Symmetry required it: 2012 american general election thread #2

xp no no I get it, it'd be a neat loop.

IE he is using employment as an indicator of the economy.

― Andrew Farrell, Friday, September 7, 2012 10:54 AM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

he is using job numbers as an indicator of THE FUTURE of the economy, eagerly await your apology *sniff*

He needs to take the curl of the jobs vector to predict future economy, yeah.

http://i.imgur.com/RQShC.png

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/chart-the-racial-makeup-of-obama-romney-presidential-coalitions.php

What exactly is the Clinton=rapist line I keep seeing about? Is it just that Monica Lewinsky must've been coerced sex?

No- Juanita Broaderick, most prominently among others.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/images/clinton_banner.gif

i love finding remnants of old sites lying around!

holy crap!

he had meat in his cheeks!

So did she!

ha

http://health.malaxi.com/irritable_bowel_syndrome/images/groan.jpg

http://www.playahata.com/images/celebpics/jayleno1.gif

that's funnier with images off!

eh unemployment is also considered a coincident indicator in some metrics. furthermore as change in employment figures may contribute to consumer expectations, which are a leading indicator, i sorta expect a contribution to positive outlook in a period of declining unemployment or full employment if wages are rising, too. im no economist but i dont think unemployment is irrelevant to economic outlook. xpost

its part of the economy, its not predictive of long term economic performance, or of itself for that matter

wondering how down-ticket races specifically will be affected by what will (probably) be a pretty decent turnout for Obama. obviously it won't be like 2008, but i assume the sea change in 2010 had a lot to do with large parts of Obama's coalition not showing up like they did 2 years before. (i guess?)

After a week of trying to figure out what his address would be about, Eastwood had only figured out by Thursday morning, the day of the speech, what the issue outline of the speech would be. It was then right before his appearance, when he was backstage and about to go on, that the inspiration hit.

“There was a stool there, and some fella kept asking me if I wanted to sit down,” Eastwood said. “When I saw the stool sitting there, it gave me the idea. I’ll just put the stool out there and I’ll talk to Mr. Obama and ask him why he didn’t keep all of the promises he made to everybody.”

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/09/eastwood-when-i-saw-the-stool-sitting-there-it-gave-me-the-idea.php

whoa

wow^^^

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/romney-defends-not-mentioning-war-troops-in-convention

^^i am soooo excited for the debates.

“When I saw the stool sitting there, it gave me the idea.

sounds like Lou Reed!

lagoon is right and its the trend that matters not the #, and we're at a place where the trend could go either way. a bigger jobs number that was trending downwards quickly would be more foreboding even if it would be immediately better for many people who would now have jobs. also if the new jobs number was great then we might not get qe3.

Just saw the jobs numbers--disappointing. I thought after hearing yesterday that there were 200,000 private-sector jobs created, the report would be good. Probably the conventions are yesterday's news already.

― clemenza, Friday, September 7, 2012 2:54 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

200k was the estimated number..

Okay--I thought that was an official number, and that that would be combined with public-sector numbers for the final total. But I've got it now: it was an estimate, that was above the projection (135,000), which was above the reality (96,000), sitting next to the chair that the invisible man occupies.

How are corporate profits this year? I know there have been more or less record profits over the past few years. Maybe next time Romney derisively asks "Are you better off now than 4 years ago?" Obama can say "Yeah, how do your CEO buddies answer that?"

That's one of the things that's getting lost in the campaign. The market and corporate profits are at all time highs, so why are there so few jobs available? Ask the "job creators".

hey job creator, got a question for you *punches fist into hand*

Corporations are also sitting on trillions of dollars of cash just waiting for... something.

they are waiting for the moment when people want to buy shit again

http://www.channelguidemagblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/breaking-bad-episode-8-walt-syler.jpg

dirty open secret: the "fox effect" is real among the manager & investor class. those decision makers would breathe a sigh of relief and get money "off the sidelines" if romney is elected, even if policy change is 0

i think we'll see some kind of bump after the election, no matter who wins. my conspiratorial thinking is that fed governors are sitting on their hands hoping for "better" but will say fuck it an open up after november.

imho the fed really thinks its been doing the right thing

http://i.imgur.com/0gyVG.png

Corporations are also sitting on trillions of dollars of cash just waiting for..

I've been hearing all year that there won't be any large capital outlays until after the election; the rich and their corporations hate uncertainty but I assume that even if Obama wins, the temptation to spend money for strategic advantage or to spend it before it gets taxed or just to invest in infrastructure after essentially four years w/o out a lot of it, will be too great.

i don't follow or know this stuff as well as i could but some fed bods were at least discussing negative IOR

dirty open secret: the "fox effect" is real among the manager & investor class. those decision makers would breathe a sigh of relief and get money "off the sidelines" if romney is elected, even if policy change is 0

i'm inclined to agree. all this bullshit about 'uncertainty' seems to be a stretch. yeah bro, 'uncertainty' is kind of the essence of our economy, pls stfu.

Bush gave them certainty I thought, and how'd that work out.

Mitt Romney’s campaign began a new ad blitz on Friday, releasing 15 new television spots in eight states.

The ads, titled “A Better Future” and focused on President Obama’s economic record, are running in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia.

fun, fun, fun.

i get some new hampshire ads over here in vermont but it doesnt seem like that many, i cant imagine anyone gives a shit abt new hampshire that much

libertarians

thinking in NH Gary Johnson being on the ballot(?) will do damage to Mitt

oh whoops

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/431272_362750797133667_1097500403_n.jpg

(might be a 'shop)

dirty open secret: the "fox effect" is real among the manager & investor class. those decision makers would breathe a sigh of relief and get money "off the sidelines" if romney is elected, even if policy change is 0

i'm inclined to agree. all this bullshit about 'uncertainty' seems to be a stretch. yeah bro, 'uncertainty' is kind of the essence of our economy, pls stfu.

― it's smdh time in America (will), Friday, September 7, 2012 1:44 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The worst is when big wigs at my work explain weak sales and layoffs with "it's an election year".

Meaning: we are so well-entrenched in power that we can fuck around during election years and still get our bonuses and stock options.

I like this one:

http://grist.org/politics/as-romney-and-ryan-lie-with-abandon-how-should-journalists-navigate-post-truth-politics/

...Journalists fear making those kinds of choices for good reason. It’s absolutely verboten for a Very Serious Person in D.C. to behave this way. They rightly sense that it will limit their careers and their access to the halls of power. As a person of, ahem, modest ambition, I don’t mind all that much. But for ambitious journos in D.C., there are real perils to calling a spade a spade.

i think we'll see some kind of bump after the election, no matter who wins. my conspiratorial thinking is that fed governors are sitting on their hands hoping for "better" but will say fuck it an open up after november.

there's the josh barro joe weisenthal theory that our best hope for the economy is Romney because he's the only person who could wrangle another stimulus out of a republican congress

republican congress may have more luck wrangling some signatures out of him

I don't know why, but I've watched this twice already.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E65-wxgCfrY

it's an interesting thought-experiment but i really don't know. i kind of doubt on two levels, that romney COULD get something like a stimulus out of the GOP house, and would he even ask for one? doesn't the ryan pick suggest going all-in on austerity? (sorry for the "all-in" i guess)

http://i48.tinypic.com/10prjlx.jpg