2012 Presidential Campaign

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Yep, it's all about the liberal media.

That went out with grunge rock.

I didn't think it was all that controversial. They don't try to hide it these days, like they did in the age of Cobain.

[albionmoonlight]

Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Sasha Obama Asks Father Why He Was Acting Like Such A Pussy During Debate | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Ah, the onion. Sometimes, so true

SI

[molson]

Al Gore says it was the altitude. And maybe he's right, I've had a few tough first nights in Denver myself (though usually after drinking a lot).

[JPhillips]

We'd have a utopia of conservatism if it weren't for those damned reporters!

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Agree that it's not the Bush situation.

Disagree that it's a real -4 just because of what you said: not many actually watch the debates and I suspect most that do have already made up their mind.

That said, if the job numbers come out flat tomorrow, it could be a -4 (like Nate Silver was painting earlier this week).

SI

You think more people pay attention to the job numbers than watch the debates?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Autumn

You think more people pay attention to the job numbers than watch the debates?

More people will hear about the jobs numbers than watched the debates. About an equal amount will hear about both. Way more people will care about the jobs number than who won the debates.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Oct 11: VP
Oct 16: Town Hall
Oct 22: Foreign Policy
SI

Relevant to last night in that I think the Obama campaign thought the first debate was the most dangerous and they simply wanted to play prevent defense -- just don't let Romney land an uppercut. Mission accomplished, even if I think most of us think it was a lousy strategy.

I think the Obama camp thinks Romney is more vulnerable in the second two debates. These days there isn't much you can do to negotiate formats of the debates, but if there is any candidate ill-fitting for a town hall it's Romney. That's the debate to poke the bear and see if you can Romney to snap.

Lot change in a few weeks, but you have to figure Romney's camp hopes to make the foreign policy debate focused on Libya, Arab Spring and the Middle East. Obama hopes this is where Romney will seem like a fish out of water.

I wish I could remember who said it on Twitter last night, but they said after the debate the instructions from Chicago to Biden is to go atomic in the VP debate. This could be epic.

To paraphrase The West Wing again, if people think you come across as condescending and a jerk, it means you can be without being penalized. Biden can light it up Onion-style and it won't be a problem, because we all know Biden is unhinged.

[sterlingice]

"Let 'em think you're just a little crazy"

SI

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Mitt Romney proved Wednesday night that without a doubt, he is clearly the best liar in this race.

[Grover]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Mitt Romney proved Wednesday night that without a doubt, he is clearly the best liar in this race.

I dunno, Obama said that Lehrer did a great job...

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by molson

Al Gore says it was the altitude. And maybe he's right, I've had a few tough first nights in Denver myself (though usually after drinking a lot).

You'd think someone who held their 2008 nominating convention in Denver would plan for that, though.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Originally Posted by Grover

I dunno, Obama said that Lehrer did a great job...

We say that when the kids at the Special Olympics run straight at the curve in the track too.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by M GO BLUE!!!

Mitt Romney proved Wednesday night that without a doubt, he is clearly the best liar in this race.

Not a fan of Romney but in the past 20 years that seems to be about the president's only job so kudos to him I guess?

[sterlingice]

Usually others post these but I figured what the hey:

Romney on 47% comments: I was ‘completely wrong’ – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs
So, Romney walks back the 47% comments. Why not? He's riding high and this is the time to do it. He pretty much owns it, too: "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong." It wasn't a fake apology or my favorite, the frustrating "I'm sorry you misunderstood". As good a time to do it. Now if anyone asks him about it, he can go with the stock "I've addressed that before", tho if I were Obama, I might try to get him to talk about that at one of the debates rather than with a friendly Fox audience.

Economy adds 114,000 jobs in September, unemployment drops to 7.8 percent | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Obama might get a boost back with these job numbers. Unemployment rate drops below that stubborn 8% barrier with it at 7.8%. August numbers revised upwards help push the rate lower. I'm guessing tho that some of the rate has to do with people getting out of the job market.

SI

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Usually others post these but I figured what the hey:

Economy adds 114,000 jobs in September, unemployment drops to 7.8 percent | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Obama might get a boost back with these job numbers. Unemployment rate drops below that stubborn 8% barrier with it at 7.8%. August numbers revised upwards help push the rate lower. I'm guessing tho that some of the rate has to do with people getting out of the job market.

SI

Labor force participation rate was actually up 0.1%.

[gstelmack]

On jobs, from CNN (http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news...html?hpt=hp_t1):

Originally Posted by CNN

The unemployment rate tumbled in September as more people returned to the labor force and steady hiring continued.
Employers added114,000 jobs during the month
...
The country generally needs at least 150,000 new jobs each month just to keep up with population growth

These two parts contradict each other. And from my local TV news:

Originally Posted by wtvd.com

Still, many of the jobs added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million.

Yeah, awesome jobs report. As I said earlier, it's all about the spin placed on the numbers, not on the report itself.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by CNN

The biggest gains came in the form of 582,000 new part-time jobs.

CNN mentioned this too. I'm not sure why you're pretending they didn't.

Of course, the rate is always the most closely watched metric. It's the one with the most political potency because it's simply and easy to cite. That's where Romney has been focusing his attack and it will be hard for him now to spin a lower rate with a detailed explanation of the reasons it's not so good.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

CNN mentioned this too. I'm not sure why you're pretending they didn't.

Of course, the rate is always the most closely watched metric. It's the one with the most political potency because it's simply and easy to cite. That's where Romney has been focusing his attack and it will be hard for him now to spin a lower rate with a detailed explanation of the reasons it's not so good.

Triple Crown!

[Swaggs]

Honest question: If we use "unemployment rate" and "jobs created" as any type of indicators, particularly when compared against past unemployment numbers and/or jobs created numbers, why is there so much scrutiny on their composition in recent months and years?

Did they utilize part-time jobs, underemployment, or people that dropped out of the workforce differently in the past?

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

CNN mentioned this too. I'm not sure why you're pretending they didn't.

Of course, the rate is always the most closely watched metric. It's the one with the most political potency because it's simply and easy to cite. That's where Romney has been focusing his attack and it will be hard for him now to spin a lower rate with a detailed explanation of the reasons it's not so good.

Because that wasn't there when I read the article. They have been updating it, the very first version was all positive spin, I had to go to my local news site to get the part-time jobs number. They are adding the additional info, but keeping the headline and first paragraph or two focusing on the positive spin, just like they did with the last jobs report.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Honest question: If we use "unemployment rate" and "jobs created" as any type of indicators, particularly when compared against past unemployment numbers and/or jobs created numbers, why is there so much scrutiny on their composition in recent months and years?

Did they utilize part-time jobs, underemployment, or people that dropped out of the workforce differently in the past?

1- Liberal media.

2- No.

The GOP line today is developing as the Bureau of Labor Statistics is lying to help Obama. Just another addition to the long list of liberal conspiracies.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Honest question: If we use "unemployment rate" and "jobs created" as any type of indicators, particularly when compared against past unemployment numbers and/or jobs created numbers, why is there so much scrutiny on their composition in recent months and years?

Did they utilize part-time jobs, underemployment, or people that dropped out of the workforce differently in the past?

It's always been a part of the job numbers for as long as I can remember, but the Cliff's Notes was always the jobs created and jobless rate. It's closer to the election so closer scrutiny, right?

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

That said, I'd accept that the Unemployed + Underemployed + Discouraged number ("U-6") is more accurate because if you're working part time or have stopped looking then you really are still unemployed. That said, don't try to compare apples to oranges, then- don't use historical measures of 5-10% unemployment for Reagan, 5-7% under GHW Bush, 4-5% unemployment under Clinton, and 5-7% under GW Bush to compare with 15-20% under Obama because you want to move the criteria. For the record, U-6 data is only kept going back to 1994- or at least that's all I can find on the Bureau of Labor site.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS13327709

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Honest question: If we use "unemployment rate" and "jobs created" as any type of indicators, particularly when compared against past unemployment numbers and/or jobs created numbers, why is there so much scrutiny on their composition in recent months and years?

Did they utilize part-time jobs, underemployment, or people that dropped out of the workforce differently in the past?

Politics. The glass is half full for my party and half empty for the other. So a Republican would compare Bush without some of the numbers to Obama with them and vice versa.

[gstelmack]

It's also been awhile since we had an election where we were supposed to be coming out of a recession, and jobs are much more a part of this election than any other I can remember. So the numbers are being spun and scrutinized far more this time around. When the employment numbers are being used as key indicator for "is the economy improving?", they are going to be nitpicked more since that's a critical question for the election.

Shouldn't we be looking more closely at these kinds of numbers to see what they mean? Raw job numbers don't tell the whole story - are they full-time professional positions with full benefits, or are they just part-time positions so folks can try and treadwater or soften the blow until they get a "real" job? And shouldn't we be analyzing why folks are choosing to give up on the jobforce completely?

[albionmoonlight]

Hankygate! The liberal blogs are now circulating video of what appears to be Mitt Romney with SUPER SECRET DEBATE NOTES. His camp says that the video shows a handkerchief.

(1) I can't wait for the election to be over. The silly of the sillyseason is starting in earnest.

(2) This is kind of like the liberal accusations of Bush wearing a super-secret radio transmitter backpack during his debate with Kerry. It seems to be the kind of conspiracy that liberals like for some reason.

(3) President Obama lost the debate. Badly. Romney is a smart and motivated guy who prepared hard and executed very well. That's really all there is to it. Not sure why President Obama supporters are having such a hard time accepting that reality. Stuff happens.

[Passacaglia]

Wait, you can't have notes?

[JPhillips]

I think it's stupid that they can't have notes. I'd let them bring an Ipad full of shit if it helps them communicate better.

[sterlingice]

They can't have notes?

SI

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think it's stupid that they can't have notes. I'd let them bring an Ipad full of shit if it helps them communicate better.

Seriously. It isn't like a crisis occurs and they are like "Mr. President, what shall we do?!! Wait, no... you can't look at that intelligence report first."

[Autumn]

Yes, just what we want for president, people who don't check their information or rely on the advice of others, but just wing everything.

[sterlingice]

I've felt that way about most tests that aren't basic skills tests in school.

"No, I'm sorry for this work certification test you cannot use that shelf of books that you have next to your desk at work that you'd be looking at if you were actually trying to solve this problem"

SI

[JediKooter]

That handkerchief was made from the souls of outsourced American workers.

[stevew]

I just got an awesome GOP mailing in PA that highlighted "42 months consecutive of 8% unemployment"....lol, couldn't come on a worse day for the GOP.

[TRO]

Well, thanks to the powers of rounding - 8% unemployment is still technically correct.

As long as it didn't read 8.0% which would be TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

[Dutch]

Clever!

[JPhillips]

That's a good cover.

[sterlingice]

Nice

SI

[Solecismic]

Wall Street didn't react to the jobs news, so financial people must know why it wasn't surprising. Hard to spin either way. I'd be wary of a "mission accomplished" banner over the sudden drop.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Wall Street didn't react to the jobs news, so financial people must know why it wasn't surprising. Hard to spin either way. I'd be wary of a "mission accomplished" banner over the sudden drop.

Certainly hasnt been a sudden drop but a slow slog to get down to this number. That being said, I dont see why this number 8 is a special number. Its not to me. Jack Welch and those playing some conspiracy card at the number is just so stupid. 7.8 isnt special or a surprise drop IMO.

[miked]

Saw this today and it reminded me of Jon (I think this Broun guy is somebody who he talks about).

Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell' - Yahoo! News

Anyway, I'm not sure what is scarier, that he is a medical doctor or that he sits on the House Science, Space, and Technology committee.

"God's word is true," Broun said, according to a video posted on the church's website. "I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior."

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by miked

Saw this today and it reminded me of Jon (I think this Broun guy is somebody who he talks about).

Congressman calls evolution lie from 'pit of hell' - Yahoo! News

Anyway, I'm not sure what is scarier, that he is a medical doctor or that he sits on the House Science, Space, and Technology committee.

Read about this freakazoid this weekend. First thought, was, "He'll get re-elected, because there's plenty of voters that think just like him".

[panerd]

Romney to slam Obama foreign policy: ‘Hope is not a strategy’ | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Yes it is. It takes far more thought and forward thinking to try and come up with a Middle Eastern policy that doesn't just involve killing evil brown people. Sorry Mitt you are wrong on this.

[sterlingice]

I have a ton of criticisms about Obama. His Middle Eastern foreign policy has been pretty much note perfect from getting us slowly out of Iraq and Afghanistan to hanging in the back during the Arab spring- always there but not pushing anything, to the same in Libya- we sat back and contributed hardware while Europe got to work together to help finish off Gadhafi while taking the glory ("hey, we don't have to police everything"), and, well, killing Osama.

I take it back as I can criticize Syria. But it seems like there's no international coalition willing to do this at the moment so we're just going to have to wait it out unless we want to unilaterally go in on our own with a coalition of the willing. Neither choice is appealing.

SI

[panerd]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I have a ton of criticisms about Obama. His Middle Eastern foreign policy has been pretty much note perfect from getting us slowly out of Iraq and Afghanistan to hanging in the back during the Arab spring- always there but not pushing anything, to the same in Libya- we sat back and contributed hardware while Europe got to work together to help finish off Gadhafi while taking the glory ("hey, we don't have to police everything"), and, well, killing Osama.

I take it back as I can criticize Syria. But it seems like there's no international coalition willing to do this at the moment so we're just going to have to wait it out unless we want to unilaterally go in on our own with a coalition of the willing. Neither choice is appealing.

SI

Yep. I think a Romney win brings with it a war with Iran, a possible 3 headed president/House/Senate monster, and a wacko LDS supreme court appointment of some sort. Not to say that Obama doesn't have his own set of problems but I hold out hope that a lame duck Obama actually turns up the anti-war message.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I have a ton of criticisms about Obama. His Middle Eastern foreign policy has been pretty much note perfect from getting us slowly out of Iraq and Afghanistan to hanging in the back during the Arab spring- always there but not pushing anything, to the same in Libya- we sat back and contributed hardware while Europe got to work together to help finish off Gadhafi while taking the glory ("hey, we don't have to police everything"), and, well, killing Osama.

I take it back as I can criticize Syria. But it seems like there's no international coalition willing to do this at the moment so we're just going to have to wait it out unless we want to unilaterally go in on our own with a coalition of the willing. Neither choice is appealing.

SI

Syria seems like a different beast. Hasn't Turkey been dipping their toes into the pool in Syria? I just don't think Syria is a place where we can openly (that being the key word) give aid and/or military support to the opposition. I'm sure we are giving covert support, but I feel the legitimacy of the opposition would be compromised if we lent too much support. I'd rather see the Turks be the ones to stick their noses in deeper.

[sterlingice]

Oh, and bleeping Guantanamo and rendition. Almost forgot that debacle

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by lungs

Syria seems like a different beast. Hasn't Turkey been dipping their toes into the pool in Syria? I just don't think Syria is a place where we can openly (that being the key word) give aid and/or military support to the opposition. I'm sure we are giving covert support, but I feel the legitimacy of the opposition would be compromised if we lent too much support. I'd rather see the Turks be the ones to stick their noses in deeper.

Well, Syria keeps firing into Turkish border towns and Erdogan is getting pissed so he's started firing back into Syria. That said, I think it's merely a border skirmish and isn't going to amount to anything.

SI

[bhlloy]

It would be really nice if Turkey did turn out to be the solution. It's a Muslim nation with some expensive military hardware that we have good relations with for the most part (and they really want closer relations with the EU), if they are given enough under the table incentives to go in and weaken Assad even further so the rebels can finally finish the regime off, that sounds like a nice win-win for everyone involved.

[MacroGuru]

Originally Posted by panerd

a wacko LDS supreme court appointment of some sort.

Seriously? As opposed the Wacko Roman Catholic, Jewish, Protestant justices that are already there?

Oh, and I don't know why they are discounting it in one of the wiki sites but George Sutherland was Mormon, but had deemed to have left the church at some point in time and are counting him as Presbyterian.

Edit: Found out more...Sutherland left the Mormon Church and became a Presbyterian, an apostasy that contributed to his being defeated in the 1916 Senate election. He was president of the American Bar Association from 1916 through 1917. He became active in national Republican circles and was an advisor to President Warren Harding, who nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1922.

So in essence you have a Wacko LDS guy that found out the only way to succeed in Washington was to deny his faith and become something else. Who still lived by his values he was raised up with and provided years of service...interesting...