Why Romney Lost

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to WhichOnesPink2's comment:

    In response to kelldog1's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to nhsteven's comment:

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

    In response to kelldog1's comment:

     


     SEEMS THAT THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER DID A BETTER JOB TURNING OUT THE CRITICAL VOTE THAN THE CORPORATE WEASEL....GO FIGURE.....


    Yeah but look at the sorry state of the 'community'.... unemployed, broke, no respect from allys, divided community...

     

    He left the Chicago ghettos about the same.... He IS consistent !!

    Maybe impeachment ...? Hmmmmmm




    Kind of sour grapey; don't ya think? Especially when you repeatedly say Get A Clue, Ask Santa, or Don't let Facts Get In the Way.

     

    Here's one to add to your repertoire: Grow Up; Romney LOST because his message (or should I say the Republicans, including the stench from W, combined with the concentration of wealth trend and the underestimating of the populace intelligence) wasn't received well. Comments about rape (by others), commoners, FEMA, & the Auto industry didn't help. He needed to shoot for the center (where he belongs) after appeasing the crackpot fringes during the primaries; but felt the pressure not to do so, as reflected by his choice of running mate. This is not dissimilar to what happened to McCain, and they still don't get it. Conservatism is a good idea, but the abusive & hypocritical Republican interpretation of it these days ... has become a problem for them, and if they don't improvise their platform, they're not going to win any Presidential elections any time soon.



    Actually, he overestimated the intelligence of the voter.  If the voters were actually able to comprehend his economic message, they would see that it was better than Obama's lack of vision.  But, it is too hard for liberals to actually think these things through.  Much easier to vote based on free contraception.  Talk about underestimating the intelligence of the average voter.

    Tyranny is where we inevitably end up once liberalism runs out of money.  




    HEY SPANKY! YOU GOT OUT DUELED BY THE COMMUNITY ORGANIZER. FACE IT DEMS ARE SMARTER THAN YOU DOG WHISTLE IDIOTS! IF THE ECONOMY EXPANDS AND RAISE TAXES ON THE ULTRA-WEALTHY WE WILL CURB THE DEFECIT. THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS STANDING IN THE WAY!



    Perception is a funny thing ain't it!



    Agreed.  Idon't know why we even try to present an argument.  The left proves repeatedly they are incapable of undertanding it, let alone accept it.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Romney lost because he ran against Santa Claus.

    Will be interesting in two years when things have gotten worst who he will blame, his predecessor for the last 4 years responsible for the mess. Look in the mirror.

    Wait until this spring when impeachment proceeding begin for Benghazi and all the lunatics here proclaim that he couldn't be removed in Nov. 2012 so they're trying to remove him now.

    He should have been fired for his first term, but the people have spoken.



    I agree he was running against Santa Claus, but that doesn't excuse his typical position on every issue:  The fetal position. 

    Romney failed because he was convinced all he needed to do was be in the race, and Obama would lose.  I said it at the beginning, and it came true:  you can't beat something with nothing.

    Matters not what his positions actually might have been.




    Couldn't disagree more.

    Romney was a good candidate he was running against Santa Claus.

    Look at two of the states Obama carried Ohio and Michigan where he gave taxpayer stimulus money to auto workers union pension funds.

    What he does is take money from his opponents and give it to his followers.

    Taxes his opposition to give free health insurance, wellfare, food stamps and cell phones to his base.

    He implies amnesty for illegal aliens, free contraceptives for women, stimulus money for the unions the list goes on and on.

    Truth of the matter is people would rather not work to get ahead if the governement will give it to them.

    This is the new world the world we live in where everybody wants theirs, something for nothing.

    And the media. Corrupt media.

    Did they tell the story of the 14 year old dying of Leukemia Romney befriended before he went to politics?

    Visiting the boy every day in the hospital helping him write his will? No.

    Or did they tell of the President's culpability of the death of 4 Americans in benghazi?

    To go to a fundraiser in Vegas.

    Or fast and furious? No.

    Wait until the facts come out this spring when the entire country is torn apart once again when this president is being impeached and these people here on the left are blaming the Republicans instead of the media.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Romney lost because he ran against Santa Claus.

    Will be interesting in two years when things have gotten worst who he will blame, his predecessor for the last 4 years responsible for the mess. Look in the mirror.

    Wait until this spring when impeachment proceeding begin for Benghazi and all the lunatics here proclaim that he couldn't be removed in Nov. 2012 so they're trying to remove him now.

    He should have been fired for his first term, but the people have spoken.



    I agree he was running against Santa Claus, but that doesn't excuse his typical position on every issue:  The fetal position. 

    Romney failed because he was convinced all he needed to do was be in the race, and Obama would lose.  I said it at the beginning, and it came true:  you can't beat something with nothing.

    Matters not what his positions actually might have been.




    Couldn't disagree more.

    Romney was a good candidate he was running against Santa Claus.

    Look at two of the states Obama carried Ohio and Michigan where he gave taxpayer stimulus money to auto workers union pension funds.

    What he does is take money from his opponents and give it to his followers.

    Taxes his opposition to give free health insurance, wellfare, food stamps and cell phones to his base.

    He implies amnesty for illegal aliens, free contraceptives for women, stimulus money for the unions the list goes on and on.

    Truth of the matter is people would rather not work to get ahead if the governement will give it to them.

    This is the new world the world we live in where everybody wants theirs, something for nothing.

    And the media. Corrupt media.

    Did they tell the story of the 14 year old dying of Leukemia Romney befriended before he went to politics?

    Visiting the boy every day in the hospital helping him write his will? No.

    Or did they tell of the President's culpability of the death of 4 Americans in benghazi?

    To go to a fundraiser in Vegas.

    Or fast and furious? No.

    Wait until the facts come out this spring when the entire country is torn apart once again when this president is being impeached and these people here on the left are blaming the Republicans instead of the media.

     



    It's a nice rant, but the #1 state taker in the union is Alaska, which is as red as it gets, and receives $15K of federal money per capita!  Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama & North Dakota aren't far behind.  The irony is that so much of the "47%" was behind Romney before he was even nominated.

    There's not going to be an impeachment - it would look ridiculous and hyper-partisan, and there's no chance of getting a dem-controlled Senate to vote 2/3 to remove a sitting Dem President.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     



    No, using the U-6 DOESN'T distort the unemployment picture it is MORE accurate.  Look, I'm talking economics, not some sort of liberal fairness issue, i.e. you used the U-3 for Reagan, and so you need to use it here.  

    The problem is that the U-3 is ONLY ACCURATE over short recessions, as it does not take into account sidelined demand, i.e. large changes in the workforce participation rate.

    When you have normal recessions, the unemployed are out 30, 60 days, then get a job.  In a long recession, the unemployed are unemployed for YEARS.  They fall off the end of the unemployment cycle and are still unemployed, likely permanent.

    So, the point is that the U-3 doesn't tell the whole story.  The U-6 doesn't either, but it is closer.  so, bottom line, you use the right tool to represent the economic environment.  Under Reagan, it was the U-3.  Under Obama (at this point) the U-6.  This is not a partisan thing, it is an economic thing.

    Do you understand that?  I will try to answer your questions if you have some.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Romney lost because he ran against Santa Claus.

    Will be interesting in two years when things have gotten worst who he will blame, his predecessor for the last 4 years responsible for the mess. Look in the mirror.

    Wait until this spring when impeachment proceeding begin for Benghazi and all the lunatics here proclaim that he couldn't be removed in Nov. 2012 so they're trying to remove him now.

    He should have been fired for his first term, but the people have spoken.



    I agree he was running against Santa Claus, but that doesn't excuse his typical position on every issue:  The fetal position. 

    Romney failed because he was convinced all he needed to do was be in the race, and Obama would lose.  I said it at the beginning, and it came true:  you can't beat something with nothing.

    Matters not what his positions actually might have been.




    Couldn't disagree more.

    Romney was a good candidate he was running against Santa Claus.

    Look at two of the states Obama carried Ohio and Michigan where he gave taxpayer stimulus money to auto workers union pension funds.

    What he does is take money from his opponents and give it to his followers.

    Taxes his opposition to give free health insurance, wellfare, food stamps and cell phones to his base.

    He implies amnesty for illegal aliens, free contraceptives for women, stimulus money for the unions the list goes on and on.

    Truth of the matter is people would rather not work to get ahead if the governement will give it to them.

    This is the new world the world we live in where everybody wants theirs, something for nothing.

    And the media. Corrupt media.

    Did they tell the story of the 14 year old dying of Leukemia Romney befriended before he went to politics?

    Visiting the boy every day in the hospital helping him write his will? No.

    Or did they tell of the President's culpability of the death of 4 Americans in benghazi?

    To go to a fundraiser in Vegas.

    Or fast and furious? No.

    Wait until the facts come out this spring when the entire country is torn apart once again when this president is being impeached and these people here on the left are blaming the Republicans instead of the media.

     



    It's a nice rant, but the #1 state taker in the union is Alaska, which is as red as it gets, and receives $15K of federal money per capita!  Kentucky, West Virginia, Alabama & North Dakota aren't far behind.  The irony is that so much of the "47%" was behind Romney before he was even nominated.

    There's not going to be an impeachment - it would look ridiculous and hyper-partisan, and there's no chance of getting a dem-controlled Senate to vote 2/3 to remove a sitting Dem President.



    Your red states get more money, Alaska in particular means nothing.  Whats' that money spent on?  How many people are in Alaska?  You make it sound like that money is going into people's pockets.  It's not.  It is spent on thinigs the government needs done.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from nhsteven. Show nhsteven's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Romney lost because he ran against Santa Claus.

    Will be interesting in two years when things have gotten worst who he will blame, his predecessor for the last 4 years responsible for the mess. Look in the mirror.

    Wait until this spring when impeachment proceeding begin for Benghazi and all the lunatics here proclaim that he couldn't be removed in Nov. 2012 so they're trying to remove him now.

    He should have been fired for his first term, but the people have spoken.



    I agree he was running against Santa Claus, but that doesn't excuse his typical position on every issue:  The fetal position. 

    Romney failed because he was convinced all he needed to do was be in the race, and Obama would lose.  I said it at the beginning, and it came true:  you can't beat something with nothing.

    Matters not what his positions actually might have been.




    Couldn't disagree more.

    Romney was a good candidate he was running against Santa Claus.

    Look at two of the states Obama carried Ohio and Michigan where he gave taxpayer stimulus money to auto workers union pension funds.

    What he does is take money from his opponents and give it to his followers.

    Taxes his opposition to give free health insurance, wellfare, food stamps and cell phones to his base.

    He implies amnesty for illegal aliens, free contraceptives for women, stimulus money for the unions the list goes on and on.

    Truth of the matter is people would rather not work to get ahead if the governement will give it to them.

    This is the new world the world we live in where everybody wants theirs, something for nothing.

    And the media. Corrupt media.

    Did they tell the story of the 14 year old dying of Leukemia Romney befriended before he went to politics?

    Visiting the boy every day in the hospital helping him write his will? No.

    Or did they tell of the President's culpability of the death of 4 Americans in benghazi?

    To go to a fundraiser in Vegas.

    Or fast and furious? No.

    Wait until the facts come out this spring when the entire country is torn apart once again when this president is being impeached and these people here on the left are blaming the Republicans instead of the media.

     



    Romney was going to be Santa Claus for the rich, who don't need it, especially given the concentration of wealth issues in this country; and if Bush didn't get impeached for the nonsense he allowed (which was thousands of times worse), neither shall Obama, who 86% of the Canadiens preferred, and most of the rest of the world as well.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:

    First, Obama ran a masterful ground game.  To win every swing state except North Carolina was incredible.

    Secondly - The only position Romney didn't flip flop on was Immigration.  And oddly, it was the most overblown issue of the election.

    Illegal immigration is at it's lowest point in decades.  Obama has deported more illegals in his 4 years in office than Bush did in 8 years.  It was a non-issue for this election cycle.  And harping on it cost Romney the Hispanic vote.

    Third, the 47% comment.  Really Romney? 

    Fourth, an editorial against the bailout of the US Auto Industry.  Really?  Let the US auto industry go Bankrupt when the financial sector is collapsing.  really?

    Fifth, Akin and Mourdock.  They helped the dems paint republicans as anti-women and certainly helped Warren beat Brown.

    Sixth, the only general election Romney ever ran was against the current Head of the Boston Area Girl Scouts.

     




    I would add a couple items to the list...

    1. He never told the electorate the details of his tax plan.  This was a guy who had been characterized by the opposition as a shady business man and his pitch to the country was basically "I'll tell what I do after I'm elected". 

    2.  The GOP primary.  The Right wants to tell you that Obama attacked Romney's character but in reality, Obama just repeated all the things that were said about Romney/Bain/Taxes/Swiss accounts/etc...  that the other GOP candidates said about Romney during the primary.  The GOP themselves actually characterized Romney for the Obama Campaign.  Sheldon Adelson spent millions destroying Romney's character on Newt Gingrich's behalf and then turned around and gave Romney millions in the general election.  Too funny!

     

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to NO MO O's comment:

     



    Romney was going to be Santa Claus for the rich, who don't need it, especially given the concentration of wealth issues in this country; and if Bush didn't get impeached for the nonsense he allowed (which was thousands of times worse), neither shall Obama, who 86% of the Canadiens preferred, and most of the rest of the world as well.



    So Barry is the equivalent Santa for minorities, illegals and the 5 generation welfare queens? Get more for doing nothing ?

    Who really cares what Canadians think or the world for that matter.

    America first .. or it won't exist.



Obama doesn't have to be Santa for minorities, the GOP alienates themselves.

Not that facts are your thing but 39 percent of Welfare recipients are White, 37 percent Black, and 17 percent are Hispanic. 

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     



    No, using the U-6 DOESN'T distort the unemployment picture it is MORE accurate.  Look, I'm talking economics, not some sort of liberal fairness issue, i.e. you used the U-3 for Reagan, and so you need to use it here.  

    The problem is that the U-3 is ONLY ACCURATE over short recessions, as it does not take into account sidelined demand, i.e. large changes in the workforce participation rate.

    When you have normal recessions, the unemployed are out 30, 60 days, then get a job.  In a long recession, the unemployed are unemployed for YEARS.  They fall off the end of the unemployment cycle and are still unemployed, likely permanent.

    So, the point is that the U-3 doesn't tell the whole story.  The U-6 doesn't either, but it is closer.  so, bottom line, you use the right tool to represent the economic environment.  Under Reagan, it was the U-3.  Under Obama (at this point) the U-6.  This is not a partisan thing, it is an economic thing.

    Do you understand that?  I will try to answer your questions if you have some.



    Listen, the U6 number is always the highest possible unemployment number, and it measures the same thing today as it did in '83. The U6 was 20% under Reagan and 14.2% under Bush.  You can argue that the U3 is meaningful enough in short recesssions, but you can't argue the U6 means something different in short recessions.

    I'm not saying the U6 is unfair or the wrong way to measure the health of the job market - I'm saying that when the right screams 14.6% without a word about the U6 under prior administrations, they're being dishonest.  They're creating a false benchmark.

    I'm a big baseball fan - this is the equivalent of comparing one hitters slugging percentage to another hitter's batting average.  The slugging is always higher.  Always has been, always will be.  I can tell you that Mike Aviles's "real" batting average is .381, because doubles and home runs are worth more than singles.  But that shouldn't convince you he's a better hitter than Ted Williams.

     

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    The Romney/Ryan campaign kept telling us 'This election is a referendum on Obama's first term and provides the American people an opportunity to choose between 2 fundamentally different paths for this country'.

    BUT

    Now that they lost apparently that was just a bunch of BS.  The new narrative, everyone who voted for Obama is a deadbeat system moocher and therefore the people's voice doesn't matter.

    Sorry guys, you can't frame the debate as a chance for the American people to choose the direction of the country but then call it a forfeit after they don't choose your direction. 

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Mitt Romney, Former Republican Governor of Massachusetts.

     

    That might be a clue.

     




    Like Former Democratic Governor of Georgia ???

     



    At least Carter won once.

    Mitt?  Not so much.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    "I said that what some on the right are pushing is NOT conservatism. "

    My point precisely.  So, get the wax out of your ears.  I get it.  They push liberal ideas which make them....

    Come on.  fill in the blank.




    You're the one not listening, but that's what happens when you're in denial and lashing out from your safety zone of imaginary socialists and mistaken labels.

    You and others in the GOP have gone PAST conservatism into an otherworld that bear little connection to reality.  Drop the pretense.

     

     

     

     
  • This post has been removed.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     



    No, using the U-6 DOESN'T distort the unemployment picture it is MORE accurate.  Look, I'm talking economics, not some sort of liberal fairness issue, i.e. you used the U-3 for Reagan, and so you need to use it here.  

    The problem is that the U-3 is ONLY ACCURATE over short recessions, as it does not take into account sidelined demand, i.e. large changes in the workforce participation rate.

    When you have normal recessions, the unemployed are out 30, 60 days, then get a job.  In a long recession, the unemployed are unemployed for YEARS.  They fall off the end of the unemployment cycle and are still unemployed, likely permanent.

    So, the point is that the U-3 doesn't tell the whole story.  The U-6 doesn't either, but it is closer.  so, bottom line, you use the right tool to represent the economic environment.  Under Reagan, it was the U-3.  Under Obama (at this point) the U-6.  This is not a partisan thing, it is an economic thing.

    Do you understand that?  I will try to answer your questions if you have some.



    Listen, the U6 number is always the highest possible unemployment number, and it measures the same thing today as it did in '83. The U6 was 20% under Reagan and 14.2% under Bush.  You can argue that the U3 is meaningful enough in short recesssions, but you can't argue the U6 means something different in short recessions.

    I'm not saying the U6 is unfair or the wrong way to measure the health of the job market - I'm saying that when the right screams 14.6% without a word about the U6 under prior administrations, they're being dishonest.  They're creating a false benchmark.

    I'm a big baseball fan - this is the equivalent of comparing one hitters slugging percentage to another hitter's batting average.  The slugging is always higher.  Always has been, always will be.  I can tell you that Mike Aviles's "real" batting average is .381, because doubles and home runs are worth more than singles.  But that shouldn't convince you he's a better hitter than Ted Williams.

     

     



    I'm not arguing the meaning has changed. The condition that makes one more meaningful than the other has changed. They measure different things. The question is, which is more meaningful? You keep trying to inject fairness into this by claiming that we need to consistently reference the U-3 and the U-6 the same. We don't. The conditions are different, and leave politics out of it. This is an economic point, irrevelevant who is in power.   I think others that use the U-6 don't really know what it means and what it measures.  I'm just trying to explain why it is more relevant.

    Look, it's like this: would you measure a highway with a twelve inch ruler? No, of course not.  Tht would be the wrong tool.  You measure short things with the ruler, long things with that wheelie measuring thingie.

    But, if you want to look under the hood and understand why the difference is important, look at the workforce participation numbers. As people stop looking for work, they leave the workforce, i.e. lower workforce participation number. This make the U-3 look lower as a result. Do you really think that these people leaving the workforce are sitting on the beach sipping umbrella drinks? No, they will look for work when there is a better employment environment.  That will upthe workforce participation rate, and in turn, actually drive the U-3 UP!  Why?  Because the factors that go intothe U-3 are now moving towards change of more recoent events.  The impact is that the U-3, as this process unfolds, becomes more accurate.  Eventually, in a perfect world, the U-3 and U-6 merge (or nearly so).

    So, the U-3 doesn't capture this effect, that the change in the workforce participation rate, which is drastic, remains low, for a long time. In fact, the workforce participation rate makes it look like the number of people being employed is actually growing, right?  After all the U-3 is going down.  But, in reality, there are not more jobs considering population growth. In fact, the job deficit has been growing month in month out.

    Therefore, the U-3 at this point, is not measuring the unemployment situation in a meaningful way. 48 months is too long to depend on this number until the employment situation changes and grows positive. Grows by how much? I would say that when the growth in jobs outstrips the monthly growth in need for jobs, including population growth, (not the accumulated back log) month over month the U-3 will increase in representing the situation.  I hope that helps explain it.  It is really hard to cram this stuff into  short post.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    "I said that what some on the right are pushing is NOT conservatism. "

    My point precisely.  So, get the wax out of your ears.  I get it.  They push liberal ideas which make them....

    Come on.  fill in the blank.




    You're the one not listening, but that's what happens when you're in denial and lashing out from your safety zone of imaginary socialists and mistaken labels.

    You and others in the GOP have gone PAST conservatism into an otherworld that bear little connection to reality.  Drop the pretense.

     

     

     




    Broad brush.  Wrong conclusion.  Step into the light Rube. 

    If you promote liberal ideas, even if you are a Republican, your area LIBERAL.

    Stop drinking that faculty lounge koolaid.  you aren't even making sense.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     



    Oh, and one thing I just wanted to point out.  I agree that many, likely most who bandy around the U-6 because it is higher do not understand WHY it is the relevant measure. 

    But, still, it is the better measure, as I tried to expalin.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     



    Oh, and one thing I just wanted to point out.  I agree that many, likely most who bandy around the U-6 because it is higher do not understand WHY it is the relevant measure. 

    But, still, it is the better measure, as I tried to expalin.




    I appreciate your argument, and the time you put into it, and I think you're right that the U-6 number is more relevant, but I don't think you've made a case for why it's suddenly more relevant.  You don't use a ruler to measure a highway because it's impractical.  Why was it practical four years ago to ignore the discouraged and underemployed when measuring the unemployment rate?

    For me, the bottom line is these statistics are used as a benchmark for the health of the economy and the job market.  Here's a chart of the U6 rate from 2000 - 2012...

    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

    Here's a chart of the U3 rate from 2000 - 2012 ...

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

    They're nearly identical.  They both show a spike in the first half of 2009, and a steady decline since.  They both tell basically the same story.

    So if your an academic, or you're expecting that your audience is sophisticated enough to know the difference and history of these numbers, then I'm OK.  If you're a TV pundit or a talk radio personality or a presidential candidate, and you keep chanting 23 million or 14.6% without any interest in giving your audience historical or meaningful perspective.  Then you're just dishonest.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     



    Oh, and one thing I just wanted to point out.  I agree that many, likely most who bandy around the U-6 because it is higher do not understand WHY it is the relevant measure. 

    But, still, it is the better measure, as I tried to expalin.




    I appreciate your argument, and the time you put into it, and I think you're right that the U-6 number is more relevant, but I don't think you've made a case for why it's suddenly more relevant.  You don't use a ruler to measure a highway because it's impractical.  Why was it practical four years ago to ignore the discouraged and underemployed when measuring the unemployment rate?

    For me, the bottom line is these statistics are used as a benchmark for the health of the economy and the job market.  Here's a chart of the U6 rate from 2000 - 2012...

    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

    Here's a chart of the U3 rate from 2000 - 2012 ...

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

    They're nearly identical.  They both show a spike in the first half of 2009, and a steady decline since.  They both tell basically the same story.

    So if your an academic, or you're expecting that your audience is sophisticated enough to know the difference and history of these numbers, then I'm OK.  If you're a TV pundit or a talk radio personality or a presidential candidate, and you keep chanting 23 million or 14.6% without any interest in giving your audience historical or meaningful perspective.  Then you're just dishonest.

     




    I didn't say it was suddenly relevant.  quite the opposite.  What makes it relevant is the length of the poor economic conditions.  48 or so months of a resession and a weak recovery means more people are giving up looking for work in the face of no opportunity.  Re-inject the opportunity, they go back to looking for work.

    This leads into your comparison of the u-3 and u-6 being nearly identical.  it is not the shape of the curve, but the difference in measure between the two.  Example: In the past three months, the u-3 has dropped form 8.2 to 7.9.  The u-6 has stayed the same.  Why?  Largely because of the workforce participation rates going negative.  The u-6, at this point in time is more honestly reflecting the economic condition, lack of growth generating jobs, it is just not happening.  It is a hard concept to explain to drive bys.

    As far as the political issue:  Obama is just as dishonest using the u-3 number as other polticians using the u-6, and I am being generous.  also, Romney consitently used the u-3.  He may have used the u-6 from time to time, but I never heard it.  It would surprise me if he did, as the would have just opened up a can of worms, as you can see by the length to which you have to go to explain the difference.

    Off to bed.  I have enjoyed this exchange.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Why Romney Lost

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to jmel's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    There's a lot of temptation on the right to blame Romney, but I think he had the best possible strategy.  But the GOP is in a tough position right now - the candidate has to win the primary, and has to win over moderates.  I think the real Romney is a moderate, but there's really no way to know - he took every position imaginable on every single issue.  

    But remember, the first debate was really Romney's pivot to the middle.  Many think he had a terrific debate performance, but if it had been a Gingrich, Santorum or Bachmann up there, you wouldn't have seen a change in the poll numbers, because they actually believed what they were saying in the primaries, and the contrast with Obama would have been alarming to independents.

    Ultimately, I think if there had been no Sandy, or if Obama was less competent and / or less likeable personally, this strategy might have worked for Romney.  Trying to turn independents and undecideds into tea-partiers would have failed miserably.




    Good points......but, I think there`s alot of OVER-analysis on why Romney lost.  IMO it`s simple. Obama won the youth, minorities, and single women.  Added together, that`s a big block and it made the difference.

    The youth think he`s a cool-rock star.  The other 2 blocks want their free stuff to keep on coming.  The HALF of the country that lost and is angry today were voting based on 23 million out of work, $16 Trillion debt, $4.00 gas, unemploymen/underemployment at 15%, lies in Libya (enabled by the MSM), and 4 years of incompetence.  They (we) may have lost, but we (with exception of some crazy extremists) voted for competence and normalcy.  

     



    Just consider that three days ago you were convinced of a land-slide victory for Romney.  I'm not asking you to abandon your ideology - just question the sources of some of this information.  

    Why do you say 23 million when the BLS says 12 million, and at what point did you start using the U-6 number instead of the U-3 number, and do you compare Obama's U-6 number to the U-3 numbers of other presidents, and is that fair?

    What was the real deficit when Obama took office ($1.2 trillion), and what does that project to in debt over four years with zero stimulus spending ($15.5 trillion)?

    How does the price of gas compare to September, 2008?  How does September, 2008 compare to September, 2004?  2000?

    Why has every news organization except Fox abandoned the Libya story, and why did Romney run away from it so quickly after the second debate?  

    I'm not trying to be a d1ck, or rub it in or anything - I'm just saying, these guys were either incredibly bad at their job, or they were flat out lying to you about the skewed polls, oversampling, and liberal bias.  Did you watch Fox news on election night?  Even after they called Ohio, Karl Rove was arguing with them that it wasn't over.  It's hard to argue these are the champions of competence and normalcy.

     



    I'd like to address one point in your argument, the U-3 , U-6 discussion.  The U-6 is the more correct measurement in this case, as the U-3 only reflects something approximating reality when resession/enemic recovery are relatively short.  Considering that the recession/weak recovery is entering it's fifth year, the U-3 starts to break down, and the U-6 starts to more accurately represent the actual economic terrain.  The U-3 does not count those who are permanently dislocated or discouraged, the U-6 does.  That's a big part of the economic/jobs picture here.

    This is not partisan, simply logic, and sound economics

    The rest, well, you just have your head in the sand.  I won't argue these point with you, as you are predisposed to beleive Obama on these things, regardless of the fact on the ground.




    I don't have a problem with you using the U-6 number, but it's the first time I can ever recall it being done.  So that really distorts the unemployment picture, because you say the "real" unemployment rate is 14.6%, which sounds shocking.  The problem is, the "real" unemployment rate peaked at 14.2% under Bush, and at 20% under Reagan.  That's the problem I have - it's dishonest, just like everything else I mentioned, and just like the spin on how the polls were skewed.

    I don't really understand how you can look at the history of gas prices over the past 12 years and determine that I'm the one with incorrect facts.  Or debt and deficits for that matter.  But one thing you have acknowledged is that your side (and media) was very wrong about the skewed polls, the oversampling, and the liberal bias.  Shouldn't that at least cause some reflection on these other issues?  

     



    Oh, and one thing I just wanted to point out.  I agree that many, likely most who bandy around the U-6 because it is higher do not understand WHY it is the relevant measure. 

    But, still, it is the better measure, as I tried to expalin.




    I appreciate your argument, and the time you put into it, and I think you're right that the U-6 number is more relevant, but I don't think you've made a case for why it's suddenly more relevant.  You don't use a ruler to measure a highway because it's impractical.  Why was it practical four years ago to ignore the discouraged and underemployed when measuring the unemployment rate?

    For me, the bottom line is these statistics are used as a benchmark for the health of the economy and the job market.  Here's a chart of the U6 rate from 2000 - 2012...

    http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp

    Here's a chart of the U3 rate from 2000 - 2012 ...

    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

    They're nearly identical.  They both show a spike in the first half of 2009, and a steady decline since.  They both tell basically the same story.

    So if your an academic, or you're expecting that your audience is sophisticated enough to know the difference and history of these numbers, then I'm OK.  If you're a TV pundit or a talk radio personality or a presidential candidate, and you keep chanting 23 million or 14.6% without any interest in giving your audience historical or meaningful perspective.  Then you're just dishonest.

     




    I didn't say it was suddenly relevant.  quite the opposite.  What makes it relevant is the length of the poor economic conditions.  48 or so months of a resession and a weak recovery means more people are giving up looking for work in the face of no opportunity.  Re-inject the opportunity, they go back to looking for work.

    This leads into your comparison of the u-3 and u-6 being nearly identical.  it is not the shape of the curve, but the difference in measure between the two.  Example: In the past three months, the u-3 has dropped form 8.2 to 7.9.  The u-6 has stayed the same.  Why?  Largely because of the workforce participation rates going negative.  The u-6, at this point in time is more honestly reflecting the economic condition, lack of growth generating jobs, it is just not happening.  It is a hard concept to explain to drive bys.

    As far as the political issue:  Obama is just as dishonest using the u-3 number as other polticians using the u-6, and I am being generous.  also, Romney consitently used the u-3.  He may have used the u-6 from time to time, but I never heard it.  It would surprise me if he did, as the would have just opened up a can of worms, as you can see by the length to which you have to go to explain the difference.

    Off to bed.  I have enjoyed this exchange.

     



    By "suddenly" I mean we never heard anything about the U-6 before Obama's first term, and if it's the length of the recession / recovery that makes the number relevant, then why were we hearing so much about it during the mid-term elections, or even as far back as summer, 2009?  

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/john-lott-unemployment/

    Romney may have consistently used the U-3 rate, but he always used the 23 million out of work number, rarely qualifying that it included the under-employed and discouraged workers.

    Sleep well :)

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share