2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Roy Karrde]

And there is the answer I was looking for from Dark Sage, much of the men were knocked off at the end of the Bush year, leaving for many women to fall off during the Obama Administration. However since this is a election year, rhetoric is often skewed, and because Obama was lucky ( or unlucky ) to be elected in 2009 and not 2008, the RNC and Romney have every right to start the number at 2009. But like I said this is a election year, and all is fair and love and war and all that.

[Dark Sage]

Thank you, Kurai.

It seems that Mitt's arguement is pretty unconvincing to me too.

[Roy Karrde]

Thank you, Kurai.

It seems that Mitt's arguement is pretty unconvincing to me too.

Dude you could have looked up the Washington Post article on it, as it had everything in there Kurai had said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...3q6S_blog.html

But as I have also said Mitt's argument is the truth, as long as you do not add in the last of the Bush's years. But then again it would not strictly be "The Obama years". Welcome to Politics.

[Dark Sage]

Like I said Roy, going by the Chinese calendar, this is the Year of the Dragon...

Which means, being an election year, it's going to "drag on" longer than usual...

[Roy Karrde]

Like I said Roy, going by the Chinese calendar, this is the Year of the Dragon...

Which means, being an election year, it's going to "drag on" longer than usual...

It sure as hell did not drag on longer for the Republican Nomination, but if it is going to drag on to the election that will be a harder fight for Obama, as it means Obama cannot give a knock out blow early before all attention and rhetoric is turned on his record.

[kurai]

it will be pretty hard to get people to care about a macroeconomic argument when you need to cherry-pick time periods and demographics in order to say that obama is bad. the problem is that you can not honestly take a simultaneous position of market fundamentalism and government responsibility for the specifics of who gets which job. only the macroeconomic tinkering is acceptable (and only then for a subset of the populace) - incentivizing 'who to hire for what' receives a harsh reaction.

anyway,

most of the losses for women were in the sales sector. i would suggest that these are actually indicative of a couple factors: this is the second largest sector in which full time positions were available to women, and this is the largest sector in which they became apparently disposable.

there is no indication that these jobs were being absorbed by the expanded male labour force, so we can conclude that these losses were related to the fall in demand which arose from the initial 2008 crisis-level drop. by 2010, having burned through consumer credit to survive, we see a second punch with the loss of now-disposable sales positions.

Where were jobs lost?



if the recovery of women's sales positions is contingent on a demand after-effect, it is hard to blame the lateness of its arrival on a lack of some specific market intervention

that would be pretty funny to watch

but it is not a good point for the GOP to capitalize on

[Roy Karrde]

it will be pretty hard to get people to care about a macroeconomic argument when you need to cherry-pick time periods and demographics in order to say that obama is bad.

I would agree if they were actually cherry picking time periods and not starting at the beginning of Obama's Presidency, and starting to hit Obama on women for no reason what so ever. But the fact is Obama decided to make this "War on Women" a part of his reelection campaign, and that he started his Presidency just when Women began to get laid off the worse. In many ways he is a victim of timing, and his own pandering when it comes to this argument. Is it a good argument to make? Only how they package it, and time will tell.

[kurai]

yes, 'how they package it' is the point

if we accept that the continued women's losses were consequent to a macroeconomic after-effect, one would have to make the suggestion that a theoretical recovery in the female labour force ought to have been somehow mandated preferentially above (or instead) of the existing recovery which has trended to the male-oriented side

but this requires intervention which is unacceptable to the market fundamentalist crowd - obama would be called a marxist if he actually did anything to promote this particular outcome

thus it is a campaign non-starter, merely a rhetorical trick, but one which is easily countered, as it relies on premises which are incompatible with the multifaceted nature of the GOP

so you can just have obama say, "yes, friends, we are proud to say there has been a recovery [pause for applause] but we can not control who it is that enjoys this growth. we have seen our mothers, sisters, daughters and dear friends suffer - and moving forward, we will hope to see a brighter future... [pause for applause, possibly throw in some ideas of an internship/apprenticeship proposal or tax break]"

[Roy Karrde]

yes, 'how they package it' is the point

if we accept that the continued women's losses were consequent to a macroeconomic after-effect, one would have to make the suggestion that a theoretical recovery in the female labour force ought to have been somehow mandated preferentially above (or instead) of the existing recovery which has trended to the male-oriented side

but this requires intervention which is unacceptable to the market fundamentalist crowd - obama would be called a marxist if he actually did anything to promote this particular outcome

thus it is a campaign non-starter, merely a rhetorical trick, but one which is easily countered, as it relies on premises which are incompatible with the multifaceted nature of the GOP

so you can just have obama say, "yes, friends, we are proud to say there has been a recovery [pause for applause] but we can not control who it is that enjoys this growth. we have seen our mothers, sisters, daughters and dear friends suffer - and moving forward, we will hope to see a brighter future... [pause for applause, possibly throw in some ideas of an internship/apprenticeship proposal or tax break]"

Problem with relying on that is that it throws Obama into the trap of "Not doing enough about women". He can try to explain it with all the effort of Paul Ryan trying to delve into the macro economics of his plan. But he runs into the same problem that he is running into with Hispanics, a "What have you done for me now" when it comes to this argument about women and the economy.

But in the end of the day, when you boil it down to a ten second sound bite "92.3 percent of the job losses during the Obama years have been women who lost those jobs". Works alot better than "Well women lost jobs in the service sector, etc etc etc." It takes what is a yawn worthy argument break down, and condenses it into a 10 second sound bite.

Find the 10 second sound bite that doesn't make Obama look like he doesn't care about all the losses these last 3 years. If they can't do that, then they won't be able to fight back Romney on thus.

[Dark Sage]

Find the five second sound byte where Romney actually explains how he'll actually create more jobs, and perhaps he'll do better.

That's what people want in regards to the economy. They don't want people casting the blame. Unless Romney, who claims to be a "job creator", can come up with a solution, he's gonna lose.

[Roy Karrde]

Find the five second sound byte where Romney actually explains how he'll actually create more jobs, and perhaps he'll do better.

That's what people want in regards to the economy. They don't want people casting the blame. Unless Romney, who claims to be a "job creator", can come up with a solution, he's gonna lose.

I am sure he has one, but if people want a job creator than Obama is truly screwed because all he has left is casting blame, he sure as hell does not have a record as a job creator.

[Dark Sage]

I am sure he has one, but if people want a job creator than Obama is truly screwed because all he has left is casting blame, he sure as hell does not have a record as a job creator.

I have yet to see him propose one.

[kurai]

he sure as hell does not have a record as a job creator

presumably we are talking about some data set which is not currently on this page



we see a jobs recovery in the majority of sectors, and stability in almost all of the rest

the entire point of this discussion is that the sole failing has been in the female side of the sales sector, and this is something which is a reflection of the earlier crisis (which can't be controlled beyond avoiding the crisis in the first place)

the fact that it is an earlier crisis is not something which people are confused about:



so campaigning on this issue opens two doors:

1) obama can talk about the positive metrics which do exist, rising out of a situation which most people think was not his fault

2) if women voters are a captive audience in favor of obama (this seems to be the case by a minimum of 7-10% presently), and people for some reason accept that this falling-sales-jobs metric is important, he can transition into a solution-oriented response

and!

the sales-sector-women whose jobs have already been affected are a part of the demographic which is currently polling widely in favor of obama. they did not need romney to point out to them that they lost their job. they were already aware of this and still favor obama regardless of their employment situation.

the economic issue is not a slam dunk for the republican party, and the primary weakness of obama which we find in the metrics is one which would already be reflected in the demographic breakdown of obama's negatives. but it is not, so this issue primarily serves as an opportunity for obama: it allows people to be reminded of the 2008 failure and the positive metrics of the current recovery.

[Dark Sage]

No response, Roy? Kurai just gave statistics that proved Romney's latest claim to be full of hot air, so where's your counter-argument?

[Roy Karrde]

the economic issue is not a slam dunk for the republican party, and the primary weakness of obama which we find in the metrics is one which would already be reflected in the demographic breakdown of obama's negatives. but it is not, so this issue primarily serves as an opportunity for obama: it allows people to be reminded of the 2008 failure and the positive metrics of the current recovery.

The thing is, you are talking about a anemic recovery, +0.9 percent overall in men, after three years, and over a trillion dollars spent. And after a drop off in his first year of -3.8 if Obama wishes to use that +0.9 percent in men as some kind of rally, that he has surpassed the failure of 2008, after 3 years, and after trillions of dollars spent. Please, be my guest. It is digging your own political grave.

[kurai]

you are misreading the data

the -3.8 is not "in his first year", it is the net change over the previous year (ie. the losses in bush's final year, which is why the polling data above indicates the popular blame held for bush and the republicans)



but anyway, of course obama will campaign on the post-crisis recovery

yes, the talking point is an 'anemic recovery', but they are still using the word recovery - the next step is the transition into a characterization of coming back from bush's disaster

this is why it is not a particularly great idea for romney to focus on the issue of women's jobs - it is a demographic he does not have, and not an issue on which obama is particularly weak

assuming the recovery continues on a slow and steady incline approaching november, it is hardly an appropriate centerpiece for the campaign against obama

[homeofmew]

so now that Rick Santorum dropped it seems like Romey is going to have the nomination since Santorum "won" more states than any other candidate.

Now it comes down to where his delegates go to.

[ChobiChibi]

What date is the election? Need to know so I can look forward to the end of this thread

[Roy Karrde]

but anyway, of course obama will campaign on the post-crisis recovery

yes, the talking point is an 'anemic recovery', but they are still using the word recovery - the next step is the transition into a characterization of coming back from bush's disaster

Is this why they have decided to focus less on the recovery and more on a War on Women and The Buffet Rule instead of the recovery? Mind you there is a danger of even going after the economy seeing how as the March jobs numbers show, and what many analysts have pointed out, the economy is slowing. Or are we so quick to forget the "Recovery Summer" they pushed out in 2010, which turned out to be the laughing stock of the Republican party when it cratered out.

this is why it is not a particularly great idea for romney to focus on the issue of women's jobs - it is a demographic he does not have, and not an issue on which obama is particularly weak

I would disagree, it places women against the Obama Administration, and turns their effort of saying they support women on it's head. It places not only the bad economy but also women's issues both on Obama to combat and answer for.

assuming the recovery continues on a slow and steady incline approaching november, it is hardly an appropriate centerpiece for the campaign against obama

I would assume if the economy keeps recovery the focus will switch to Gas Prices, as those will remain high in a recovery economy ( Not to mention if tensions flare in the Middle East ). However with high unemployment and so many still outside of the workforce, it's logical to also attack Obama on the economy in that the recovery has been too slow to relieve the pain so many are feeling and that a different President would speed up the recovery.

[kurai]

Yes, sure. We will have to see whether or not people believe that the 'anemic recovery' is sufficient, and whether women maintain their favor for Obama after a long campaign by Romney attempting to prove that he is not in their best interests. The economic metrics seem clear enough that both Obama and romney will be able to campaign on the issue, but I think the potential for Obama to highlight positives will prove more beneficial than the criticism of niche negatives.

-

i've decided to resume dumping news/media items and raw polling data into this topic now that the main campaign has started

Media -

Romney Campaign Poster:



Romney Ad (Florida):



Cain's SuperPAC is still doing (hilarious) stuff:



Polling -

McClatchy-Marist from Mar 22:
* Obama 46 - Romney 44

Obama/Biden 47 - Romney/Jeb Bush 47
Obama/Biden 49 - Romney/Marco Rubio 44

CNN/ORC from Mar 25:
* Obama 54 - Romney 43

Gallup from Apr 2:
* Obama 49 - Romney 45

Undecided swing state: Obama 51 - Romney 42
Undecided national: Obama 49 - Romney 45

the trends on the undecided are swinging towards obama - in Oct 2011 we were looking at dead even polling on the preference

TIPP from Apr 5:
* Obama 46 - Romney 38

By Age
18-44: Obama 49 - Romney 39
45-64: Obama 47 - Romney 37
65+: Obama 46 - Romney 40

By Race
White: Obama 41 - Romney 43
Black/Hispanic: Obama 72 - Romney 15

2008 presidential exit polls had an outcome of 95-4 in favor of Obama for african-americans, 67-31 for latinos - i wish they had not merged this data in the poll

Washington Post-ABC News from Apr 8:
* Obama 51 - Romney 43

Candidate Preference Per Topic (sorted by margin) -

Budget deficit: Romney 51 - Obama 38 (13)
Energy: Romney 47 - Obama 42 (5)
Handling the economy: Romney 47 - Obama 43 (4)

Taxes: Obama 45 - Romney 42 (3)
Small business: Obama 47 - Romney 45 (2)
Creating jobs: Obama 46 - Romney 43 (3)
Terrorism: Obama 47 - Romney 40 (7)
"Social issues": Obama 46 - Romney 38 (8)
Protecting the middle class: Obama 49 - Romney 39 (10)
Health care: Obama 48 - Romney 38 (10)
Foreign affairs: Obama 53 - Romney 36 (17)
"Women's issues": Obama 53 - Romney 34 (19)

Rasmussen from Apr 10:
* Obama 45 - Romney 45

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, sure. We will have to see whether or not people believe that the 'anemic recovery' is sufficient, and whether women maintain their favor for Obama after a long campaign by Romney attempting to prove that he is not in their best interests.

Lets just say if Obama is hoping to have Women maintain favor with him, having a DNC spokesperson say something as stupid as this about Romney's wife is not going to help him out.

Ann Romney’s debut on Twitter couldn’t have come at a more opportune time.

Ann’s first tweet came just moments after Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen lobbed an insult at Ann Romney, suggesting that the 64-year-old mother of five and grandmother of 16 had never held a job.

“Guess what, his wife has actually never worked a day in her life,” said Rosen, who was being interviewed by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the “war on women.”

And then, just like that, a familiar name popped up on Twitter: @AnnDRomney.

“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys. Believe me, it was hard work,” Ann tweeted.

The Romney campaign confirmed to ABC News that the account belongs to Ann Romney.

The tweet came just as husband Mitt wrapped up a second day of campaigning that all but entirely focused on the “war against women,” packing events with female business leaders and accusing the Obama administration’s economic policies of hurting women.

“I could not disagree with Hilary Rosen any more strongly. Her comments were wrong and family should be off limits. She should apologize,” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a tweet.

Top Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod also tweeted his disapproval: “Also Disappointed in Hilary Rosen’s comments about Ann Romney. They were inappropriate and offensive.”

Following the interview, Rosen herself tweeted, “I’ve nothing against @AnnRomney. I just don’t want Mitt using her as an expert on women struggling $ to support their family. She isn’t.”

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...visors-insult/

In one swoop this idiot not only put the DNC and Obama's Campaign on the defensive with Stay at Home Mom's but also Independents who see attacking the Wife of a Candidate as off limits.

[kurai]

well if we're just posting gossip tier garbage:

On a conference call with reporters Wednesday morning, campaign aides for Gov. Mitt Romney were unable to say affirmitively whether Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

That law, the first bill Obama signed as president in January 2009. made it significantly easier for workers – particularly female workers – to file equal pay lawsuits.

The Romney camp said an answer to the question will be forthcoming.

let's wait for the romney camp to decide whether or not it has an opinion on key women's issues

this will help their 19 point deficit on the subject

[Roy Karrde]

well if we're just posting gossip tier garbage:

So CNN/ABC is Garbage now?

let's wait for the romney camp to decide whether or not it has an opinion on key women's issues

this will help their 19 point deficit on the subject

Sure, lets talk about the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act specifically that Obama's White House pays women less than men.

Female employees in the Obama White House make considerably less than their male colleagues, records show.

According to the 2011 annual report on White House staff, female employees earned a median annual salary of $60,000, which was about 18 percent less than the median salary for male employees ($71,000).

The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits…

It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act.

http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/

So please, lets talk about female pay, we will start with the Obama Administration first.

[kurai]

yes, "news coverage" of twitter-level back and forth between a strategist and a candidate's wife is gossipy garbage. what else would it be?

your quotation seems to be missing the critical "President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House" line. it is pretty obvious that his solution to such a problem is through resolution by anti-discrimination lawsuits; he campaigned for this to become easier. so let them be filed.

what is romney's solution?
"an answer to the question will be forthcoming" - a bold stance

[homeofmew]

What date is the election? Need to know so I can look forward to the end of this thread

Primaries End June 5th 2012

Actual Election Day is November 6th 2012

[Roy Karrde]

yes, "news coverage" of twitter-level back and forth between a strategist and a candidate's wife is gossipy garbage. what else would it be?

You do realize that the interview was on CNN correct? That she made the statement on there. And you may consider it gossipy garbage but a DNC official insulting a candidate's wife is pretty serious.

your quotation seems to be missing the critical "President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House" line. it is pretty obvious that his solution to such a problem is through resolution by anti-discrimination lawsuits, he campaigned for this to become easier. so let them be filed.

what is romney's solution?
"an answer to the question will be forthcoming" - a bold stance

So Obama's solution to tackling the Gender Pay Gap is to make a speech? A sort of "Do as I say, not as I do?" situation? If he is going to criticize the Gender Pay Gap why doesn't he work to fix it under the very house he lives and works under? Or are we expecting a President Romney to handle it instead as you seem to suggest.

[Dark Sage]

Yes, attacking the family of a candidate is off-limits. I would say that attacking the family of ANY politician is off-limits.

Perhaps you are forgetting how Sarah Palin mocked Mrs. Obama's anti-obesity campaign by saying that she said "we shouldn't eat dessert" while making s'mores.

[Roy Karrde]

Yes, attacking the family of a candidate is off-limits. I would say that attacking the family of ANY politician is off-limits.

Perhaps you are forgetting how Sarah Palin mocked Mrs. Obama's anti-obesity campaign by saying that she said "we shouldn't eat dessert" while making s'mores.

Hold on let me check, is Sarah Palin on the ballot? Is she the Republican nominee? Is she a top RNC official?

[kurai]

the interview was on cnn, and then all of the follow-up replies were through twitter. the article talks about twitter 7 times - all 'responses' to the event were through twitter. this is twitter-level gossip. it is the least serious thing possible.

the solution is not to resolve things through making a speech. the solution is that those who are being discriminated against ought to file the appropriate lawsuits which obama has worked to enable.

should obama instead personally issue an edict adjusting the pay grades of all female federal employees? this can't be seriously what you suggest - civil service pay is not administered by the executive branch, it is regulated by the legislature, and obviously requires budget expenditure.

my 'suggestion' is that the romney campaign can not provide a single word to answer to this issue.

[Roy Karrde]

the interview was on cnn, and then all of the follow-up replies were through twitter. the article talks about twitter 7 times - all 'responses' to the event were through twitter. this is twitter-level gossip. it is the least serious thing possible.

All of which allows the people to respond instantly, as such as the Obama people engaging in damage control. Would you rather have timed press releases between the two groups? But please keep grasping at straws.

the solution is not to resolve things through making a speech. the solution is that those who are being discriminated against ought to file the appropriate lawsuits which obama has worked to enable.

So instead of investigate and fix the problem, Obama would rather wait to be sued? But here I will save Obama the time and explain why the gap exists in a minute.

should obama instead personally issue an edict adjusting the pay grades of all female federal employees? this can't be seriously what you suggest - civil service pay is not administered by the executive branch, it is regulated by the legislature, and obviously requires budget expenditure.

my 'suggestion' is that the romney campaign can not provide a single word to answer to this issue.

And you want to know why? Because it is something that you either have not thought of, or are unwilling to admit. A woman in one cubicle is not being paid less in the Obama Administration than the man next to them. The reason why the pay difference is in place, is because the Obama Administration has hired more MEN for executive duties than WOMEN. ( That should be a real treat with the female voters won't it? )

Of course Obama is going to wait to be sued, because there will be no lawsuit coming. But by trying to pander to women with some male conspiracy out there creating a wage gap in every work place with a median difference in salary they are leaving themselves open for this.

So until Obama decides to either unfairly pay women above men for the same job to fix the wage gap. OR decides to fire any number of male executives in the White House and hire female ones to fix the wage gap, it will still exist.

[kurai]

hilary rosen has literally the same job as sarah palin

she is not a DNC official

they're both media consultants with loose party ties, lacking official connection

[homeofmew]

Roy, it will be a while before women are truly ever be treated as equal. heck we can't get drafted and i am not going to complain about that.

But as for doing x Job being male or female shouldn't effect wages.
But heck I am sure race gets involved too. (as in you can't hire too many x or y race)

When it comes to politics it should be about the platform and integrity to the platform but no, it's never this way.

[Roy Karrde]

hilary rosen has literally the same job as sarah palin

she is not a DNC official

they're both media consultants with loose party ties, lacking official connection

I stand corrected she is not a DNC official, she is a Democratic Strategist and DNC Adviser, will the DNC and the Obama Administration renounce their ties with her now?

Democratic strategist and DNC adviser Hilary Rosen took a swipe at Mitt Romney's wife on CNN tonight, claiming that Ann had "never worked a day in her life" -

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/...et-120288.html

And I am curious does Sarah Palin advise the RNC? Is she a Republican Strategist? Last time I checked she played a supporting role on Fox News.

Edit: BTW her firm provides support specifically for the Obama Campaign.

http://www.skdknick.com/work/far-rea...e-in-election/

[homeofmew]

As far as I am concerned she isn't a strategist.
She's mainly part of the Tea Party Movement Now.
I don't think she holds any office anymore she was Governor to 2009 and that's it.

[kurai]

you're all over the place here

how do you hope to establish pay and employment equity beyond enforcement through discrimination lawsuits when appropriate? how can we determine that discrimination is occurring simply on the basis of unexamined statistics? certainly, you can roll out quotas and affirmative action. is this what you want?

otherwise, you need some greater level of proof to establish that qualified women are being overlooked for appropriate positions. this is established through discrimination lawsuits themselves. this is the whole point of anti-discrimination law and the entire method through which could operate in this circumstance.

but after reconsidering your edits, it seems you are not actually in favor of addressing pay equity. if so, you are being inconsistent; you should be mad at romney for being unwilling to deny support of the issue.

[Roy Karrde]

you're all over the place here

how do you hope to establish pay and employment equity beyond enforcement through discrimination lawsuits when appropriate? how can we determine that discrimination is occurring simply on the basis of unexamined statistics? certainly, you can roll out quotas and affirmative action. is this what you want?

That is what many on the feminist left want, or do you honestly believe there is a massive 1930s conspiracy keeping women down everywhere?

otherwise, you need some greater level of proof to establish that qualified women are being overlooked for appropriate positions. this is established through discrimination lawsuits themselves. this is the whole point of anti-discrimination law and the entire method through which could operate in this circumstance.

Problem is providing proof they are actually being discriminated against, unless you know, having a vagina is now some how the standard bearer of proof that you are better than any other male candidate for the job.

but after reconsidering your edits, it seems you are not actually in favor of addressing pay equity. if so, you are being inconsistent; you should be mad at romney for being unwilling to deny support of the issue.

I freely accept that we need to addressing pay inequality in the limited and few places where it actually exists. But if we are going to make some idiotic showing of pay inequality on a broad scale as Obama and others in his party have done based on the sole fact of median pay. Then Obama's White House is outrageously guilty of it.

[kurai]

yes, sarah palin is a republican strategist. she runs a republican-focused PAC, which acts through ties to media outlets.

hilary rosen is a democratic strategist in that she runs a democratic-focused media consultancy firm which operates through ties to media outlets.

a PAC is funded differently from a private firm, so rosen's firm could get fired. or she could get fired from the firm. but she probably won't since this is a trivial issue.

[homeofmew]

It's always hard to provide proof. Or of X company is doing it on purpose.
Or if X person Male of Female is qualified for X position.

No I do not want quotas or affirmative action, although it already somewhat exists in the United States.

Or the fact I live in Houston, Texas may have to do with the racial diversity here .
For example, they may more likely give you a job in china town if you are Asain.

In a perfect world the best person would get the job.
But sadly other factors apply - it may come down to who knows who, how you look, and other variables.

But yes on Average it seems women make less.

[Roy Karrde]

yes, sarah palin is a republican strategist. she runs a republican-focused PAC, which acts through ties to media outlets.

Last time I checked running a PAC does not automatically make you a strategist, usually that involves strategist with Republican candidates or the RNC for messaging.

hilary rosen is a democratic strategist in that she runs a democratic-focused media consultancy firm which operates through ties to media outlets.

a PAC is funded differently from a private firm, so rosen's firm could get fired. or she could get fired from the firm. but she probably won't since this is a trivial issue.

You also failed to note that she is a DNC advisor.

But yes on Average it seems women make less.

You seem to be using averages, which pretty much falls into the same problem the Obama Administration is having. Unless you have exactly the same number of men and women working the same number of jobs, taking the same number of sick days, etc etc, you are going to have a unintentional pay gap.

[kurai]

i'm not trying to trick you here

the point is that addressing the problem of "providing proof they are actually being discriminated against" can only be done legitimately through an impartial judicial system (on which i'm sure we can agree)

ledbetter extends the period in which these lawsuits can be filed, thus providing access to this judicial system

therefore, if you find that inequality does need to be addressed in some cases, and the judicial process is the only legitimate means for it to be addressed (through an adequate standard of proof), is extending access to this judicial process not a good thing?

do you think this this is good or bad?
that is what was asked of romney's campaign, and they did not have an answer!

that was all the original remark was about. you brought up the stuff about civil service pay and vast conspiracies and the legitimacy of claims of inequality!