the most important election of your lifetime: 2012 american general election thread

what is 100k fewer jobless in % at the moment?

I don't know. I think you need about 150K to keep up with the labour force, 80-100K holds the unemployment rate fairly steady, and lower than that means really bad news.

xpost
i dunno, probably 0.075% or so.

the entire premise of using the unemployment # as a measure of America's jobless are faring is faulty, though, because of what it leaves out (people working part-time that are actively looking for full-time, "discouraged workers" who have been out of a job for over a year and claim to no longer be looking, etc). factor those in, and the unemployment figure is closer to 15-16%, last time i checked. and, of course, even the "official" unemployment rate of 8.2% is unevenly distributed. college grads are 4%, for black people it's at 14.4%, 24% for teenagers.

but whatever, in the end it all just comes down to that one faulty, number, 8.2%, and whether or not it goes up or down.

also can actually go up during periods of job growth because discouraged ppl re-enter labor force

a similar problem exists with GDP.

i think it's absurd that economic analysis/policy/discourse revolves around figures that are so problematic.

The Republicans, of course, prefer to use the expanded 15-16% number (it has a technical name, forget what it is). Not that the Democrats wouldn't do the same if the situation were reversed.

well the problem is you need *something* to go off of, not to say the current method of presenting the unemployment % is acceptable but there's no way that you can come up w/ a number for GDP or unemployment that wouldn't be problematic on some level

ya but its not hard to imagine a less problematic number

The whole narrative of "What do the numbers say this month???" is really pushing people's tolerance with the issue imo.

i think it's absurd that economic analysis/policy/discourse revolves around figures that are so problematic.

^^^this

it's all just some bizarre shell game

it's almost as if statistics, charts and graphs were maybe not the best way of represen---naw, that's crazy talk, what'm I thinking

I agree with all of that, even though it might seem otherwise by linking to the piece above. That's what I was saying on another thread, or maybe this one earlier: that I just don't remember such maniacal attention to jobs reports in any previous election that I've followed. There was of course attention paid to general economic health--the unemployment rate, maybe the GDP number--but there wasn't this countdown to every monthly jobs report like there is now, even in a bad economy like in '92. It makes your head spin trying to make sense of it all.

gee i wonder why

what is it about the economy that has everyone so worried about jobs

If we take into our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Consign it then to the flames: For it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. And now, I'm going to go listen to my Archies records.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8501nduuv1qdmmiqo1_500.gif

i swear i thought that gif had a buzzing bees soundtrack to it

Disturbing...yet trippy.

a+

http://prospect.org/article/team-obama-flanks-romney-taxes

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m853uiJ5ZE1qdmmiqo1_500.gif

the ted cruz win in TX is pretty serious

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/01/quotes-of-the-day-1104/

“These guys [newly elected Tea Party candidates]” are going to force Romney to the right,” said Andrea Shell, a spokeswoman for Tea Party group Freedom Works. “That is our entire mission.”…

“If we can elect a really conservative House and Senate that will force Romney to go along with our bold conservative agenda,” Shell said. “He’s going to have to really, really go to the right. He’ll be working with guys in the House and Senate. He won’t be able to get away with too many middle of the road policies, especially on things like the deficit.”…

“It’s not going to be a Romney driven presidency,” Norman Orenstein, a researcher at the conservative think tank AEI recently told ABC News. “It’s going to be a Congressional, conservative, Republican driven presidency from Congress.”

as far as legislation congress always drives it

the president can do other stuff, like drone assassinations and whatnot

i mean whats romney gonna do veto gop approved bills be srs

Disturbing...just disturbing. (Second gif.)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romney-often-cites-culture-as-the-reason-for

i think the point being made is that IF romney wins, conditions in the states will be such that ALSO republicans will win their downticket races, AND those candidates are turning out to be more "class of '10" types.

as far as legislation congress always drives it

― lag∞n, Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:38 PM (49 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

well, yes and no. when a president has majorities in congress, the WH usually has the de facto leadership position, no? but in romney's case vis a vis demint/ryan et al, maybe not!

i mean, the man twists in the wind, and right now the wind is blowing hard from the right, if that makes sense.

xps...

pushing the lunatic fringe's agenda really did wonders in nevada and wherever that retarded 'im not a witch' lady came from last cycle

i dont thats really true that the president is the defacto leader of congress

congress m/l does as it pleases

those were in races that were contestable by democrats. the trick is to put ever-crazier people into safer GOP seats/states. a democrat is not beating ted cruz in TX.

xp2

pushing Romney farther to the right lowers his negligible chances or winning even further so yeah have fun guys

we're talking about after he wins, theoretically, not during the campaign.

he's not gonna win tho

yeah, I'm not really worried. House has always been the repository for extremist nutjobs

he is going to be in the senate

tbh i don't know anything about ted cruz, just that all the worst people in america threw in for him.

(somewhere i read that) he served chik-fil-a at his victory party too. cool guy.

haha oops misread that he was going for the Senate. do the Dems have any hope of beating him to the seat?

nope.

ah well. him and Rand Paul will be best buddies I assume.

Nate Silver.

everytime I see his name, I pray he's gone back to his important work on baseball.

Do we reckon that Mitt's going to hop off the plane and head for the nearest Chik-Fil-A? Or does he reckon those voters are already his? Not that I expect such considerations to cause Obama to go "Yay the Gays" until this has blown over.

he certainly would be reassuring some doubters in the base if he got his gayhate on but it's not a good move when you're playing for swing voters. tho neither was 'go to england, insult the olympics' so who knows.

Have there been any past instances of an entire political party just deciding to shamelessly shill for a private corporation? Maybe they should declare FedEx Appreciation Day and every right winger will have to spend $20 to send their mail.

Of course politicians are bought and paid for by private corporations all the time. I mean for consumer-level products, the "Here's a picture of me buying this product and loving it! If you are a real American you will do the same!"

if people had to spend $20 to send mail the USPS wouldn't be in such bad shape