Jump to content

Live Feed DNC

B-Man

By B-Man
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

C.Biscuit97 Hall of Famer

C.Biscuit97

Posted
Posted (edited)

Yep, it dropped because more people left the workforce. Even Yahoo!, which leans left, admitted that.

 

I want all Americans to have a great life, but honestly, I got a good job and that's my main concern (which I got because I got a Masters after getting a football scholarship to go to college). So I honestly don't know, but where are these new jobs suppose to come from? And I don't follow Romney that closely but what is exactly his plan to create this new jobs.

Edited by C.Biscuit97
  • Replies 416
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

3rdnlng Hall of Famer

3rdnlng

Posted
Posted

Let me be clear: the 2 party system is completely outdated. But to use a football analogy, a coach inherits a 1-15 team. Do you honestly expect the coach to win the Super Bowl the next year? I don't care who got elected President in 2008. It is completely laughable what some people expect a President to do. And because it's the Bloods vs. Crips, parties would rather fight agaisnt each other than pass bills to help the country. I respect Romney as a business man even if pops handed off to him. I simply don't think those 2 have the best interests of the country as a whole in their midset.

 

And DC Tom, you claim to be a smart guy. How would you have fixed this country in the last 4 years?

 

You've been studying last years playbook. The dems have given up on this tact. Mitt Romney donated his entire inheritance to his church. This silver spoon bs is getting old.

IDBillzFan Hall of Famer

IDBillzFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Obama will probably get a bigger bounce than Romney. The media gobbled the speeches from the first lady, Clinton, Biden, and Obama.

 

I wouldn't count on that because the media is also gobbling up these simple truths: almost 400,000 left the work force last month. Manufacturing LOST 15,000 when it was supposed to add 15,000. Total jobs added were 96,000, which is especially bad when you consider June and July were revised downward by 41,000.

 

Despite all evidence to the contrary, American's aren't stupid. They don't see 8.1% and think we've turned a corner. They feel 23 million out of work for 43 straight months and will respond accordingly.

Edited by LABillzFan
PTS RFA

PTS

Posted
Posted

I posted on Facebook a second after Obama spoke that I felt like he "mailed it in". To me it seemed like he was going through the motions. Like he knows the ride is coming to an end. I got blasted by some of my liberal friends but within 30 minutes pundits on both sides were saying the same thing: Obama mailed it in.

 

If I give our President credit for anything it's that he can deliver a phenomenal speech. What I heard last night was empty, void of substance and well below his level of delivery.

 

This election will be a landslide for Romney. I don't care what the polls say.

Nanker Hall of Famer

Nanker

Posted
Posted

I didn't listen to any coverage and haven't had time to. I heard the speech on the radio. Seemed good--certainly (in terms of delivery) a lot better than Romney but that's to be expected. Also (again expected), more pulled heartstrings.

 

The RNC floor energy was terrible. Except for the top dogs. most of the convention hall shots (I watched all speeches through the RNC webpage) showed people milling about and not listening to speakers at all. The DNC must have seen that and put out a mandate to pay attention. It's certainly hard to take seriously rising rhetoric when attendees are hamming it up. Not that it matters for ratings or anything, but the energy couldn't help but be better for the DNC.

 

Obama will probably get a bigger bounce than Romney. The media gobbled the speeches from the first lady, Clinton, Biden, and Obama.

Well you see, Republicans were trying to appeal to the Independents. The Dems on the other hand were after a mosh pit experience for their shrunken party. They had idiots like Jennifer Granholm - who was a splendid Michigan governor doing schtick like this:

 

 

And Clint got crap for B word slapping BO.

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Let me be clear: the 2 party system is completely outdated. But to use a football analogy, a coach inherits a 1-15 team. Do you honestly expect the coach to win the Super Bowl the next year? I don't care who got elected President in 2008. It is completely laughable what some people expect a President to do. And because it's the Bloods vs. Crips, parties would rather fight agaisnt each other than pass bills to help the country. I respect Romney as a business man even if pops handed off to him. I simply don't think those 2 have the best interests of the country as a whole in their midset.

 

And DC Tom, you claim to be a smart guy. How would you have fixed this country in the last 4 years?

 

I couldn't have. No one could have. The issues with this country and our economy are structural and deep, and have been developing for at least 1-2 generations.

 

Which realization makes me more suitable for the office of the President than Obama, who thinks he can solve everything in four - excuse me, now eight - years just by being everybody's BFF.

John Adams All Pro

John Adams

Posted
Posted (edited)

This election will be a landslide for Romney. I don't care what the polls say.

 

Well, you're the only one saying that. If Romney wins, it will be a really tight electoral count race. That's his only hope. He'll need Florida and North Carolina for sure, and then something in the Ohio/Michigan/Wisconsin vein...and a few more smaller ones. He is definitely fighting uphill. The good news for him is that with more in the war chest, he can divide his attack better. That bad news is that Obama has a better looking electoral map with many avenues for success. Decent if not in-depth enough article in the WSJ about the electroral map this morning.

 

 

 

Mr. Obama began his campaign a year ago having plotted multiple routes to the 270 electoral votes needed to win a second term. Virtually every one is still viable, polling suggests.

 

"In that sense it's easier for him," said John Weaver, a Republican strategist who worked on the 2008 campaign of U.S. Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.). By contrast, Republicans, he said, "really have to pull an inside straight."

 

Play an Electoral College game of "what if." Mr. Obama won Florida in 2008, and if he wins it again, that could almost assure him a second term. Without Florida's 29 electoral votes, Republican nominee Mitt Romney would need to run the table, flipping state after state that the president captured fours ago. Polls now show Mr. Obama with a slight lead in Florida.

 

"We have to win Florida. I don't think there's any doubt," said Brian Ballard, a longtime Florida political consultant who is a co-chair of Mr. Romney's finance committee in the state.

 

But even if Mr. Obama loses the Sunshine State, he could still prevail in November...

 

Edited by John Adams
WorldTraveller RFA

WorldTraveller

Posted
Posted

From the WH:

 

"While there is more work that remains to be done, today’s employment report provides further evidence that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression," he said in a statement.

 

If you consider stagnant wages in an enviroment of rising household input costs, and more people feeling hopeless about job prospects in over three decades as proof that this is a "recovery" that "provides further evidence that the U.S is continuing to recover"

 

then yeah, I agree with the W.H

WorldTraveller RFA

WorldTraveller

Posted
Posted

Writing that statement has got to be the easiest job on the planet. All you have to do is dust of last month's.

You mean like this?

 

 

 

 

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics announced the nation's latest national employment figures Friday, the Obama administration stressed that people should not "read too much" into the data.

Mitt Romney's campaign pounced, and flagged the fact that the White House has repeated that same line nearly every month since November 2009.

See below for the roundup of articles from WhiteHouse.gov that Romney's campaign posted on its site. In many of the posts, the authors for the administration do acknowledge that they repeat themselves:

June 2012:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is informative to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK:
)

May 2012:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK:
)

April 2012:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK:
)

March 2012:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, and it is helpful to consider each report in the context of other data that are becoming available." (LINK:
)

February 2012:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK:
)

January 2012:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report; nevertheless, the trend in job market indicators over recent months is an encouraging sign." (LINK:
)

December 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

November 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

October 2011:
"The monthly employment and unemployment numbers are volatile and employment estimates are subject to substantial revision. There is no better example than August's jobs figure, which was initially reported at zero and in the latest revision increased to 104,000. This illustrates why the Administration always stresses it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

September 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

August 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

July 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

June 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

May 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

April 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

March 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

 

February 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

January 2011:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

December 2010:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

November 2010:
"Therefore, as the Administration always stresses, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

October 2010:
"Given the volatility in monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

September 2010:
"Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report." (LINK:
)

July 2010:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative. It is essential that we continue our efforts to move in the right direction and replace job losses with robust job gains." (LINK:
)

August 2010:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK:
)

June 2010:
"As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK:
)

May 2010:
"As always, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK:
)

April 2010:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK:
)

March 2010:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK:
)

January 2010:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK:
)

November 2009:
"Therefore, it is important not to read too much into any one monthly report, positive or negative." (LINK:
)

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted (edited)

Let me be clear: the 2 party system is completely outdated. But to use a football analogy, a coach inherits a 1-15 team. Do you honestly expect the coach to win the Super Bowl the next year? I don't care who got elected President in 2008. It is completely laughable what some people expect a President to do. And because it's the Bloods vs. Crips, parties would rather fight agaisnt each other than pass bills to help the country. I respect Romney as a business man even if pops handed off to him. I simply don't think those 2 have the best interests of the country as a whole in their midset.

 

And DC Tom, you claim to be a smart guy. How would you have fixed this country in the last 4 years?

 

Gotta love the strawman extremes that partisans throw out. Most rational observers of politics & sports don't expect a cellar to top turnaround in one year. And while it's far easier on paper to turn around a sunk sports franchise than a $15 trillion economy, even fickle sports owners give the new coach a 2-3 year leash to turn things around. You then watch the trends and judge whether the improvement is due to the coach or due to the dead cat bounce theory of the improbability of a team going 1-13 for three straight years.

 

Same with Obama. No sane person expected a full rebound by now. But sane people expected growth to be more in line with prior recoveries or at least getting us on the path to get there. Yet here we are, year 3 of the Richie Kotite/Kay Stephenson/Hank Bullough era type recovery, and we keep on hearing that 4 more years is just the tonic that's needed.

 

PS - for an example of a trendline, see the post above.

Edited by GG
dayman Veteran

dayman

Posted
Posted

I couldn't have. No one could have. The issues with this country and our economy are structural and deep, and have been developing for at least 1-2 generations.

 

Which realization makes me more suitable for the office of the President than Obama, who thinks he can solve everything in four - excuse me, now eight - years just by being everybody's BFF.

 

Oh, Tom (non Obama supporter acknowledging) that it can't be magically fixed? Wow. Hehe. In any event as I've said over and over until we write down some mortgage debt it's not coming back plain and simple.

IDBillzFan Hall of Famer

IDBillzFan

Posted
Posted
You mean like this?

 

Can you imagine there is someone working at the WH, getting a six figure salary and bitchin' pension for life, and their job every few months is to change "Therefore" to "As always" with an occasional "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data" throw in for a change of pace?

VABills All Pro

VABills

Posted
Posted

Can you imagine there is someone working at the WH, getting a six figure salary and bitchin' pension for life, and their job every few months is to change "Therefore" to "As always" with an occasional "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data" throw in for a change of pace?

 

You're not in DC obviously. It's probably a whole office of people who are making 6 figure incomes and a bitchin pension for life doing that.

DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

Can you imagine there is someone working at the WH, getting a six figure salary and bitchin' pension for life, and their job every few months is to change "Therefore" to "As always" with an occasional "Given the volatility in the monthly employment and unemployment data" throw in for a change of pace?

 

You're not in DC obviously. It's probably a whole office of people who are making 6 figure incomes and a bitchin pension for life doing that.

 

It's probably just a mid-five figure salary (maybe $65k)...but it takes three of 'em.

 

You mean like this?

 

 

 

 

 

Awesome. :lol:

 

While it's technically true, the impact of that statement is vastly different when applied to reports that are consistently underwhelming.

erynthered All Pro

erynthered

Posted
Posted (edited)

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/record-88921000-americans-not-labor-force-119000-fewer-employed-august-july

 

 

 

Record 88,921,000 Americans ‘Not in Labor Force’—119,000 Fewer Employed in August Than July.

 

 

YES WE CAN!!!!!

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2199815/Obamas-DNC-2012-speech-Bleak-unemployment-numbers-morning-Obama-tells-DNC-problems-solved.html

Edited by erynthered
erynthered All Pro

erynthered

Posted
Posted

Clint Eastwoods responds.

 

 

 

 

http://www.pineconearchive.com/120907-1.html

 

 

“President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people,” Eastwood told The Pine Cone this week. “Romney and Ryan would do a much better job running the country, and that’s what everybody needs to know. I may have irritated a lot of the lefties, but I was aiming for people in the middle.”

 

 

“I had three points I wanted to make,” Eastwood said. “That not everybody in Hollywood is on the left, that Obama has broken a lot of the promises he made when he took office, and that the people should feel free to get rid of any politician who’s not doing a good job. But I didn’t make up my mind exactly what I was going to say until I said it.”

WorldTraveller RFA

WorldTraveller

Posted
Posted

Some of the Reviews:

 

“Let’s be blunt. Barack Obama gave a dull and pedestrian speech tonight, with nary an interesting thematic device, policy detail, or even one turn of phrase,” wrote Michael Tomasky, the editor of the progressive journal Democracy, at The Daily Beast.

 

 

 

 

“This was the rhetorical equivalent, forgive the football metaphor, of running out the clock: Obama clearly thinks he’s ahead and just doesn’t need to make mistakes. But when football teams do that, it often turns out to be the biggest mistake of all, and they lose,” concluded Tomasky.

 

 

“t got the job done. But I didn’t feel any real passion in the delivery. It felt more like an actor soldiering through his lines,” wrote Kevin Drum at Mother Jones. “There was nothing memorable, nothing forward looking, and nothing that drew a contrast with Romney in sharp, gut-level strokes. Obama was, to be charitable, no more than the third best of the Democratic convention’s prime time speakers in 2012.”

 

 

 

“In the shadow of Clinton’s performance, the president often felt flat, rote, and unconvincing — almost as though he wasn’t quite convinced by his own arguments and promises, and felt a little awkward selling them to us,” wrote the New York Times’ Ross Douthat.

 

 

“I’d still give Bill Clinton props for the best speech of both conventions,” agreed ThinkProgress’ Joe Romm.

 

 

“His speech Thursday was weirdly anticlimactic. There’s too much buildup, the crowd was tired, it all felt flat. He was somber, and his message was essentially banal,” wrote Peggy Noonan in The Wall Street Journal. “It was stale and empty. He’s out of juice.”

 

”But I thought the speech as a whole was exceptionally weak. Not a sale closer – not by a long shot,” wrote Noah Millman at The American Conservative.

 

“[T]his was a modest speech. It was a more humble vision,” wrote Ezra Klein at The Washington Post. “And so it didn’t ask you to believe that Obama could accomplish miracles. It didn’t ask you to believe he could change Washington or stop the oceans from rising. The promises were more modest, the president explicit about how often he had been humbled, and the agenda was meant to make voters feel safer with the Democrat they know than the Republican they don’t.”

 

“It’s a more dignified speech, but he’s scarred. He’s more mature and he’s not promising as much,” said CNN’s David Gergen on Thursday evening. “There is very little here in the way of promises about jobs in terms of where we’re going on this, how much we’re going to get the deficit down quickly. I thought he lowered the bar in terms of what he was trying to achieve.”

 

 

The president should have gone after Mitt Romney for doubling down on the mess the GOP created, and the nightmare we’ve had to endure. Instead, it felt like a laundry list.

To be honest, I was underwhelmed. Peter Beinart, Daily Beast

 

 

 

Krauthammer: "One of the emptiest speeches I ever heard"

 

Dana Millbank from WAPO: Obama the Demigod comes down to earth

It was quite a comedown from that heady night in Denver four years ago when Obama accepted the nomination in front of about 80,000 at Invesco Field. The candidate, on a stage set resembling a Greek temple, spoke about remaking the nation and the world.The demigod turned out to be entirely human, and his results were disappointing.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...