Reply With Quote
LOL...
Waitress Moms.
Good name for them.
many of them probably make $40k+ in tips they don't claim for taxes, so they don't care if tax rates go up. They just get earned income credit on their minimum wage jobs!
http://nationaljournal.com/2012-pres...ates-20121001#A National Journal analysis of recent polling results across 11 states considered battlegrounds shows that in most of them, Obama is running considerably better than he is nationally among white women without a college education. Obama’s gains with these so-called “waitress moms” are especially pronounced in heartland battlegrounds like Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
GRAPHIC: Obama's Battleground Boost
Combined with his continued support among other elements of his “coalition of the ascendant,” including young people, minorities, and college-educated women, these advances among blue-collar women have been enough to propel Obama to the lead over Republican Mitt Romney in the most recent public surveys in all 11 states (albeit in some cases within the polls’ margins of error).
Democrats say blue-collar women have been the principal, and most receptive, target for their extended ad barrage portraying Romney as a plutocrat who is blind, if not indifferent, to the struggles of average families.
“Advertising matters, and a lot of the advertising is aimed at that group,” said Democratic pollster Geoff Garin, who is advising the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA. “That’s certainly been our No. 1 priority.”
Garin earlier this year described the movement of blue-collar women in battleground states toward Obama as “the demographic development of the summer” and the Obama campaign has tracked the same shift. A Republican strategist familiar with the Romney campaign’s thinking agreed that Obama’s improving position among these economically strained, often culturally conservative women has keyed his rise in most battleground states. “The sheer weight of their advertising, and the shows they targeted that advertising on, it is [aimed at] lower-income, white, working women,” the GOP strategist said. “They are being pounded with this stuff.”
LOL...
Waitress Moms.
Good name for them.
many of them probably make $40k+ in tips they don't claim for taxes, so they don't care if tax rates go up. They just get earned income credit on their minimum wage jobs!
this sort of casual contempt for hard working Americans is one reason why Romney is trailing so badly in this demographic, tbh.
The vast majority of waitresses do not make $40k in tips. Those that do, do so in restaurants that track the out of tipping for reporting purposes.
Marge at Joe's Diner who pockets that $1.25 in tips ain't making 40 large. But, she's likely not reporting the pittance she is taking in.
This. Basically, the only places that don't at least casually track your tips are the IHOPs and lower of the world. I will tell you from experience, I didn't approach an earnings level which could come close to 20k working at IHOP, much less 40k.
edit: casual tracking of tips means that they take your sales and multiply it by some amount (15%, 18%, 21%), then report that amount for the amount you received in tips for you.
Untaxed $40k in tips? Man, I'm in the wrong business...
WC: legal eagle, professor of macroeconomics, career counselor.
Yes, this is true. I forget that there are other states and different types of places. I seldom eat out, but when I do, i go to the nicer places. I'm seldom paying just the $50 range for two with tipping. I go to places that the waiters and waitresses are doing well. Now $40k is high as I think about it, but I'll bet it's still about $15k+ in the above average places, for those who work full time.
LOL...
IHOP...
Haven't been to one of them for several years.
This would be a good example of how conservatives run their own internal "narratives" and visualizations to use the emotional side of their moral brains over the logical dispassionate side when making policy decisions. Assuming one can take WC troll at his word, a tenuous assumption.
This would be a good example of tautological forumlation. Good job.
um... okay. How exactly is it a tautology?
wait staff averaging $40K/year. right-wing fantasy.
http://ledgerlink.monster.com/traini...at-restaurants
IRS going after wait staff and restaurants, but letting Gecko and his 1%ers stash $100Bs off shore.
Let me expand a bit to be clearer:
WC in this case is running a visual narrative, picturing at some level some waitress or group of them raking in money and then not paying taxes. This is triggering the moralistic emotional side, just as boutons does when picturing the 1%.
Cost/benefit analysis of actual data goes out the window when one starts those narratives. No one mentions that the 1% are paying an ever larger share of running the government. (for a lot of complex reasons) That is the dispassionate logical side.
ing love that movie.
Your approach allows all of your answers to be correct.
Except, not all conservatives run this little fantasy narrative of yours.
Good. You're refining it. WC<> all conservatives with functioning brainpans. Nor is it an exclusively conservative phenomena.
Last edited by TeyshaBlue; 10-03-2012 at 12:04 PM.
"No one mentions that the 1% are paying an ever larger share of running the government"
because they have an EVERY GIGANTICALLY LARGER SHARE of national income, even while paying lower tax rates than many in the 99%.
LOL...
Still talking about it after my post #110...
No, not all. But I find that the scientific explanation seems to fit the tendency of self-identified conservatives to be very judgmental about people they don't like. I think that mental picture is the part driving the process of a lot of welfare bashing and policy by anecdote.ing love that movie.
Your approach allows all of your answers to be correct.
Except, not all conservatives run this little fantasy narrative of yours.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/The Meanstream Media
Pew has a new study regarding the tone of the media's coverage of the presidential candidates. Benjy Sarlin digs in:
Both Obama and Romney received overwhelmingly negative treatment in the press over the general election, according to Pew. From Aug. 27 to Oct. 21, a period that encompassed both conventions and three out of four debates, just 19 percent of stories about Obama were “favorable” in tone versus 30 percent that were “unfavorable. For Romney the ratio was 15 percent favorable to 38 percent unfavorable.Dylan Byers looks at the cable news wars:
The gap between those numbers is largely accounted for by Obama’s relative frontrunner status for much of the observed period. For stories that didn’t concern the horse race aspect of the campaign, the two received near identical (if still negative) coverage: 15 percent positive to 32 percent negative for Obama verus 14 percent positive and 32 percent negative for Romney.
From August 27 through October 21, 71 percent of MSNBC's coverage of Mitt Romney this year was negative, far outperforming Fox News's negative coverage of President Barack Obama, which came in at 46 percent… The negative-to-positive ratio on MSNBC was roughly 23-to-1; the negative-to-positive ratio on Fox News was 8-to-1.Alex Fitzpatrick notes that social media coverage was more negative than traditional media coverage:
[The study] found that the conversation on social media “has been relentlessly negative and relatively unmoved by campaign events that have shifted the mainstream narrative” compared to mainstream media election coverage. How bad is it? Across Twitter, Facebook and blogs, neither Obama nor Romney had a single week of more positive than negative chatter.The tone of the blogosphere is illustrated in the above chart.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
