More last month than the moth before, but fewer than the 35 months before that.

Not saying you should be impressed but your quote does not support "more and more" when for the last 3+ years we've been saying the number needs to get down below 400k for it to be a good number and we've been slowly getting to it.

And important to note that a high first time number isn't necessary a horrible sign since even at the peak or the economy with 5% unemployment 300k a month were fired.

Indeed. Good point on the first time claims, however my point wasn't meaning an increase in the number every month but that every time a report comes out there are a huge number of first time claim, meaning more and more people are losing their jobs.

And I also don't understand the "we need to get it down to less than 400K". While every reduction is good, it hardly seems to be something that should fill us with happy feelings. I've heard the same thing, but don't get it.

Its because even in the best of times there is churn. The new froyo shop on the corner closes after 3 months, firing 4 people. Two banks merge and 1000 people are fired in HR as redundant.

That's not necessarily bad and results in first time claims. Lower is better but the floor on it will still sound like a big number and each individual in that number may be unhappy. But in itself isn't a big indicator of the strength of the economy. Now, I'd those 300k people are still on unemployment 8 months later, that's a real bad sign and more the case now then at the peak when 90% (making up a number) would have a new job within three months.

The Colbert Super PAC filed their paperwork this morning and disclosed it has brought in "a staggering $1,023,121.24".

Hmmm... I feel the sudden need to start a super PAC of my own...

WP headline: Obama: The most polarizing president. Ever.

Well, with that headline, CLEARLY they have some cut-and-dry hard evidence of that claim, right?

The ONE measure they present is the gap between Obama's approval rating within the Democratic party vs. his approval rating from Republicans. They point out that the gaps in his first 2 years of office were the largest for the first two years of any President. Okay, interesting point so far...

Except note the ONE chart from the study that they republished. It shows that Bush owns the TOP 3 SLOTS for the largest gaps in history, and 6 of the top 10. And if you read the writeup on Gallup's site, it points out that Bush's first two years were buoyed by post 9-11 good will (such as it was). And the WP article even says things like, "While it’s easy to look at the numbers cited above and conclude that Obama has failed at his mission of bringing the country together, a deeper dig into the numbers in the Gallup poll suggests that the idea of erasing the partisan gap is simply impossible, as political polarization is rising rapidly."

All that without even bringing up names like, I don't know, Abraham Lincoln.

Fvck that headline writer (and their editor).

Yeah, big leap on the direction of causality implied in the headline (same as similar assumed directions of causality by Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc.)

The stupidest thing though is that you don't even have to argue against their stupid definition of "most polarizing". Even using the definition they give, the numbers don't support the conclusion, and they published the very table that contradicts the headline. It's like declaring the Green Bay Packers the winningest Super Bowl team in history because they won the first two, then immediately showing the chart that shows 3 teams that have more wins than they do.

Oh, I agree. I just meant that even if the underlying numbers make sense the implication on the headline on direction of causality is unfounded.

Speakingof Lincoln... Wouldn't the president whose election led to a civil war be considered "The Most Polarizing President Ever"?