Skip to main content

The pundits were out in force this past week clutching their pearls and spewing talking points and nonsense about the jobs numbers released at the end of the week.

The problem with this "Jobs Numbers" meme and how it would dampen any positive vibes from the Democratic convention is that it just doesn't make sense when you think about it logically.

If you follow the "Jobs Numbers" meme it goes something like this - a poor jobs number reported by the federal government on Friday is somehow going to discourage independents and undecided voters that the economy is bad and that Mitt Romney needs to be elected to fix it.

So if I understand this correctly, people who are so tuned out that they haven't really been paying much attention to the Presidential race which has been in their face non-stop for over a year are somehow paying attention to an obscure jobs report number?

The more you think about it, the more you realize how stupid this is.   The only way it even makes any sense at all, is if the jobs number is used by the pundits and the "fair and balanced" media to scare the public and make them fear for their jobs or chance of getting a job.    They were out in force trying to do this on Friday and over the weekend, however, like I said earlier, they are seemingly trying to reach folks who are by definition tuned-out of things.    Getting these people to pay attention and to try to understand a jobs report number is not an easy task.

My thinking is that these people rely on their gut feelings about the economy.   How safe do they feel at their jobs.  Are their neighbors getting laid off?   How many houses went up for sale recently in the neighborhood?   These things are a thousand times more crucial about their feelings about the economy than some "jobs number" being reported on the news.

What do you think?


What is the effect of the jobs number on the races in November?

25%2 votes
25%2 votes
25%2 votes
12%1 votes
0%0 votes
12%1 votes
0%0 votes

| 8 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  it's not an obscure number (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lilyvt, Joieau

    but it's the republicans who have been blocking jobs bills.

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:02:29 AM PDT

    •  I was using obscure in the sense of (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joieau, FiredUpInCA

      "inconspicuous or unnoticeable" which I think this number is to most Americans.

      The only people paying attention to this number is the business and political folks.    Talk to the average American and this number is very unnoticeable to them except when the political pundit class tries to make a point by shoving it in their faces every chance they get.

  •  It's also an excuse for the right wing media-- (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    namely ALL OF THEM--to bash the President.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:04:36 AM PDT

  •  While I agree with you and I'm heartened by... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joieau, FiredUpInCA

    ...the polls, I do think there needs to be some serious pushback in the MSM against this "jobs numbers trump great convention" meme because we've had quite a few diaries saying this hasn't been true... But the more this fact is ignored by the MSM, the more their preferred meme becomes the "real truth", which will likely then be reflected in future polls.

    Has there anybody been pushing back against this today?

    "If these Republicans can't stand up to Rush, how can they stand up to the Iranians?" - Redmond Barry

    by xsonogall on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:06:30 AM PDT

  •  When Bush (both Pere and Fils) were President (0+ / 0-)

    non-farm payrolls were always a 'lagging' indicator -- they didn't reflect the actual economic growth taking place

    the stock market was a much better measure of economic growth as it was an indicator of future hiring

    the numbers were inaccurate, they didn't reflect all the hiring taking place in start-ups that had not fully filed incorporation papers

    the seasonal adjustment factors where out of whack -- they didn't reflect the fact that many sales were now taking outside of traditional retail outlets

    it was the fault of Jimmy Carter who signed these executive orders the inhibited firms from hiring because of government regulation

  •  and ya know what.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    According to Fish, Joieau

    EVERY single one of the media outlets, cable, regular TV, radio, every single one make the same statement....a very disappointing jobs report.
    Well, hell, where were these very same 'reporters' during the dismal years 2001-2009 when jobs were tanking at an ASTOUNDING rate.  Did any one of them say 'it's very disappointing that the country is losing jobs at a rate of over 16 a minute, 960 an hour, 23040 a day'?  No.  And losing that many jobs isn't disappointing, it's egregious.
    This President is trying to turn the jobs behemoth around, it's slow, but these are jobs gained.  Yes, it's slow, thank you very much current elected rethugs who are fighting the jobs bill with everything they have (and frankly should be voted out on their collective asses when their terms are up), but it's also going in the right direction, and that's NOT disappointing. And compared to the drastic unchecked flow of lost jobs during the Bush mis-administration, this is cause for cheer, small cheer, but cheer none-the-less.

    I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

    by Lilyvt on Sun Sep 09, 2012 at 09:25:07 AM PDT

    •  um yeah they did (0+ / 0-)

      Rightly so. It is an indicator of not only how the economy is doing, but WILL do in the near term. And they are correct to report it as an important issue now as well. It's not good out there. However the poll indicate that people still would rather see Obama continue to try and tackle this than Romney, which is heartening.

  •  Right, and as people look around them, they... (0+ / 0-)

    see joblessness and underemployment everywhere. I think Rmoney is a terrible enough candidate that it won't matter electorally, but there's just no question that Congress' failure on jobs and the President's failure on housing are seen by your average know-nothing voter.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site