Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Game over

The CBO projects unemployment will rise, hitting 8.8 percent in the third quarter of the year, the heart of the campaign. That’s terrible politics. Obama advisers have told us repeatedly on background that if unemployment is above 8.5 percent in the final months of the campaign, it will be extremely hard, if not impossible, to win. The advisers say independents will not return to Obama if it looks like economic growth is anemic and uncertain and it looks like his policies did little, if anything, to create new jobs under his watch.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html

As more people start looking for work again the numbers will tick up; add high gas prices this summer and we'll be back where we were last year. Romney has proven himself to be a horribly weak candidate, but I'd be shocked if he loses given the economic direction we're headed in.

4 years and no progress on the economy. Nobody wins with that record.

 

[AlteredBeast]

Does he understand that as President you're Commander and Chief? I mean he knows that the President is the boss of the generals right?

whattttt???? The president is the commander in chief?!?!

 

[Aaron Strife]

Game over


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html

As more people start looking for work again the numbers will tick up; add high gas prices this summer and we'll be back where we were last year. Romney has proven himself to be a horribly weak candidate, but I'd be shocked if he loses given the economic direction we're headed in.

4 years and no progress on the economy. Nobody wins with that record.

1) lol politico

2) Gas prices go down in the Fall.

3) Let's wait until the jobs numbers tomorrow before gloom and dooming it up.

 

[AlteredBeast]

1) lol politico

2) Gas prices go down in the Fall.

3) Let's wait until the jobs numbers tomorrow before gloom and dooming it up.

Gas prices didn't do much at all last fall or this winter. Record highs that are going to come down for no other reason? Yeal, politico is the odd one here.

 

[The Librarian]

Game over


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html

As more people start looking for work again the numbers will tick up; add high gas prices this summer and we'll be back where we were last year. Romney has proven himself to be a horribly weak candidate, but I'd be shocked if he loses given the economic direction we're headed in.

4 years and no progress on the economy. Nobody wins with that record.

Obama has a trump card he hasn't been willing to use yet. Recess-appointing a new head of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do much of the refinance thing he wants Congress to do.

Dunno why he hasn't done it yet.

Edit: Here.

 

[ToxicAdam]

Almost 3/4 of America still blame Bush for the economy. The Republican house still has historically dismal approval ratings. Romney is still largely just an extension of the same policies Bush had (and in some cases, doubling down) when he was in office.

Given those two data points, it's not hard to see how this GE is going to shake out and how the people will respond, if the proper argument is made.

The part of the Republican base that is enthusiastic is the same base that has been desperately looking for a non-Mitt for the past 6 months. The rest of the Republicans are decidely non-plussed and apathetic by their options.

Manufacturing is making a nice turnaround in the midwest (swing states) and the current 'energy boom' is helping out in other depressed parts of the country. The only thing that has been holding back the stock market has been the uncertainty in Europe.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Obama has a trump card he hasn't been willing to use yet. Recess-appointing a new head of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to do much of the refinance thing he wants Congress to do.

Dunno why he hasn't done it yet.

Edit: Here.

I'll believe that when I see it. Republicans have done quite a good job at destroying Fannie/Freddie in the eye's of people

On a side note I do find it kind of interesting that republican's basically did nothing about the Cordray appointment. Perhaps they're excited to do it when they take the WH

 

[gcubed]

I'll believe that when I see it. Republicans have done quite a good job at destroying Fannie/Freddie in the eye's of people

On a side note I do find it kind of interesting that republican's basically did nothing about the Cordray appointment. Perhaps they're excited to do it when they take the WH

to pass on it and be excited to do it when they take the WH would require some level of comfort that it would actually happen.

 

[PhoenixDark]

to pass on it and be excited to do it when they take the WH would require some level of comfort that it would actually happen.

Eh? I think they're pretty confident with their chances at the WH and senate, as they should be.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Game over


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html

As more people start looking for work again the numbers will tick up; add high gas prices this summer and we'll be back where we were last year. Romney has proven himself to be a horribly weak candidate, but I'd be shocked if he loses given the economic direction we're headed in.

4 years and no progress on the economy. Nobody wins with that record.

This was also predicted last year, BTW, but didn't pan out. Part of the reason so many people dropped out of the job market was to go back to school.

It will be interesting to see the dynamics play out. If the underlying economy is actually improving - and decent jobs being added each month - I think that would affect people's perceptions more than just the raw reported rate, which is fickle.

 

[Jak140]

Game over


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html

As more people start looking for work again the numbers will tick up; add high gas prices this summer and we'll be back where we were last year. Romney has proven himself to be a horribly weak candidate, but I'd be shocked if he loses given the economic direction we're headed in.

4 years and no progress on the economy. Nobody wins with that record.

The CBO only predicted that rise in unemployment would occur if the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits are not renewed.

 

[The Librarian]

The CBO only predicted that rise in unemployment would occur if the payroll tax cut is not renewed.

Interesting. Source?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Interesting. Source?

I don't have time to read it all right now, but probably buried in here.

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12699

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

The unemployment rate didn't really start to hit low levels until the end of Reagan's first term, yet he was able to win re-election. And unemployment rose dramatically during his second year in office, but that was due to the fact of Volcker's "slaying the dragon" policies.

 

[Puddles]

Obama can't possibly lose this.

Republicans of the '10s are, for the most part, horrible human beings, and it's pretty easy to see that if you're paying the slightest bit of attention. They've had two years to offer something to the American people, and all they've done is push social conservatism or propose an oil pipeline through an aquifer.

 

[Crisco]

Before the primary season ever started and economic news was still all bad, people were saying Mitt couldn't beat Obama. The prevailing theory back then was that some other GOP candidate would emerge and take the nomination. That didn't happen, we've had a primary season that has literally drug his name through the mud, and the economy is improving. Why is he all of a sudden more electable today than he was back then? It makes no sense. In lieu of extreme outside forces (Euro collapse, Israel starting a war with Iran) Obama's got this in the bag.

 

[Learn2read]

I also don't see why disgruntled unemployed people would flock to "I like to be able to fire people" Romney. If the economy tanks and there's a wave of economic populist resentment it could just as easily turn on him rather than Obama as the incumbent.

I mean just today while still reeling from another rich asshole gaffe, he's making an appearance with Donald "You're Fired™" Trump. He's clueless.

 

[Neuromancer]

I'm happy because I've got money riding on Obama winning. It seemed like a safe bet at the time and it's looking even safer now, haha.

 

[The Librarian]

I don't have time to read it all right now, but probably buried in here.

http://cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=12699

Yeah. I don't have time for more than a quick skim and I couldn't find it. Jak140, what's your source on that?

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

Well, my podcast being hosted at my university is becoming more and more of a reality.

My time could be 9am to 10am Mon-Thurs or 6pm to 7pm every Monday.

 

[Jak140]

Yeah. I don't have time for more than a quick skim and I couldn't find it. Jak140, what's your source on that?

As a general rule, CBO's baseline predictions are based on laws that are currently in effect, not on bills that might or will likely pass. Since unemployment benefit extensions and the payroll tax cut are scheduled to expire this year, their baseline predictions include the impact of their eventual expiration, but not their possible extension.

But if you need a specific source that states as much:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207603-cbo-budget-economy-worse-than-estimated?mrefid=

 

[ToxicAdam]

1% in GDP = 1 million 'jobs'.

 

[PhoenixDark]

As a general rule, CBO's baseline predictions are based on laws that are currently in effect, not on bills that might or will likely pass. Since unemployment benefit extensions and the payroll tax cut are scheduled to expire this year, their baseline predictions include the impact of their eventual expiration, but not their possible extension.

But if you need a specific source that states as much:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207603-cbo-budget-economy-worse-than-estimated?mrefid=

Where in that report does it say the UE projections were raised due to the potential of payroll tax cuts not being extended, it's nowhere in that report. It's basing the projection on slow GDP growth...

 

[The Librarian]

As a general rule, CBO's baseline predictions are based on laws that are currently in effect, not on bills that might or will likely pass. Since unemployment benefit extensions and the payroll tax cut are scheduled to expire this year, their baseline predictions include the impact of their eventual expiration, but not their possible extension.

But if you need a specific source that states as much:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/207603-cbo-budget-economy-worse-than-estimated?mrefid=

Well, your link doesn't say anything to the effect I'm asking, but what you're saying yourself makes sense. But when I was looking at the actual report, I noticed that the CBO estimates what would happen if some current laws are extended vs. not extending. Why didn't they do it for the payroll tax cut?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I think you just summed up my thoughts pretty well.

I don't understand. You are in a favor of a new Republican party, a party that more represents the party of old in terms of fiscal conservatism and yet you support a candidate who is more Tea Party extremist than fiscal conservative of yor.

 

[Jak140]

Where in that report does it say the UE projections were raised due to the potential of payroll tax cuts not being extended, it's nowhere in that report. It's basing the projection on slow GDP growth...

You are right that the baseline prediction was not raised because of any expiring law, because any previous baseline projections would have included the laws expiring. But, if the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefts are extended (basically any law that keeps money circulating in the economy), unemployment will not be expected to rise to the projected baseline prediction levels.

Well, your link doesn't say anything to the effect I'm asking, but what you're saying yourself makes sense. But when I was looking at the actual report, I noticed that the CBO estimates what would happen if some current laws are extended vs. not extending. Why didn't they do it for the payroll tax cut?

I think you are refering to where they present an alternate scenario where the Bush Tax cuts are extended after 2012 not including the payroll tax cuts. My guess would be that this is because the payroll tax cut in their view is more of a temporary stimulative measure. Of course the creation or extention of any measure that gives money to people likely to spend it will stimulate the economy. That's not to say they are necessarily more stimulative than targeted government spending, but they will reduce unemployment more than the baseline projections of no further government intervention beyond existing law.

 

[jamesinclair]

1) lol politico

2) Gas prices go down in the Fall.

3) Let's wait until the jobs numbers tomorrow before gloom and dooming it up.

Yup. In fact, election season is right before the annual low.

This May: OMG GAS IS 4.50 OBAMA IS DOOMED, OFF WITH HIS HEAD.

September: Wow, gas has fallen 50 cents in the past month, go Obama go!

November: Gas is only 3.75, yawn.

 

[gcubed]

Eh? I think they're pretty confident with their chances at the WH and senate, as they should be.

yeah, senate probably, but i just don't see any signs of them having a chance at the WH. I expect Romney to have a similar performance to McCain

 

[Diablos]

1) lol politico

lol Politico or lol CBO? That's where the data is really coming from.
The economy still sucks.
Romney securing the nom just made Obama's re-election effort 10x harder.

 

[jamesinclair]

Ladies and gentlemen, the Grand Oil Party.

The Ways & Means bill [PDF] would funnel all gas tax revenue toward road programs, redirecting billions of dollars per year away from transit, which for decades has received about 20 percent of fuel tax receipts. Instead, the House GOP wants transit funding to come entirely from the general fund, pitting transit against all other government spending. To offset that spending, $40 billion would have to be cut from the rest of the federal budget.

http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/02/02/house-gop-takes-transit-funding-hostage/


1) Cut funding
2) Argue that there are no funds, so services must be cut
3) Cut service
4) ????
5) Profit


In this case, ???? = handouts from big oil.

 

[Puddles]

yeah, senate probably, but i just don't see any signs of them having a chance at the WH. I expect Romney to have a similar performance to McCain

I don't see them taking the Senate either.

A Democratic sweep is the most likely scenario.

 

[Door2Dawn]

A democratic sweep?

I mean I think they'll pick up a few seats, but a sweep?

 

[Puddles]

A democratic sweep?

I mean I think they'll pick up a few seats, but a sweep?

Not like a 2008 sweep.

What I'm expecting is:

White House - Obama
Senate - Democrats keep a majority with 51-53 seats
House - Democrats take a narrow majority

The filibuster will still be an issue, but we'll be better off.

 

[Cheebo]

Here is an interesting fact:

There has been no President who has won re-election by a smaller margin than he won his initial election.

If Obama wins re-election by historical standards he'd also have to win by a bigger margin than in 2008.

 

[Puddles]

Based on current race by race polling that is kind of...impossible?

We're nine months out.

Republican blunders are going to drag down the entire ticket.

 

[Officerrob]

I'm still undecided on who to vote for. Trumps endorsement does nothing for me, I'll wait until Ryan Seacrest lets his position be known.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Yup. In fact, election season is right before the annual low.

This May: OMG GAS IS 4.50 OBAMA IS DOOMED, OFF WITH HIS HEAD.

September: Wow, gas has fallen 50 cents in the past month, go Obama go!

November: Gas is only 3.75, yawn.

A naive argument. High gas prices hurt unemployment. If UE is rising in the summer Obama is in trouble.

 

[mckmas8808]

Game over


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72329.html

As more people start looking for work again the numbers will tick up; add high gas prices this summer and we'll be back where we were last year. Romney has proven himself to be a horribly weak candidate, but I'd be shocked if he loses given the economic direction we're headed in.

4 years and no progress on the economy. Nobody wins with that record.

So if it's 8.6% Obama will automatically lose?

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

The dude is a narcissist--in other words, the perfect Republican.

And a colossal asshole. That helps

 

[Cloudy]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...in-us-history/2012/02/01/gIQAYUkriQ_blog.html

What a surprise! Another GOP talking point debunked

 

[Officerrob]

Here comes the circus

 

[Officerrob]

"He's not going to allow bad things to continue to happen"

That's some endorsement

Edit: So Trump spoke for 30 seconds and now Romney says his stump speech. What a waste

 

[Officerrob]

The CBO only predicted that rise in unemployment would occur if the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits are not renewed.

FYI Sheppard Smith on Fox News just confirmed this after Trump incorrectly forgot to mention this

 

[Cloudy]

Why would Romney even want Trump's endorsement?

 

[Officerrob]

Why would Romney even want Trump's endorsement?

He's looking for any kind of tea party credibility he can get

 

[PhoenixDark]

So if it's 8.6% Obama will automatically lose?

I think Obama loses if UE is 8.5 or higher, regardless of where the numbers are heading. He's had 4 years, people have lost belief that he knows what he's doing. Mix in another debt ceiling fight, high gas prices, Eurozone doubts, etc and I don't see a path to victory.

He's going to be the democrat party's Bush in terms of being completely ignored by future candidates, despite parroting his policies.

 

[mckmas8808]

A naive argument. High gas prices hurt unemployment. If UE is rising in the summer Obama is in trouble.

But what if it goes back down in the Fall?

I think Obama loses if UE is 8.5 or higher, regardless of where the numbers are heading. He's had 4 years, people have lost belief that he knows what he's doing. Mix in another debt ceiling fight, high gas prices, Eurozone doubts, etc and I don't see a path to victory.

He's going to be the democrat party's Bush in terms of being completely ignored by future candidates, despite parroting his policies.

That just seems crazy to me. Too many scenarios can happen to put a number out like that and take that stance. What if UE is 8.7% in May, but comes back down to 8.5% in September? I think it still matters what Romney and Obama say. And I think it matters what the GOP Congress does this year on trying to work with Obama on fixing the economy.

 

[Officerrob]

I think Obama loses if UE is 8.5 or higher, regardless of where the numbers are heading. He's had 4 years, people have lost belief that he knows what he's doing. Mix in another debt ceiling fight, high gas prices, Eurozone doubts, etc and I don't see a path to victory.

He's going to be the democrat party's Bush in terms of being completely ignored by future candidates, despite parroting his policies.

No matter what happens, your second paragraph is wrong. Bush had negative favorability numbers even among Republicans towards the end of his term. Obama is at around 80% favorability among Democrats

 

[Puddles]

I think Obama loses if UE is 8.5 or higher, regardless of where the numbers are heading. He's had 4 years, people have lost belief that he knows what he's doing. Mix in another debt ceiling fight, high gas prices, Eurozone doubts, etc and I don't see a path to victory.

He's going to be the democrat party's Bush in terms of being completely ignored by future candidates, despite parroting his policies.

There is no Clinton in the Republican party. No one even close.

 

[jamesinclair]

A naive argument. High gas prices hurt unemployment. If UE is rising in the summer Obama is in trouble.

Did you miss all my charts? Gas prices rise every summer. Does unemployment spike every summer?