Magox

The fact is this all there is, Obama or Romney. The question from my perspective is; Who can help improve the economy more, Obama or Romney? From your perspective, who do you think can get the job done more effectively? My first choice btw was Mitch Daniels, and yeah I like competence, what can I say? That's just me.

Obama is up now, perceptions of economy is improving, bloody battle in the GOP and all the negative campaigning is having it's toll on their unfavorability ratings, fractured GOP base haven't even come close to coalescing around any candidate yet, media is beginning to kick right into leftist campaign mode and a series of unforced errors on Romney's behalf is playing perfectly right into the caricature they are painting him as. If election were held today, Romney would most likely lose. Having said that, we are a long ways out from the election, many unknown variables will play a factor, the economy could improve or it may do what it has the last two years which is start off the year with decent employment numbers only to see it drop back off again. We will without a doubt see the COnservative base coalesce much more so than now, but to what extent? depends on how fired up the base is to see Obama defeated and who Romney's VP selection will be. As of right now, they aren't fired up AT ALL during this Primary process, which means that Romney is gonna need a knockout selection as his VP choice. Rubio would do it, but he has stated more than a few times that he wouldn't accept, if not him, Paul Ryan is about the only other guy I can think of that could fire up the base, without alienating independents.

Ok, so after reading the BLS a little more, it was a technical decrease of 1.2M people from the workforce because of the Census reports of increased population. So it would be an intellectually dishonest argument to make to attempt to hammer away the claim of 1.2 Million people dropping out of the workforce in a single month. Having said that, the cumulative total of 1.2 Million people of either not entering or dropping out of the work force on top of the recognized amount since the Census would be accurate. So from a singular isolated POV, the report was a good one, from the perspective of the amount of total discouraged people that have dropped out of the workforce over the past 4 years should be a story that gets covered. Considering its an election year, I doubt it.

Guess what category you and Pasta Joe fall in? Yep, the 35% crowd otherwise known as the "Obama kool-aid drinking lemmings" Yipeee for 8.3% unemployment

There are so many variables that could alter the outcome of the elections, who Romney's VP selection is, campaign strength, verbal gaffes, who's election demonization machine works more effectively and last but not least the economy. If the perception of the economy strengthens from where it it, it lessens Romney's chances at winning, if the economy sputters back to what we saw last year, it increases his odds of winning, if the economy falls back to near recession like it has two since the recession then Romney is all but guaranteed a victory. I would say that is the most important variable, the economy.

AND that in every single recession since the Great Depression, this has been the most anemic "recovery" we'd seen.

That's right, I suppose that's why even a leftwing (*^*&%^$^#like E.J Dionne even characterized Obamas decision of rustbelt Democratic Catholics "throwing them under the bus" But you're such a partisan moron you can't see the decision because you lack objectivity. Also, the rest of the country doesn't agree with what Obama has been doing as "progress"

Coming from an ignorant little twat like you, it's all good

Hold on a second, you provide a link quoting "Romney is going to lose to Obama in a landslide" and then I go on to read the RPA polls in the link YOU provided that shows Obama up a whole 1.8% which is within the statistical margin of error. That's a "landslide" ? JA you're a riot dude. Here let me help you out, you see, elections are decided in the battleground states, battleground states are these states where they are seen as tossups, usually the one who wins the "battleground" states wins the election. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-27/swing-states-poll/52871890/1 Yep "landslide"

It's not lying dipshit, thats just how the system works, when people lose hope and give up looking for work, they don't get counted into the unemployment rate. It's in the labor statistic reports. But you go ahead and celebrate while 1.2M people this past month lost hope and gave up looking for work. Yippeeee 8.3% unemployment, the number (even though it's still a ****ty number), that's what counts!

It was... 1.2M people dropped out of the work force... But yippeee 8.3% unemployment

Excellent!

Santelli has always been a truth teller. One of the very few....

Dude, you're ruining my buzz...

At first glance, I was a bit surprised that the NY Times would cover such a story, but as I delved further into it, I quickly realized it was a "journalistic" piece meant to express outrage over how much Mitt pays in taxes. Yep, journalism is dead.

Everywhere...

First off I don't believe Ron Paul would accept. Maybe a few followers would get on the Romney train, but I know plenty of Paul Supporters and I can tell that the ones I know that support him, they are so far to the left that they have gone full circle and somehow in a quasi dimensional world have reached Pauls inner right side. These guys won't support Romney, they like Paul because he's genuine and because he speaks about individual liberty (even though they really don't know what Paul means by that, but it sounds cool), and that he has isolationist foreign policy view that they dig. Having said that, Paul has got all sorts of supporters,but these that are my friends, won't support ROmney.

Is Dead

It's truly amazing how this point hasn't been driven home or even mildly reported with any sort of emphasis from ANY of the news outlets. It's amazing. Shouldn't a true journalist want to find the truth? Shouldn't they want to share that with their viewers? Think about it, you have an unemployment rate that is dropping on paper, but in reality, there are so many people that feel hopeless about their ability to find jobs, that they all together give up on that possibility and therefore are not considered in that phony unemployment rate. Never would have I of believed that there would be that many hopeless people out there. 1.2 Million gave up looking for a job in ONE month. This is the first time I have heard that reported. That is what should of gotten the headlines, but unfortunately, journalists ignored this fact. The reality is that the people of this country feel more hopeless than they have felt since the great depression. But hip hip hooooray the unemployment rate is 8.3%

Ummm, no. You are confused, what you are referring to is when they score legislation and the effects it will have. When they score pieces of legislation, that is based on data that they receive from members of congress. When the CBO forecasts the national annual deficit and its further out years, that is based on current policy. When the CBO forecast GDP growth and unemployment figures, that is based on macro economic data. Let me tell you whats happened here, you saw a right wing link, you jumped the gun, and you automatically dismissed it without reading the meat of the CBOreport. Now, you are attempting to justify your error and rather than just admitting that you made a mistake you are digging a deeper hole and looking more and more foolish with every response you post. The fact that you said is astonishingly ignorant. Really??? What are you questioning? Their motives? How they derived their conclusion? What? You want to compare your macroeconomic data along side theirs and compare data? Maybe you and your team will come up with a more appropriate and logical set of data points and conclusions over the vast CBO macroeconomic team.

Even socialists own guns.

Ok, provide the proper context for us, here are the facts of their conclusions, the U.S debt will be higher than they expected topping over a Trillion dollars, meaning every year in office it's topped that number, they expect GDP growth to be slower than expected, they originally forecast 2.7% now they are forecasting 2.2% and originally they expected the Unemployment rate to be around 8.2% and now the forecast 8.8%. Here is the rightwing news outlet politicos take on it today, pertaining to this subject Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html#ixzz1lEbJ5yZK Now please, provide for us the correct context of the report

This is what I was talking about, and looks as if he's not gonna change his view, remember all those Reagan Democrats/Independents in the rust belt? Those guys were never enamored with he president as it is, yet they reluctantly broke with the president in 08 ("gun toting" comment see PA.), considering the poor economy, US soaring debt, an issue like this could be the final straw, and as I noted earlier, it very well may be enough to make a difference on the margins in which these battleground states could very well be determined by just a few percentage points. And from what I've been reading, when you include the SUPER PACS, Conservatives very well may end up with more money than the liberals (Obama is underperforming in campaign raising relative to expectations)this year and when you have a guy as politically smart as Karl Rove is who is set to raise $240 Million , you better believe he is gonna hammer this issue over and over and over in this critical ("guntoting") rustbelt region. Also, could you just imagine if Rubio accepted the VP selection, who better to discuss with the Latino overwhelmingly catholic population regarding this issue? Turn out the lights.... Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72345_Page2.html#ixzz1lEQvABsV