Today's Poll: Who do you support for president at this point?
It's a shame that Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman aren't running mates. I know Gary Johnson from the University of New Mexico when I was a student there and his days in the New Mexico State Senate as well as Governor of New Mexico. As a life long Democrat I voted for Johnson when he ran for the NM State Senate as a Republican because he had a non-partisan approach to governance that was remarkable. As the Governor he brought all of the competing interest groups together in a state that defines "multicultural" and did it without the rancor and feelings of exclusion that often remain long after elections. He managed to balance the state budget without drastic cuts to social services, reduced the tax load for the average citizen of the state, fostered a very healthy business climate and championed civil rights.
Jon Huntsman is another remarkable "career" politician who has managed to bring people together and solve problems through well thought out non-partisan compromise that result in solutions that all of the interested parties can live with. Again one of the few Republicans that I would not hesitate for a moment to vote to elect as President or Vice President.
There is a missing category: other.
This is right on par to where Genesee County should be, McCain beat Obama in '08 in GC 59-40, so Romney being ahead by about 14 points makes sense. Although unscientific, The Batavian's polls are often an accurate gauge of where the general public stands.
Thanks for the link....
I'll ask again but I'm not confident of an answer. Each time these presidential polls come up, hundreds of Batavian readers vote their support for Obama, yet none can ever articulate why he deserves 4 more years. I use the term articulate because MSNBC talking points or because he's "better than the other guy", or it's Bush's fault are cop outs. Actual position and policy based answers drawn from the previous 3 1/2 years of his administration, you know, his actual record.
SSSSSH! We are not supposed to look at what he has done Jeff, we are supposed to listen to what he says! (Pure Sarcasm)
Jeff and Mark - Look up, you've got smug, and clueless, written on your foreheads. I think that a drop in the unemployment rate from a high of over 10 percent to now around 8 percent, the saving of the auto industry, the stock market coming back from near collapse to trading above 10,000 and reversing nearly 3 straight years of job losses and turning it into job growth are pretty good reasons. Where we were very early in his Presidency does matter, of course though, why let reason and facts get in the way of defeating President Obama? Let's put a guy who couldn't move his state out of second to last in job creation and made part of his fortune destroying companies (I agree with Newt Gingrich on this) in the White House for the sake of job creation. Yeah, that's logical.
While the right continues to vilify Barack Obama over crazy things his Pastor said, why is discussing the fact that Mitt Romney was a member of a religion that during 10 years of his adult life had as a central tenet the belief that black people were not only inferior, but inherently evil. Despite his supposed disagreement with his religion on this matter, he did not seem concerned enough to distance himself from it like many other brave Mormons did.
The right also seemed to spend most of the '08 campaign, whether by implication above board or by underhanded tactics, that Obama was somehow antithetical to patriotism and was not friendly to Christianity (sometimes implying that he was a Muslim). Why not bring up the fact that Mitt Romney is not a Christian, and that not only did he pass on joining the military during a war he supported vehemently, he also off-shores his money. Wow. What a winner!
Also, Romney's speech kotowing to the religious right at Liberty University was borderline hilarious. As a born again Christian, let me say that Liberty "University" is a total cesspool for everything that's wrong with organized Christian faith in America. No one had the total arrogance, morally superior attitude and horrible bible-warping message of Jerry Falwell. The Spanish Inquisitors would have been proud.
You know the real unemployment numbers are over 10%, right? They just stopped counting people who gave up looking.
The quarterly average GDP rose by a paultry 1,625% Under Obama. That is actually dismal.
Compare it Reagan for the same 3 year period after assuming a dead economy @ 7.75%
My favorite distortion though is the Romney Mass. Record.
Let the two pinoochio rating by the washington post settle that.
EDIT: Oh and let's not forget this quote
B.C. Huselton, Vice president of the company before and after the Bain investment said, "We made the decision in 1994, before Bain, that if we could not find a buyer by year's end, we were going to close the plant down. Bain not only saved us, we thrived until for seven years before foriegn imports priced us out of the market in our heavily unionized configuration."
John, there may be a fraction of coincidental truth to your (inflammatory) choice of wording. The unemployment numbers are based on interviews with over 50,000 representative families, nationwide. Over twenty-five thousand individuals are sampled each month. The sampling group is selected as reflective of the diversity in the U. S. to include city and rural representation- as well as to be interpreted state-by-state. There are actually two surveys: CPS Current Population Survey and CES Current Employment Statistics. They are conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. There is a 90% level of confidence for these surveys.
For sake of comparison, a Gallup poll sample size is usually 2,000 or less; Roper polls vary from 800 - 2000.
Everything one ever wanted to know about gathering labor statistics: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.tn.htm
"1,625% " ...I'm sure you meant to place a decimal point in there somewhere!
Yes CM Thank you 1.625% fat fingers I guess
Oh And Daniel, for a more accurate picture
Note: This is a sample of 20,000 ten times higher than normal and only a 1% margin of error
Read the link and it confirms what I said. The survey does not count people who stopped even looking. To be counted as counted as unemployed, you had to make some effort to find a job.
For Romney's time at Bain, his success in creating jobs in some areas does not undo the horrible corporate raiding that he did in others. I think that Newt Gingrich had it totally right when he said that "I'm for capitalism....not looting." Much of Romney's time at Bain was spent purposely loading companies with debt, shutting them down and then selling their assets at a huge profit. Watch the Newt Gingrich SuperPAC video on this, I think that it takes into account the damage that Romney caused and why it was wrong. I think that Private Equity firms are great, and many great companies have been able to launch because of venture capitalists (like Facebook), that being said, Romney's time at Bain was not a shining example of what most good PE firms do.
John - The underemployment rate and the estimated percentage of people not working has always been higher than the unemployment rate, even in good times. How many of those people who 'gave up' left the workplace for reasons other than economic hardship? How many just retired, became injured/disabled or took family leave? Pointing to that as a means to try to ignore the falling unemployment is specious at best and total manipulation at worst.
Retired, injured, taking family leave, does not equal just giving up. This not leaving the work place, this is already out of it and can not finding work, so they gave up.
Mark - Given that the average growth rate under Bush was a 'paltry '1.7%, despite inheriting Bill Clinton's economy and the average growth rate for Reagan was only 3.4 percent, I would suggest that you re-check your facts. For all of the GOP banging the doldrums about the unemployment rate, the unemployment rate under Reagan never fell below 6% until his Presidency was nearly over. Obama's recession was far worse than the one Reagan inherited, and the unemployment rate is dropping at a rate that's actually considerably more rapid, and is also void of the stock market crashes that defined the Reagan recovery. Given that the GDP growth rate was falling at an alarming rate when Obama took office, I think that the fact that growth is occurring and net job losses were reversed is good for the country. Then again, the 'new right' led by Mitt Romney seems to be concerned with defeating Obama first and putting country last.
John - Those numbers are not reflective of that, they only reflect those leaving the workforce and do not give an explanation. It's selective reading of labor statistics.
Daniel That is all political spin, I have seen the videop before.
1) Bain capitol under Romney had an 80% business success rate, that is about 15% higher than the average.
2) Basic Economics tells you that when companies are trouble, (And that is what Bain specialized in, aqyuiring troubled businesses and rebuilding them) ALWAYS results in swings in employmenyt. The Idea is to rescue the company and rebuild it, which is what they did over and over. The whole corporate raider mentallity is manufactured, Bain profited when the companies profited and lost when the compnaies lost. That is what it is. The myth that you can fix a company without cost cutting and at times labor force reduction is in fact just a myth. Even with your touted Obama GM bailoput, 50,000 GM jobs were permently lost in the US. ( And under reported that GM Still owes US TAx payers $50 Billion
3) Why not bring up Staples, who BTW, the majority of Bain board memebers were against investment, Romney pushed for and won the majority of the board over, and Staples went from a single warehouse store to now employ 93,000 people, Or Dunkin Donuts, which Bain not only rescued but rebuilt, along with over 100 other companies still in business and still employing more people than before Bain invested. GS Steel, parent company of GST Steel now employs over 6500 people.
There is nothing I hate more than class envy, seconded only by simplistic political naratives that are built by half truths.
Jeff asked for a (NO TALKING POINT) response, but what you gave including this video link is a talking point laden response typical of a politician.
The fact is over 100 companies are still around because of bain capitol investment, many of those under Romney's reign, many of those are household names.
Another Tidbit, When Bain invested in Staples, the CEO of Bain, yes Mitt Romney, spent 3 days with his sleeves rolled up stocking shelfs, running cash registers and training new employees at the flagship stores grand openning, and that is a documented fact. He is not as out of touch as Dems try to project..
Truth is, thanks to the work ethic of his father, Romney worked part time jobs during his college years just like us common folk, one of them ironically as a security guard at a GM plant. He donated his ENTIRE inheritance to Brigam Young University, every penny he has he earned. Did he have access to good schools yes, just like the president did.
Your political skills of trying to turn Jeff's question to an attack on Romney my friend is falling short. Why? Because the accomplishments of Barrach Obama with regard to the economy fall far shorter.
Well 1.7% under Bush and 1.625% Under Obama seem pretty much the same so the arguement that Obama improved that is kind of weak.
Might also point out, that up until 2007 Bush's unemplyment rate was about 5.6% despite a recession in 2000 when the Internet Bubble Burst, Despite 9-11.
Might also point out that the main cause of the economic down turn in 2008 was over inflated housing prices which transcends parties as both parties were buying votes by putting people in homes that they couldn't afford.
Might also point out the President Bush attempted several times to reign in Fannie May and Freddie Mac in an attempt to avert a housing crisis, only to be told by key figures such as Dodd and Frank that no problem existed,(Multiple videos and articles to support That) And few in government from either party were willing to tackle that.
But since you like the bogus Reagan comparrison, here are some stats from multiple sources:
GDP GROWTH (AVG/Quarterly)
Ronald Reagan 1983
BARACK OBAMA (2011)
Reagan reduced Federal Regulations, Obama dramatically increased them.
Jobs need to be created to break even for year (Accounting for Population Growth)
1984 - 120,000 - 1.44 milion Reagan achieved 240% of requirement
2912 - 250,000 - 3 million Obama achieved 61% of requirement
REAGAN (1984) Population: 233,791,994
3.454 Million jobs created (1.5% job growth to population)
Jobs added April 1984 336,000
OBAMA (2012) Population: 311,000,000
1.840 Million jobs created (.006% job growth to population)
Jobs added April 2012 115,000
REAL FAMILY MEDIAN INCOME GAIN/LOSS
Under Reagan +$4,000
Under Obama -$4,130
Debt as percentage of GDP
Reagan 1981-1985 - 43.8% (Increase of 11.3%)
Actual Dollar increase +$823 Billion
Obama 2009- 2012 - 99.6% (Increase of 15.4%)
Actual Dollar increase +$4.334 Trillion
Acording to the CATO institute
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
In a speech by Milton Friedman to the Cato Institute: Friedman states that "Reaganomics had four simple principles: lower marginal tax rates, less regulation, restrained government spending, noninflationary monetary policy. Though Reagan did not achieve all of his goals, he made good progress." This is why entrepreneurs flourished under Reaganomics: lower tax rates and inflation coupled with less regulation favored improved environments for market-based funding, risk-taking, access to labor (leading to greater employment), and a more level playing field between these entrepreneurs and large corporations.
The net result, Obamanomics doesn't even come close to matching Reaganomics.
And then there is Afghanistan. Where Afghan troops are killing our guys and we were not reporting attempted killings by "friendlies". And now Obama has agreed to more restrictions on troops doing their job, putting our troops in even greater danger. He is even talking of another 10 years being there.
Statistical data is so much fun, you can always find some that will fit your side of an arguement.
Dan, the numbers I presented were specifically the average of the 3rdyear of thier respective Presidencies, not Reagans entire term, just the comparable period in the first three years.
Daniel, while I appreciate your attempt, it is yet another insulting stab at the intelligence of the average American. You say " I think that a drop in the unemployment rate from a high of over 10 percent to now around 8 percent, (first and foremeost, why was it 10% to begin with and under whose watch did it get there?), the saving of the auto industry( the auto industry was not 'saved' and did not need saving. GM, Chrysler and Ford went to the govt trough with their hands out. Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Kia, etc. were doing fine. Please explain how Ford did not take fed money, returned to profitability long before the other two. I'll give you a hint, they made the tough decisions without the federal govt. dictating it to them while at the same time working with the same UAW and building many of the cars with the highest domestic content on the market, all while Chrysler was being sold to a foriegn entity. Real success story there.) the stock market coming back from near collapse to trading above 10,000 and reversing nearly 3 straight years of job losses and turning it into job growth are pretty good reasons(no matter how you parse the numbers, there are less Americans earning full time paychecks under Obama, touting success in that is slapping the millions of unemployed in the face). The only way Obama wins in November is by successfuly pulling off the greatest ever sleight of hand on the American public with the help of willing accomplices who will assist in spreading the deception.
Minor correction Jeff, Ford didn't go to the Trough just GM and Chrysler, otherwise well said
Actually Mark, Ford did go to the trough. Remember all 3 CEO's getting blasted for flying to Washington in their private jets to go before Congress and make their case. Ford went to the trough and when they got there and smelled how rancid the government slop was, they walked away.
EDIT I stand Corrected, while in the end did NOT take the bail out, they did initially go to the trough as well, my apologies Jeff