General Election Thread (no partisan sniping allowed!)

[Duvall]

This kind of seems like what Aiken did with the rape comment, when he said he misspoke and was sorry.

Akin, not Aiken.

[Duvall]

Will the Obama campaign be able to use this to blunt the narrative the media has built around the debate?

(Probably not. Political facts and the public seem to sit at different lunch tables in the cafeteria. )

Maybe, though it is tough to imagine that the political media would willing or capable of sticking with one story for more than a day or two regardless. This seems like as good a time as any for something shiny.

[Reisen]

DC media has been whispering since last night about a big scandal that's supposed to break Monday on Obama's campaign and foreign campaign contributions. We've already seen one "September surprise" with Romney, and non-partisan sources (WTOP political reporters) are claiming that this is going to be Obama's "October surprise", but have not given details, as they claim they are sworn to secrecy until the story breaks.

The on-air anchor sounded skeptical, and that it sounded like a retread of Obama's campaign getting their hand slapped in the 2008 elections over contributions from non-traceable prepaid debit cards. The politics reporter, however, claimed he thought this was a much bigger deal. I guess we'll have to see what comes out.

[Tommac]

Well the job numbers could not have been any better, or come at a better time, for the Obama camp. Now that's what people will be talking about, and not the debates, and it will be really tough for Romney to spin these in a negative way. All he will really be able to say is "too little, too late" or "yes it's good, but not good enough." Obama will do what he should have done in the debates and talk about how many months they have gone up now (and by how much).

Too bad the unemployment numbers don't include those who have exhausted unemployment benefits and still can't find work. I have one in my family in this category. I believe the real unemployment number would be much higher.

[JasonEvans]

DC media has been whispering since last night about a big scandal that's supposed to break Monday on Obama's campaign and foreign campaign contributions. We've already seen one "September surprise" with Romney, and non-partisan sources (WTOP political reporters) are claiming that this is going to be Obama's "October surprise", but have not given details, as they claim they are sworn to secrecy until the story breaks.

The on-air anchor sounded skeptical, and that it sounded like a retread of Obama's campaign getting their hand slapped in the 2008 elections over contributions from non-traceable prepaid debit cards. The politics reporter, however, claimed he thought this was a much bigger deal. I guess we'll have to see what comes out.

Here is a bit more detail.

According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws.

If the Capitol Hill donations are all to Democrats then it could look bad, but if they also go to the GOP, then this story will struggle to seem relevant.

The American people don't seem to care very much about stories like these. Unless the donations can be linked to some shady actions by Obama or those close to him, it generally ends up with the campaign returning the money and no one really caring about it. I just don't see any voters changing their mind because of some campaign finance scandal that likely won't be directly linked to the candidate at all.

But, we will see.

-Jason "I guess it really depends on how much attention the media pays to it -- the unemployment drop will be 3 days old by Monday" Evans

[JasonEvans]

We Ask America, a polling firm that generally auto-dials (no cell phones) and which Nate Silver describes as Republican-leaning, did snap polls last night in Virginia, Ohio, and Florida. They found Romney up 1 in Ohio and down 3 in Virginia and Florida.

PPP, which has a Democratic-lean, was doing polls last night in Wisconsin and Virginia. Their polls take several days but the organization says early results show a small 1 point move to Romney in Virginia and 2 points in Wisconsin, as compared to polls PPP did about a week ago.

Bottom line, we need a LOT more data but the Dems are saying Romney got a small bounce and the GOP is saying he got a game-changing bounce. Truth is likely in between

-Jason "of course, is it a bounce or is it a shift that will last... that is the most important question" Evans

[OldPhiKap]

I think the polls from here on in are intersting, but nondeterminative.

1. Many states are within the margin of error.
2. To the extent the polls seek to track "likely voters" only, that has a degree of speculation or conjecture thrown in.
3. Do folks give fully frank responses in a telephone poll? I've been polled twice this year by telephone, and indicated that I did not know who I would vote for. Not because I want to deceive them, but because it's none of their damn business. There is also the old "Helms factor" issue although perhaps that has dissipated.
4. It's all about turnout. Heavy rains in southern Florida or Eastern PA?
5. Three more debates, a foreign crisis or two, murky economic indicators, lots of new dirt on both candidates, and a ton of negative spending left to go. With 30 or so days left to go, this thing is just starting to gel.

[Mike Corey]

4. It's all about turnout. Heavy rains in southern Florida or Eastern PA?
5. Three more debates, a foreign crisis or two, murky economic indicators, lots of new dirt on both candidates, and a ton of negative spending left to go. With 30 or so days left to go, this thing is just starting to gel.

And the potential effect--and the little political science research--on month-long voting becomes more and more effectual...or at least, presumably so.

[OldPhiKap]

And the potential effect--and the little political science research--on month-long voting becomes more and more effectual...or at least, presumably so.

Very true, there is not a singular measuring/result point.

In a world of instant gratification and instant access to information, some things aren't known until they're revealed. Gonna be a late election night, and then the lawyers get involved if it is close.

[Reilly]

... I've been polled twice this year by telephone, and indicated that I did not know who I would vote for. Not because I want to deceive them, but because it's none of their damn business. ...

I left my voting place one time and was approached by an earnest young guy doing exit polling.

He very politely says to me, "Would you mind if I asked you a few questions?"

I just as politely, and with a very warm smile and slight nod, said, "Of course." And kept walking.

The earnest young guy looked confused and cocked his head to one side as I walked away, and I heard somebody else laughingly explaining it to him: "of course he would mind ..."

[Olympic Fan]

Does Obama get a bounce from the new jobs' report -- unemployment has fallen to 7.8 percent, the lowest rate since he took office?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/05/news...html?hpt=hp_t1

[budwom]

Neutron Jack Welch of GE fame, possibly showing signs of dementia, claims the Labor dept. rigged the numbers "Chicago style," even
though the numbers are prepared by non-partisan economists walled off from the political types. But I guess if you like to
believe in conspiracies, Jack, have at it. I wouldn't hold my breath for any proof from Jack.

[AtlBluRew]

I've been polled twice this year by telephone, and indicated that I did not know who I would vote for. Not because I want to deceive them, but because it's none of their damn business.

I'm curious, why did you take the call in the first place? I've turned down many polling requests. I'm irritated when anyone I don't know calls me. On top of that, several years ago, I consented to a poll, on the promise that it would take only a few minutes, only to have it go on and on, with the pollster continuing to ask questions about an issue (a school board issue) to which I had already disclaimed any knowledge or interest. I guess I'm asking why you're so generous with your time.

[gus]

Too bad the unemployment numbers don't include those who have exhausted unemployment benefits and still can't find work. I have one in my family in this category. I believe the real unemployment number would be much higher.

The way unemployment is calculated is imperfect of course, but it has been calculated consistently for years. While perhaps not a measure of "real unemployment" (and no measure will be perfect), it does still highlight a trend of decreasing unemployment since 2009, and an overall level lower than when Obama took office. And that is what's important here -- overall employment has improved under the President, and this will blunt Romney's attack on that front.

[OldPhiKap]

I'm curious, why did you take the call in the first place? I've turned down many polling requests. I'm irritated when anyone I don't know calls me. On top of that, several years ago, I consented to a poll, on the promise that it would take only a few minutes, only to have it go on and on, with the pollster continuing to ask questions about an issue (a school board issue) to which I had already disclaimed any knowledge or interest. I guess I'm asking why you're so generous with your time.

Poly Sci major who took classes that discussed polling. Kind of interested in the procees, and how they ask/stack the questions. Some are very reputable groups who ask straight questions; some are push polls driven by a party or candidate. Plus, I don't mind giving my opinion on most topics if someone really wants to know. I decline to answer questions on abortion as well as on personal income. Other than that, it's fairly interesting.

But I guess I'm tallied as part of the 5% undecided, so take poll results for what you will.

Now, if someone calls during a Duke game (or today's Braves game), they can talk to my answering machine or Mrs. OPK. Daddy ain't home.

[AtlBluRew]

Poly Sci major who took classes that discussed polling. Kind of interested in the procees, and how they ask/stack the questions. Some are very reputable groups who ask straight questions; some are push polls driven by a party or candidate. Plus, I don't mind giving my opinion on most topics if someone really wants to know. I decline to answer questions on abortion as well as on personal income. Other than that, it's fairly interesting.

But I guess I'm tallied as part of the 5% undecided, so take poll results for what you will.

Now, if someone calls during a Duke game (or today's Braves game), they can talk to my answering machine or Mrs. OPK. Daddy ain't home.

I get that. Thanks. And Go Braves! (Go Orioles, too ... Baltimore native here.)

[Mal]

Too bad the unemployment numbers don't include those who have exhausted unemployment benefits and still can't find work. I have one in my family in this category. I believe the real unemployment number would be much higher.

Perhaps, but this is how it's always been calculated, and it's worth noting that the numbers out today actually show 400k people returning to the job market but the unemployment figure still dropping by .3%.

The numbers are probably good enough for the Obama team to head into the weekend having mostly changed the subject from Wednesday's debate. The conspiracy theorists on the Fox side aren't doing Romney any favors, frankly, by reacting to this news by retreating to an alternate universe where the President rigged the statistics, and/or being unable to greet more American citizens with jobs as a positive thing. Just draws more attention to "More people have jobs" and overshadows Romney's more politically astute (and probably the only viable response, really, whether convincing or not) "That's nice, but it's not enough."

Over the long run, Obama needs, IMHO, to take this news and start talking about it, a lot. But more importantly, he needs to find a way to start setting the goalposts on job losses/growth and unemployment over the last four years to his advantage. Romney's been more successful in doing that to date, but if the President can boil down "We lost about two and a half million jobs in this economy the first three months after I came into office, and yet we're in positive job territory for the term as a whole" into something soundbitey, he'll have a winner that can take more steam out of Romney's primary claim for the office. As an aside, it's funny that despite all the back and forth and prognosticating and theorizing and all, we're pretty much exactly where the most astute political observers were saying, in about September of 2008, that we'd be right now: "Whoever wins this election is going to have a devil of a time getting re-elected because the economy's in a shambles and it's very unlikely to have fully recovered by 2012, regardless of what they do."

Unrelated thought: one thing I've found interesting [read: sad] in the debate aftermath is that, two days on now, while the aesthetic consensus is that Romney seemed well-prepared and aggressive and the President flat, the only thing anyone's taken away from the debate substantively is Big Bird. It's an open question whether the Obama campaign can effectively use the blatant reversal of many of his campaign platforms during the debate against Romney or not (especially the denial of his proposed tax cuts for the very wealthy), and whether or not Romney's wholehearted embrace of Medicare vouchers might wound him. But for most people, it's all Big Bird, all the time on twitter and Facebook, apparently. It sort of blunts Romney's attempts at pivoting toward moderation in the debate if all anyone remembers is he's the heartless monster who would throw Fred Rogers into the street.

[Stray Gator]

The way unemployment is calculated is imperfect of course, but it has been calculated consistently for years. While perhaps not a measure of "real unemployment" (and no measure will be perfect), it does still highlight a trend of decreasing unemployment since 2009, and an overall level lower than when Obama took office. And that is what's important here -- overall employment has improved under the President, and this will blunt Romney's attack on that front.

While I don't profess to be an economics expert, the numbers provided by the CNN article that headlines the 7.8% unemployment rate are somewhat puzzling to me. First, it reports that "a survey of U.S. households showed 873,000 more Americans had jobs compared to a month earlier." But then it reports that "[a] separate survey of employers, considered the key metric that Wall Street watches, showed businesses added 114,000 jobs in September. It marked a slowdown in hiring, after July and August were revised significantly higher." How could 873,000 more people have jobs if businesses only added 114,000 jobs?

Part of the explanation may lie in the subsequent statement that "[i]n the most recent household survey, the biggest hiring gains came in the form of 582,000 new part-time jobs in September. Part of that number can be explained by young workers, ages 16 to 24. The data show this age group saw a huge pickup in jobs in September, due almost entirely to seasonal adjustments by the Labor Department." Does that mean most of the 873,000 new jobs reported in the household survey, which constitutes the basis for the 7.8% unemployment rate, were part-time jobs of people under the age of 24 that are mainly a result of Labor Department adjustments?

Finally, the article concludes with the following:

Although the unemployment rate is right back to where it was when Obama entered office, the U.S. economy has still not recovered all the jobs lost before his inauguration.

Of the 8.8 million jobs cut during the recession, about 4.3 million have been added back. The Labor Department signaled last week that it may revise the job gains higher, but even so, the job market still has a long way to go before it's fully healed.

About 12.1 million people were unemployed in September, and 40% of them have been so for six months or more.

The so-called "underemployment rate," which includes people who are working part time for economic reasons, and those who have recently dropped out of the labor force, was 14.7% in September.

That part of the article indicates that the unemployment rate is "back to where it was" when President Obama took office, not lower. And while the article notes that government jobs grew in September, "[m]anufacturers cut 16,000 jobs -- the second month in a row they've slashed workers."

So when I read the entire article and try to digest all of the data, I find a bit confusing to determine the extent to which the employment situation is really improving.

[sporthenry]

Unrelated thought: one thing I've found interesting [read: sad] in the debate aftermath is that, two days on now, while the aesthetic consensus is that Romney seemed well-prepared and aggressive and the President flat, the only thing anyone's taken away from the debate substantively is Big Bird. It's an open question whether the Obama campaign can effectively use the blatant reversal of many of his campaign platforms during the debate against Romney or not (especially the denial of his proposed tax cuts for the very wealthy), and whether or not Romney's wholehearted embrace of Medicare vouchers might wound him. But for most people, it's all Big Bird, all the time on twitter and Facebook, apparently. It sort of blunts Romney's attempts at pivoting toward moderation in the debate if all anyone remembers is he's the heartless monster who would throw Fred Rogers into the street.

This is the somewhat humorous but sad part of our political discourse that 90 minutes will probably end up being more remembered for Big Bird than anything else. I'm not sure if this is part of the liberal media or just most of the public trying to simplify politics after being lost in discussions of Bowles-Simpson or Dodd-Frank. Either way, as good as Romney was, it seems to be a serious miscalculation to bring up Big Bird, he could have easily brought up PBS and not mentioned Sesame Street and gotten away with it. He was just lucky Obama didn't let this one fly during the debate, "Romney Plans To Let Wall Street Run Wild Again, But He's Bringing The Hammer Down on Sesame Street".

The way unemployment is calculated is imperfect of course, but it has been calculated consistently for years. While perhaps not a measure of "real unemployment" (and no measure will be perfect), it does still highlight a trend of decreasing unemployment since 2009, and an overall level lower than when Obama took office. And that is what's important here -- overall employment has improved under the President, and this will blunt Romney's attack on that front.

Yes, I think many Americans realize that people who are underemployed or stopped looking are not counted since it is beaten down our throats but as you mention, it is always done this way so it is still a relative comparison number. I'm sure during a recession there are numbers like more people stop looking or are underemployed but this number is still encouraging to say the least. And this is also why you have numbers coming out about those underemployed or leaving the workforce.

So when I read the entire article and try to digest all of the data, I find a bit confusing to determine the extent to which the employment situation is really improving.

So if someone who is fairly knowledgeable and tries to understand the whole jobs report is stymied, the average American will just take the number they hear on the local or national news tonight and run with it.

[Wander]

This stuff about whether the unemployment rate is better/worse than when Obama took office is just a cute spin on numbers (by both sides) that's mostly meaningless. It's not like a basketball game where a score of "Duke 85, UNC 84" is a radically different result from "Duke 83, UNC 84." The more important thing is to look at the jobs numbers over the long term, not month-to-month fluctuations. A graph (link below) of the unemployment rate over many years shows that unemployment began soaring before Obama even won the democratic nomination, and peaked in October 2009. It's been in a decline since. Whether or not that decline can be a) attributed to Obama's policies, b) is fast enough, or c) is better or worse than what a Romney presidency would offer is up for debate, and I'm not sure where I stand on those questions. But I think the unemployment number from January 2009 is an artificial point of comparison.

http://reflectionsofarationalrepubli...data.jpg?w=640