http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary
This thing could be over really, really fast.
I know this goes without saying, but if Romney, after cruising in NH (which seems inevitable now) somehow wins SC, this thing will be OVER. If that happens, Florida will be a coronation and the later primaries will be a mere formality.
Originally posted by sh76A few more jobs reports like this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/u-s-payrolls-gain-more-than-expected-200-000-jobless-rate-falls-to-8-5-.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2012_south_carolina_republican_primary
This thing could be over really, really fast.
I know this goes without saying, but if Romney, after cruising in NH (which seems inevitable now) somehow wins SC, this thing will b ...[text shortened]... If that happens, Florida will be a coronation and the later primaries will be a mere formality.
and they might as well put a crown of thorns on Mitt's head. It would be interesting to see which face of his the blood would pour onto.
Originally posted by no1marauderOh the imagery! Niiiiice.
A few more jobs reports like this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/u-s-payrolls-gain-more-than-expected-200-000-jobless-rate-falls-to-8-5-.html
and they might as well put a crown of thorns on Mitt's head. It would be interesting to see which face of his the blood would pour onto.
Originally posted by no1marauderLong ago I predicted 8% unemployment by 2012.
A few more jobs reports like this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/u-s-payrolls-gain-more-than-expected-200-000-jobless-rate-falls-to-8-5-.html
and they might as well put a crown of thorns on Mitt's head. It would be interesting to see which face of his the blood would pour onto.
Close but no cigar. 😕
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderYup, if Obama is lucky, he may just have waited long enough for the economy to rebound.
A few more jobs reports like this one: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-06/u-s-payrolls-gain-more-than-expected-200-000-jobless-rate-falls-to-8-5-.html
and they might as well put a crown of thorns on Mitt's head. It would be interesting to see which face of his the blood would pour onto.
If he's unlucky, the pending European debt mess will drag us down along with it and the President may have to re-apply for a job as a Chicago community organizer.
Originally posted by sh76Well, he's only "running the world's largest economy" when the economy is pear shaped. When it's running well and not pear shaped, it has nothing much to do with the president, right?
Impossible to tell, but might would be nice to have someone with actual experience running things successfully get the chance to run the world's largest economy.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFIt always has something to do with the President, although the President's role is admittedly overrated. For example, I give President Clinton great credit for the economy in the mid to late 1990s. The Obama administration's policies have had mixed results, at best and we have been stuck in a sluggish economy with poor unemployment numbers for more time than the typical recession lasts. Was this all the fault of factors completely outside of the the President's control? Perhaps, but I'm unconvinced.
Well, he's only "running the world's largest economy" when the economy is pear shaped. When it's running well and not pear shaped, it has nothing much to do with the president, right?
I think (don't know, but think) that a Romney administration would have been better equipped to handle the economic malaise than the Obama administration.
Incidentally, I an NOT saying that Obama is a bad President. I really don't think he is. I give him credit for successfully ending the Iraq occupation and certainly I give him credit for having the guts to go get Osama. Repealing DADT was a good move as well. I am not in love with Obamacare, but at least I admire the President's determination to change the status quo.
What I am saying is that I just don't think that he has the expertise and experience to manage the US economy and I think the proof of that is in the results.
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76If the Republicans had filibustered bills like the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 instead of just voting no, things would have been quite different.
It always has something to do with the President, although the President's role is admittedly overrated. For example, I give President Clinton great credit for the economy in the mid to late 1990s. The Obama administration's policies have had mixed results, at best and we have been stuck in a sluggish economy with poor unemployment numbers for more time than th and experience to manage the US economy and I think the proof of that is in the results.
This chart is just one example of how obstructionist Obama's Republican opposition has been.
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
Add to the fact that this was no simple recession. When Obama took over the entire banking and automotive industry was poised to completely collapse. We we losing 750,000 jobs per month. You act like this was some normal, cyclical recession and it most definitely wasn't. Obama didn't simply have to stop the bleeding and fix his mess. He had to do so with a well oiled and disciplined political opposition that was hell bent on stopping him, and has the legal means to do so.
Originally posted by no1marauderAccording to romneyian quantum field theorists it will pour onto all faces simultaneously as a probability cloud exhibiting properties of wave-particle duality.
and they might as well put a crown of thorns on Mitt's head. It would be interesting to see which face of his the blood would pour onto.
