Would you vote for Governor Kasich as president? (Union: calculation, income)

[ZnGuy]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Kasich was one of the best in the debates. Unfortunately, it's relative to the fact that pretty much every GOP candidate is batsh*t. If it had been a stage full of reasonable moderates, he wouldn't have looked good at all. Kasich is *far* too socially conservative for me and he's no more fiscally responsible than any of the other candidates, so I couldn't vote for him anyway.

And the other side has some stellar candidates, Hillary is imploding and not sure what this Bernie guy is. What you care, aren't you Mexican?

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

Very disappointed with trumps performance. No real answers/ specifics to questions.

To illustrate the power of his money to modern politicians, Trump said Hillary "had no choice" except to attend one of his weddings. He left out that he also is chums with Bill, who attended the reception with Hillary.

Donald Trump Says His Money Drew Hillary Clinton to His Wedding - ABC News

What a shallow existence.

How much things have changed in the U.S. in my lifetime. Trump, the multi-divorced and re-married, self-proclaimed political puppet meister, is the leading candidate of the "socially conservative" Republicans.

I remember when Nelson Rockefeller, likely a very worthy and experienced Presidential candidate, saw his Presidential hopes ended largely due to a single divorce and re-marriage.

Happy Rockefeller dies; widow of former Vice President Nelson Rockefeller - The Washington Post

Rockefeller was the heir of a family of philanthropists, who had even given the nation two national parks in addition to Williamsburg and great universities.

Trump is a greed-centric, self-absorbed bag of wind most famous for the phrase, "You're fired."

Nothing says more about the shallowness of the Republican electorate than that Trump is deemed a worthy candidate for the Presidency.

Of course, I do understand the frustration felt about the course of American politics.

This was evidenced in last night's debate, when I remember no discussions of the environment or energy policy. Perhaps (were they?) these issues were precluded from the debate's format, but regardless, the debate resembled more of a "gotcha" version of a typical Fox news show, even with several candidates bragging about their personal guidance from God. Elmer Gantry is alive and well and running for President.

I'll be interested to see if Jim Webb gets any traction on the Democratic side of the ticket. He's actually a public-minded, straight-talking individual who likely would be unbeatable if he won the Democratic nomination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb

For gravitas, with just Hillary, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb, the first Democratic debate will likely be serious political theater compared to the clown act orchestrated last night by Fox News. My expectation is that Hillary will flounder against the missile attacks likely launched in her direction by the likes of Sanders and Webb. My perception of Sanders and Webb is that they are not "play nice" politicians, and likely won't be able to help themselves, despite their best efforts, when presented with such a juicy target as Hillary.

Webb's political strategy apparently is to dominate the debates and to surf an upsurge of support all the way to the White House (or is Webb, like Huckabee, only positioning himself for an upsurge in book sales and a cushy political commentator pay-day on some cable news network?). He'll probably falter in the caucus states, typically dominated by organized, moneyed politics, but count on smashing the rest of the field in those states with primary elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/p...llary-clinton/

Norman Mailer famously wrote about the underwater river of American poitics in "Superman Comes to the Supermarket," in explaining the election of John F. Kennedy (although Joseph Kennedy's money likely paid a decisive role, especially in greasing the Chicago political machine into action during the general election).

<<Since the First World War Americans have been leading a double life, and our history has moved on two rivers, one visible, the other underground; there has been the history of politics which is concrete, factual, practical and unbelievably dull if not for the consequences of the actions of some of these men; and there is a subterranean river of untapped, ferocious, lonely and romantic desires, that concentration of ecstasy and violence which is the dream life of the nation.>>

Superman Comes to the Supermarket by Norman Mailer - JFK Profile by Mailer

Raised in a solidly Republican Party, I vividly remember the dismay that Kennedy's election evoked, and my mother raising my dad's instant ire when she once commented about her admiration for Kennedy's skill at his novel and frequent televised press conferences by merely saying, "He's a good speaker."

As a rapidly aging political junkie, I wonder if Webb can tap, if it still exists, that underground river of American politics. If you compare his history to any of the other candidates, he would seem most likely to possess the ability to emerge as a "hero" politician. And he's a lot smarter than John McCain (think Sarah Palin).

Apart from the better-than-thou, "greed is good" crowd, the overtly flawed Trump has no chance IMO of appealing to most of the American electorate. As they are not covered by golden parachutes and owners of multi-million dollar IRA and 401(k) accounts, one of the biggest fears of average Americans is hearing the words, "You're fired."

Any dunce of a politician could figure out how to bury Trump with 15-second commercials of Trump joyfully pronounced his most famous catch-phrase, "You're fired," causing the average American to cringe with disgust with each showing. How about a longer sound bite of him last night bragging about his wealth garnered by gaming the system, including four corporate bankruptcies which made him a fortune even though he stiffed "evil" creditors for billions. Trump wallows in his own B.S.

The interesting and important question for me is whether Webb or any American politician can still gain the trust and visceral support of a majority of the American electorate, and then deal honestly and decisively with the myriad problems facing our nation and humanity.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by ZnGuy

And the other side has some stellar candidates, Hillary is imploding and not sure what this Bernie guy is. What you care, aren't you Mexican?

I'm not big on Hillary and Bernie seems more of a flavor of the month rather than a real, serious candidate, but neither of them are the kind of crazy, terrible people that you have running in the GOP.

No, I'm not Mexican, but if I was, your hero Trump, and leading GOP candidate, would've called me a rapist.

[sheena12]

I think Trump is a misogynistic creep. Megyn Kelly nailed him last night.

Our governor came off as sane and rational last night. He impressed a lot of centrist people. However, his record in terms of the environment and women's issues tell a story of extremism.

At least he didn't act like an idiot or a religious fanatic.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by sheena12

I think Trump is a misogynistic creep. Megyn Kelly nailed him last night.

Our governor came off as sane and rational last night. He impressed a lot of centrist people. However, his record in terms of the environment and women's issues tell a story of extremism.

At least he didn't act like an idiot or a religious fanatic.

You can tell that Fox News *really* hates Trump, and therefore I'm sure the Kochs do as well. Their boy is Bush, who despite receiving so many softball questions, might as well have not been there at all. So lifeless.

Kasich is every bit as bad as the rest of the GOP (and follows the party platform) on the environment and women's issues, among others. Like I said, he only seemed more reasonable standing next to so many people who are way worse. People like Walker, Huckabee, Carson and Cruz are just scary bad.

[1watertiger]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

You can tell that Fox News *really* hates Trump, and therefore I'm sure the Kochs do as well. Their boy is Bush, who despite receiving so many softball questions, might as well have not been there at all. So lifeless.

Kasich is every bit as bad as the rest of the GOP (and follows the party platform) on the environment and women's issues, among others. Like I said, he only seemed more reasonable standing next to so many people who are way worse. People like Walker, Huckabee, Carson and Cruz are just scary bad.

So many bad candidates.. What woman's issues are you talking about?

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by 1watertiger

So many bad candidates.. What woman's issues are you talking about?

Abortion, health care, equal pay, etc.

If it were up to most of them, women would be back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (even with a rapist's child).

[Zen_master]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Abortion, health care, equal pay, etc.

If it were up to most of them, women would be back in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant (even with a rapist's child).

Does a rapist's child have any less value than you, me, or the next person?

[Zen_master]

Per US Census Bureau 2013 data...


Per capita personal income Ohio: 26,046
Median family income Ohio: 61,371

Per capita personal income USA: 28,155
Median family income USA: 64,719

Per capita income in Ohio is 92.5% of nation
Median family income in Ohio is 94.8% of nation

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by Zen_master

Per US Census Bureau 2013 data...


Per capita personal income Ohio: 26,046
Median family income Ohio: 61,371

Per capita personal income USA: 28,155
Median family income USA: 64,719

Per capita income in Ohio is 92.5% of nation
Median family income in Ohio is 94.8% of nation

The analysis reported in post 200 quoted 2013 median household income for Ohio of 46,398 vs. the national median household income of 51,939. As indicated, it's from Table H-8 here:

Historical Income Tables - Households - U.S Census Bureau

Anybody can verify the source of the numbers in the analysis by looking at the Excel spreadsheet linked at Table H-8, so the analysis appears accurate. So 2013 Ohio median household income, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau today, was indeed 89.33 percent of national median household income.

Where's the link for the source of your data?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Househ..._United_States

You quoted "family income," which after some further research I discovered excludes single person households and multiple-person households where the individuals are unrelated, such as persons living together who are not married. Obviously, "household income" is the more comprehensive term.

<<
What is the difference between households and families?
A family consists of two or more people (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same housing unit. A household consists of all people who occupy a housing unit regardless of relationship. A household may consist of a person living alone or multiple unrelated individuals or families living together. You may access all of the CPS definitions at http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html>>


http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/about/faqs.html


I would still like to see the link for the tables which contain your data.


Household income is the criteria generally used as it makes no sense to exclude single person households from the calculation, nor households shared by non-related persons.


Also, you didn't present a time series so we can't see how median family income has fared over several years in Ohio versus the national average. It's possible that it has fallen from a premium to the national average in 2007 to the 2013 deficit as reported by you, but for which we don't have the actual link to the table that was the source of your data.

If per capita income is a mean average as opposed to a median average, it's much less relevant to any discussion of how the middle class in Ohio has fared, as it would be distorted by the massively growing income disparity of the those in the 1-5 percent cohort versus those in the lower 95 percent cohort. Median per capita income would be interesting.

So, the 89.33 percentage seems fair and accurate.