US Elections 2012 Part II: The Conventions, Debates and Election results

[willx]

New York Mayor Bloomberg Endorses Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/ny...n.html?hp&_r=0

Main issue seems to be climate change, and how effective Obama has been in getting out to get help for Sandy

[james0246]

Originally Posted by willx

New York Mayor Bloomberg Endorses Obama

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/ny...n.html?hp&_r=0

Main issue seems to be climate change, and how effective Obama has been in getting out to get help for Sandy

It's a political move only. Massive amounts of New Yorkers already support Obama, and their support has only increased with his immediate response over Sandy. So, of course Bloomberg is going to throw his support behind Obama.

[Xion Valkyrie]

http://www.uaw.org/articles/unions-g...sclose-his-big

Romney made 15.3 mil from the auto bailout by investing in some auto firms while he was actively fighting against the bailout. Now people are filing an ethics complaint against him for not disclosing this information when he send in his financial disclosure.

Anyways, most of the more reliable analysts are predicting an Obama victory. Individual polls are biased, but you can get a more accurate picture when you analyze data from all of them.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012...s-obama-romney

[Netto Azure]

Originally Posted by Vexx

I can't wait to see the raving right try to paint "The Economist" magazine as a socialist liberal ex-RINO thinktank

My Comparative Politics professor makes us read The Economist and it certainly has a lot of Economic Libertarian slant. Great reads tho.

As for Bloomberg a bit of a surprise considering we have 5 days until the official election day.

Edit: I like this reply by the Economist on the backlash over this endorsement - "We think not endorsing is a cop-out. It is our policy to endorse, even in cases where we don't much like any of the candidates (eg Kerry 2004, Sarkozy 2012). Sometimes voters have to make difficult choices, so we should do so too."

[monir]

Originally Posted by willx

Oh, I don't disagree you need to resonate with your base, but he's in Washington State. That's why I explicitly referenced where he's running for congress. I believe the west coast is much more liberal when it comes to these issues. So, I'd have to disagree with you when it comes to "good politics" but we'll see

You probably already know this, but one of the major contributing factor of GOP's claiming the majority was due to the redistricting which favored the GOP tremendously. States like Wisconsin which used to be automatic for Democrats over the years, now have a healthy competition from GOP thanks to that particular strategy. I was wondering if something similar was taking place over at Washington state also. There is another phenomenon emerging through out the country which shows that by the next 15-20 years, a lot of the Southern and Mid-West states projected to be more Democratic leaning than the exclusive Republican support the GOP enjoys now. Same transformation is taking place slowly, but surely in the states (especially in West) that usually votes Democrats.

So does he have a chance at winning that district? I haven't been paying much attention to the House or Senate race as I think the status-quo stays the same. GOP may lose some seat in the House, but they should retain the majority status and same goes for Democrats in the Senate.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by monir

You probably already know this, but one of the major contributing factor of GOP's claiming the majority was due to the redistricting which favored the GOP tremendously. States like Wisconsin which used to be automatic for Democrats over the years, now have a healthy competition from GOP thanks to that particular strategy. I was wondering if something similar was taking place over at Washington state also. There is another phenomenon emerging through out the country which shows that by the next 15-20 years, a lot of the Southern and Mid-West states projected to be more Democratic leaning than the exclusive Republican support the GOP enjoys now. Same transformation is taking place slowly, but surely in the states (especially in West) that usually votes Democrats.

So does he have a chance at winning that district? I haven't been paying much attention to the House or Senate race as I think the status-quo stays the same. GOP may lose some seat in the House, but they should retain the majority status and same goes for Democrats in the Senate.

the thing about the left-coast states is that the liberals are mostly concentrated on the coast where the big cities (SF, LA, Seattle) are. The inner part of the state are more conservative.

[monir]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

the thing about the left-coast states is that the liberals are mostly concentrated on the coast where the big cities (SF, LA, Seattle) are. The inner part of the state are more conservative.

That makes sense. The increasing diversity in the country is triggering a lot of these phenomenon that haven't been seen before. It still makes me laugh at the notion that in the next two decades, white population will be the new minority. GOP will need a lot more Marco Rubios and Cains in the coming years if they want to compete with the Democrats.

[Neki Ecko]

With 4 days until the election, the final job report came out and the final verdict was 7.9. In other words between 4 years ago and now, it has been serious change between 10.8 unemployment to 7.9.

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 171,000 in October, and the unemployment rate was essentially unchanged at 7.9 percent. Employment rose in professional and business services, health care, and retail trade.

U.S. employers stepped up hiring in October and the jobless rate ticked higher as more workers restarted job hunts, a hopeful sign for a lackluster economy that has dragged on President Barack Obama's reelection chances.

Employers added 171,000 people to their payrolls last month, the Labor Department said on Friday. The government also said 84,000 more jobs were created in August and September than initially estimated. The jobless rate edged a tenth of a point higher to 7.9 percent, but that was due to a surge of workers back into the workforce. Only people who have recently looked for a job can count as unemployed.

The employment data was the last major report card on the economy before Tuesday's presidential election, which pits Obama against Republican Mitt Romney. While the rise in the jobless rate was expected, the increase in payrolls beat even the most optimistic forecast in a Reuters poll. The report provides fodder for both candidates.

Even sustained monthly gains of 171,000 would likely bring down the jobless rate only slowly. Even with the relative strength seen in the report, a full recovery from the 2007-09 recession remains distant. The jobless rate, which peaked during the recession at 10 percent, remains about 3 percentage points above its pre-recession level.

Romney has made the nation's feeble jobs market, which has plagued Obama since he took office in 2009, the centerpiece of his campaign.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll showed Obama and Romney in a dead heat. Still, the political impact of the report will likely be muted as most voters perceptions on the economy are likely firmly fixed by now.

The persistently high unemployment rate makes it unlikely the Federal Reserve will lose its resolve to keep easy money policies in place until the economy shows more vigor.

[willx]

Originally Posted by monir

That makes sense. The increasing diversity in the country is triggering a lot of these phenomenon that haven't been seen before. It still makes me laugh at the notion that in the next two decades, white population will be the new minority. GOP will need a lot more Marco Rubios and Cains in the coming years if they want to compete with the Democrats.

Well, that's the beauty of being human right .. things change, people change.. So ultimately political parties, affiliations and social mores will all change. It's kind of beautiful really..

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

With 4 days until the election, the final job report came out and the final verdict was 7.9. In other words between 4 years ago and now, it has been serious change between 10.8 unemployment to 7.9.

Yeah and the U-6 Underemployment number was a 11.8% 4 years ago and is now 14.6%.
http://portalseven.com/employment/un...08&toYear=2012

So as those on unemployment ended their benefits the U-3 number dropped, and the number who are now underemployed (U-6 number) has risen.

That's serious change alright...for the worse.

October Jobs Report Shows Incomes Continuing to Decline
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2B4KKbbAW

Long-Term Unemployment Rises in October to 40.6%
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/long...es-october-406

Food Stamp Growth 75X Greater than Job Creation
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_660073.html

[Frenchie]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Yeah and the U-6 Underemployment number was a 11.8% 4 years ago and is now 14.6%.
http://portalseven.com/employment/un...08&toYear=2012

So as those on unemployment ended their benefits the U-3 number dropped, and the number who are now underemployed (U-6 number) has risen.

That's serious change alright...for the worse.

October Jobs Report Shows Incomes Continuing to Decline
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz2B4KKbbAW

Long-Term Unemployment Rises in October to 40.6%
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/long...es-october-406

Food Stamp Growth 75X Greater than Job Creation
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...on_660073.html

Wanna compare those numbers to the Great Depression?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Frenchie

Wanna compare those numbers to the Great Depression?

Sure if you want to use the calculation method used by the US government at the time of the Great Depression.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/st...pression-cong/

[willx]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Sure if you want to use the calculation method used by the US government at the time of the Great Depression.

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/st...pression-cong/

And this is all in the context of 2-3 decades in the making, not 4 years. Never forget that folks.

[Lost Cause]

And that's not counting those that have given up looking for a job!
And they said something about some companies hiring, well yeah, Christmas is coming, there hiring seasonal help which is part time at best, then in January they get laid off and the news will report a spike in unemployment. Same old story!

[Neki Ecko]

Originally Posted by willx

And this is all in the context of 2-3 decades in the making, not 4 years. Never forget that folks.

Yep, that is true.

GundamFan0083, you need to understand that when Obama took over this country, we was going through dropping Dow Jones (8659.59 as on Novermber 6 2008), losing over 800k jobs, Unemployment was at all time highs while fighting two wars losing countless of my friends and people that I knew lives in those battles. Auto companies was beyond saving, Bank Bailout was kicking our butts and many other stuff.

But after four years, Auto companies is back up and running, Unemployment is dropping, consumer is up, there is growth right now, Dow Jones is back up to 13000. Most of the friends is back on US soils. I know that Obama isnt perfect but you know what. I trust him over Ronmey who cant even stay on his own course and flip-flopping around trying to suck up to all the voters (that little crap he did for that Hurricane victims was the straw that broke the camel's back). Even know that the end of the tunnel is almost there, there is still little bit of darkness ahead.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Neki Ecko

Yep, that is true.

GundamFan0083, you need to understand that when Obama took over this country, we was going through dropping Dow Jones (8659.59 as on Novermber 6 2008), losing over 800k jobs, Unemployment was at all time highs while fighting two wars losing countless of my friends and people that I knew lives in those battles. Auto companies was beyond saving, Bank Bailout was kicking our butts and many other stuff.

But after four years, Auto companies is back up and running, Unemployment is dropping, consumer is up, there is growth right now, Dow Jones is back up to 13000. Most of the friends is back on US soils. I know that Obama isnt perfect but you know what. I trust him over Ronmey who cant even stay on his own course and flip-flopping around trying to suck up to all the voters (that little crap he did for that Hurricane victims was the straw that broke the camel's back). Even know that the end of the tunnel is almost there, there is still little bit of darkness ahead.

Uh, Ford never took the incentive or bail out, only Chrysler and GM.
As for the rest of it, we might be doing slightly better...but not by that much.

[ganbaru]

Romney: Elect Me Or House GOP Will Wreck The Economy
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...on-warning.php
This could be the strongest, if not the only one, argument in favor of Romney but, it might not be such good idea to use it.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Romney: Elect Me Or House GOP Will Wreck The Economy
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...on-warning.php
This could be the strongest, if not the only one, argument in favor of Romney but, it might not be such good idea to use it.

Oh, come on. For once he makes a sincere, consistent with past positions, realistic campaign promise, and you still have to hate on him?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Romney: Elect Me Or House GOP Will Wreck The Economy
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/20...on-warning.php
This could be the strongest, if not the only one, argument in favor of Romney but, it might not be such good idea to use it.

Why can't these congressmen be tried for treason or terrorism for purposely destroying the country's economy to further their own agendas?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Uh, Ford never took the incentive or bail out, only Chrysler and GM.
As for the rest of it, we might be doing slightly better...but not by that much.

Except if GM and Chrysler went down they would have taken Ford with them. There was a reason why Ford was at the congressional hearing with GM and Chrysler even through it didn't need a bailout, at least a direct one.