• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss in November

Since they're not measured by private sector, you'll never know the impact of discouraged workers on the private sector.

And Bush lost more private sector jobs at this point than Obama.

You voted for Bush with those results but claim Obama's results don't warrant a vote. :roll::roll::roll:

Of course, if Obama put an "R" after his name, you wouldn't vote for anyone but Obama.

Discouraged workers by month

Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey
Original Data Value

Series Id: LNU05026645
Not Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking
Labor force status: Not in labor force
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Job desires/not in labor force: Want a job now
Reasons not in labor force: Discouragement over job prospects (Persons who believe no job is available.)
Years: 2001 to 2012

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
2012 1059
 
Really? Hmmm, even if you disagree with this link please explain the 1.057 million discouraged workers in January

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

You really are one desparate political hack, supporting the empty suit in the WH. Hope he is paying you well.

Discouraged workers under Bush increased 433,000

Discouraged workers under Obama increased 325,000

Try harder, Con!

:lol::lol::lol:
 

Discouraged workers under Bush increased 433,000

Discouraged workers under Obama increased 325,000

Try harder, Con!

:lol::lol::lol:

LOL, now is funny, you really don't understand discouraged workers do you. it isn't cumulative. the annual is the average for the year. Do liberals ever apologize when caught lying or not knowing what the hell they are talking about?

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2001 301 287 349 349 328 294 310 337 285 331 328 348 321
2002 328 375 330 320 414 342 405 378 392 359 385 403 369
2003 449 450 474 437 482 478 470 503 388 462 457 433 457
2004 432 484 514 492 476 478 504 534 412 429 392 442 466
2005 515 485 480 393 392 476 499 384 362 392 404 451 436
2006 396 386 451 381 323 481 428 448 325 331 349 274 381
2007 442 375 381 399 368 401 367 392 276 320 349 363 369
2008 467 396 401 412 400 420 461 381 467 484 608 642 462
2009 734 731 685 740 792 793 796 758 706 808 861 929 778
2010 1065 1204 994 1197 1083 1207 1185 1110 1209 1219 1282 1318 1173
2011 993 1020 921 989 822 982 1119 977 1037 967 1096 945 989
 
Really? Hmmm, even if you disagree with this link please explain the 1.057 million discouraged workers in January

Record 1.2 Million People Fall Out Of Labor Force In One Month, Labor Force Participation Rate Tumbles To Fresh 30 Year Low | ZeroHedge

You really are one desparate political hack, supporting the empty suit in the WH. Hope he is paying you well.

I pointed out in another thread that BLS numbers suck. Those same BLS stats show an increase in the civilian noninstitutional population of 1,685,000 from Dec 2011 to Jan 2012. Do you really think the population increased that much in a month? Magnify to 150X and look!

http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea01.pdf
 
LOL, now is funny, you really don't understand discouraged workers do you. it isn't cumulative.
Stop lying, Con, I never said it was cumulative.

But here, check this out ... this is you saying it IS cumulative ....



Now for the rest of the story, since Obama has taken office over a million people per month have dropped out of the labor market. Guess that is a success to liberals.


MSN-Emoticon-laughing-127.gif
 
Moderator's Warning:
Guys, you have had this same discussion dozens of times. The topic of this thread is the gallop Poll and job approval ratings and things directly related to that. Let's take the job numbers that we all know by heart to another thread where it is the actual topic.
 
Stop lying, Con, I never said it was cumulative.

But here, check this out ... this is you saying it IS cumulative ....



MSN-Emoticon-laughing-127.gif

Then why would you blame Bush for raising the number 433.000 when it was only for one month which you took from 2001 as a comparison? How many months has Obama had over a million? Was Bush in office in 2010? Every month that Obama has been in office a million people have dropped out of the labor market thus aren't counted as unemployed. You are the one lying.
 
Then why would you blame Bush for raising the number 433.000 when it was only for one month which you took from 2001 as a comparison? How many months has Obama had over a million? Was Bush in office in 2010? Every month that Obama has been in office a million people have dropped out of the labor market thus aren't counted as unemployed. You are the one lying.
Ummm, what number do you come up with when you subtract 301,000 from 734,000?
 
Ummm, what number do you come up with when you subtract 301,000 from 734,000?

The question is why would you do that and seem to indicate that was a trend. Better question is why are you one of those on the Gallup poll that supports Obama with numbers worse than Bush?
 
Every month that Obama has been in office a million people have dropped out of the labor market thus aren't counted as unemployed. You are the one lying.
G'head and prove that unbelievable lie. You realize you have to show that there have been 36 million people dropping out of the labor market since January, 2009, right?
 
G'head and prove that unbelievable lie. You realize you have to show that there have been 36 million people dropping out of the labor market since January, 2009, right?

Dropping out of the labor MARKET isn't dropping out of the labor force, NICE DIVERSION. Each Month Obama had a million discouraged workers that weren't counted as unemployed more than double the Bush average
 
Dropping out of the labor MARKET isn't dropping out of the labor force, NICE DIVERSION. Each Month Obama had a million discouraged workers that weren't counted as unemployed more than double the Bush average
Still waiting for you to prove that 36 million people have dropped out of the labor market.
 
Sheik Yerbuti: "Still waiting for you to prove that 36 million people have dropped out of the labor market."

Conservative: <silence>
 
The Obama campaign is coming out with a new poster:

409243_354491591236757_100000277582045_1265270_1459980744_n.jpg


The GOP needs to run a real candidate in 2016. :mrgreen:
 
The fact that a man like Gingrich not only had the balls to run, but actually at a point had a chance shows how bad the GOP has become.

A former speaker of the house, with his complications aside, shows how bad the party is, but not the stature of Trump or Palin? You have said that about any GOP member at nearly any time. If there's one thing I am expecting, it's more feigned mourning from certain posters here.
 
Barone is a Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Examiner, where he writes a twice weekly column and contributes to their Beltway Confidential blog. He is also a frequent contributor during Fox News Channel's election coverage. His political views are generally conservative.

Source: Michael Barone (pundit) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss

by Conn Carroll Senior Editorial Writer

Source: Gallup state numbers predict huge Obama loss | Campaign 2012 | Washington Examiner

Conn Carroll

Conn Carroll, who wrote the article in the OP works for The Heritage Foundation and Beltway Confidential is a right-wing site. So The Heritage Foundation is smart enough to take Gallup's average job approval rating for a state in 2011 and apply it to the states, as if they will vote based on the average approval rating in 2011. With a bad economy, why would you expect Obama to have a good approval rating? Notice, they didn't do it for Congress! The whole analysis by the article is flawed with bias and is intentionally designed to be deceptive.

Among all Americans, Obama leads Romney 52 to 43 percent, whereas among registered voters, the president has a narrower edge over Romney, 51 to 45 percent.

Source: Poll: Obama over 50% vs. Mitt Romney - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com

That's telling me voter registration is an important issue in this election.
 
The Obama campaign is coming out with a new poster:

409243_354491591236757_100000277582045_1265270_1459980744_n.jpg


The GOP needs to run a real candidate in 2016. :mrgreen:

What if they ran Eastwood?

But Steve Schmitt would probably convince him to put Ted Nugent on the ticket.
 
Back
Top Bottom