Romney is asking the wrong questions

From last night:

“Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one?” he said, as the crowd cheered “NO!”

“Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more AT your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Are you paying less at the pump?”

I was unemployed when Obama took office, but my earning situation is better today than it has ever been in the past. It is more affordable to buy a home today than it was four years ago. My savings have increased approximately $200,000 since Obama took office, thanks to my frugal lifestyle combined with good stock market returns. I am quite happy that the price of gasoline is higher, because I rarely drive a car but I have a considerable amount of money invested in oil stocks.

None of this has anything to do with Obama, but Romney is certainly asking the wrong questions.

Comments

[Anonymous]

If value-transferring manhattan snobs were Romney's target audience, maybe he'd ask different questions.

[Conquistador]

Obama might win for the reasons you laid out. For the middle and upper classes things are great. That's who matters in the end. Nobody raises money from prole or jobless youth. Obama knew exactly what he doing when he protected Wall Street.

[Jokah Macpherson]

I guess he feels like he's got the unmarried childless male HBD blogger living in New York city demographic all wrapped up and is trying to branch out.

That said, I don't think any of these questions are that bad except the one about buying and selling homes. As you know, even though homes are cheaper in absolute terms now, loans are harder to come by. This is a good thing, though, since easy home loans contributed to the economic mess in the first place.

[Unbearably Sane]

As others are mentioning, the questions are fine. You're just unusual.

Romney and his handlers probably know that intelligent people, who consider wider views, are more likely to vote Republican (the super-rich don't, but they're a small number of votes). The truly conservative are also guaranteed Romney votes, if they can overcome their disgust with the whole process long enough to vote at all.

He needs slogans which will appeal to the undecided. These questions are fine for that. Gas *does* cost more, the job market *does* remain pretty brutal, etc. The supporters yelling their agreement increases the bandwagon effect, which influences our inner monkey brains into following that monkey all the other monkeys are following.

[ic]

Since obama got into office, I knew he would increase spending to boost economy and keep tax low (with help of republicans). This is the best time for investment. With help of uncle sam, my investment has grown over 5 times in four years of obama administration. Now you can return the borrowed money at its fractional cost. Hope the good time continue.

[Ian]

So you've put away $200k in the past few years on a middle-class salary while living in a doorman building in Manhattan? Are you a magician?

You must eat dollar slices more often than I do, Sig.

[Matt in RTP]

I know people my age (25) don't vote, but the Republicans should at least *make an attempt* to highlight the Democrats' slavish devotion to the 65+ crowd, and their refusal to compromise on entitlements.

Don't trust anyone who said 'Don't trust anyone over 30' in the 1960s or something. The Baby Boomers will wreck this nation before giving up their pensions, Medicare-provided Viagra, Florida vacations, and McMansions.

[whiskey]

I think it is a good line of attack. Romney is going after married White women, with a slice (not majority but slice) of unmarried White women on a budget.

Obama's degradation of the currency (oil/food costs more), lack of action on Iran (Salazar is talking about $9 a gallon gas), means most Americans are WORSE OFF. A lot WORSE OFF. They have frozen wages, or even wage give-backs, rising taxes (to pay for illegals and more welfare for Blacks), while food, gas, electricity, and clothing costs are far higher. Remember most Americans live in the suburbs as far away from Blacks and Hispanics as possible.

[Conquistador]

@ Matt in RTP

Young men are a massive voting block the GOP could tap into. Dismantling the welfare state and government jobs apparatus would do a lot toward boosting male career and mate prospects.

[anon]

@HS

Judging from some of the first comments on this post, you've just been the victim of the "crabs in a bucket" effect. That's what you get for hating the rich.

There's a reason the most popular vehicle among millionaire's has historically been the Ford F150 and not Mercedes. That's also one of the reasons you won't catch my ass in a $1500 bespoke suit. That and I think it's silly.

But you sound at least somewhat frugal and I can't fault you for that. Thrift is a value I respect.

[Jefferson Raskin]

--"So you've put away $200k in the past few years on a middle-class salary while living in a doorman building in Manhattan? Are you a magician?

You must eat dollar slices more often than I do, Sig." --

Ian, HS has an LLM in tax from NYU, ranked #1 perennially, and graduated in the top 10% of his law school class, after his ivy league undergrad education. What on earth makes you think he makes a middle-class salary, instead of BIGLAW salary?

[HS: The legal education is useless as far as getting jobs. I don't work at BIGLAW.]

[Peter A]

"Dismantling the welfare state and government jobs apparatus would do a lot toward boosting male career and mate prospects."

No. Stopping immigration is far more important. And how exactly would dismantling the government job apparatus do anything for white males? It would just throw more NAMs on the market looking for real jobs, better to keep them busy pushing paper in the federal government. It's not actually a large part of the budget anyway - most of our tax dollars go to medicare and the military.

[PA]

Not just Romney, but also Reagan asked the wrong question (and then Clinton too in 2006). The correct question is "will your children live in a better America than your parents did?"

[The Engineer]

"HS has an LLM in tax from NYU"

Is that true? HS never has said that he finished the LLM. I just assumed that it fell in the pile of all his other unfinished shit, like those dating site review forums he tried to set up.

[Bostonian]

Romney should talk about multiple issues. Besides the economy, he should highlight Obama's connection (through his attorney general Eric Holder) to race-baiters like Al Sharpton.

[asdf]

State and local government workers make up 20 million people, but the vast majority are school teachers. If we cut them out we are left with around 7 or 8 million. Federal would add another 2.5 mil full time, so let's round it to around 10 mil.

The labor force is around 155 million people. We'll say 150 for easy math. So government employment is only 6.67% of the labor force.

I really doubt that's what is destroying, "male career and mate prospects." Especially since government employment tends to skew much older and more educated then the general populace. BTW, federal employment skews 55.8% male/44.2% female.

If we want to look at under 40 women they make up only ~30% of female workers in the federal government. Under 30 would be 11%.

Yes, I'm excluding schoolteachers here. But let me assure you the 20 something school teachers I date ain't exactely making a lot of money.

[destructure]

conquistador writes, "Young men are a massive voting block the GOP could tap into."

The GOP already gets the white, working class male vote. And it won't get the black, working class male vote no matter what it does.

"Dismantling the welfare state and government jobs apparatus would do a lot toward boosting male career and mate prospects."

I agree with Peter A that immigration is worse. But I also agree that dismantling the welfare state/govt job apparatus would boost male prospects. Govt is inefficient and supports/subsidizes less productive workers at the expense of more productive ones. Without this inefficiency there would be more for everyone. Realize, however, that the govt jobs apparatus is propped up by the public sector unions which you support.

[Sgt. Joe Friday]

A little OT, but we could see a sort of replay of the 2000 elections again this year.

Obama is a cinch to win CA, NY, IL, and several other states with a lot of electoral votes. I can picture a situation very easily where Romney wins the popular vote by 500,000 or even a million votes, but comes up short in the Electoral College.

Wonder what all the liberals who were shrieking about stolen elections and the will of people will say then?

[Odds]

I think Romney is asking all the right questions to win an election.

[sestamibi]

I was working when BO took office, but my salary (together with state employee furlough day effects) was cut by 10% in the last two years before I retired last year. We're not underwater on our house, but it is worth about $40K less than what we paid for it--in 2001! I do, however, recognize that this is good for prospective buyers, and don't have a problem with that, but Romney is right when he points out that despite rock-bottom interest rates and lower prices, it's still quite difficult to qualify for a mortgage these days.

And if that weren't bad enough, 3+ years of 0.01% interest rates on cash instruments and CDs is also pauperizing large numbers of senior citizens and other savers who don't want to take the risks involved in investing in dividend-paying stocks or longer-term bonds.

You may be better off than you were four years ago, but most of America is not.

[MRM]

It's cliche but the following is true: long way to go to November. Many things can happen both positive or negative for the economy, world and nation. I think Romney is pushing the right topic: the economy + people's daily expenses. I think Obama also has a built in advantage of the media.

I think the recent spate of base flaming the media + Obama admin have done for single women + blacks (and the student debt messages) is a sign that they fear the lib base won't show up in the record numbers of 08. Without that, Obama is performing poorly w/independents so he knows the swing state goose is cooked. I do no see the under 25 crowd voting in as big numbers, nor do I see them skewing for Obama as heavily. I can see this happening to Obama + all female groups as well. That 2008 magic just isnt there anymore. People voted and now he's a known quantity.

[Conquistador]

"And how exactly would dismantling the government job apparatus do anything for white males?" - Peter

It makes them attractive to white women again as providers.

"Most of our tax dollars go to medicare and the military." Peter A

I'm not just referring to the federal government but also municipal and state government as well. Here in California everybody wants a government job. Government jobs pay better than Harvard degrees. Everybody wants in on the racket.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704132204576285471510530398.html

[Conquistador]

"So government employment is only 6.67% of the labor force."

How much do they extract in benefits? Here in California the state employee pension fund is one of the largest funds in the world. Everybody wants to do business with CalPERS.

"I doubt that's what is destroying, "male career and mate prospects." asdf

Government subsidizes single motherhood. That's obvious in the NAM community but it's also occurring among proles now too.

"But let me assure you the 20 something school teachers I date ain't exactely making a lot of money." - asdf

School teachers make up for that with paid holidays, job security, medical and retirement benefits. It's not bad.

[Conquistador]

@ destructure

Agreed. America achieved prosperity long before the establishment of a massive bureaucratic state. In California we used to have a part time legislature and things worked well. Now we have full lawmakers and they can't pass anything on time. However the reputation of government employees as being lazy and incompetent first developed when women and NAMs entered the bureaucracies in droves. AA utterly ruined them.

[Conquistador]

Matt in RTP posted an excellent article here explaining why young people are struggling nowadays. It's mostly because too many resources are being consumed by older people in a variety of ways. Society has basically reshaped itself to make things as comfortable as possible for boomers and senior citizens. All this is coming at the expense of the future. The value transference is impoverishing the young in a way unseen anywhere in history.

[destructure]

"It's mostly because too many resources are being consumed by older people in a variety of ways. Society has basically reshaped itself to make things as comfortable as possible for boomers and senior citizens."

Yeah, there's a lot more money going to social security and medicare than welfare. But for many seniors, that's the only issue they care about. Plus, there's a lot of them and they all vote. So you're spitting in the wind on this one.

I don't like it any more than you do. I'm just calling it like I see it. Besides, even if they reduced social security and medicare spending they'd just find something even worse to spend it on. So even if it's the biggest money pit, it still won't solve anything. I'm not being fatalistic. I just don't think going after social security is the answer. Because it won't happen and it wouldn't solve the problem anyway. It will just lose elections.