Yes, it definitely could be read that way, couldn't it?

One has to admit that it's a bit peculiar for an incumbent administration, running for reelection, to be arguing against "continuing down the road we're on." Usually, the incumbent's slogan is something like "four more years." Perhaps this time it will be "four fewer years."

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

I'm not surprised that you are surprised that Romney's camp (and you, apparently) would twist words to meet your objectives.

Obama has done little to change the fundamentals of how the economy functions in this country, in no small part due to the obstructionist policies of the Republicans. The fact that more people are becoming employed, and the economy is growing, doesn't negate the last statement made by Axelrod.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

I just do not understand the GOP "allowing" another weak conservative to run. The country needs strong fiscal leadership. That is not Mitt's forte. Sigh.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

I'm sorry, but you'll have to point out where I twisted Axelrod's words. That's a direct quote.

In any case, it doesn't require twisting. It's really no more than a "slip-of-tongue"...a telling one, for sure. But, a slip nonetheless.

oh, and you truly are an idiot if you think that Romney's camp (and me, apparently) are the only ones who would twist words to meet an objective. How is that rock you are living under?

Very true, and I have said as much before. But, he is what we are stuck with as a candidate and, frankly, to a lot of people it's still better than the alternative.

Ken,

I am perplexed on the jobs front...if you look just at the total number of non-farm jobs.

Jan 2009 133,561,000
March 2012 132,821,000

So we need about 127K new jobs per month to keep pace, so that is 127K * 39 months = 4,953,000 down then when you add the jobs we are short in raw numbers is 740,000, so as of this month Obama is down 5,690,000 jobs. We have added $5 Trillion to date to the deficit but down on 5.6M jobs.

Your right not only has he done little to change the fundamentals, he is making it worse. My question would be, is Obama on the clock yet? Cause right now, we are in the worst recovery in our nations history.

I think he still sees his next four years as a part of his Hope and Change campaign. So in his mind he is still trying to change things.

This way they can save money on adds and re-use that unicorn, hope, and change video that was made. they just have edit out McCain.

I don't think he should be allowed to use the unicorn until he has qualified for and run the Boston Marathon.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

reading stories like this and the 'never worked a day in her life' - gotta wonder which political party is the more desperate

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 120,000 in March. In the prior 3 months, payroll employment had risen by an average of 246,000 per month.
http://www.bls.gov/...lease/empsit.nr0.htm
According to the same BLS, non-farm employment went from about 138 million in 1/2008 toabout 133 mil in 1/2009 (you know, when Obama took office). It bottomed out at about129 mil in 1/2010 (I'm sure Obama is to blame for the continued decline). After that, ithas continued to rise to over 132 mil now.
Your numbers are another example of lying through statistics. Just as they are as "true" asRomney's 92% of jobs lost are to women, not bothering with context is very telling.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Exactly. And that was the "slip-of-tongue" that I referred to earlier. They are still running - and thinking - like it is 2008 and this errant comment reflects that.

That is going to kill them in the long run because you can't blame the prior administration 3+ years into your own.

"Gotta winder which political party is the more desperate"

Not really.

seems like Axelrod is doing all right in the current economy.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/...0416,0,7002704.story

Longtime political strategist David Axelrod, who helped advise President Obama's presidential run in 2008 and is serving as communications director for Obama's re-election campaign, has paid $1.7 million for a four-bedroom, 3,320-square-foot condo unit in a high-rise condo along Michigan Avenue.

Obama has done little to change the fundamentals of how the economy functions in this country, in no small part due to the obstructionist policies of the Republicans.

Do you think that was the obstacle in the first two years of his administration too?

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

You are obviously right. Obama is in deep, deep trouble. I'd hate to be that guy.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...p-obama-over-romney/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/...ages/04/16/rel4a.pdf

According to the poll, 52% of registered voters say if the presidential election were held today, they would vote for the president, with 43% saying they would cast a ballot for Romney,

The survey indicates women voters back Obama over Romney by 16 points (55%-39%), virtually unchanged from an 18-point advantage among women for the president in CNN polling last month.

"By a two-to-one margin, the women surveyed saw President Obama as more in touch with the problems facing American women today."

Half of those questioned say that Obama is more likely to stand up for what he believes, with only 29% saying that about Romney. Nearly half say that Romney is more likely to change his position on the issues for political reasons, just 39% saying the same thing about the president.

Two-thirds say they have made up their minds, with just 29% saying they could change their minds between now and November. As for handicapping the election, right now Americans don't think Romney has a good chance of winning the White House. Only 35% said Romney will be victorious in November.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Half of those questioned say that Obama is more likely to stand up for what he believes, with only 29% saying that about Romney.

Wouldn't that be a point in Romney's favor? ;)

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Ken, you can't just count jobs for 3 months, you have to look at where we started and what we have done in the last 39 months. Then you can compare it to what they promised when convincing the congress to spend trillions more. No, I pulled the spread sheet, looked at total non farm jobs in Jan 2009 (Obama's first month) , not the increase or the decrease in any giving month - TOTAL NONFARM JOBS, and looked at them in March 2012. Actually used Paul Krugman's recommended monthly number needed to keep things even and multiplied it by the number of months Obama has been on the clock.


Quote from PK on December 10th, 2009, PK is referencing just adding 127K jobs per month on average over many years..


So that’s a useful benchmark. Even if we add 300,000 jobs a month, we’re looking at a prolonged period of suffering — a huge cost from the Great Recession. So that’s kind of a minimal definition of success. Anything less than that, and it’s bad news. It sort of puts that wonderful report that we only lost 11,000 jobs in perspective, doesn’t it?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/...10/the-jobs-deficit/

The Obama led recovery is a bust, even the great liberal economist who defined success in 2009 says so. The modest goal is it would take 5 years to recover and get back to full employment - I think full employment is 5%, we are 3 years in, we need about 10 million new jobs in the next two years just to meet this modest goals.

This is the problem for Obama, he has missed every target he has shot at economically. He is on the clock and has been for 39 months. At what point does he take responsibility. Look I am not claiming Romney is the be all end all, I am just pointing our Obama's progress. And when you look at it historically, its the worst recovery in our history.

Why would it not have been? Did the Democratic party have a 60 seat majority in 2009/2010?

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Ah, so you want a 60-seat supermajority.

Apparently the left won't be happy until they have unlimited control over all branches of government, checks and balances be damned.

Of course, many on the right would probably take the same attitude.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

1. That's all they know.
2. That's all they know.

The Obama camp will campaign as moderates and hope Americans have no memory.

At this point the best we can hope for is GOP control of the house/senate. If both sides are forced to work together these is less chance of one side going off the deep end.

---

"The great pleasure in life is doing what people say you cannot do."

At this point the best we can hope for is GOP control of the house/senate. If both sides are forced to work together these is less chance of one side going off the deep end.

Agreed, except that I would add: If they cannot work together, that would also be an improvement over one side going off the deep end.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

No.


I. Shares your values
Base = Half Sample
Total Men Women
----- ----- ----- ----- ---------
Obama 49% 47% 52%
Romney 37% 42% 33%


But I'll give Romney his due. There was one question (and only one question) where the majority favored him

Who do you think is more likely to change his position on issues for political reasons -- Barack
Obama or Mitt Romney?
Base = Total Sample
Total Men Women White Non-White
----- ----- ----- ----- ---------
Barack Obama 39% 40% 37% 43% 30%
Mitt Romney 47% 47% 46% 44% 52%

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

My point was humorous, but let me just say this: I think that when they asked the "shares your values" question, they were talking about the values of those polled, not my values. Hence my suggestion above.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

"Obama has done little to change the fundamentals of how the economy functions in this country, in no small part due to the obstructionist policies of the Republicans."

So for those first 11+ months when the GOP had to ask permission to close a door in DC, why didn't anything change? Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence over a weekend with a quill and parchment. The ENTIRE constitution was hammered out in 4 months again with quill and parchment.

   Nah, Romney will win even on the likeability numbers because pubs have been saying Obama is the devil (okay, a hard left, communist, etc) for 4 yrs, and more and more people are starting to say to themselves that it may be so, including Obama supporters (read a couple different pieces in the last few days by Obama supporters that wanted the centrist Obama to stay, but were afraid of lefty Obama).

Oh I know you were joking.

There just isn't much good news for Romney in that poll. While it is an early poll and unfortunately for all of us we have a lot of campaign yet to endure there is a lot to overcome for Romney. Independents in that poll favor Obama significantly.

One thing I thought was kind of sad was this:
Is a person you admire Obama 44% Romney 25% Both 6% Neither 24% No opinion 1%

So a quarter of the people do not admire either the president or his possible replacement.

And since someone above was talking long term difficulties for the Democrats, if I were a Republican this would worry me greatly:
Non - whites favor Obama over Romney 71 - 23. And since the demographics are trending towards a greater proportion of non-whites that is something to be acutely aware of.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

57 + 2 indepents (Sanders and Lieberman) that caucus with them, and a few sympathetic pubs like Snowe, Collins, Spectre. Add the super-majority in the House, and it was a highly productive time for dems, if not particularly good for the economy.

To prove how useless/worthless polls are at this point, I offer this: http://www.gallup.com/...43/Obama-Romney.aspx

This just shows that everyone can find a poll to support their viewpoint. The fact that you put so much "weight" on the two you cited is indicative of your desire to "want" to believe its true.

How is the poll worthless? Never did I say Obama would win based on a poll in April. And the only reason I looked it up was it was on TV when I was at lunch so I knew there was a new poll out by CNN. To dismiss it's overall trends is to be putting your head in the sand. Do you actually believe that losing the non-white population 3 to 1 is a good trend for the GOP? I certainly don't think being seen as anti-religion and pro-welfare state is a good trend for the Democratic party. Polls used correctly can be extremely informative.

I put no actual "weight" (and I have no idea why you thought weight needed quotes) on the poll in regards to who will win as it is April 17th and there are over 6 months of campaign for us to suffer through here in Ohio, oh how I love to live in a swing state. I mean, by then we will learn that Obama is black, Romney is rich, Seamus had the shits, and Michelle thinks kids should eat their vegetables. Oh, and Gingrich had sex with the neighbor's cat.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

You are obviously right. Obama is in deep, deep trouble. I'd hate to be that guy.

Didn't you say the above in an earlier post? And, then follow it with the results of the CNN/ORC poll? You'll have to accuse me for assuming the obvious...which is that you believe that because of the poll that Obama hasn't nothing to worry to about, while Romney does.

Losing non-white voters? did the GOP ever have them? I'm pretty sure it was an avalanche in favor of Dems last presidential election, but what happened in 2010? Did they just forget to vote?

You do know that weighting is a common technique used in polling, right? And can be used to alter the outcome of said poll to achieve a particular slant in either direction. In your first and second posts on the polls you gave every impression that you were quite confident that they were accurate and that Obama, again, had nothing to worry about. Hence the use of the quotes...perhaps next time I could use asterisks.

I live in California - a state that actually implements what most liberals can only fantasize about occurring on a federal level - so I don't get to experience the joys of experiencing the onslaught of political campaigns.

Quote:

Jan 2009 133,561,000
March 2012 132,821,000

Why would you compare 2012 to 2009? If I burn down your house in 2009, is it *your* fault that you have less house than you did before you burned it down? A fair evalutaion would be if the government slowed down the recession fats enough, got it turned around, and are growing it fast enough.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

Oh for Pete's fucking sake. You twist Axelrod's words to suit your purposes to pretend that Obama's own people are against him, then act like me and CNN have a conspiracy going on when I point out that he is in fact leading in at least one major poll on virtually every single question in almost every demographic besides white men that is not defined by political party.

"You'll have to accuse me for assuming the obvious...which is that you believe that because of the poll that Obama hasn't nothing to worry to about, while Romney does"

No, I won't excuse you. You read into my posts what you have presupposed and not what was actually written. This is going to be a close election. And it will be painful to live through.

If you were running for president, which side of the CNN poll would you rather be on?

"Losing non-white voters? did the GOP ever have them? I'm pretty sure it was an avalanche in favor of Dems last presidential election, but what happened in 2010? Did they just forget to vote?"

If you were head of the RNC would this not be a topic that you would consider in depth? Can the GOP continue to win national elections while losing non-whites 3 -1?

"In your first and second posts on the polls you gave every impression that you were quite confident that they were accurate"

I quoted a poll. It had a lot of questions so it has lots of little pieces of information that can be interesting. Much more in depth than a daily tracking poll from Gallup so more fun to discuss. It comes from a major news organization. I am not personally responsible for CNN's polling. I did not realize that was a requirement before quoting from it. I apologize. I will drive to their office and inquire further tomorrow.

" Hence the use of the quotes...perhaps next time I could use asterisks."
It appeared that you were using a normal definition of weight and non-ironically. The use of quotes generally denote one or the other. I did not understand why you used them in that situation.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Maybe it's not that, maybe this is the kind of nonsense that the voters are interested in.

When you have "informed" people saying that a given candidate "doesn't look presidential" you have to wonder . . . no, I guess there is no wondering at all.

The more I look at this stuff, the more it reminds me of high school student council elections. "Hope and Change" is like "more school spirit and candy in the lunch room." And "doesn't look presidential" is like "she's not a cheerleader."

People (the voters) don't grow up; they just get old.

Where did I twist his words? I provided a direct quote. Perhaps you also missed where I said - in two other posts - that it was clearly a slip of tongue and not indicative of who he thinks is the better candidate for growing the economy. I think I said that it was more representative of the mindset that this campaign is operating under - which is to believe that it is still 2008 and that they are not running as the incumbent. Your response to that was to link to a poll and basically stating - through the use of sarcasm - that Obama had nothing to worry about.

The RNC won't worry about losing non-whites because organizationally they are a joke. They couldn't form a cohesive response or action plan if they wanted to, just the same as they couldn't field a candidate strong enough to knock Obama cleanly out - when the situation is practically begging for that to happen. So, no, I don't think they'll ponder the loss of non-white too deeply. At a state level it will happen, but certainly not at the national level.

You can quote CNN polls till the cows come home, I never said I had an issue with it. I simply produced a link to another poll that said the exact opposite and commented on the uselessness of one poll over another. Somehow, that got your panties all in a bunch. Perhaps because it didn't fit with the clean little narrative that you attempted to derive from the CNN poll...but, who really knows (or cares)?

I suppose I should admit that at this point I am just fucking with you because I am bored at work.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Ha! That makes two of us.

Frankly, I'm pretty sure that drives 99% of the LR posts...

What a load of crap. I said Republican obstructionism was in part to blame, and you said in post # 15 "Do you think that was the obstacle in the first two years of his administration too?", implying that hey, the Democratic party was in the majority those two years. I replied that having the majority in the Senate doesn't mean squat unless you have 60 seats according to the rules of the Senate, which anyone who has been paying attention would know. Now you take that and run to "unlimited control over the world" nonsense.

Rob C's rules of posting:

1) Rob C is always right.
2) When Rob C is wrong, see 1)

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

If they had the majority in both houses had had any halfway reasonable proposals to offer, they could have swayed a handful of remaining votes to their cause where a supermajority was needed. That was especially true during the "honeymoon" period, when many in the opposition party might have been reluctant to go up against the new president--but even after that period, it's only a paranoid fantasy on your part that 100% of Republicans have been rock-hard "obstructionists."

We're truly fortunate that we have a legislative branch to keep some of the worst excesses of the executive in check. That has been true when Republicans have been in the White House, and it remains true today.

---

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Well, the Dims didn't have a problem finding a way to get around that whole 60-seat thing when it came to Obamacare, right? Seems to me now that the 'Rats have eaten all the cheese they're trying to find a way to defend their leaving the sinking ship. "Oh, boo hoo! Those mean 'Pubs are standing in the way! It's the 'Pubs fault that we've screwed the economy into a catatonic stupor! Blame them!"

Sorry, dude. You guys screwed it up, and continue to screw it up (I mean, you'd think 'Rats in the Senate could at least have presented a friggin' budget over the last three years, right?) and your man in the Oval Office is going down like a 2-dollar Olongapo City "hostess" come November. Ya follow?

---

"Politics is just show business for ugly people."

"I replied that having the majority in the Senate doesn't mean squat unless you have 60 seats according to the rules of the Senate, which anyone who has been paying attention would know."


Like say for the first 11 months and 3 weeks of his administration? But hey, I guess there was a big chance that Sanders and Lieberman would side with the GOP.

No, the Democrats are not good at that. The Democrats are horrible at getting all of their caucus to vote the party line. The Republicans have been much more successful at that.

Someone above mentioned Snowe and some others. Even when they said they would vote with the Democrats they didn't. But Ben Nelson and most of the rest of the so-called blue dog Democrats would switch sides in a heart beat.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

I wonder how any laws were passed before Congress was a Democratic super majority?

I am using these points as a reference. Jan 2009, Obama's first month as President. March 2012, the last full month that we have data. So we have a starting point and and an ending point - its much more accurate than the employment rate because it looks at the "actual" number of jobs. I am factoring in population growth. Paul "the great economist from the left" Krugman said a modest goal would be to get back to FULL employment in 5 years, PK said it takes 127K new jobs a month just to stay at the same point. I am just crunching numbers based on what the President and his followers promised. Barry, we are not just off, but off by a mile.

Granted, Obama is feeling the pressure of the recession, I don't blame it all on him, although he voted for a bunch of spending while a Senator and was part of the culture when he wasn't running for President. I do recall Bush being blamed for everything, including the recession he inherited. Obama said he would halve the deficit, Obama got everything he wanted the first two years, Obama said unemployment would NEVER reach 8%, Obama is on the clock, he has had almost 40 months to right the ship. Usually when the economy tanks, it comes roaring back - we are all still waiting for the roar.

Does Obama, for the first time in Presidential history, get a pass?

If you are comparing Obama to his own words, then you have a point that he was wrong and you can certainly hold him to it.

---

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485

If you look it up (since you don't know it, apparently), you'll see what changed.

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Yes they will do everything they can and lie a lot to convince you voting for one or the other really matters. It does not. The only difference between Bush and Obama was the accent coming from the teleprompter. Actually Bush probably used more of his own material. Romney, Obama, get ready for more of the same. We are trudging along right behind Greece and Spain too, only we are a much bigger financial time bomb.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

like a 2-dollar Olongapo City "hostess"

I spent a lot of time in Olongapo City back in 1983. One of my happiest memories is Naval Gunfire School at Subic Bay. We'd sit in the Sun and blow shit up all day long. Then we'd party with the hotties and drink beer all night.

I miss the Marine Corps and that ain't no bullshit.

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Cause right now, we are in the worst recovery in our nations history.


Do you really believe the last few years in America were the worst recession and now recovery in history?

Many jobs are going overseas but blame the individual companies for that not the President. The jobs leave because other countries are doing the same or better work for less money and that is a reality that everyone has to live with. The alternative is to keep them here and increase prices and then people would bitch about that.


With the size of homes today, the personal debt to buy junk, the spending on dining out, the multiple televisions, cars, cell phones, computers, malls that are packed etc., you are just going to have a hard time convincing me that Americans are suffering.

I don't disagree with your premise, and everything is not Obama's fault but he sets the tone and he made promises and he has presided over another $5 Trillion and counting in debt with no plan to reverse course. But in defense of private citizens and private companies, they are de-leveraging, but the govt will have none of that - they are doubling down.

In the long run, the govt has to shrink, there is no other way through this mess. Its going to be painful. And when the Fed reverses course its going to be painful, how do you exactly pull back the $6T they have created from thin air.