeb supporter.

jerseyhoya wrote:

My aspiration for the country — and I believe we can achieve it — is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows, means that people need to work longer hours and through their productivity gain more income for their families. That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this rut that we’re in.

The difference between the 47% line and this is night and day. Romney said something dismissive about a large segment of the population. There wasn't any context to it that could make it better. Jeb is making a point talking off the cuff, and the clarification makes plenty of sense.

Thank you for helping me make my point. He'll be in trouble if his "work longer hours" remarks are repeated, not because those remarks malign particular people in any especially harsh way, but because more attention will be given to his beliefs - and both his asserted economic goal and what he proposes has to be the principal means of achieving it are...unsound. (I'd call them "crazy", or "nuts", or "unhinged", but you'd get all upset again, so I won't). In this utterance he's made himself a target for opponents from all quarters, not just Dems, because he's not making functional sense here.

Even Romney had the sense to undershoot promises like that - he basically pledged that the economy would return to 80% of normal if he were elected. Bush is promising something no evidence supports. That no expressible policy will produce. He's gonna pick a 4-leaf clover. He's gonna hit a hole-in-one. And here's the thing: his clarification doesn't make plenty of sense. Because he's not going to do those things.

It was a gaffe, I'm frankly not sure he "meant" to say what jersey says he meant to say, but I still don't think that anything anyone says now will change the outcome of an election that is 16 months away. Saying this is his Romney 47% line begs the question: it assumes that this line is somehow the reason Romney lost. Romney lost because of structural economic factors favoring a president who not only hadn't particularly screwed anything up but who actually had been pretty effective (despite Republican screams to the contrary). If Romney had had a real chance to win he probably wouldn't have been the nominee.

If the economy was tanking as the 2012 election was approaching the 47% line wouldn't have mattered for squat. It makes for a nice narrative, it certainly is reminiscent of the Bush checking his watch thing at the one debate in 92 (still incredible), but its part of the narrative because of where the country was already going, not the other way around.

Anyway, I think what Romney was "trying" to say, FWIW, is clearer and more understandable than what Jeb was "trying" to say. Simply put, he's right: the way the country is right now, 47% of the electorate ain't voting for you no matter who you are, Democrat or Republican (each one, of course, has a different 47% who won't vote for them). It's that last 6% you're fighting over.

This comment was an economic one about moochers, not really about a political 47%

Oh dear, the judge in the Bridgegate mess has ordered the firm that did Christie's publicly funded exoneration report to turn over any and all interview notes relating to the report. The firm says they don't exist, but multiple witnesses saw the firm's people taking copious notes. The contract that the firm made with the people of NJ required the keeping of all notes for 7 years.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/judge ... egate-case

But in a June 8 letter to the judge, Randy Mastro insisted that it was a “matter of public record” that his firm did not “transcribe or record our interviews” with members of Christie’s staff. None of the documents being sought by Critchley, Mastro insisted in that letter, “ever existed.” According to Critchley, however, witnesses have said that junior associates at Gibson Dunn were present and taking near-verbatim notes of interview meetings. One person I spoke with who was interviewed for the report had the same recollection.

It’s possible that Gibson Dunn shredded or disposed of this material, but that would seem to violate the terms of their multi-million dollar deal with the New Jersey Attorney General’s office to represent Gov. Christie “in all pending Legislative and United States Attorney inquiries and related matters” surrounding Bridgegate. Under the terms of the state’s retention policy for outside counsel, Gibson Dunn was obligated to keep any work product and retain documents for a period of seven years. That obligation is clearly spelled out state guidelines that Gibson Dunn agreed to follow as part of their January 2014 retention agreement, which I obtained through an Open Public Records Act request with the New Jersey Attorney General’s office.

so we're to believe that they took no notes during interviews with many of the major players (notably, many of the major players were never interviewed) in a scandal that has led to several indictments and is being investigated by the attorney general's office? If that's really the case, and I highly doubt it is, maybe the people of NJ should ask for their money back since Gibson Dunn obviously didn't take the people's work seriously.

It is entertaining to see the leftwing of the media rising in alarm to take shots at whatever GOP candidate (Jeb) might be able to beat Hillary.

Still, though, this is the least fun election cycle since Humphrey v Nixon.

I feel like he kinda took a shot at working americans. He's the one that decided to run for president.

mozartpc27 wrote:It was a gaffe, I'm frankly not sure he "meant" to say what jersey says he meant to say, but I still don't think that anything anyone says now will change the outcome of an election that is 16 months away. Saying this is his Romney 47% line begs the question: it assumes that this line is somehow the reason Romney lost. Romney lost because of structural economic factors favoring a president who not only hadn't particularly screwed anything up but who actually had been pretty effective (despite Republican screams to the contrary). If Romney had had a real chance to win he probably wouldn't have been the nominee.

If the economy was tanking as the 2012 election was approaching the 47% line wouldn't have mattered for squat. It makes for a nice narrative, it certainly is reminiscent of the Bush checking his watch thing at the one debate in 92 (still incredible), but its part of the narrative because of where the country was already going, not the other way around.

Anyway, I think what Romney was "trying" to say, FWIW, is clearer and more understandable than what Jeb was "trying" to say. Simply put, he's right: the way the country is right now, 47% of the electorate ain't voting for you no matter who you are, Democrat or Republican (each one, of course, has a different 47% who won't vote for them). It's that last 6% you're fighting over.

I don't think you remember the quote. If he had just said 47% of the country isn't voting for me that would have been fine, instead the dishonest, disingenuous cunt made this dangerous and untrue comment:

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what...who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. ...These are people who pay no income tax. ...and so my job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

The problem for Bush isn't that it will hurt him in the general election, it's that Republican primary voters, who in the main are unenthusiastic about Bush, will now be less likely to switch their allegiance to Bush once Trump and the Sanjindal types drop from the race.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:It's at least as bad in substance, I think. It shows he's completely out of touch. Americans already work more hours than pretty much any other industrialized nation.

Josh Marshall had this to say about it...

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/wev ... -he-is-jeb

If he's lost Josh Marshall, I don't know how he'll continue!

It does happen to be a good example of how you really need to work at twisting what Jeb said in order to get angry at it though. First sentence of Marshall's article: "It goes without saying that it's probably not good politics to say your plan to move the country forward is that everyone needs to work longer hours." - Now of course Jeb didn't say everyone needs to work longer hours. But gosh if he did that sure would be a dumb thing to say. So let's all pretend that's what he said, and talk about how bad he is.

Lol

First Bush and now Walker.

Why do Republicans hate weekends?

I think Jeb is just another bumbling Bush who is out of touch, but I'm pretty sure Walker is morally bankrupt.

TenuredVulture wrote:First Bush and now Walker.

Why do Republicans hate weekends?

They want parents spending less time at home with the kids. They're against family values! They hate the family dynamic!

"Those people need to spend more time bailing water."

-Jeb Bush

On Monday they'll announce an Iranian deal on nuclear proliferation

I've only paid attention to the bailout tangentially, but how is the new Greek/EU deal any different from what was already rejected? It sounds like the strict austerity measurements and pension reform that was already opposed.