DontDoIt
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 391
- Reaction score
- 72
- Location
- Illinois, Land of Liberals
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
I think he wins the popular vote by 3-4% unfortunately.
Simple question i believe he will.
Of course I was being facetious, the guy hasn't a chance in hell of winning. In my opinion, he won't run anyway, he is doing this for publicity.Either Pete is clueless or he is being facetious. I hope it was the latter.
Hillary is not running and noone will challenge him. A primary challenger, would mean a certain loss.Despite which republican runs against him, I could see Hilary, with the way things are going, getting the nod instead of him from the DNC.
Despite which republican runs against him, I could see Hilary, with the way things are going, getting the nod instead of him from the DNC.
Who knows why you used a chart that only went up to 5 months ago, but the unemployment rate has come down another ½ point since then.Unemployment Rate Since The Kenyan Tyrant took Office
All signs point to NO......
Considering how Obama constantly defies the Will of the People.......all signs point to HELL NO......
Simple question i believe he will.
You know, I thought for certain that Bush wouldn't have been elected to a second term. I'd say the same thing about Obama, but I've learned my lesson.
We will see.
Both Parties as well as the media in general including FOX news will try to squeeze out 3rd parties by either not mentioning them or try to paint them as nut jobs,thus making sure the other candidates do not have any name recognition or are painted as nuts.
Wasn't the republican party and other successful parties before it at one time a 3rd party?Third parties have never had success.
The most successful option they have is to change the debate.
Most Americans continue to believe in the notion that third parties are a wasted vote.
I would not blame this on Fox or the rest of the media.
The fact that you truly think unemployment has actually went down is hysterical.Who knows why you used a chart that only went up to 5 months ago, but the unemployment rate has come down another ½ point since then.
Currently, the unemployment rate is up 13% on Obama's watch. While that's not good, it's better than every Republican president since Hoover after their first 26 months in office:
Not as funny as you revealing to the forum that you think unemployment went up since then. Where do you get your "facts" from?The fact that you truly think unemployment has actually went down is hysterical.
Anyone that follows politics should know how misconceiving the unemployment stats are, and how rigged they are in order to make it appear politicians are doing there job...about like February when only 36,000 jobs were added but unemployment allegedly fell .4 points? Tell me how that even remotely makes since, beings how it take around 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep the rate steady?Not as funny as you revealing to the forum that you think unemployment went up since then. Where do you get your "facts" from?
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' unemployment figures indicate there were 943,000 fewer unemployed last month than in December, 2010:
BLS.gov: Unemployment Level
[COLORce="blue"]Subtract 395,000 from that which is the number of people dropping out of the labor force over that same period:[/COLOR]
BLS.gov: Not in Labor Force
And that leaves us with a grand total of 548,000 fewer unemployed than last December. Given that, the better question becomes -- how were you under the delusion that unemployment increased following the period badmutha omitted from the chart he posted?
It's absurd to give a Gallup poll more credence for the unemployment rate than the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For one thing, the BLS utilizes two methods to calculate employment; for another, the household survey data method polls up to 60,000 households per month, compared to Gallup's 18,000; also, unlike the BLS, Gallup doesn't seasonally adjust their rate; and lastly, Gallup's one method doesn't match either of the BLS's two methods. Now while you claim you're being unbiased, I can't help but feel you are since you're looking for polls that present the worst data instead of relying on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.Anyone that follows politics should know how misconceiving the unemployment stats are, and how rigged they are in order to make it appear politicians are doing there job...about like February when only 36,000 jobs were added but unemployment allegedly fell .4 points? Tell me how that even remotely makes since, beings how it take around 150,000 new jobs a month just to keep the rate steady?
First of all, I can't explain how you didn't notice that the numbers I gave you included the number of people who dropped out of the work force. Secondly, where are you getting that figure that 500,000 people dropped out of the work force in February? That number is 87,000:My point is, is the number are staggered to favor either party. The only reason the numbers "fell" for instance in that month was because 500,000 workers dropped out of the work and the government merely rules them as not being able to work since there are "no jobs"...they just exclude them. Less people to calculate into the equation = lower unemployment.
Unemployment falls to 9 percent; only 36,000 new jobs added - San Jose Mercury News
There was a big thread on it back in February on here, I couldn't find it, I'll look here in a minute, but there was reportedly around 500,000 jobs lost in February which "dropped out of the working force, and was considered no longer looking for work"It's absurd to give a Gallup poll more credence for the unemployment rate than the Bureau of Labor Statistics. For one thing, the BLS utilizes two methods to calculate employment; for another, the household survey data method polls up to 60,000 households per month, compared to Gallup's 18,000; also, unlike the BLS, Gallup doesn't seasonally adjust their rate; and lastly, Gallup's one method doesn't match either of the BLS's two methods. Now while you claim you're being unbiased, I can't help but feel you are since you're looking for polls that present the worst data instead of relying on the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
All that aside, I addressed your concern about the unemployment rate not accounting for people falling out of the labor force by including those numbers. I subtracted the number of people no longer in the work force from those who became unemployed and the number was still a drop in unemployment by more than ½ million.
First of all, I can't explain how you didn't notice that the numbers I gave you included the number of people who dropped out of the work force. Secondly, where are you getting that figure that 500,000 people dropped out of the work force in February? That number is 87,000:
BLS.gov: Not in Labor Force