Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see you are in NY. When I lived in and grew up in NY (mostly on LI) all I got was NY and DC news focused stories and assumed the rest of the country thought just like I did. I lived in the DC area, too (DC media - TV, newspapers and radio) for 12 years. I'm very attuned to the exposure bias favoring politicians in close physical proximity to the media hubs in NYC and DC.
Let me tell you something. A couple of elections ago, the media was dropping the names of Bloomberg and Pataki as potential candidates for President. Both MSNBC and Fox News (not sure about CNN) were all buzzing about it like little schoolgirls. They were buzzing about it on some syndicated radio shows, too. That's because in their little NY - DC bubble, Pataki and Bloomberg were big deals. I was living in Tennessee by then. The rest of the country is thinking, "Who the heck is Pataki?" and "Bloomberg who?" (this was before the mayor had his nanny gene explosion) at the same time the national news media were ga-ga over the prospect. (Personally, I think, they think this might give them an advantage if the guy ever becomes President but I digress.)
Representative Peter King is all over the news as the go-to guy on this or that issue. Why, other than that he's from NY and works in DC so they all know him? He's nothing special that would make him a sought out Congressman for his opinion. I think that he thinks he's a bigger deal than he is simply because the media asks for his opinion all the time or why else would he be considering running for President? In fact, I bet a lot of people outside of NY know who he is simply because he's on TV so much and he's a Republican in NY. (He's probably your Congressman, I lived further east.)
When the media in NY and DC were all over the Christie bridge story like a rabid dog with a piece of raw meat, do you really think the rest of the country cared about some lane closure on a NY/NJ bridge? As a person who lived in NY and DC, I know that bridge is a big deal but to everybody else the bridge lane closing and reason behind it were small potatoes.
I'm willing to bet the proximity to the media was one of the factors Hillary Clinton considered when the Clintons decided to live in NY. Maybe not the main reason, but one of them.
The NY and DC market certainly do play a role, but I don't think it plays as big of a role as you might think. As far as King goes, he is my Congressman (unfortunately), he gets all over the news because he tends to seek it out and he is a brash loudmouth. Lets face it a brash loudmouth is going to get more media coverage than someone more laidback. There are plenty of members of Congress and Governors in the NY & DC media markets that do not get the level of coverage Christie or King get due to the fact they are far more laidback than the two of them and aren't brash loudmouths. There are also brash loudmouths from outside of those areas that get plenty of coverage, Ted Cruz is certainly one of them. So while the NY media and DC market play a role, I think the bigger reason simply is loudmouths get more coverage than quiet more laid back members.
I will question the sanity of anybody that wants to be the next President and have to clean up the mess this present loser has created. No matter what they do, they will look bad.
I agree -- there won't be much upside to being elected president in 2016. I guess the deficit will probably be about half as large as it was in 2009. So there's that. Also, the unemployment rate -- again, about half as high. But there's not much else. Other than, I suppose, the fact that medical inflation is at a 50-year low. Might the reduction in the number of uninsured be viewed positively? It's a stretch. Is it worth noting that the trade deficit is down? That oil production is up? That federal spending is flat? That inflation is borderline nonexistent? I guess if you're interested in dwelling on minutia. Sure, the Dow just climbed 420 points to an all-time high, but that's pretty inconsequential. Preferable to a banking crisis? The difference is barely perceptible. 8% economic contraction or 2-3% growth? Hard to choose a clear winner. The vice president crows that "General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead," but let's face facts: most of us don't build cars and we weren't killed on 9/11. All the same, we might've been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, but nowadays, that's an opportunity afforded to precious few. Lastly, if you ignore the catastrophic confluence of sanctions and plunging petroleum prices, Russia and Iran have never been stronger.
Which isn't to say that Obama deserves blame (credit) for all of this. However, I don't know of many Democrats who maintain that Jimmy Carter was a terrific president, and ol' Jimmy didn't make the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam or preside over the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. So are Republicans ever going to acknowledge that the Bush Administration was an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end, and the country is in far better shape today, or am I going to have to vote straight-ticket Democratic for the next 60 years?
The best run/worst run index appears to be highly volatile. In another thread a poster a poster was talking about Kansas vs. California, so I googled and came up with the stat that Kansas was 11th best run, and CA dead last at 50th.
The poster pointed out that I had last years data, and that now Kansas had dropped to around 30, while California had climbed to around 40. It's hard to imagine how two states that were on opposite ends of the spectrum last year now are within striking distance of each other. Did the states really change their policies that drastically in one year?
I would take best run/worst run w/ a grain of salt.
I agree -- there won't be much upside to being elected president in 2016. I guess the deficit will probably be about half as large as it was in 2009. So there's that. Also, the unemployment rate -- again, about half as high. But there's not much else. Other than, I suppose, the fact that medical inflation is at a 50-year low. Might the reduction in the number of uninsured be viewed positively? It's a stretch. Is it worth noting that the trade deficit is down? That oil production is up? That federal spending is flat? That inflation is borderline nonexistent? I guess if you're interested in dwelling on minutia. Sure, the Dow just climbed 420 points to an all-time high, but that's pretty inconsequential. Preferable to a banking crisis? The difference is barely perceptible. 8% economic contraction or 2-3% growth? Hard to choose a clear winner. The vice president crows that "General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead," but let's face facts: most of us don't build cars and we weren't killed on 9/11. All the same, we might've been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, but nowadays, that's an opportunity afforded to precious few. Lastly, if you ignore the catastrophic confluence of sanctions and plunging petroleum prices, Russia and Iran have never been stronger.
Which isn't to say that Obama deserves blame (credit) for all of this. However, I don't know of many Democrats who maintain that Jimmy Carter was a terrific president, and ol' Jimmy didn't make the worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam or preside over the most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression. So are Republicans ever going to acknowledge that the Bush Administration was an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end, and the country is in far better shape today, or am I going to have to vote straight-ticket Democratic for the next 60 years?
Did you happen to notice the election results from last month? "Bush's fault" is not selling any more.
The best run/worst run index appears to be highly volatile. In another thread a poster a poster was talking about Kansas vs. California, so I googled and came up with the stat that Kansas was 11th best run, and CA dead last at 50th.
The poster pointed out that I had last years data, and that now Kansas had dropped to around 30, while California had climbed to around 40. It's hard to imagine how two states that were on opposite ends of the spectrum last year now are within striking distance of each other. Did the states really change their policies that drastically in one year?
I would take best run/worst run w/ a grain of salt.
There are many factors that go into it, and the lists are somehwat objective. As far as California and Kansas specifically both have been at opposite ends of the spectrum as far as it relates to the changes in their budget over the last few years. California had several years of massive budget woes, which has now been brought under control. Kansas on the other hand went pretty much the opposite direction. Kansas did not see the major budget woes many states saw in the wake of the recession, but is now going through it.
Did you happen to notice the election results from last month? "Bush's fault" is not selling any more.
The election results are irrelevant in terms of your unwillingness to face the reality that the country was in (objectively) terrible shape on January 20th, 2009, and is in much better shape today. I have no need to blame Bush for the current conditions because they're such a vast improvement over his last days in office. I just acknowledge that he was an awful president and move on. On the other hand, I don't think I'll ever be able to support a political party that seriously disputes the country is better off today than it was in January '09. It evinces a level of delusion that shouldn't be trusted with political power.
The best run/worst run index appears to be highly volatile. In another thread a poster a poster was talking about Kansas vs. California, so I googled and came up with the stat that Kansas was 11th best run, and CA dead last at 50th.
The poster pointed out that I had last years data, and that now Kansas had dropped to around 30, while California had climbed to around 40. It's hard to imagine how two states that were on opposite ends of the spectrum last year now are within striking distance of each other. Did the states really change their policies that drastically in one year?
I would take best run/worst run w/ a grain of salt.
The report (OP link) says why Kansas was down:
"Kansas had one of the nation’s lowest pension funded ratios as of 2013, at just 56.4%. Recent income tax cuts have, according to many observers, caused the state to miss revenue collection estimates and may force it to cut expenditures to keep its fiscal house in order. In August, S&P cut the state’s credit rating from AA+ to AA and identified recent income tax cuts as a contributing factor."
State politics and national politics are completely different games.
There's no guarantee a governor from a good state will also perpetuate that on a national level.
Bush, for all the bashing he got as President, was actually a good Governor of Texas.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
