The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I confess....I didn't really miss you guys at all, I just hadn't heard a good ham or sphincter joke in a long time.

As far as who I am voting for.....I would vote for ANYONE over Obama. Meaning any one of the candidates that are or have been in the Republican primary process. I honestly do not know who I will be voting for in the AZ primary yet. But I do know that no matter who the nominee is, that person will get my vote in the general.

From my armchair, here is the breakdown I see.

There just are not enough Republicans (29% of population) to get their candidate elected all by themselves. Even allowing for a good bit of voter apathy among the dems.

To get a Republican candidate in the white house they are going to have to pull independents in greater numbers than the dems. So the question is not so much who's the best Republican but who can pull in more independents. After all coming in second in a winner take all race is pointless.

So between the current front runners who is going to be better at getting the independent vote? Newt or Romney? Seems like a fairly easy question to me.

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I confess....I didn't really miss you guys at all, I just hadn't heard a good ham or sphincter joke in a long time.

As far as who I am voting for.....I would vote for ANYONE over Obama. Meaning any one of the candidates that are or have been in the Republican primary process. I honestly do not know who I will be voting for in the AZ primary yet. But I do know that no matter who the nominee is, that person will get my vote in the general.

You can always write in Stephen Colbert

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I confess....I didn't really miss you guys at all, I just hadn't heard a good ham or sphincter joke in a long time.

As far as who I am voting for.....I would vote for ANYONE over Obama.

Seriously. You must be getting as sick of this damned private sector job growth and decrease in public sector jobs as I am.

[Strangler Lewis]

What's the answer?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

What's the answer?

Really?

Romey. Newt is a freaking flake ball.

[Strangler Lewis]

See, I don't agree. Well, I more or less agree about Newt, but not about who independents are likely to go for.

Did I say independents? I meant "cussed independents," who seem to get off on the candidate that says the biggest FU to everybody.

Romney is this year's John Kerry--a presentable but ultimately unlikable middle ground guy anointed to lose to the incumbent until we can come to some false consensus once again in four years that it's time for a change.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

See, I don't agree. Well, I more or less agree about Newt, but not about who independents are likely to go for.

Did I say independents? I meant "cussed independents," who seem to get off on the candidate that says the biggest FU to everybody.

Romney is this year's John Kerry--a presentable but ultimately unlikable middle ground guy anointed to lose to the incumbent until we can come to some false consensus once again in four years that it's time for a change.

I never implied Romney would pull enough independents to swing the election away from Obama, just that he will pull in more than Newt.

When it's down to a two man race, Republicans are gonna vote Republican and Dems are gonna vote Dem. So all the current Newt'ers WILL vote Romney come election day. Just as Scaeagles said he would. So the more independents a candidate can get the better their chances are. That makes Romney the better candidate (unless a late bloomer shows up).

In the primaries, a vote for Newt is pretty much a vote for Obama and I find that amusing.

[scaeagles]

Uhh.....I'm not so impressed.....

From this article. I would link to the original story from the financial times but it is a subscription website.

In particular, it's this sentence by the Financial Times' Ed Luce, who writes, "According to government statistics, if the same number of people were seeking work today as in 2007, the jobless rate would be 11 percent."
...
Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent.

And from this, which interestingly tries to spin 370,000 new claims as good news, saying that the layoffs have been "moderately low". Great news for al those laid off that it was only moderate.

Claims for U.S. jobless benefits rose last week, displaying the usual volatility around holidays that has masked an improvement in the labor market.

Applications (INJCJC) for unemployment insurance payments climbed by 21,000 to 377,000 in the week ended Jan. 21, up from an almost four-year low in the prior period, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The median forecast of 47 economists in a Bloomberg News survey projected 370,000.

Not impressed with the job creation.....more and more people are applying for first time unemployment.

[Alex]

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.

[scaeagles]

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.