2012 Election Thread

[runawayjimbo]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/23/gop-senate-candidate-pregnancies-from-rape-gods-will/?hpt=hp_t2

:shakehead: :shakehead: :shakehead:

Yeah, let's not any of us forget this little gem from our opposition VP candidate, offered a few short months ago... (Money line @ 1:05-1:15)

What a dick: unless you live there, you have ZERO business calling it Ma-ZUR-ah.

I have to say, as much as I disagree with them severely, I have to acknowledge that people who oppose abortion in cases of rape or incest are at least being consistent in their beliefs.

Well said. It's kinda like saying let's end the Drug War but only for marijuana.

[phil]

let's end the Drug War but only for marijuana.

Throw LSD in there too and I'd be TOTALLY down with this statement.

[sls.stormyrider]

this one is really making me sick - actually Jeep is adding jobs in Ohio
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/4-pinocchios-for-mitt-romneys-misleading-ad-on-chrysler-and-china/2012/10/29/2a153a04-21d7-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html


http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/romney-ad-wrongly-implies-chrysler-is-sending-u-s-jobs-to-china-20121028

Romney Ad Wrongly Implies Chrysler is Sending U.S. Jobs to China
The Jeep ad comes after the GOP nominee misinterprets a story about possible new Jeep production in China for Chinese customers.


By Jill Lawrence
Updated: October 29, 2012 | 10:38 a.m.
October 28, 2012 | 11:08 p.m.
(AP Photo/Madalyn Ruggiero)

Republican nominee Mitt Romney is running a new TV ad that implies Chrysler is planning to move U.S. auto jobs to China, though that is not the case.

Romney provoked an outcry after he told a crowd in Defiance, Ohio

on Thursday:  "I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China. I will fight for every good job in America."

The story, by Bloomberg News, starts out in a confusing manner by saying that Fiat, the majority owner of Chrysler, "plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country."

The piece goes on to say, however, that Chrysler currently builds all Jeep SUV models in Michigan
Michigan
and Ohio, and any production sites in China would be new ones making cars for Chinese buyers.

Romney's statement in Defiance prompted a blog post by Gualberto Ranieri, Chrysler's senior vice president for corporate communications. "Let's set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It's simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world's largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation," he wrote.

Despite the controversy, Romney launched a TV ad Sunday that could lead viewers to conclude Chrysler was indeed going to shift Jeep production to China. "Obama took GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy and sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China. Mitt Romney will fight for every American job," the ad says. Text on the screen quotes Bloomberg's phrase about returning Jeep output to China.
With this ad, Romney is going right at Obama's major strength in Ohio: his 2009 bailout of the auto industry that is responsible for some 800,000 jobs in the state.

The ad is correct in saying that Obama took Chrysler and GM into bankruptcy (narration that's illustrated with footage of cars being crushed). What the ad doesn't say is that Obama helped the car companies through the process by providing government loans, which Romney opposed.

Romney, in his famous "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed in The New York Times in 2008, said the companies should be required to rely on private capital until after the bankruptcy. But most analysts agree there was none available in the depths of the recession, and without the bailout the twocompanies would have likely died –possibly taking down with them the supply chain and Ford.

[gah]

The next line from that quote you bolded was:

A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.

So yeah...just blatant lies.

[sophist]

let's end the Drug War but only for marijuana.

Throw LSD in there too and I'd be TOTALLY down with this statement.

hold the fuck up.  You're telling me LSD isn't mandatory in this country?  Fuck, this really changes things for me. 

[runawayjimbo]

Nonfarm payrolls rise 171k a huge beat of expectations of 125k as well as  upward revisions to August and September of +50k and +34k respectively. That's still pretty slow, but clearly improving.

However, the unemployment rate crept up slightly to 7.9% (from 7.8%) which is the number more people will focus on since that's an easier (if less precise) metric to wrap their heads around.

Overall, probably a good report for Obama right before the election. Will it be enough to move any undecideds (how can there be any of them?) or voters on the fence about one or the other? That I'm not sure of.

Strap in, kids...

[VDB]

So, if we added jobs but the unemployment rate went up, that either means the 1% swing is within the margin of error (is the unemployment rate based on sampling or is it a real measurement?) or the overall labor force grew faster than jobs grew. If the latter, is that because of actual population numbers or because  more people declared that they are once again back looking for work and thus could be counted?

[runawayjimbo]

So, if we added jobs but the unemployment rate went up, that either means the 1% swing is within the margin of error (is the unemployment rate based on sampling or is it a real measurement?) or the overall labor force grew faster than jobs grew. If the latter, is that because of actual population numbers or because  more people declared that they are once again back looking for work and thus could be counted?

The jobs number and unemployment rate are generated from two different surveys: jobs number is from survey of employer (nonfarm) payrolls while unemployment is from a survey that calls 50-60k households each month and asks about employment situation. In theory, those two things should show the same result; in reality, there are oftentimes differences (like this month or last month when jobs number was stagnant but rate dropped by most in 30ish yrs). Both surveys are statistical measures and as such subject to margins of error and revisions (jobs number is +/-100k, i.e., completely meaningless).

You pretty much nailed why it increased: the labor force participation rate (the denominator in the equation) increased due to more people being "counted" as unemployed, but the number of jobs (in the household survey) increased by a slower rate. It's all pretty esoteric and the past couple months and the politicization of everything really highlights the need for a more transparent metric.

[VDB]

You pretty much nailed why it increased: the labor force participation rate (the denominator in the equation) increased due to more people being "counted" as unemployed, but the number of jobs (in the household survey) increased by a slower rate. It's all pretty esoteric and the past couple months and the politicization of everything really highlights the need for a more transparent metric.

And yet, you can bet each side is going to sieze on the piece of the news they think is favorable to them and run with it. Remember when the rate dropped to 7.8% and the GOP scoffed that it's just because so many people got tired of looking and just gave up... now, the opposite has happened, but that, too, can easily be presented to back up the same anti-Obama premise. I agree with you -- the way stats and figures can be bent, distorted, contested and generally scrutinized but with no clear, agreeable conclusions made is a pretty aggravating thing.

Speaking of which, here's a great article on Deadspin about how some on the right have been trying to discredit Nate Silver because they don't like what his models predict, with a nice little sports lead-in for you sports fans:

Nate Silver's Braying Idiot Detractors Show That Being Ignorant About Politics Is Like Being Ignorant About Sports

[sls.stormyrider]

Will it be enough to move any undecideds (how can there be any of them?) or voters on the fence about one or the other? That I'm not sure of.

Strap in, kids...

yea - by now if you're undecided what is it that will help you decide? I doubt anyone who hasn't figured this out said - if there are more than 200k new jobs I'll vote for BO, if less I'll vote for Mitt.

Both sides are lawyering up. I'm afraid this is going to be drawn out.
I thought the drama was interesting in 2000 - will not feel that way now.

[Hicks]

Will it be enough to move any undecideds (how can there be any of them?) or voters on the fence about one or the other? That I'm not sure of.

Strap in, kids...

yea - by now if you're undecided what is it that will help you decide? I doubt anyone who hasn't figured this out said - if there are more than 200k new jobs I'll vote for BO, if less I'll vote for Mitt.

Both sides are lawyering up. I'm afraid this is going to be drawn out.
I thought the drama was interesting in 2000 - will not feel that way now.

2000 was extremely disheartening for me and if it happens again it will be even more depressing. 

[sls.stormyrider]

the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

[runawayjimbo]

the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

How about a 269-269 tie? That might be fun.

[rowjimmy]

the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

How about a 269-269 tie? That might be fun.

Then it would be resolved with a 1-on-1 hoops game.
Make it, take it
First to 11 wins all.

[VDB]

the result yes.
what I thought was interesting was being around when "history" was being made and how both sides were dealing with it

I don't need to re-live it

How about a 269-269 tie? That might be fun.

Then it would be resolved with a 1-on-1 hoops game.
Make it, take it
First to 11 wins all.

Obviously that would be unfair to Mitt.

Now, 1 on 1 dressage...