kraychik

It's worse than that, now we've thrown away the electoral college and we're examining polls based on an arbitrary new regional distribution.

Who cares about regional distribution when we're speaking about the electoral college? You're changing the subject and I'm not going to follow you down another irrelevant tangent. Like I said, you might as well tell me that Texas is a toss up because Austin and Dallas have Obama leading... Shady's original point stands.

Login Was referring to Chretien's and McGuinty's governments.

Next up, cybercoma will cite a NYT/CBS poll showing Obama leading by two points in Dallas and Austin as evidence that Texas is tilting to Obama....

Shady already posted the link, RCP's aggregate has Romney up in the electoral college by five points. That link assumes that states leaning one way or the other will go to the respective candidate. It seems you don't really understand what the electoral college is considering you're posting a Gallup poll that divides the country up in four geographical regions. I guess not having a clue about what's actually being discussed is par for the course with socialists on MLW...

This story has been largely buried by the media. The bigger scandal is the "saving" of Detroit's auto sector, which was essentially theft of taxpayer funds to be to be shuttled to his union base. In terms of company-specific loans and tax credits, the federal government under Obama's direction sent GM and Chrysler over $100 billion. This faux "green energy" scandal, which is a favourite tool of corruption from the left in the USA, Europe, and Canada, is BIG business. It's a big part of the financial ruin affecting Ontario, with the shifting of energy production from hydro to "green sources" like wind mills, which cost a hell of a lot more per kW/hour. This is the Obama economy, where the government takes on a bigger and bigger role in directing things from Washington. Failure and economic ruin is inevitable

Shady never said that Romney was leading in Virginia, what he said was that Romney is "up" in Virginia, which I understand as referring to Romney's recent gains in Virginia, which parallel his positive national momentum. This is inconvenient to your leftist narrative about the inevitability of Obama's reelection, so you selectively cite a single leftist PPP poll and misinterpret Shady's original comment (unless, of course, Shady did mean that Romney was leading in Virginia).

And there are three other very recent polls from Virginia which have Romney up 1, 2, and 1 point(s). They are two, five, and seven days older, respectively. PPP is not the be all and end all of polls. From the PPP poll that you linked, it is also stated that Obama's lead in Virginia in shrinking. You dishonestly select polls for juvenile reasons of parroting a false narrative of an inevitable Obama reelection. It's pathetic.

Actually, RCP's aggregate for most recent polls in Virginia have Obama up by less than one point, which shows momentum in favour of Romney considering Obama's lead in Virginia was higher in previous months. You're acting as if the Democratic PPP is somehow the be all and end all of polling, You realise that the internet is a bit larger than PPP and Media Matters, right?

I'm not changing anything. I asked you a straightforward question, and you refused to answer it. You and I both know why you won't answer it.

And in August it was 142.1 million, meaning that somehow the economy added over 800K jobs in one month (which no sensible people believe), which is a serious outlier. It also doesn't take into account the migration of full-time workers to part-time workers, which is also disastrous. Unsurprisingly, the media has completely buried a recent revision that jobless claims rose to 386K from 339K. And that 339K was a false update from the BLS which mysteriously dropped from 369K the month before (because of the lack if information from California). The leftists in the media, of course, jumped all over the false good news touting "economic recovery". Here is more confirmation of California not completely recording its labour statistics in order to provide dishonest talking points for the Obama reelection campaign, via CNBC. http://www.mrctv.org/videos/labor-department-jobless-number-drop-was-due-reporting-delay Actually, the economy needs to add just over 200K new jobs per month just to maintain the current percentage of people employed in order to accommodate growth of the labour market.

I cited it awhile ago. You just didn't bother to check.

I want to add one more fact, which is self-evident but it should be mentioned to see this from a different light. There are less Americans working today, both in terms of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers, than when Obama took office. Once again, I invite you check Google's aggregation of BLS statistics: http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=unemployed&fdim_y=seasonality:S&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:US&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en_US&ind=false

You've already put your lie on the record, you don't need to do it again. I now want guyser to join you.

So you're onboard with punked and bleeding heart? You're disputing the fact that there are more Americans out of work today, both in terms of proportion of the population AND in terms of absolute numbers, than when Obama took office?

It's been done. It's always the one who screams "liar!" the most that is invariably the most dishonest one in the room. You and bleeding heart and peas in a pod. It's funny how you're now disputing the BLS statistics that you were touting before, which show an increase in unemployment as well as an increased proportion of total employed persons who are working part-time. "Tractor production is up, comrades!".

Is an op-ed from the WaPo supposed to fool people into thinking you're not running from your fake "facts"?

Nope. Total unemployment has increased from 14.2% to 14.7%. Now that's a real fact. It's about 40K more Americans out of work. And that's to say nothing of the large migration of full-time workers to part-time workers among those people that WANT and NEED full-time employment. The Google link is easy to operate, click on "Unemployment" and move the mouse cursor over the line graph and compare the most recent data to that from January of 2009. http://portalseven.c...ent_rate_u6.jsp http://www.google.co...en_US&ind=false Who cares about Bush? Is Bush on the ticket? Moreover, the Bush economy was healthier than the Obama economy. It's irrelevant, anyways. What we're discussing here is Obama's record of economic ruin. As I've demonstrated countless time in this thread alone, unemployment is UP. I'm not sure how construction of homes being up is such comforting news to the average American who has lost, over the past three years, 40% of his or her net worth (which is primarily formed by the value of one's home). Actually, they're falsehoods.

You can believe what you want about California's labour statistics not being included in the September jobs report. It makes no difference. What is revealing, however, is that you continue to dodge these main facts, which I won't repeat again: There are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of proportion of the total population. 14.2% to 14.7%, according to the most recent unemployment statistics from the BLS. A great proportion of employed Americans are working part-time than was the case when Obama took office. Average net worth for Americans is down 40% over the past three years. Total federal debt for Americans is up about 40%, or around $18K per person since Obama took office. Both average and median wages have dropped since Obama took office, although admittedly this is with the sketchy "household income" measurement. Household income has dropped about $3K. Although even per capita income has also dropped when adjusted for inflation, which of course stands to reason given the drop in average and median household income.

Nice strawman argument. And nice dodge from the major thrust of the conversation.

Actually, it was Clinton to redefined unemployment calculation methodologies most recently. The fact remains that Romney's statement in the debate was correct: there are more Americans out of work today than when Obama took office, both in term of absolute numbers and in terms of their proportion of the total population. And again, net worth is down, federal debt is way up, and wages are down. And bleeding heart happily parrots the lie from a communist rag like a pro-bono internet commissar. Pathetic.

There's a huge difference between the way unemployment statistics are collected and reported by the BLS and the way political support is collected for the upcoming presidential election, separating their reliability. But hey, strawman arguments comparing apples and oranges is fun, right?

Find out what the U6 is and then get back to me, it's up to 14.7% from 14.2% when Obama took office, after about a trillion dollar "job stimulus". Predictably, you can't address any of the relevant economic statistics I shared earlier.

Tangentially, the CEO of Gallup is onboard with scepticism of the employment statistics. http://thechairmansblog.gallup.com/2012/09/dont-be-misled-by-us-unemployment-rate.html

So you don't understand unemployment statistics. Noted.