Pennsylvania Primary Thread

[jackie hayes]

Oh, I'm sure downstate Illinois would be perfectly happy to break away from the Chicago area.

They do it overnight just to keep Blago out?

[southsider2k5]

I think the main reasons why western and plains states seem to favor Obama heavily is two-fold. One, I think people in those parts of the country tend to have less tolerance for politics as a game. The midwest, south and northeast enjoy the heck out of that game. Obama is, in my view, much more consistent and direct than Hillary, and doesn't peddle and change personalities as often as she does. So, they favor Obama.

 

Secondly, and maybe even more important, their memories of the Clinton years are far less rosy than in other areas. If you look at the plains states, and much of the mountain west, they didn't experience as much of the huge economic boost of those years. In fact, their core industries - agriculture, mining, etc. - suffered quite a bit. So they just don't feel very strongly about having another Clinton in the White House.

 

I've never really understood why the midwest likes the Clinton's much either. Most of their core industries went downhill during his time in office, such as steel and automotive.

[lostfan]

I've never really understood why the midwest likes the Clinton's much either. Most of their core industries went downhill during his time in office, such as steel and automotive.

I don't really blame American politicians for that although people do tend to credit and blame the president for things regardless. IMO that was just the Japanese industries beating American industries fair and square. They did what we were trying to do better than we were doing it.

[kapkomet]

I've never really understood why the midwest likes the Clinton's much either. Most of their core industries went downhill during his time in office, such as steel and automotive.

That was Newt Gingerich's fault, not Billy C's.

 

[Texsox]

Actually it is accurate to say Chicago is a Democratic city in a Republican state.

[southsider2k5]

I don't really blame American politicians for that although people do tend to credit and blame the president for things regardless. IMO that was just the Japanese industries beating American industries fair and square. They did what we were trying to do better than we were doing it.

 

Personally I don't either, but then why is GWB villified for manufacturing job losses during the last 7 years? I'd at least like to see some consistancy.

[mr_genius]

Oh, I'm sure downstate Illinois would be perfectly happy to break away from the Chicago area.

 

well, those idiots need to stop voting for slimy Chicago politicians if they don't want to be governed by them

 

I see plenty of Blago downstate counties

 

http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/state.p...fips=17&f=0

[NorthSideSox72]

Personally I don't either, but then why is GWB villified for manufacturing job losses during the last 7 years? I'd at least like to see some consistancy.

Manufacturing jobs, for the most part, are going to continue to go overseas. And anything that Congress or the President might do to stem that tide would end up being more harmful in the long run anyway. You can soften the rate a bit, but not do much else.

 

Bush has actually been right, IMO, about one thing that he has said consistently - that the key to job growth is not to prop up industries, but to instead put an emphasis on education and moving into the next generation of businesses. Unfortunately, there were two huge political problems with this. For one thing, it comes off as being mean-spirited and hurtful to American workers, so its a philosophy that gets minimal support. And for another thing, since Bush's administration and Congress have been so horribly inept, that they were never able to do anything useful in that direction. Oh and, the trillion dollar Iraq debacle didn't help either.

 

[Texsox]

See, Bush even wants to fight terrorism over seas instead of here with US workers

[Y2HH]

Manufacturing jobs, for the most part, are going to continue to go overseas. And anything that Congress or the President might do to stem that tide would end up being more harmful in the long run anyway. You can soften the rate a bit, but not do much else.

 

Bush has actually been right, IMO, about one thing that he has said consistently - that the key to job growth is not to prop up industries, but to instead put an emphasis on education and moving into the next generation of businesses. Unfortunately, there were two huge political problems with this. For one thing, it comes off as being mean-spirited and hurtful to American workers, so its a philosophy that gets minimal support. And for another thing, since Bush's administration and Congress have been so horribly inept, that they were never able to do anything useful in that direction. Oh and, the trillion dollar Iraq debacle didn't help either.

 

Pretty well said.

 

The biggest issue is how much emphasis people seem to think the President or other elected officials can have on a globalized economy. It's a beast unlike any other, and aside from changing some key rates (upward or downward), and some "influence" there isn't much they can do about controlling it. If that was the case, we'd *never* have economic issues...however, it's clear to see we do...so the only reality of control our elected officials have over the economy is an illusion, at best.

 

The sooner people realize that control over an economy is a pipe dream illusion, the better they'll begin to understand the bigger picture here. This is no longer about the "US Economy", but the worlds. If money cannot be made here, it will be made elsewhere. Period.

Edited April 23, 2008 by Y2HH

[BigSqwert]

See, Bush even wants to fight terrorism over seas instead of here with US workers

[mr_genius]

- that the key to job growth is not to prop up industries, but to instead put an emphasis on education and moving into the next generation of businesses. Unfortunately, there were two huge political problems with this. For one thing, it comes off as being mean-spirited and hurtful to American workers, so its a philosophy that gets minimal support. And for another thing, since Bush's administration and Congress have been so horribly inept, that they were never able to do anything useful in that direction. Oh and, the trillion dollar Iraq debacle didn't help either.

 

Exactly what industries can we excel in? sure as hell not engineering or anything that requires mathematical science. Green ? well having top notch new energy technology takes engineering. we suck at science and progression industries.

 

Our public education systems sucks, until you get into higher education. but our top engineering schools (and even the mid level or lower level ones) need to stack their student rosters with foreign students, cause there is not enough American students that can do the research or handle the complex work.

Edited April 23, 2008 by mr_genius

[lostfan]

Personally I don't either, but then why is GWB villified for manufacturing job losses during the last 7 years? I'd at least like to see some consistancy.

There is consistency, just not the ideal kind you're talking about (for the record, the Democrat-controlled Congress has low approval ratings too). IMO the president is like the quarterback of the US, they get way too much credit for things going right and way too much blame for things going wrong. So if the country is doing great, everybody will give the president credit, or at least if he's not doing so great they won't go out of their way to criticize him as long as everything is looking up. If the country is in bad shape everybody will jump all over the president and blame him, even if he's not the reason.

[NorthSideSox72]

Exactly what industries can we excel in? sure as hell not engineering or anything that requires mathematical science. Green ? well having top notch new energy technology takes engineering. we suck at science and progression industries.

The U.S. has been slowly headed towards being an economy based on three things - service industry, land equity and the business of running business. Those are what the country excels at. Unfortunately, the land equity piece of the puzzle (to include land literally, but also natural resources) is limited, though still with some growth room. And the service industry has a limitation based on population. That leaves the business of business as the best chance of the big pieces. What I mean by that is, the business may in fact do its manufacturing in China, or its programming in India - but the lucrative business jobs stay here.

 

What you point to, about engineering and innovation, is one area the U.S. could and should bolster to make it a major piece of the national portfolio. The U.S. lead the tech revolution of the 90's, despite a lackluster public education system. Now, its time to find the next bleeding edges - green industry, distributed technology, internet and web, etc. - and seize them. That means education in math and science, which you point out - that needs serious improvement. But it also means trade schools and more practical college studies, and we seem to be doing well there. This is an area that should be emphasized for growth.

 

[mr_genius]

The U.S. has been slowly headed towards being an economy based on three things - service industry, land equity and the business of running business. Those are what the country excels at. Unfortunately, the land equity piece of the puzzle (to include land literally, but also natural resources) is limited, though still with some growth room. And the service industry has a limitation based on population. That leaves the business of business as the best chance of the big pieces. What I mean by that is, the business may in fact do its manufacturing in China, or its programming in India - but the lucrative business jobs stay here.

 

Na. This isn't about programmers, it's about engineering and top level progression industries. Expecting a business model where the United States is merely the boss of the rest of the world isn't going to work very well. Currently, what we do, is higher foreign scientists to work for our companies and yes we have American management, but the massive growth jobs that pay very well aren't going to be had by the out of work person lacking necessary skills. A lot of these jobs pay between $100,000 and $200,000.. fairly lucrative IMO. And guess what, other countries aren't as stupid as you may think, they are trying to keep their top talent and build up the lucrative business jobs in their own countries..and they are doing a fine job at it. Innovation is the key, my friend. We don't innovate anymore.

 

 

What you point to, about engineering and innovation, is one area the U.S. could and should bolster to make it a major piece of the national portfolio. The U.S. lead the tech revolution of the 90's, despite a lackluster public education system. Now, its time to find the next bleeding edges - green industry, distributed technology, internet and web, etc. - and seize them. That means education in math and science, which you point out - that needs serious improvement. But it also means trade schools and more practical college studies, and we seem to be doing well there. This is an area that should be emphasized for growth.

 

All good ideas. Oh, and on a side note, the scientists who did most of the work which led to the 90's tech revolution pretty much came from a different education era in the United States. These guys are all old and retiring (or retired ) now. The tech 'boom' was YEARS and YEARS in the working. The field of computer science is very new, relatively speaking, but it's mathematical theories have been around for a bit.

[Heads22]

I think the main reasons why western and plains states seem to favor Obama heavily is two-fold. One, I think people in those parts of the country tend to have less tolerance for politics as a game. The midwest, south and northeast enjoy the heck out of that game. Obama is, in my view, much more consistent and direct than Hillary, and doesn't peddle and change personalities as often as she does. So, they favor Obama.

 

Secondly, and maybe even more important, their memories of the Clinton years are far less rosy than in other areas. If you look at the plains states, and much of the mountain west, they didn't experience as much of the huge economic boost of those years. In fact, their core industries - agriculture, mining, etc. - suffered quite a bit. So they just don't feel very strongly about having another Clinton in the White House.

 

Got any theories on why Iowa is so staunchly PrObama?

[StrangeSox]

Our public education systems sucks, until you get into higher education. but our top engineering schools (and even the mid level or lower level ones) need to stack their student rosters with foreign students, cause American students can't do the research or handle the complex work.

 

Could have fooled me. There were plenty of American students at U of I who excelled in various engineering programs.

Edited April 23, 2008 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

Got any theories on why Iowa is so staunchly PrObama?

Same theory generally that I said about plains states. But also some other factors. Iowa was a caucus, and his ground game was excellent. Also, Iowa has historically had one of the most educated populations in the country, and those folks tend to favor Obama heavily.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Same theory generally that I said about plains states. But also some other factors. Iowa was a caucus, and his ground game was excellent. Also, Iowa has historically had one of the most educated populations in the country, and those folks tend to favor Obama heavily.

Smart People Support Obama

Lemmings and Dumbasses Support Clinton

 

JUST KIDDING!

[NorthSideSox72]

Smart People Support Obama

Lemmings and Dumbasses Support Clinton

 

JUST KIDDING!

smart and educated are not always in concert.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

smart and educated are not always in concert.

we tend to be

 

ok, I am done kidding around. lol

Edited April 23, 2008 by Athomeboy_2000

[mr_genius]

Could have fooled me. There were plenty of American students at U of I who excelled in various engineering programs.

 

Yep, thats where I graduated from.

 

but hey, i don't know what i'm talking about. this guy does though.

 

Without foreign students, many science programs suffer, says Richard Wheeler, dean of the graduate college at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Foreign students tend to concentrate in the sciences and perform crucial laboratory work for their professors, he says. "They bring the brain power that moves our science forward.

 

"We took a lot for granted when we were the whole show," Wheeler says. "We're not the whole show anymore."

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...ent-drain_x.htm

Edited April 23, 2008 by mr_genius

[StrangeSox]

Yep, thats where I graduated from.

 

but hey, i don't know what i'm talking about. this guy does though.

 

 

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200...ent-drain_x.htm

 

I think what you're saying and the reality are a bit of a disconnect, though. We used to get ALL of the top students from around the world. We're not any more. Of course that means programs will get weaker. That doesn't mean that Americans are incapable of the work.

[mr_genius]

I think what you're saying and the reality are a bit of a disconnect, though. We used to get ALL of the top students from around the world. We're not any more. Of course that means programs will get weaker. That doesn't mean that Americans are incapable of the work.

 

Oh, some are capable, of course. There are plenty of bright American students. However, overall, we do not do a good enough job in math and science (which is key to engineering) in our schools which puts us at a disadvantage in the future economy. That is all I am trying to say. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but it is indeed true.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7120400730.html

 

[StrangeSox]

Oh, some are capable, of course. There are plenty of bright American students. However, overall, we do not do a good enough job in math and science (which is key to engineering) in our schools which puts us at a disadvantage in the future economy. That is all I am trying to say. I know it's not a popular thing to say, but it is indeed true.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7120400730.html

 

Maybe. I'm just going off of anecdotal evidence here. Our public school system is pretty abysmal.