Pre-Convention Polling

I have it Romney 330ish and Obama 190ish.

And I have given Obama the benefit of the doubt in a few states.

Did the Cnn poll and it came out Romney 313 Obama 222.

Romney still wins in a landslide as some of the New England States will vote for Mitt.

Would love to know what New England states you believe will vote for Mitt.

He might get Mass - Republican Senator and he was Gov.

He might get New Jersey - Republican Gov.

He might get Conn or Vermont or New Hampshire.

The class warfare is really going to help him in New England as $250,000 isn't rich there and Obama has made hard workers feel like outcasts there.

FYI I didn't give Romney any wins in New England or New Mexico. If Obama keeps up with the Negative ads and doesn't tell anyone how he is going to fix anything he could be Jimmy Carter.

Marsh if one thing national elections have shown us is the people don't typically vote the way they vote state officials. Arkansas, for an example has been dominated by Democratic candidates. In 2008, McCain won Arkansas by double digits and yet every statewide office was won by Democrats.

Romney is trailing by double digits in all of those states except for Vermont and New Jersey (and he is just outside of the double digit lead in that state).

I get the feeling your prediction is a lot more passion based than reality based. But that is your prediction so we will see.

So I just have to know where do you stand on Romney's negative campaigning?

And Obama's negative campaigning as well?

Look at Job approval ratings. That predicts success. The President's job approval is less than 50%.

He won because he was going to change people's lives for the better. He was going to change Government and help those who needed help (read your Yes We Did Blog).

He has not changed people's lives at all for the better. As a matter of fact people think they are worse off. In 2008 this predictor wasn't available because Bush was not running for re-election but his job approval was so low he would have lost.

The American people fire people who they think are doing a bad job and a majority of Americans feel the President is doing a bad job.

Unless he can pull of a miracle in the next 3 months he will lose in November. This is not my opinion it is based on the history of voting in the 20th century. It is simply looking at the numbers.

Wallis,

Sorry to say, but your numbers are not very realistic. If you want to look at numbers...

This site looks across 8 major polls. Obama is favored in all of them but two. His lead in every case is within the degree of polling error, and so every respectable commentator is calling it a dead heat.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romne...

Politico also keeps current tabs on the major polls. It confirms the results from Real Clear Politics.

http://www.politico.com/p/2012-election/polls/president

RCP also predicts that Obama is sitting on 221 electoral votes and Romney is at 181, with 136 toss ups. This is actually lower than most other models, which have Obama with a few, to substantially more than that.

Ignore the numbers. For the last 100 years the Presidents job approval rating has predicted the election.

Ever wonder why so many people are wrong? It is because they ignore the data and inject their emotion. I am just citing the trend that has won over 100 years.

If Obama doesn't convince people he is doing a good job he is not going to be re-hired. It is as simple as that and right now, the majority of Americans feel like he is doing a bad job. FYI it takes a majority to win an election.

Wallis,

There is an awful emotional tone to your posts about the election. Michael pointed it out on this blog I pointed out on another. Also, I thought you were "simply looking at the number"? Now I should ignore the numbers? I am confused...or should I only pay attention to the numbers you have convinced yourself are important?

By the way, can you remember what Clinton's job approval rating was before he got reelected? I can. But wait, maybe I should just ignore that, since it ruins your argument.

Job approval is actually not a very good proxy for determining reelection. Most incumbents win, that is a statistical fact. The question isn't one of job approval, but rather who will do a better job, Romney or Obama. I suspect that by now most voters have made a decision and there will be very little movement in the polls from where we are now.

Obama will likely gain a few points from the debates, and it will be a very close race, a la Bush v Kerry in 2004.

Clinton's job approval rating was over 50%. As a matter of fact that election wasn't even close.

Bush in 2004 wasn't even close either for that matter.

I am not emotional the election has been decided unless Obama can "do something".

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.asp...

Doesn't ruin anything. Election was in November 1996.

Look at the data. You know I do.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

W - the election was Nov 2004.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116500/presidential-approval-ratings-george-bush.aspx

Obama less than 50%.

No desperation on my part. Just presenting the data.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/gallup-daily-obama-job-approval.aspx

Correct link

http://uspoliticsguide.com/US-Politics-Directory/Historical-Presidential-Electio...

Clinton was 60%+ job approval rating. Perot took some of the votes. The Electoral vote was a blowout - The pop vote was a large victory for Bill.

http://webapps.ropercenter.uconn.edu/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidenti...

election Nov 1992

Wallis,

According to Gallup, Clinton's first term average was 50%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116584/presidential-approval-ratings-bill-clinton.asp...

Also,

This just in...Obama over 50% in Florida, Ohio, and Penn.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/01/polls-obama-over-50-in-florida-o...

Bottom line, Wallis, if you think this election is going to be a landslide in either direction, you maybe should stick to forecasting stocks.

And then there is this to consider...

According to the ABC News/Washington Post survey, 49% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, while 40% see him in a favorable light.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/08/poll-romneys-unfavorability-rati...

marsh why have you refused to answer my question? You brought up the idea that one of the reasons that Obama would not only lose but lose in a landslide was his negative campaigning.

I asked where you stood on Romney's negative campaigning. Either you ignored that question or you are implying from your posts that it doesn't matter.

"Bush in 2004 wasn't even close either for that matter."

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Aug 26, 2012, at 5:12 PM

Bush won by 35 EV

His approval rating before the election was hovering at 50%, the last poll taken before the election saw his approval below 50%, which disproves your theory that every president for the last 100 years has been elected with above 50%. I did notice that you say you are just presenting the data but the very moment data was shown on George W Bush that countered your proof you dropped him from the discussion.

Yes right now Obama is hovering at 50% (49.3 according to www.pollster.com which is an aggregate of all polls) but you are completely ignoring other factors in your analysis on why you think Romney is going to win in a landslide.

When Clinton won re-election while hovering at 50% Republicans were not overly happy with their candidate Bob Dole.

When Bush won his re-election, Democrats were not overly happy with their candidate.

As we stand right now, Obama has a 49% favorable rating, Romney has a 46% unfavorable rating.

I am stating this as support for Obama. I am simply saying that you can not ignore some numbers while accepting other numbers.

I based my prediction purely on polling number in the states. As we get closer to the election pollsters will start polling likely voters instead of registered voters, but that likely will not change the numbers all the much as polling has shown us the difference between the two hover at about 2%.

Romney will receive a bump after this week, Obama will receive a bump after the DNC. As it stands right now polling inidicates that Obama would win by a substantial margin. We will see what the margin is or is not after the conventions.

Using your numbers then, Obama has a 51% unfavorable rating and Mitt Romney has a 54% favorable

"Bush in 2004 wasn't even close either for that matter."

I completely missed this. What a joke, Wallis. You may now stop talking about politics.

It is my hope all these polls are weighted equally with 50% Republican and 50% democrat. I really hope that is the case.

Michael,

What do you think of Romney's negative campaigning? The problem generally seems to be everyone is against negative campaigning, but there seems to be little agreement on which campaigning is negative.

CPB a 50-50 split would not give a true representation of the populace, so a poll weighted that way would not give a true representation of what people were thinking.

Actually CPB using my numbers which I got from www.pollster.com, Obama's unfavorable rating is 45.2 and Mitt Romney's favorable rating is 43.5. The missing numbers to equal 100% come from not knowing enough about the candidate, people that just don't know, and people that refused to answer the question.

Both campaigns have been negative, on that there should be absolutely no disagreement. I don't like negative campaigning no matter which side it is coming from. I tend to ignore those ads or turn the channel when they come so the fact that candidates are using negative ads don't affect my decision for who I will vote for.

Michael,

Your response is amusing. I have NO DOUBT that a party's negative ads don't affect your decision, I'm pretty sure it was made by looking at the letter after a candidate's name.

How does one define negative for campaigning? Is it ads that are false or misleading? Criticizing a candidate? Pointing out faults? Scary voiced announcers? All of the above? None of the above? That's the problem negative campaigning seems to be a lot like obscenity.

CPB,

Why would they select 50% dem and 50% rep? Then their results would always be 50% and the poll would be meaningless.

The whole point of polling is based on random sampling. With a big enough 'n' one can take a sample of something (in this case political opinions) and within a margin of error, they can safely extrapolate their findings to a larger population.

Statistically, a sample size of 1067 will (95% of the time) accurately reflect a population of 300 million to with 3 percentage points of accuracy either way (hence +/- 3%). Most of these polls use sample sizes of around 1000.

A simple minded question; and I would like responses from both sides of the political aisle. Do you believe you would get the same results polling 1000 western Nebraskans as you would polling 1000 folks from the Portland, Oregon area?

Well doodle bug, if the question was for example, "Which is more important, feeding the world or saving the spotted owl". And if the polling company was hired by an organization with an agenda towards extreme species preservation, the the sample would be weighed heavily, say 1300 from Portland, OR. Then the extreme species preservation organization can say a clear majority of Americans prefer saving the spotted owl is more important than feeding the world.

Benevolus, your answer is just plain silly. It isn't even an answer.

CPB you proved not only my point but Benevolus' point in your response to doodle and then chastised him for his response (which by the way absolutely correct).

Let's say you are polling the state of the Nebraska, 55% (made up number) of the population are registered Republicans, 45% are Democrats. Would you really trust a pollster that split their polling 50-50? Or would you trust the pollster that weighted their polling 55-45 according to party affiliation?

doodle, I imagine that you would get completely different results from the areas. If you switched the people from Portland to eastern Oregon (where the timber industry is huge) I imagine the answers would come fairly close to being similar.

Hendricks - People don't care about Romney. They are going to throw out Obama unless he pulls a rabbit out of the hat.

Ben - People only care about Job approval prior to election. If Average counted Bush 41 would have won and average doesn't count.

Back to Hendricks - Obama ran on Hope and Change not getting in the gutter. Getting in the gutter does not inspire the Independent.

In the case of presidential polling, the major polls over-sample dems by 5 to 7 points. News organizations tend to over-sample dems by 7 to 13. Still, Obama leads by one or two points. Does anyone actually believe these polls have any credibility?

The job approval is more accurate I think. People like Obama and indicate that in his personal approval rating. They just think he is doing a bad job as indicated in his job approval rating.

When a majority of the people think you are doing a bad job it is hard to keep your job.

I would caution Ben and Mike that the real World deals with results. Both of you guys are still in school so you need to realize that most folks don't have graduate degrees and most folks can't afford to stay in school well into their 30's (at least in Hendricks case).

CPB,

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

"When respondents to be interviewed are selected at random, every adult has an equal probability of falling into the sample. The typical sample size for a Gallup poll, either a traditional stand-alone poll or one night's interviewing from Gallup's Daily tracking, is 1,000 national adults with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points. Gallup's Daily tracking process now allows Gallup analysts to aggregate larger groups of interviews for more detailed subgroup analysis. But the accuracy of the estimates derived only marginally improves with larger sample sizes."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/101872/how-does-gallup-polling-work.aspx

See? Feel better? Not rocket science, just basic stats.

Doodle,

Of course that sort of selective sampling would yield a biased result, that is why an organization running a scientific poll runs the poll in such a way that every adult in the population has an equal chance of being selected (at random).

Yes, and despite the over-sampling of democrats in all these polls, Romney/Ryan are leading or closing the gap.

Personal insults aside wallis I enjoy your theory. People don't care about Romney so his negative campaigning is okay.

If that is the wallis that Obama will lose because of his job approval then how do you explain Bush winning a second term?

Yes, and despite the over-sampling of democrats in all these polls, Romney/Ryan are leading or closing the gap.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Aug 28, 2012, at 1:01 PM

All what polls? This over-sampling myth has been around since 2004. Currently in the United States there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, therefor for a poll to be as scientific as possible that poll would need more Democrats than Republicans. It is fairly simple when you stop to think about it.

I do not pay attention to national polls, however. I pay more attention the state polls which in the past have been more accurate than national polling.

Back to Hendricks - Obama ran on Hope and Change not getting in the gutter. Getting in the gutter does not inspire the Independent.

-- Posted by wmarsh on Mon, Aug 27, 2012, at 7:28 PM

I don't remember that particular campaign, but if you say it is then it must be true.

I will put it this way. I am against any type of negative campaigning, however, as caustic and negative as the Romney camp and his surrogates have been against everyone he has ran against and with the lies and deception, I never faulted any Republican from hitting back against him and I do not fault Obama either.

Where I have the issue is after all the negativity that Romney and his surrogates have thrown at Obama hoping any of it would stick and then to turn around and complain when Obama threw it right back at them is perhaps one of the most childish things I have ever seen.

CPB,

Oversampling? What are you talking about?

Here is the deal. The pollsters find 1000 people at random. Each poll website describes their methods for random selection, typically it is a computer program that randomly calls phone numbers across the entire US asking people to complete a survey. Once there are 1000 responses to the survey, the analysts examine the data.

If among the 1000 responses there are more Obama supporters than Romney supporters then (because stats work) we know that within a small margin of error, those 1000 responses are reflective of the entire US voting population.

There is no possible way to oversample anything because the whole thing is done randomly. If it isn't done randomly, it is not a scientific poll.

This is pretty simple stuff, CPB.

Michael, re your last response, you could change the party and people and their response would be just as valid for them. We all act like children, i.e. "you started it" "no I didnt, you did" "no I didnt, you did" - - ad nauseum.

Michael,

Your last post is interesting, let me see if I understand you correctly.

Negative ads are bad, Romney started it so when Obama does it it is ok because it is justified or at least excusable.

Romney pointing out Obama is being negative is childish, Obama pointing out Romney is negative is...mature or something?

I've been trying really hard to be nice but your logic here is astounding. It reminds me of a three year old I know who doesn't quite get the nanny-nanny boo-boo response and instead says nanny-nanny the boo-boo. I think you two should get together and talk ethics I think you might agree.

Mike- Is calling you a mid 30's person in grad school an insult?

So now you are saying that Obama wasn't about Hope and Change? To deny that is really revisionist.

All that I am saying is in re-elections you are rehiring a person. The person that is running against the President for re-hiring is going to talk about job perforance. If job perforamce is bad the President is going to lose. Polls show that a majority of Americans think Obama is doing a bad job.

Mike- I do not insult you. I keep it civil and in heated fun.

just sayin..........

Maybe you can't understand my logic sw because you aren't reading it correctly. You inferred quite a bit of misinformation into what I actually said. Try this go back and reread what I posted and try to grasp it again, however, this time do it without adding your own value to it.

"So now you are saying that Obama wasn't about Hope and Change? To deny that is really revisionist."

Nope that is not what I said but good attempt at trying to convince yourself and others that what I said.

You said "Obama ran on Hope and Change not getting in the gutter." I remember the first parts hope and change, don't quite remember the not getting in the gutter. Of course, it is hard to bring in the change needed when you have Republicans obstructing every piece of legislation brought to the floor, often even filibustering their own bills. But, I'm sure you have a completely different view on that.

Michael,

I did read what you said, I don't think you did when you typed it and now feel poorly that it reflects badly on you.

"I will put it this way. I am against any type of negative campaigning,"

Which I translated as: "Negative ads are bad"

Then: "however, as caustic and negative as the Romney camp and his surrogates have been against everyone he has ran against and with the lies and deception"

WHich I translated as: "Romeny started it"

Then: "I never faulted any Republican from hitting back against him and I do not fault Obama either."

Which I translated as: "so when Obama does it it is ok because it is justified or at least excusable"

Then: "Where I have the issue is after all the negativity that Romney and his surrogates have thrown at Obama hoping any of it would stick and then to turn around and complain when Obama threw it right back at them is perhaps one of the most childish things I have ever seen."

Which I translated as: Romeny pointing out Obama is being negative is childish"

Admittedly I did add the last part because I appreciate complete ideas. I'm willing to hear what you think it is when Obama points out Romeny is being negative.

Other than the last bit, please point out where I misunderstood your logic. You say I am wrong without showing me how I am wrong, is that really any way to teach?

Mike- Is calling you a mid 30's person in grad school an insult?

No, you are quite right it isn't. Of course that isn't what you said:

"Both of you guys are still in school so you need to realize that most folks don't have graduate degrees and most folks can't afford to stay in school well into their 30's (at least in Hendricks case)."

Let's forget for the moment that the statement itself is completely wrong. I am no longer in school. I graduated over six months ago. Let's even forget that you chastized me for revision right after you completely revised your own statement to make it not look like an insult.

The personal insults came in when you decided to go after myself and Benevolous because we simply look at the polling number and take from it what it shows and that because we do that we are somehow not living in the real world because of that. That is a personal insult or at the very least a character attack.

You say the real world looks at results and predict that Obama will lose in November because his numbers are bad, yet you refuse to accept the fact that George W. Bush won re-election with similar numbers. Every time it has been brought up you have changed the topic from him to President Clinton or ignored that part of the conversation completely.

You have said forget the numbers when it comes to polling but we HAVE to pay attention to the job numbers. You want it both ways but the simple fact is you can't have it both ways (you can't ignore one set of numbers because they don't support your theories but fully accept another because you believe they will, in the end support your theory). The fact remains is that despite his poor numbers he continues to lead in the polls and at this point those polls give him a victory in November.

It could change, it will change after this week, and it will change again after next week. Either we ignore all the numbers wallis or we use all the numbers and try to explain why they appear that way.

Obama has poor job numbers yet he leads in the polls. Why? Do people trust him more than Romney when it comes to creating jobs? Do people just don't know what Romney plans to do if elected? These are all issues that have popped up in every election since polling has taken place. To simply say look at his job numbers and point to why you believe he is going to lose at the end of the day is predicting based on passion.

Michael,

While I agree that Obama never literally said he was not getting in the gutter. I guess I thought that was the idea behind the ideas of Hope and Change. He was going to change the bitterness and negativity in Washington and campaigning. I had hoped he would continue to work toward that goal.

Michael,

I think I missed your graduation. Congratulations!

Mike - You are to much fun!!

LOL.

Since you are a out of school care to share with us what your new career is?

Wallis,

The problem with your statements about job performance is that they may be true in theory, but they do not reflect reality.

At this time in 1996, nearly half the country thought that Clinton was doing a bad job, yet, he was reelected in a landslide.

At this time in 2004, Bush had an approval rating of 49%, yet he won in a very close election.

Incumbents typically win even if their approval ratings are low. This is a fact proven by Clinton and Bush. Job approval isn't nearly as important as you make it out to be.

Look for yourself...

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html

Wallis,

Truman had abysmal ratings in 1948...40% or below. Yet he beat Dewey in one of the biggest presidential upsets in history.

Your theory now fails to explain Truman, Clinton, and Bush the younger.

OK Ben you are right. Obama is going to win. Lookng at data is a waste of time. Sorry I wasted your time.

Mike - I know this is off topic but could you write a blog on what you think The American Dream is today.

I am curious as to what a guy like you would say.

Wallis Marsh

Wallis,

Your rebuttal is amusing. Thanks for playing.

Wallis

Here is a little data for you to digest.

Most Americans believe President Obama will win the presidential election this fall, even though the race has been highly competitive for most of the year. Americans' expectation that Obama will win has been remarkably consistent, virtually unchanged since May despite three intervening months of campaigning.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156914/americans-predict-obama-win-2012-election.aspx...

I would think that Wallis would include that information into his stance. Wallis since you believe so overwhelmingly that job numbers predict whether a president will win or lose, do you discredit the idea that since polls have asked people who they think will win, they have correctly guessed the outcome?

A guy like me? What an odd choice of words. There is no need for a blog, Wallis.

The American Dream is different for each individual. My American Dream differs from yours. SW and Geezer have different American Dreams. Benevolus and CPB have different dreams.

The common thread is that we all live in a country where we have the opportunity to achieve that dream whether there is a Republican in the White House or a Democrat. The dream doesn't change because we don't like the man (or eventually the woman) sitting in the Oval Office.

Typical Wallis, his "facts" are questioned so he responds with sarcasm and then changes the topic.

"For the last 100 years the Presidents job approval rating has predicted the election."

-- Posted by wmarsh on Sun, Aug 26, 2012, at 3:30 PM

Can't believe that I missed this. There is only one problem with your assertion wallis. Job approval ratings were not first released until the late 1930s which makes it impossible for job approval ratings predicting elections for the last 100 years.

Ben proved his point. I am wrong. Obama is going to win. I am admitting my error.

Mike until you can actually have a goal you are just a cloud floating in the sky.

Your Father wrote a column a few weeks about about how kids don't take advantage of what America has to offer. Have you discussed your goals with him? It might do you some good.

Everyone should have a goal and plan on how to achieve it. Your non-answer is a pretty good self portrait.

The American dream is supposed to be that you can achieve your hopes dreams and aspirations. It isn't variable.

Wallis

Wallis,

I am not sure if Obama is going to win, he may lose a close race...you are being emotional again.

Here is what I have argued: 1) I think this will be a much closer race than you predict; hence this quote:

"Obama will likely gain a few points from the debates, and it will be a very close race, a la Bush v Kerry in 2004."

..and 2) your theory of job approval predicting election outcomes has too many holes to be valid; hence this quote:

"Your theory now fails to explain Truman, Clinton, and Bush the younger."

If you are now convinced Obama is going to win, you reached that conclusion without my help.

Michael,

I'm curious too, are you back to teaching? I hope so.

Just doing his best to keep 'em voting democrats.

No one was trying to convince you that Obama was going to win Wallis. No one was trying to convince you that Romney was going to win.

What I and Benevelous were trying to show you is that you attempted to completely invalidate what we were saying by telling us to ignore the numbers (that we were looking at) and pay attention to your numbers. The numbers you said had predicted the president for the last 100 years. This, despite the fact the this kind of polling didn't exist until the 1930s and despite that there are at least three presidents that were re-elected with similar or worse numbers than Obama.

So to come back with the response you have given is rather childish and immature. No one was trying to prove to you that Obama was going to win. Benevolus was simply pointing out that your numbers had holes in them and I was simply pointing out that you should base prediction on more than just one set of polling numbers. Instead you went with your feelings and passion against Obama.

I will do another blog after the DNC and if those state polls then show Romney winning that is what the blog will show. I support Obama fully but I am not going to ignore the state pollings and just hope that he wins.

can't wait until november

I love Eastwood, seriously talented actor and director. But that was the most bizarre thing I have ever seen. Forget Ryan's speech of half-truths and nonsense, Eastwood's performance takes the cake as the worst/most uncomfortable moment during the convention.

Is that a racist statement doodle?

http://seekingalpha.com/article/841261-on-qe3-buy-oil-and-gas-sell-obama-re-elec...

Read this guys. Sound familiar? Again working on Gallup Poll.

Wallis

So, to prove your statement that no president in the last 100 years had won with popularity under 50 you post to a blog where he states that it hasn't happened in the last 75 years?

Here are a few problems with the article. First, as has already been posted here and that is in complete opposition to the article is that at least three presidents were elected to second terms when their approval rating was below 50%. Secondly, Gallup does not do polling on election day so this author is guessing that a president being re-elected had to have had a rating above 50%.

The last poll that Gallup did on Bush was done four days before the election and they didn't do another poll for five days after the election.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

Obama job approval rating drops again.

"Read this guys. Sound familiar? Again working on Gallup Poll."

Except the article reads: "Most notably, over the past three-quarters of a century, since Gallup began polling presidential job approval, no past U.S. President has won reelection with a rating below 50% on election day."

And yet Gallup is widely noted for predicting the outcome of the Truman v Dewey upset. Truman's approval rate in 1948 was around 40%. The article (you by proxy) is (are) wrong.

Again, just working from facts.

Gallup tells another story.

However, Romney still gets a lower favorability rating than President Barack Obama, 53% to 48%, in the latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted Aug. 20-22. While this gap is down from his double-digit favorability deficits against Obama at times over the past year, any deficit in favorability could be an obstacle to victory for Romney, and thus will be important for him to try to rectify via this week's convention or during the fall campaign.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/156980/mitt-romney-brings-strengths-weaknesses-gop-st...

A little off topic but thought all you fans of the Bank Bailouts would want to read an article about the first audit of the Federal Reserve in it's 100 year history.

Not a very pretty picture - over $16 trillion handed out and a large percentage was to foreign financial institutions.

Enjoy

http://beforeitsnews.com/economy/2012/09/first-audit-in-the-federal-reserves-nea...

@CPB; no racism intended. If anyone wants to take it that way, that is their problem. Other than the outcome of the election, I am extremely curious as to which "local" pundits are correct and which ones are incorrect. From my previous postings, most of you can probably guess where I stand on the election.

Just pointing this out wallis. If the only job approval numbers that matter are right before or on the day of the election wouldn't any polling in September be meaningless? Just saying, or rather, asking.

OK.

Wallis,

Even though your point about job approval is wrong, I still want to throw you a bone. If you are looking for one historic number upon which to hang your faith in Romney (the other democrat in the race), here you go:

Since FDR, no president has won reelection with unemployment over 7.2%.

Obama's election was historic because no black man had ever been president. Obama's reelection would be historic because no one has ever been reelected with unemployment this high. (To be fair, it was at 7.8% and rising when he took office. At 8.3% and dropping, the number is moving in the right direction, albeit far too slowly to make much of claim of economic success).

"I am extremely curious as to which "local" pundits are correct and which ones are incorrect."

In that case, let me throw in my prediction...no matter who wins, there will be a Democrat in office come November.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

I am working on two books right now and the above might be a third. I have become intrigued with behavioral economics as it is basically the basis for my economic model. I study human behavior and believe that people react the same over and over again. More people are becoming intrigued with it and I have about 15 years real experience with it.

Wallis

Interesting, Wallis.

I have a question, how does a behavioral economist explain the seemingly irrational and anticapitalistic behaviors of those who volunteer their discretionary time to run/contribute to sites like wikipedia, linux, and the host of open source, free software sites. Thousands of people do highly technical, sophisticated work, which they could get paid tens of thousands of dollars to do, and yet they use their free time to create products that they give away for free. How might we explain that?

Romney isn't a Democrat. For that matter he isn't a Republican. He is an opportunist, and not a very good one. Whatever position seems best for him in the moment he goes with it even it means changing a position he has just taken. That's why in the past 20 years he has gone back and forth between being pro-choice and anti-choice. It's why he was a champion of Romneycare before he was against Obamacare then for Romneycare again.

He really selected the right person for Vice President, another opportunist. Ryan heavily supported bailouts and any form of stimulus in the 2000s as perfect examples to help Americans before suddenly turning on them when the wrong party controlled the White House.

The Republicans had a name for this in 2004, they called it flip-flopping, but now, apparently, they think it is cool.

To go back on topic, to this point, the polls (except for the illustrious Rasmussen) have shown little to no gains for Romney since the convention. Most of the polling to date had been completed before Romney's speech so it could change.

Of interest, Gallup polled people following Romney's speech to gauge their reaction to his speech and found it be one of the lowest reactions in a quarter century. The only speech to beat Romney's for low reaction was Bob Dole's in 1996.

A fair point Mike...perhaps Romney's opportunities so far have been mostly in Democratic environments, and thus he gives off the appearance of being a Dem.

You think this is still truly how Romney thinks? Wallis, are you throwing up in your mouth?

Saying he was "absolutely committed" to renewable energy, Romney made the proposal at the 28th annual conference of the Northeast Sustainable Energy Association, before an audience of more than 1,000 renewable energy entrepreneurs.

The measure would stimulate new businesses and job growth while reducing the amount the state contributes to global warming through pollution and greenhouse gases, Romney said.

"I think the global warming debate is now pretty much over and people recognize the need associated with providing sources which do not generate the heat that is currently provided by fossil fuels," he said.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030314/NEWS01/30314993...

Clint Eastwood notable quotes:

"It's what people know about themselves on the inside that make them afraid"

"Well, we're not just gonna let you walk out of here...Smith & Wesson and me"

"Go ahead, make my day"

"when someone does not do the job, we have to let him go"

I've never met someone who didn't like Clint Eastwood. (that has admitted as much...)

I've yet to talk to anyone since last Thursday that didn't think Mr. Eastwood was right on.

Evidently - Mr. Ryan was right about what he said about Janesville.

http://www.jsonline.com/business/130171578.html

Eastwood was completely incoherent. Even the rightwing commentators at the RNC who debrief the various speeches had nothing positive to say about Eastwood's strange performance.

No, Mickle, he lied. The plant was shut down before Obama took office, therefor placing the blame on someone who was not even president is flat out lying.

Keep twisting, though. It's enjoyable.

I read the story on the computer about Clint's speech at the convention, and watched the video. I then read the comments following, the best one was someone who said, "given the choice, I would vote for the chair."

I absolutely do believe this is way that Romney thinks. Your later story of his support for renewable energy and belief of climate change goes further to prove that. He was governor of a liberal state at the time. Now that he is courting the base of the Republican Party he sees renewable energy as a waste (which will cost him votes in the swing state of Iowa) and cracks jokes about climate change.

He shouldn't be running as a Republican he should form his own party and call it the Opportunist Party. Ryan could still be his running mate.

Something I notices last night at the DNC was the mentions of the military and their families. Far more mentions in one night at the DNC than all three nights of RNC.

They were all about the Military when they served their purpose,"w"wanted to get re elected.Once he's in he CUTS VA funding and kicked em'to the curb.Did the same thing to the religious right and is in the process of doing it to the teabaggers once they've outlived their usefulness and lose the election for them.

It appears the media fact-checkers are all on vacation this week.

They are probably exhausted after checking Ryan's speech.

From the link I posted: (source - Milwaukee Journal Sentinal - which is like the 'local' big town newspaper...so I'm sure THEY would at least know...)

"Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down."

So I guess Mr. Ryan was correct and Mr. Hendricks and his fellow libs are...well, not. Is this really new, or news?

Clint Eastwood has been a professional actor, writer and director since the 1950's...to think for one minute that his performance at the RNC wasn't exactly what he wanted to portray is naive. Actually it was brilliant. The fact that the performance has taken on a life of its own in both the realm of entertainment and politics shores that up.

The local amateur punditry must be fairly dizzy after all their spinning. But as long as they're happy; we should all speak in low tones and vanilla terms.

Hilarious.

From Fox News...

The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan's mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.

Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States' credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.

Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.

Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.

Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/#ixzz...

Keep dreaming, Mickel. Nobody will stop you.

Sorry Mickel,

But Eastwood was acting like an octogenarian off his meds...stammering, senile, and completely incoherent. The commentators from Fox News and the various rightwing pundits had nothing but negative things to say afterward. One comment was, "I don't think I will say anything at all" (a play on what our mothers used to tell us if we had nothing nice to say).

From any non-zealot, the Eastwood debacle was a fitting summation of the RNC's docket...half-truths, lies, and incoherent nonsense.

So far, the DNC is off to a marginally better start. They have decided to go with the litany of cliches and passionate renditions of Hallmark greeting cards approach. It is interesting to hear such passionate people say absolutely nothing so well.

Gotta love convention time.

What I actually find so "hilarious", is that the rightwing has tried so hard to paint Obama as a nazi-socialist, antichrist figure who hates America and wants to kill old people, yet in their speeches about what is wrong, they have to resort to half-truths, deception, and outright lies. One would think that if Obama was a bad as the right claims he is, lying would not be necessary.

Food for thought...

"We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers". Neil Newhouse, Romney Pollster

also hilarious was Mayor Villagaraiosa (sp?) asking the DNC attendees to put the words "God" and "Jerusalem" back into the party platform. After stuttering and stammering three times during tbe vote, which the clear majority indicated "NO", he blithly stated that a two thirds majority voted "Yes". So much for the democratic process. lol

I forgot...Benevolous is the smartest person in the phone booth.

I said that Mr. Ryan was correct on what he said about Janesville. Obviously your other personalities didn't get that memo...as you didn't bother to address it. But don't let any facts keep you up at night.

Your opinion about Mr. Eastwood is your opinion. Mine is mine. I don't have to defend Mr. Eastwood. He had some very real and relevant things to say regardless of how it abrades your good sense of humor. Sorry, you're just going to have to deal with it. Non-zealots everywhere thought he was funny and right on the money.

I fact checked your first point in your "fact" list and found it to be wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sandp-considering-first-downgrade...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/06/us-usa-debt-downgrade-idUSTRE7746VF201...

So - the rest of your post must be of the same high grade quality of dung. According to the CBO - Obamacare takes $716 billion out of medicare to fund itself...But I guess the entire staff at the CBO are just lying as well. Right.

If Ryan was as bad for the GOP as you assert (with great emotion)...then I would think that you would should "huzzah" at the impending implosion...

Any chance the Obama sycophants will positively tout their candidate instead of tearing Romney/Ryan down?

Naw.

I wonder how the DNC can reconcile having a Muslim prayer opening the convention with their support of gay marriage, radical feminism and abortion?

Clinton was absolutely brilliant. Probably the best speech in several decades. Finally, someone gave a speech with some substance. Reminds me of why the center is so reasonable.

Also, Mickel...what kind of man lies about a marathon time? I guess we know for sure that Ryan cannot be trusted.

Americans are tired of speeches. They are all the same. Same beginnings, same endings, same content. Only the targets of blame have changed. We all want to see actions. Some of us want action that gives us our God given freedoms to go about our lives. Other want government to take that right away. That is our choice that we now face as a nation. Choose (vote) wisely.

Clinton's speech was a breath of fresh air. It was all fact, substance, and was the most cogent argument for the successes of Obama's administration that has been proffered to date. Very convincing.

From G-Ma's first article:

Still, a historical analysis of job growth percentages shows that Obama still fares better than some recent presidents. As of July, Obama is averaging +0.84 percent annual job growth in his term. That places him ahead of Bush, who saw +0.51 percent growth in his first term and -0.84 percent in his second term. Obama is also tracking better than George H.W. Bush, who presided over +0.69 percent growth during his one term in the White House.

From Bill, who got it all right...

In the last 29 months the economy has produced about 4.5 million private sector jobs. But last year, the Republicans blocked the President's jobs plan costing the economy more than a million new jobs. So here's another jobs score: President Obama plus 4.5 million, Congressional Republicans zero.

Over that same period, more than more than 500,000 manufacturing jobs have been created under President Obama -- the first time manufacturing jobs have increased since the 1990s.

Now there are 250,000 more people working in the auto industry than the day the companies were restructured. Governor Romney opposed the plan to save GM and Chrysler. So here's another jobs score: Obama two hundred and fifty thousand, Romney, zero.

Soon the insurance companies, not the government, will have millions of new customers many of them middle class people with pre-existing conditions. And for the last two years, health care spending has grown under 4%, for the first time in 50 years.

So are we all better off because President Obama fought for it and passed it? You bet we are.

Remember, Republican economic policies quadrupled the debt before I took office and doubled it after I left. We simply can't afford to double-down on trickle-down.

Read more at http://global.christianpost.com/news/bill-clinton-dnc-speech-text-transcript-dem...

You think that's bad. Read this;

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/justice-dept-gallup-lawsuit-came-after-axelrod...

Uh oh....jobs picture brightens...

Things could be looking up for the job market.

That was much better than the 143,000 jobs economists surveyed by Briefing.com were expecting.

The economy generally needs to add around 150,000 jobs per month just to keep up with the growing population. Anything above that chips away at the unemployment rate -- likely a key metric in determining which candidate will win the presidential race.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/06/news/economy/adp-jobless-claims/index.html?iid=E...

"Why, its Ronnie! Bet that made you wanna throw up!"

Nope. I like Reagan. He is almost identical to Obama in terms of policy. Reagan was also one the greatest welfare presidents of all time.

History Shows Stocks, GDP Outperform Under Democrats

From Fox Business...

However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/09/04/history-shows-markets-gdp-outper...

Give those numbers a few days when all the corrections are made. Trust me they'll look different. Another month of negatives, just like the months before.

This was a good line from Wild Bill...

In Tampa, the Republican argument against the president's re- election was actually pretty simple, pretty snappy. It went something like this: "We left him a total mess. He hasn't cleaned it up fast enough, so fire him and put us back in."

A quick peek at the average Obama supporter:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/06/secret-service-looking-into-dnc-delegate-who-w...

"Another month of negatives, just like the months before."

There have been 29th straight months of job growth, CPB. The after effects of Bush, Inc., were slowed by Obama's admin, and the economy has been adding jobs (albeit slowly) ever since. Do you just make things up and hope they are true?

I will say it again for ya CPB..

However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

It's really amazing that in the conservative alternate universe job growth is actually considered a negative.

Clint Eastwood has been a professional actor, writer and director since the 1950's...to think for one minute that his performance at the RNC wasn't exactly what he wanted to portray is naive. Actually it was brilliant. The fact that the performance has taken on a life of its own in both the realm of entertainment and politics shores that up.

-- Posted by Mickel on Wed, Sep 5, 2012, at 6:34 PM

In conservative speak "Clint Eastwood had one job to do. Make his speech so much the focus on the final night that no one would pay attention to the absolute nothingness that Romney would follow with."

I would say that it worked fairly well.

Who was the last president to preside over a balanced budget? Oh that's right.

And I'll bet he's still thankful for Ronald R. Reagan!

And Bubba's speech tied Honey Boo Boo for ratings!

So, we cant blame bush for any problems but we can give regan credit? hmmmmmmm

"And Bubba's speech tied Honey Boo Boo for ratings!"

Not surprising. Most Americans believe invisible winged creatures float around and influence our lives on behalf of an invisible old man who lives in outer-space.

And the other half believes the DNC will make 'em rich.

A cut and paste from that bastion of conservatism, CNN, re the dems claim of 4.5 million jobs.

"However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009." Interesting

Thank you doodle bug for exposing the truth!

Here's some more from the mindset of the democrats.

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/09/06/hey-lets-ban-corporate-profits/

"And the other half believes the DNC will make 'em rich."

And rightly so...

Need I remind you what the liberal Nazis at Fox Business wrote?

However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

S&P 500 and Gold are up.

Any of the smart people that post here in on this move?

Wallis

Sounds like a racist statement Wallis!

"Clinton's speech was a breath of fresh air. It was all fact, substance, and was the most cogent argument for the successes of Obama's administration that has been proffered to date. Very convincing."

You betcha...we're going hook, line, and sinker for the words from the only President impeached for lying. Never mind his endorsements for Romney made late this Spring.

4.5 million jobs? According to BLS stats - (2010-to present numbers...2009 is omitted because it was a net loss...just trying to be fair to President Choomer) Pull every single month...yes, it takes time. In 2010, there were 850,000 net new jobs created, of which 411,000 of them were from the census workers, the temp jobs. In 2011, 1,152,000, and in 2012 so far, 1,017,000.

Because you may not have enough fingers and toes to do this on the cuff...2.6 million jobs of which 411,000 were temporary.

29 straight months of unemployment above 8%. (I think this is the point CPB was making)

Have a nice day.

MUX, Wallis, up 22% this year.

wallis, since you rely so heavily on Gallup's job approval numbers to predict who the next president will be has your mind changed from the landslide election of Romney now that Gallup is showing Obama's Approval at 52%?

And Bubba's speech tied Honey Boo Boo for ratings!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Sep 6, 2012, at 6:48 PM

And the RNC completely lost to Honey Boo Boo. What's your point?

Eastwoods speech was what he wanted to say; and achieved what he wanted it to do:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/clint-eastwood-satisfied-about-speech-wit...

I guess if your aim is to completely make up a person call him the president, chastise that made up president for unknown promises he didn't keep and then come out and call an entire presidency a hoax (I'm thinking he has forgotten what hoax actually mean) then in that case yeah Eastwood set out to do exactly as he planned, mere minutes before the actual speech.

I love this alternate reality you all have created.

Unemployment; 8.1%

Jobs added past month; 96000

Number of unemployed who dropped out of searching; 368000

Number of people of employment age not employed; 88921000

Workforce participation of men; 70%

Democrat/Progressive message to America, "Please give us 4 more years!".

I didn't create the alternate reality, Michael. Unfortunately you have been in the midst of living it for years now...and the house of cards is crumbling before your eyes...and you are finally seeing the 'real' reality.

I'm sorry it hurts...but you need to face up to it. No matter how optimistic everybody was about the Obama presidency before it began, as it unfolded and now how it's concluding...the stark reality is that it wasn't the right fit. Worse than Callahan as the Huskers coach, because families lost their means of income; our children became slaves to a debt owed China; and hope was dashed instead of realized. However, the fit was similar because now we need to move on.

We need to calculate the cost as we pay the price...not just kick the can down the road, and pay Peter while robbing Paul, and blame others for our failures. We need to elect people who have real-time, real life experience in fixing things, and let them get to work. This is the world of grown-ups and real people. The social experiment is over, and the healing needs to start. But we have to cut the bad bait. Obama and his failures will have their place in history...but we don't have to drag that history into our future.

Adieu

Obama is the best alternative. Romney et al want to return us to the same policies that have failed throughout history.

From Fox Business...

However, history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones.

Where are the counter-arguments, to Fox's Communist business report?

Republicans are the losers of the economic prosperity index and always have been. They were bad then, they are bad now. Obama is the better alternative. No question.

Yeah! Here's the proof;

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=EKux363Dg64&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEKux363Dg6...

Peggy Noonan in the WSJ - "There was the relentless emphasis on Government as Community, as the thing that gives us spirit and makes us whole."

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

The once vast and energetic Obama youth army is quietly fading:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/generation-obama-grows-up-and-moves-on/20...

Women are expressing their disappointment with the former dumpster diving Mr. Obama:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/04/cnn-poll-romney-gets-convention-bounce-of-...

A quiet reality is settling into the spirits of people all over the nation. And that reality is accepting that it is time to turn the page on Mr. Obama and move forward.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/06/us/politics/obama-seeking-re-election-asks-for...

A better future for America is being outlined by the optimistic and plain speaking duo of Romney/Ryan...and being looked forward to by people weary of being whipped around by unemployment; negativism; blaming of others; and ever upwardly spiraling gas prices.

Clint Eastwood said it well: "when someone does not do the job, we have to let him go"

Here's your alternate reality Mickle. You loved the eight years under Reagan gave him full credit for dismantling the Soviet Union, even though history and facts show a completely different story. You ignore the four years under George H.W. Bush. You believe that the eight years under Clinton were among the worst in American history despite the fact the fact that it actually was one of the best periods in American history. You pretend that none of the eight years under George W. Bush ever happened. This might explain your belief that the entire economic meltdown was completely Obama's fault.

Then Obama takes office. You blame him for things that happened before he ever took office. When the job numbers do eventually start improving you say it won't last. When the numbers continue to rise but not fast enough for your tastes you declare that positive job numbers are a horrible thing even your candidate celebrated the rising numbers as a win for him.

He has kept just about every single promise he made but you claim that he broke all of his promises. You were against the closing of Gitmo but when it became apparent that Congress was not going to give him the authority to close Gitmo you attacked him for not closing Gitmo.

In your alternate universe your leaders make barely any mention about our military and then are surprised when people call them on it. Your leaders have told us for twelve years that they were the party that supported the military and they can not even bring themselves to thank the military at their convention?

Back to George W. Bush for all the gaffes and decisions he made that led to the meltdown he did actually do some good. So when the audience cheered for him because he made it more possible for children around the world to be fed and clothed it was well deserved. Of course, that happened at the Democratic National Convention. The Republicans couldn't even bring themselves to bring up his name though the policies they say they want to enact if they win the White House are his.

Oh, and when asked what their specific policies are going to be if the win in November, Romney/Ryan can't even be bothered to give an answer.

In your alternate universe you lay things at the Presidents feet that is solely his fault as if they have never been done before when, in fact, every president in modern times has done it.

You yell loudly that the president is trying to make you buy certain types of lightbulbs ignoring the fact that the law was passed before he ever took office.

You yell loudly about body scanners at the airports completely ignoring the fact that this law was passed years before he took office.

"A better future for America is being outlined by the optimistic and plain speaking duo of Romney/Ryan...and being looked forward to by people weary of being whipped around by unemployment; negativism; blaming of others; and ever upwardly spiraling gas prices."

You have said very many moronic things in the past but this little statement takes the cake and fully explains the alternate universe you and other conservatives have constructed. When has Romney ever been optimistic or plain spoken. Every time he talks he is taking some sort of pot shot at Americans that aren't rich just like him. If people are tired of the negativism and blaming others then they sure as sin are not going to vote for Romney. In the year since his campaign I have yet to see a positive ad or hear a positive word from him. It is all doom and gloom.

But the spiraling gas prices is just out there. Are you seriously going to sit there and blame President Obama for gas prices? Where were you when gas prices dropped? You certainly were not on these pages giving any credit to Obama for dropping gas prices but he certainly gets the blame for rising gas prices? THAT is an alternate universe.

Even one of your fellow conservatives, wallis, proved that the person in the White House can not control the price of gas.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is as fine an example as the alternate universe as you will get from today's Republican Party. Time stopped in 1988 and absolutely nothing happened again until January of 2008.

President Obama told us from the outset that recovery would be slow and it has. I'm sorry you don't have any patience and I'm very sorry that you believe that returning to the policies that caused this mess in the first place is going to fix it.

This is your alternate universe.

There's one word that describes why economies turn downward during Republican presidents. Compromise!

If you hate this site so much why are you still here? That's what I love about trolls. They complain about the rules and when they are held accountable to following the rules, and yell loudly about having to follow the rules, but they won't leave in protest. They just continue to complain about the site they post on.

In other words

"I can't stand your site rules, I will continue to break them, and you will continue to hold me accountable, but I'm not leaving"

Gotta love the trolls.

When did I ever claim that I believed anything you claim I believe?

You need counseling.

when November rolls around, I guess we will see who lives in the alternate universe.

Obama widens his lead...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/09/us-usa-campaign-poll-idUSBRE88619X2012...

You don't annoy me steffanie. In fact, I rarely read what you post. It just caught my attention when you went on your little rant about being forced to follow the rules. It was quite comical.

Vets favor Romney. Women are swinging in favor towards Romney. Chuck Norris is voting for Romney.

Chuck Norris doesn't wear a watch. Chuck Norris decides what time it is!!

Uh oh.

Manufacturing job boom is real.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/10/smallbusiness/manufacturing-jobs/index.html?hpt=...

Obama up 5 points on Romney.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154559/US-Presidential-Election-Center.aspx

Care to show where you are getting your information, Mickel?

Romney and women are about as compatible as oil and water it seems...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/157280/democratic-headliners-good-favor-americans.asp...

discourse on this site deteriorating badly, from EVERYONE; and then we wonder why the yahoo's in Washington cant get along.

Just remember doodle, you didn't build it, someone else did.

CPB,

The government made the internet a realistic possibility. Doodle could not be criticizing everyone (BTW I don't think everyone is "deteriorating") if someone else didn't build all this first.

Infrastructure, CPB, you didn't build any of that. But I am sure you enjoy it.

Worship your faith, not your politics! This is a sign I seen on the back of a marine's van the other day, thought it was interesting to say the least.

Benevolus,

You raise an interesting question. If CPB doesn't build any infrastructure, who does?

Be real, in the context of that statement, there was no mention of infrastructure. Besides, infrastructure is one of the very few common goods for all people that the federal government is obligated to provide. So with my tax money paid through income tax, yes I do pay income tax, fuel taxes, toll fees, property taxes, sales taxes, and various other fees and taxes, yes, I did build that road.

Yes CPB, your miniscule contribution to the aforementioned helped. So did mine. So did SWNebr's. Although, it is pretty egotistical to say that YOU built that, rather it might more accurate (and more modest) to suggest that WE built that. Even more accurate is not that we built that, but we were required by GOVERNMENT POLICY to help pay for others to 'build that'.

So thanks for your help, but Obama is right. You didn't build the roads and bridges and infrastructure that makes this county possible, WE built it...(that should answer your query SWNebr).

By the way, CPB...

"there was no mention of infrastructure".

Yes there was. You brought up Obama's (accurate) statement. His statement was about roads and bridges, which WE built, not you. Roads and bridges are what? Are WHAT? Are infrastructure...so yes, that topic was brought up, by you, by mentioning Obama's statement. Goodnight now.

Benevolus,

Much of what you say appears to me to indicate that you think the GOVERNMENT is not us. Our taxes go because of the government so that "others" can do things?

So I guess you were wrong when you said: "Infrastructure, CPB, you didn't build any of that. But I am sure you enjoy it." huh? Or are you contending that he is not part of we?

My query was rhetorical, but I like to force people to admit when they are being shortsighted or dishonest. The fact that WE build infrastructure has been my point all along, every taxpayer is part of the WE, and that is why I thought the President's comments were poorly made. Unless of course one is trying to be petty and literal in which case I've never built any roads because I've never worked that type of construction.

SWNebr,

" I like to force people to admit when they are being shortsighted or dishonest."

Any dishonesty or shortsightedness is coming from you.

I am being neither. Obama's point (and mine all along) has been that no one person built our infrastructure. Not me, you, or CPB. Rather, WE built this country. CPB is part of WE, but the statement "yes, I did build that road," is not accurate.

More importantly, this is a far more reasonable statement for your (and CPB's argument): "elected officials (whom I may or may not have voted for) decided on a tax system which coercively takes money from me to help pay for our infrastructure."

Obama's (and my) statements were spot on.

"If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen". Barack H. Obama, President of the United States of America

SW,

And there you have another example of dishonesty. Thanks, Chunk.

"Saving the spotted owl is more important than feeding the world." -Chunky Peanut Butter, Insane Environmentalist

Just think if Obama is re-elected - of the mess he inherited.

His administration can then get on with repeating the mantra "We didn't know how bad it was..."

Benevolus,

Let me emphasize so you can see what YOU said.

"Infrastructure, CPB, you didn't build ANY of that. But I am sure you enjoy it."

How is it possible that he is both the WE who built it but that he didn't build ANY of it? Here is where you are being dishonest, your inability to admit a mistake just makes you look ever more petty.

If you had said "you didn't build ALL of that" you would have been correct. Even if you said, "you only built a tiny part of it" you would be right. If you had left it as "you didn't build that" you would be correct from a certain point of view. But I can't think of a point of view where a person can honestly argue that none of his taxes built any of the infrastructure. As it stands you made a statement that is false by your own logic, but naturally, since YOU can NEVER be wrong, you try to twist and spin.

I can't disagree more strongly with your position. WE are EXACTLY the people who build it. If WE don't build it who does?

Actually my quote was "Which is more important, feeding the world or saving the spotted owl". Nice try.

On the other hand, "You didn't build...", is a direct and factual quote by our President. An obvious slight to all who have ever built their own business.

This is why YOU are dishonest, SW.

You write: "If you had said "you didn't build ALL of that" you would have been correct. Even if you said, "you only built a tiny part of it" you would be right."

Which means that for convience or petty fun or immature games you have decided to completely ignore these statements.

"Yes CPB, your miniscule contribution to the aforementioned helped.Although, it is pretty egotistical to say that YOU built that, rather it might more accurate (and more modest) to suggest that WE built that. Even more accurate is not that we built that, but we were required by GOVERNMENT POLICY to help pay for others to 'build that'."

CPB,

Here is why you are dishonest...

"On the other hand, "You didn't build...", is a direct and factual quote by our President. An obvious slight to all who have ever built their own business."

This is not a direct quote. This is a quote taken out of context. EVERYONE (including the folks at Fox News) understands that he was referring to roads and bridges when he said 'you didn't build that'. Your insistence on a lie is what is offensive, not the presidents accurate statement.

The direct quote; " If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business. you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet".

He may have even talking about our education system. It is by no means a concensus at Fox News over this quote. Most see this for what it is, a spit in the face at American exceptionalism.

Again, nice try.

Extreme partisanship has completely blinded you.

"Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business. you didn't build that."

It is not that hard to figure out. But I suppose that all the reason and logic and linguistic explanations in the world won't make a bit of difference to the partisan brain. So, I leave you in error.

"Im telling you there's an enemey that would like to attack america, americans again. There just is. Thats the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best"

george bush

Wow, there you have it, george w. wants america to be attacked again.

Twist and turn as you might, the partisan brain cannot allow you to see the truth with that statement. Our president hates individual achievement. He's much happier knocking down those who achieve than actually doing the right things that improves everyone's lives.

Once again, nice try.

Haha...

"Our president hates individual achievement."

Zealotry, thy name is Chunky! Thanks for the laughs.

Gold is now in a 4th ascending leg up! WOW!! I have put in protective stops as this move will probably be complete soon. I was expecting a 36 day rally and we got the move in less than 2 weeks.

Wallis

Oil rally is still underway. Been long since July 2. Looking for a $104-$106 level. Will then correct back to mid $80's before a run to $120 expected.

Wallis

Two U.S. embassies attacked. U.S. ambassador to Libya and two others killed. President of the United States of America Barack H. Obama heads to campaign in Las Vegas.

MUX is up nearly 10% in the last 5 days, and they are up 135% on the year. I like their CEO McEwen, though I would guess that as the economy continues its recovery, gold will eventually come back to earth. "Protective stops" are a good idea.

CPB,

Yawn.

Strange, the MSM is more interested in Mitt Romney's ideas than the current president.

I guess we had a real presidential response from the candidate. Judging by the hysterical response from the MSM, it worked.

Mitt the Twit's response to the attacks was about as dumb as you might expect from a person with ZERO foreign policy experience.

He deserves all the criticism he is getting for politicizing the death of our ambassador. It's petty, but he is with the GOP (till the wind blows differently), and they are the party of petty.

As far as Obama is concerned, the drones will be out en masse. The ad hoc killing of the perpetrators is imminent. If Obama has proven anything in 4 years, it is that he is good at prioritizing the remote controlled hunting and killing of America's enemies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-finally-gets-personal-on-the-subject-of-dro...

Yup...just as I said..

US Ramps up Hunt for Killers

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html...

US Warships move toward Libya

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed-fallout/in...

Romney's Political Pretzel over Libya

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/romneys-political-pretzel-over-l...

Anyone posting here remember "The Iranian Hostage crisis"?

Wallis

I am wallis, i also remember 243 marines getting killed in lebanon and our president cut and ran away.

President Obama's insatiatable thirst for revenge will only fan the flames of American hatred in the middle east. He's not willing to fight a real war, (who does?). The narrissist in him won't allow him to leave that area of the world. He is completely trapped.

It is now 24 hours since the attacks, more likely to come, do you know where our President is?

Benevolus,

"Which means that for convience or petty fun or immature games you have decided to completely ignore these statements."

Actually I hadn't read your comment until now, when it was directed at CPB I didn't pay attention to it I figured it was just another example of your two's extreme blind partisanship so I ignored it.

Thank you for admitting I was right though by changing your position. Where you originally said he didn't any of it you later conceded he did build part of it.

"It is now 24 hours since the attacks, more likely to come, do you know where our President is?"

He was at the Pentagon Tuesday morning for his weekly meeting with the Joint Chiefs. So your argument is pretty silly on that account. Also, Air Force One is equipped such that a president can run the country from 28,000ft in the case of an emergency. In fact, there is nowhere Obama can go in the world, given the technology that he enjoys, where he cannot make the necessary decisions required of him to lead the country.

Romney, on the other hand has proven to be a foreign policy nightmare already with his statements in England, Israel, and now his politicization of the death of an ambassador.

The majority of Americans, according to Gallup, believe Obama is better with foreign policy than Romney. After this newest lunacy, the Romney campaign is in death-watch mode. Obama has opened a 7% lead now, and I would expect that lead to grow after Romney's flubbing of this tragedy...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx

SWNebr,

"Thank you for admitting I was right though by changing your position."

Failing to read does not make you right, sorry.

GOP senator questions timing of Romney statement

Making a knee jerk or quick political responses or knee jerk policy response -- usually you have to amend that -- so before we jump to too many conclusions and throw things out that aren't necessarily the best solution in the way they addressed the problem -- let's assess all that," Coats told CNN in an interview Wednesday.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/gop-senator-questions-timing-of-...

Are Romney's comments on Libya a 2012 game changer?

"Too quick to politicize over faulty reporting initially. Too quick to politicize (the) death of foreign service officers. Makes him appear not ready," is how one top adviser to John McCain's 2008 campaign put it to CNN.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/12/are-romneys-comments-on-libya-a-...

Benevolus,

You're correct not reading every post doesn't make me right. It is YOUR words that make me right.

You changed your position in response to my words, at least so it seems to me. You were wrong and when called on it you corrected your position. Kudos to you for changing your stated position when faced with the facts that your position was wrong. If only you had the fortitude to admit it I'd be very proud. But from an "extreme partisan" like you I'll accept that you can't possibly admit to being wrong so will just take comfort in the knowledge that I changed your opinion.

I didn't change my position. It always the same. Reading the posts in order will relieve you of your ignorance...but your extreme partisanship will haunt you forever.

Wow. That was fast.

Report: Suspects in Libyan consulate attack arrested

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/13/protests-ramp-up-at-embassies-in-tehran-swi...

Benevolus,

Maybe I missed it and you could be a pal and point it out to me in the proper order because what I see is:

"Infrastructure, CPB, you didn't build any of that. But I am sure you enjoy it."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Sep 10, 2012, at 6:04 PM

Then I asked: "You raise an interesting question. If CPB doesn't build any infrastructure, who does?"

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Sep 10, 2012, at 8:52 PM

Then a day later and after you had the chance to reflect on my question which I hope helped change your mind you said:

"Yes CPB, your miniscule contribution to the aforementioned helped. So did mine. So did SWNebr's. Although, it is pretty egotistical to say that YOU built that, rather it might more accurate (and more modest) to suggest that WE built that. Even more accurate is not that we built that, but we were required by GOVERNMENT POLICY to help pay for others to 'build that'."

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Sep 11, 2012, at 12:15 AM

So how is the order that shows you weren't wrong in your first statement that I commented on supposed to go other than chronological?

Have you then abandandoned all pretense of moderation then?

What a day in Gold, Oil and S&P 500. Riding the wave. Expecting increased volatility.

Wallis

SWNebr,

Could it be that your question had nothing to do with my response, but rather, it was Chunky's post which I was addressing?

"Be real, in the context of that statement, there was no mention of infrastructure. Besides, infrastructure is one of the very few common goods for all people that the federal government is obligated to provide. So with my tax money paid through income tax, yes I do pay income tax, fuel taxes, toll fees, property taxes, sales taxes, and various other fees and taxes, yes, I did build that road." from Mon, Sep 10, 2012, at 10:51 PM

It makes sense because I did address "CPB", and not you in my response, which probably suggests that I wasn't talking to you or reflecting on your question.

I do appreciate your self-congratulatory nature though.

Regarding moderation, I am not sure what you mean...my political views are very middle-of-the-road. I have been critical of Obama many times on these boards and I changed my voter registration from Independent to Republican to vote for Ron Paul in the Nebraska primary last May, and would be my preference still would be Paul to Obama or Romney.

Here's the question I have regarding the polling right now. Gary Johnson is on the ballot in all fifty states. Hardly any polls put him in the polling questions, though.

In Montana a pollster finally asked a question involving all three men and a question only involving Obama and Romney. In the question with only two Romney wins by double digits. In the question with Johnson the race is neck and neck.

So why is more attention not being paid to Johnson?

This is from another site I post on:

Bernanke announced QE infinity as expected. The expected bounce is occurring now. I am expecting a bounce but it could be short lived. Raise stops to lows of 2 days ago. Still long EUR/Oil/Brent/Heating Oil/Copper/Silver/Gold. Got long Nat Gas 2 days ago. Short USCad.

This QE is unprecedented. I am in shock. My joke that the Federal Reserve will own all of the 30 year Treasury's 3 years ago might be a reality one day.

We need to move up our stops to lows of Tuesday. Volatilty will increase over the next couple of days and this Bernanke bounce will correct to the downside before the meaningful run happens. We are up 40% in our Oil trade. I expect another $5move before a correction occurs. Seasonally we are strong into October 3.

The S&P 500 and Dow are at highs not seen since 2007. Watch Apple as a proxy for the S&P. Went to 2 apple stores yesterday and iPhone 5 buzz is unprecedented according to store employees. Calling the Apple store on 5th Avenue tomorrow to get the NYC buzz.

I expect this QE to roll the common mans faith in Government and this singular event could "Carter" Obama. Watch that bounce. If the Republicans clean sweep the election I expect the commodity markets could turn over and we will want to get short.

That is from a investor blog that post on. The relevance to this blog is a think QE could be a negative for the President.

Wallis

It appears President Obama is now in full battle mode, he's demanding Mitt Romney's tax returns.

Wallis,

You said that you thought ole Ben B. was an ace.

"Fed Chairman Bernanke is the reason we are as solvent as we are." wmarsh on Sat, Aug 25, 2012, at 2:30 PM

Still feeling that way?

The economy has been Obama's greatest source of criticism for 2 years. Gallup shows that a majority of Americans since 2010 believe that he has not done a good job fixing the economy. In that sense, the economy is already part of the voting pattern equation. It is not likely that QE3 will make a difference because this close to the election, those voting for Obama are voting for him irrespective of the economy.

Obama is out to a 5 point lead according to Gallup. If Romney plays his cards right he pay shave a point or two before the debates. But I would anticipate Obama extending his lead after the public sees that Romney has nothing to offer but the same failed policies that ruined the economy in the first place.

It will be a close race in November. Exciting stuff.

I like the QE. Others don't but I do. If you will remember I sent the Fed a letter in 2006 suggesting that they lower fed funds to 0.5% and buy 10 year notes to lower the yield to 1.5% and fix mortgage rates and ring a bell for everyone to re-finance before the crash. I think it to little to late. I am still in shock they are doing it and the average American is outraged by it. I like it.

Wallis

The problem, from what I have been reading, is that QE3 is necessary because the fed expects unemployment to remain over 7% for at least the next two years.

If they are right, this presents an interesting scenario for 2016. If Obama is reelected and fails to fix the economy, the Dems will see an enormous fallout across the board akin to the Reps in 2008. If Romney wins, and unemployment remains high, the Dems will present the argument that Rep policies do not work, and we may see the first woman president in 2016 as a result.

Vets favor Romney. Women are swinging in favor towards Romney. Chuck Norris is voting for Romney.

Chuck Norris doesn't wear a watch. Chuck Norris decides what time it is!!

-- Posted by Mickel on Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 8:27 PM

Another hit and run with made up numbers Mickel?

I asked where you were getting your number, specifically about women swinging in favor of Mitt. The polling that I have seen suggests women favoring Obama even more. Please where did you get your numbers?

The thing that got us in this mess was the Governemnt strong arming banks in 2002-2004 to make loans available to everyone. Therefore, I believe the Government was directly responsible for the "mortgage bubble" . The Fed has a dual mandate to keep inflation and by default deflation in a range. They also have a mandate of "full employment".

A reason for dull employment, in my opinion, is the 2009-2011 Congress and their lack of dealing with the recession. Employment should have been the number one focus and it was not. We were all over the map. I still wonder where we would be if we didn't have the cheapest energy in the World. Thank God that the energy sector blew off the leadership and stuck to our guns. Manufacturing is what it is because we have such low feedstock costs thanks to our Natural Gas and Coal supplies. Oil production is up even as the Administration has been punitive to every oil producer in the Gulf of Mexico. The Fracking issue has resolved itself as the science is the science and uninformed opinions are "wrong".

Ben the problem with QE infinity is eventually it will have to be unwound. The Fed will stop buying bonds and interest rates should go a lot higher. I can't see that happening as the Government will be on the hook for those increased interest payments so what the future will hold is hazy. The only way we get out of this is for a robust economy will full employment and a stock market that is growing. Soon enough most in charge will realize that to be a fact. The current deficits are amazing and the Administration is still engaged in class warfare. I feel sorry for people entering the work force that aren't trying to get in the energy sector. Unemployment is high and the current administration is doing little to encourage job creation. What a twisted reality.

A Fracking Good Story

Carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. are at their lowest level in 20 years. It's not because of wind or solar power.

By Bjørn Lomborg|Posted Saturday, Sept. 15, 2012, at 6:30 AM ET

Weather conditions around the world this summer have provided ample fodder for the global warming debate. Droughts and heat waves are a harbinger of our future, carbon cuts are needed now more than ever, and yet meaningful policies have not been enacted.

But, beyond this well-trodden battlefield, something amazing has happened: Carbon-dioxide emissions in the United States have dropped to their lowest level in 20 years. Estimating on the basis of data from the US Energy Information Agency from the first five months of 2012, this year's expected CO2 emissions have declined by more than 800 million tons, or 14 percent from their peak in 2007.

The cause is an unprecedented switch to natural gas, which emits 45 percent less carbon per energy unit. The U.S. used to generate about half its electricity from coal, and roughly 20 percent from gas. Over the past five years, those numbers have changed, first slowly and now dramatically: In April of this year, coal's share in power generation plummeted to just 32 percent, on par with gas.

America's rapid switch to natural gas is the result of three decades of technological innovation, particularly the development of hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," which has opened up large new resources of previously inaccessible shale gas. Despite some legitimate concerns about safety, it is hard to overstate the overwhelming benefits.

For starters, fracking has caused gas prices to drop dramatically. Adjusted for inflation, natural gas has not been this cheap for the past 35 years, with the price this year three to five times lower than it was in the mid-2000s. And, while a flagging economy may explain a small portion of the drop in U.S. carbon emissions, the EIA emphasizes that the major explanation is natural gas.

The reduction is even more impressive when one considers that 57 million additional energy consumers were added to the U.S. population over the past two decades. Indeed, U.S. carbon emissions have dropped about 20 percent per capita, and are now at their lowest level since Dwight D. Eisenhower left the White House in 1961.

David Victor, an energy expert at UC-San Diego, estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas has reduced U.S. emissions by 400 to 500 megatons CO2 per year. To put that number in perspective, it is about twice the total effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions in the rest of the world, including the European Union.

It is tempting to believe that renewable energy sources are responsible for emissions reductions, but the numbers clearly say otherwise. Accounting for a reduction of 50 Mt of CO2 per year, America's 30,000 wind turbines reduce emissions by just one-10th the amount that natural gas does. Biofuels reduce emissions by only 10 megatons, and solar panels by a paltry three megatons.

This flies in the face of conventional thinking, which continues to claim that mandating carbon reductions--through cap-and-trade or a carbon tax--is the only way to combat climate change.

But, based on Europe's experience, such policies are precisely the wrong way to address global warming. Since 1990, the EU has heavily subsidized solar and wind energy at a cost of more than $20 billion annually. Yet its per capita CO2 emissions have fallen by less than half of the reduction achieved in the U.S.--even in percentage terms, the U.S. is now doing better.

Because of broad European skepticism about fracking, there is no gas miracle in the EU, while the abundance of heavily subsidized renewables has caused overachievement of the CO2 target. Along with the closure of German nuclear power stations, this has led, ironically, to a resurgence of coal.

Well-meaning U.S. politicians have likewise shown how not to tackle global warming with subsidies and tax breaks. The relatively small reduction in emissions achieved through wind power costs more than $3.3 billion annually, and far smaller reductions from ethanol (biofuels) and solar panels cost at least $8.5 and $3 billion annually.

Estimates suggest that using carbon taxes to achieve a further 330-megaton CO2 reduction in the EU would cost $250 billion per year. Meanwhile, the fracking bonanza in the U.S. not only delivers a much greater reduction for free, but also creates long-term social benefits through lower energy costs.

http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/16/13894983-occupy-wall-street-protes...

The President is dealing with protests all over the World now in America as well.

No acknowledgement for Apple?

Wallis

AP had an interesting article re Arkansas a couple hours ago

These self-inflicted wounds from the Romney camp are not helping the GOP cause. Romney's flub of the consulate attacks, as well Romney's recent ridiculousness where he insults approx. 147 million Americans and then defends his comments, have the folks at Fox understandably divided.

The Romney/Ryan campaign is looking like it is more and more in disrepair. It certainly is still a close race, but I don't think the Romney/Ryan campaign can take many more untimely, foot-in-mouth statements.

If Obama wins a second term, just think of the excrement he will inherit this time. Sort of blows your mind, huh?

Michael - specifically to your 'non-specific' request:

http://thehill.com/conventions-2012/dem-convention-charlotte/247263-hill-poll-vo...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/04/wapoabc-poll-obamas-favorable-rating-now-u...

Here are two links related to the vets.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/05/29/poll-veterans-overwhelmi...

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/gallup_vets_overwhelmingly_support_r...

Stow the snarkiness...okay? I was on vacation for eight days.

One 'foot-in-mouth' comment is one thing, continually jamming that sucker in and repeating the same mistakes is another...England, then Israel, then the consulate, now this fresh stupidity that has the GOP even further divided over ole' Mittens.

With the sluggish economic recovery, 2012 should be a GOP win, but I am sensing that Romney is not up to the challenge.

"One 'foot-in-mouth' comment is one thing, continually jamming that sucker in and repeating the same mistakes is another..."

You got that right...Biden is a huge embarrassment. And now candidate Obama with his "blame Youtube" defense for his most recent ineptitude.

Does anyone think he might actually bear some accountability for anything, somewhere, sometime? Fast and Furious? 42 months of continuous job loss? No budget proposal receiving a single congressional affirmative?

Does anyone think that the candidate for re-elect might actually run on his record?

Romney is doomed, especially if he keeps up this line of insulting the elderly and active duty/veteran service people.

It's actually funny, because the 47% that Romney claims will never take responsibility for themselves, are made up of a lot of his voters!

This delusional billionaire is looking more like Mr. Burns and less like the leader of the nation everyday.

Vegas has Romney as a 2-1 underdog right now. By the time the debates are over it will be 3 or 4 to 1.

Oh, and Mickel,

"42 months of continuous job loss?" You mean growth right?

From the Christian Science Monitor

"Obama is correct when he says that in the past 30 months, private-sector employers have created about 4.6 million net jobs, according to tallies by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since the public sector has been cutting jobs during that time, the nation as a whole has added about 4 million jobs, which works out to about 135,000 per month. The most recent months have been a bit below that average."

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2012/0915/Obama-s-record-on-job-creation...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-03/jobs-july-obama-romney/56...

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/news/economy/1206/gallery.Obama-economy/inde...

^^ That should be "delusional billionaire"...sorry for overestimating Mittens.

"Does anyone think he might actually bear some accountability for anything, somewhere, sometime? Fast and Furious? 42 months of continuous job loss? No budget proposal receiving a single congressional affirmative?

Does anyone think that the candidate for re-elect might actually run on his record?"

Simply put Mickel, Fast and Furious was a locally ran program that is why no charges at the upper levels have been brought. 42 months of continuous job loss? Can you please point out when this happened? Either your numbers are wrong or you are actually blaming Obama for job losses that happened before he ever took office. Of course on your question on the budget proposal you conviently leave off the fact that the reason there has not been any congressional approval is because it has been blocked.

Of course he has ran on his record, you have just ignored it, but that isn't all the surprising.

By the way Mickel, I am still waiting for those numbers of vets and women either heavily supporting Romney or starting to turn to Romney.

However, CNN fact-checked that claim and found it to be "not the whole picture." Instead, CNN found that there has been a net increase of just 300,000 nonfarm payroll jobs since Obama took office. And if you count government jobs, there are actually 400,000 fewer people working today than in January 2009.

Doodle,

Job loss during the first few months of any presidency cannot reasonably be attributed to the incoming president. Given the fact that Bush and his policies nearly ruined the stock market, the housing market, etc., and given the rate at which we were losing jobs heading into 2009, the fact that Obama put the brakes on so quickly is actually rather impressive.

Growth since then has been painfully slow, but grow the economy has.

Also, isn't it a good thing (if you are a rightwinger) that the government has cut so many jobs? Shouldn't that comment be a compliment to Obama?

are you happy with a 16 trillion debt that your great grandchildren will never be able to pay off? then you come back with "it stsrted under bush". true, bush doubled the national debt, from 5t to 10t in eight years. obama has added 6t plus in 4 years. no, i am not impressed with obummer. i guess i can do obummer now that you have a penchant for "mitt the twit" and "mittens".

Simply put - Fast and Furious was a program designed to foment public opinion against gun ownership. It failed, people died, Obama and Holder lied. Congress held Holder in contempt pending the release of the rest of the requested documents.

I stand by the job loss claim...anybody can track the data...by the way I challenge the two smartest in the room to actually do their own homework and not rely on the skewed numbers presented by the MSM. Links to MSM stories are disqualified.

Michael, I posted the links to my claims that you so civilly requested...Sorry you can't keep track of your own blog.

Obama hasn't run on his record. The economy is still in the tank. The unemployment level is unacceptable. Our foreign policy is a joke. Our sovereignty is in jeopardy. America's credit rating has been downgraded twice. Median incomes have plummeted. etc. etc. etc.

What is Obama's plan; aside from "Forward", which is an adjective...shouldn't a campaign slogan at least be a verb? His plan to rebound the economy is...(crickets chirping) His plan to provide for the common defense of this country (aside from dismantling our protective nuclear arsenal, and downgrading our military) is...(hoot owl joining the crickets) His plan for ensuring a stabilization of fuel, food, and goods prices is...(Leprachaun smiling).

Very funny. Except it's pathetically sad.

Almost as sad as saying government job growth is a feather in the cap of the Choomer in Chief.

No, doodle, the debt is not particularly pleasing. If you have been paying attention, "obummer" has not been exempt from my criticism in on that front.

But there is no reason to believe Romney will do anything about it. Romney has been terrible with Massachusetts' debt. And he seems to forget (or his handlers do) that tax cuts cost money (as much or more than any stimulus or health care reform) and so far, tax cuts is about all we have heard about from the Romney plan.

To be fair, he hasn't revealed very much about his intentions at all (not in much detail anyway). Ole Mittens is hoping the American people will vote for him on faith...hoping that enough people think he 'isn't quite as bad as the alternative'.

Pretty sad.

much as obummer was voted for his "hope and change". I, for one, do not want the USA to be patteren after the western European model.

Well, actually, Obama was pretty specific in what he would do, Doodle, that's why he is being lambasted for breaking all his promises. Romney is being a shrewd politician and keeping his mouth shut.

We knew what Obama intended to do, and in large part he didn't do it. But that is infinitely more respectable than playing coy games with our nation's future because Romney doesn't want to be held accountable to campaign promises.

Mickel and doodle you have to be the two most disrespectful posters on this blog. You don't like the president's policies fine, but don't be hypocrites and demand respect for a former president and then refer to this president as obummer and choomer in chief. I ask this respectively of course.

Benevolus I challenge you on your theory that Obama has done a large part of what he promised to do. It just is not factually correct. What specifically were his promises that he did not fulfill or at the very least attempt to fulfill.

Mickel, I missed your post and I apologize for my error.

Since the poll that showed that women were going more towards Romney than Obama that trend has completely reversed and it had completely reversed by the time that you posted to the then 15 day old poll.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-omero/women-are-behind-the-obam_b_1904530.h...

The only poll that I have been able to find regarding veterans was the same poll you quoted which was taken in May, so I am unable to refute those claims. Honestly I wouldn't be able to anyways since veterans typically support Republican candidates.

Michael, I will take issue with your request. I will assume you meant "respectfully", rather than "respectively". I notice that you singled out the consevative posters and make no mention of the disrespect shown by liberals. And please refresh my memory as to when I "demanded" respect for a former president. My faulty memory recalls pointing out that other posters use disparaging nick-names, therefore I would start doing the same. I have posted on your site several times and other than the last two or three posts, please point out where I have been disrespectul. And you have little room to point out hypocrisy by ANYONE!!!!

Hey all, I've been busy and was almost assuredly wrong.

doodle bug,

I'm SHOCKED by your temerity. That you can make baseless assumptions about Michael is truly upsetting. Don't you know by now that he never makes any mistakes and is never wrong?

He most certainly couldn't have meant respectfully. He clearly meant that you can't use the term obummer and that Mickel can't use the term choomer in chief. I would guess that you are each able to use the other term with Michael's blessing.

I could also speculate that he couldn't have used the term respectfully for the simple fact that he isn't respectful but I won't do so at this point.

"I could also speculate that he couldn't have used the term respectfully for the simple fact that he isn't respectful but I won't do so at this point."

If you "could speculate" why wouldn't you? That doesn't make sense. Seems like a timid accusation wrapped up in weakness.

Michael,

I am thinking specifically of this:

"Look, I'm at the start of my administration. One nice thing about the situation I find myself in is that I will be held accountable. You know, I've got four years. And, you know, a year from now I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. But there's still going to be some pain out there. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition."

But here is politfact, recent winner of the Pulitzer. You should find the answer here. I would list the broken promises, but they are too many to enumerate.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken...

Just read that Romney has 34% of the voters with incomes under 24,000, many of whom are retired and elderly. He has 41% of the voters between 24 and 36k, many of whom are veterans; he has 43% of voters between 36 and 48k; and he has 49% of the voters between 48 and 60k.

I wonder if these millions of Americans know they are "victims" who are "dependent on the government", who will "never be convinced they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." I wonder if they know that Romney's "job is not to worry about these people."

I have been reading through the list of Politifact's Obama's broken promises list and the one thing that stands out on just about every single issue that they decided warranted them to decide that Obama had broken his promise was Congress. The majority of these broken promises were actually sent to Congress and rejected. I would think you would agree that if as president you do present your ideas to Congress and they reject them (whether it be out of an attempt by one party to limit him to one term or other circumstances) it would be relatively hard to say that he broke his promise.

In my mind breaking a promise is promising to do something and then not even attempting to do it, but that's just me.

I would offer up Politifact's article on promises that Obama kept which is actually five pages longer. This would seemingly fly in the face of your accusation that he broke most of his promises:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-kept/

Didn't Obama enjoy Democratic control in both house and senate for two years? Doesn't that 'fly in the face' of your argument that congress was an inhibitor?

Also, where do "changing the political climate in Washington" and "closing Guantanamo" fit into the whole, don't-blame-Obama-for-anything paradigm?

Well, Michael, I see that you have posted again without answering my charge. Then using your vernacular, I guess I will have to say you "lied". Lets have some more "hypocrisy" Michael.

Actually no, Benevelous, he only had a simple majority in both houses. Majorities do not guarantee anything. He only had a super-majority for a few months.

He attempted to close Guantanamo and Congress blocked it. The last time I checked it takes more than just one person to change the political climate in an entire town. These two fit more in the paradigm of blaming him for anything even when you know he can't be wholly responsible for it.

It's pretty simple doodle. At the time I was addressing the two people on this particular blog who can't even show enough respect to call someone by their name and making up ridiculous nicknames in an attempt to make their empty handed attacks somehow sound better.

I would go after liberals the same way, but seeing as I am the only on left on this site it would seem silly to go after myself. But you can be the judge of that.

I do find it humorous that an adult such as yourself would lower themselves to defend their actions by essentially saying, "They did it first." Would you jump off a bridge or the Empire State Building because someone else did it first?

Spin away, Michael, spin away.

Michael,

" I would think you would agree that if as president you do present your ideas to Congress and they reject them (whether it be out of an attempt by one party to limit him to one term or other circumstances) it would be relatively hard to say that he broke his promise."

Not necessarily, he has the power of executive order. Congress said no to the DREAM act and he ordered a large part of it into being. He could have done the same with Guantanamo if he desired.

Michael,

As I recall, Obama had a super majority in the Senate as of April 2009 when Specter changed parties. And it wasn't until February 2010, when Scott Brown was sworn in, that the super majority ended. That is not a "few months", that is 10. Almost a year.

I may have overstated my claim that Obama has fulfilled fewer promises than he has kept. But you have certainly understated your case that he didn't have enough time to get done what he said he would. Perhaps not all can be accomplished in 10 months, and certainly congress was in recess for part of that. but I still argue that 10 months is a long enough time to make good on promises made during the campaign.

Also, SWNebr is right, the president is granted certain privileges which can, at least temporarily, have the same impact as legislative policy (and Obama has proven he is capable of exercising those privileges).

You are right to point out (at the risk of putting words in your mouth) that the Republicans, especially in the house, have been borderline insane the last 4 years. In large part because the Tea Party was so successful in pushing the climate in Washington from being contentious to outright hostile. However, Clinton and Reagan both faced hostile opposition and both were able to get many things great things accomplished for the country. Why do you think that is?

Lastly, I am interested, what argument do you offer regarding your premise that Obama has even attempted to change the political climate in Washington?

Your timeline is skewed Benevolus. The super majority ended when then Senator Kennedy died. There was a full month that there were only 57 Democratic senators and 2 independents that caucused with them leaving them one short of super majority. You also ignore that Congress was not in session for the entire period. The super majority lasted a full 134 days.

I offered no premise that Obama has even attempted to change the political climate. I didn't vote for Obama (nor will I this time) because I believe he can change the climate. One man simply can not do that. As you stated on another blog of mine, politicians are apt to say about anything to get elected. I put Obama's comments on this issue in that corner, but it had no effect on my vote. McCain promised the same thing, as is Romney.

Michael,

When you talk about the President "only" having a rubber stamp(my term not yours, before you get yer knickers in a bunch)Congress for a few months so that apparently absolves him of failing to keep his promises, are you suggesting that an Executive can only get things done when there is no opposition? It seems that you are dismissing any "failure" as merely indicative of the fact that the opposing political party likely isn't willing to vote through a President's platform without discussion. I don't think that should be surprising to anyone that each party tries to get as many concessions as possible from the other.

It would seem that no law will ever be passed under these conditions. As I've often observed its amazing that a party will blame the other party for saying no, when they should expect that to be the starting point. Partisans seem to always clamor for compromise, but what they want is the other side to fully cave without giving up anything from their own side.

If Congress rejected his proposals, shouldn't he have continued to work with them to reach as mutually satisfactory results as possible?

Michael,

One other thought.

Obama only had his rubber stamp Congress for 134 days, what did FDR do in 134 days? Why couldn't Obama do something similar?

Michael,

My timeline is not skewed. When Kennedy died the Dems had 57 and 2 independents who consistently voted with them for a total of 59. There were 99 senators and 3/5 is need for cloture. 60% of 99 is 59. One month after Kennedy's death, democrat Paul Kirk was appointed to fill the vacancy, bringing the total to 60. His time in the Senate lasted from Sept 2009 to January 2010. The super majority ended a month later. Thus, in the remaining months you dismiss, the Dems did retain the votes needed for cloture, and could have stopped any filibuster, which means that they could have passed anything they wished.

And still no response to my request to point out where I "demanded" respect for a former president. Is hypocritical "lying" only offensive to you when done by conservatives? I will give Obama credit for issuing the order to execute Bin Laden; I will also give him credit for expanding Bush's policy of executing jihadists wherever they are found. His fiscal and social policies sicken me. I, for one, am very weary of his class envy/warfare (that is MY opinion; I dont expect you and your ilk to agree with it).

Of the 57 Democrats Benevolus, how many consistently voted with the president or other Democrats? My answer is not nearly enough to make a super majority.

SW those are of course your opinions of what you believe I said or you believe I am trying to say and not actually what I said, so I honestly can not answer those questions.

In other words, I can't answer a question you are asking of something I did not say. Your ability to read between the lines is not nearly as good as you believe it is.

Michael,

Why can't you answer a question that isn't a repeat of your words? I thought the point of questions was to gain new information. If you are only able to respond to a recitation of your previous statements, what's the exchange of ideas?

I understand if you can't answer these questions either since they aren't what you said.

I'd also like to add that it's mighty big of you to recognize I can have an opinion.

Your excuse for the President's broken promises sound exactly as that...excuse, not reason.

And any excuse you have for ignoring the fact that he kept a large majority of his promises is also an excuse. What's your point.

Michael,

The point is, I haven't given any excuses while you have. Are you trying to "add value" to my comments?

Michael,

I understand if Obama doesn't have much sway with the Republicans, but if he can't get members of his own party to rally behind him, I am not sure that makes a very good leader.

Fortunately, he turned out to be pretty effective because all 60 voted with him on Obamacare. So clearly the super majority was intact when I claim it was, because on December 23, 2010 the Senate voted 60--39 to end the debate. The bill passed the senate the next day by (gasp) 60-39.

The bottom line is that Obama had the super majority for 11 months. As I conceded previously, some of that time congress was in recess. But there was plenty of time for much more to get done than what actually occurred.

^^^ That is, 10 months, not 11. Sorry.

Getting closer to the election. Mike and Ben called me out for my projections. The answer will be the answer and the popular polls are moving more to Romney's favor.

This election isn't about electing Romney it is firing Obama and that isn't best case.

The answer will be the answer?

Of course I called you out for your projections. You projected a Romney landslide based solely on Obama's job performance in mid-August stating that no incumbent president had ever won re-election with job approval below 50%. His job approval now stands at 50%, does that now mean he will win based off your projections? Or are you now ignoring that poll and only focusing on voting polls, which until last week were apparently skewed towards Obama favor?

You also say that the popular polls are moving towards Romney. They already have. Currently, and this is before the post-debate polls come out the race is all square nationally, but not so much on the state level.

While New Hampshire has gotten closer none of the other northeastern states have swung towards Romney (you predicted in August that Romney would win all the northeastern states, even in one of his home states of Massachusetts he has never been within 15 points).

Obama still holds a lead that would win him the electoral votes and that is what counts.

Even in the newest Gallup poll that has Romney up by five, when that poll is broken into regions east, west, midwest, and south, Romney is only leading in one of those regions (south).

I'm not calling your projections into question, I'm calling your cockiness about your projections into question, mostly about how you are so sure that only your prediction is correct that you bristle at the idea of anyone questioning you on it.

With Obama's job approval now staked at 53% are you now going to change your forecast, Wallis, and say that Obama is going to win?

Just a question left unanswered that I would have hoped you would have cleared up by now.