fjl2nd

Spreading the wealth is a good thing though. We can argue on ways to achieve that, but high inequality of wealth is terrible for the economy.

Sharing the wealth. Cool catchphrase! What kind of numbers would you like to see right now? That's a terrible way to run a business. You would think you would hire based off of sales numbers or increased demand...

What would be good numbers to you? And how do we achieve those levels?

Even with your increased voter turnout for whites, Romney isn't getting all of those votes. Obama will get some. Romney will need a big increase to really see an effect. And I don't see minority voters not turning out for the President (unless Republicans have their way to suppress them. ) Whites will probably make up 74-75% of the electorate. As you said, it decreases just a tad each election. Latinos were the ones who really made the jump in 2008. I don't see that changing this cycle. Blacks actually made up the same % of votes as they did in 2000. Romney doesn't win with either group. I think you are really underestimating the Latino vote.

And? The economy was in freefall when he took office. Nothing could have stopped it. Fudged numbers? What?? Is everything a conspiracy here with the President?

Damn, I just posted a thread at the same time. Not just good news for Obama, good news for the economy. The revisions were great and 171k was better than expected.

The economy added 171,000 jobs. Better than expected which is good. What is even better is the revisions to previous months. August at 192k and September at 148k. Looks like things are moving FORWARD. Full Report from the BLS: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

Are you Dean Chambers?? http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/09/24/dean_chambers_meet_the_guy_who_s_re_weighting_polls_to_show_romney_way_ahead_of_obama.html

How do you know it was depressed? It seems more like minority voters came out more than usual. That would lower the percentage of whites voting. (BTW, I have 74% for white turnout in 2008) How do you know 2008 is an outlier and not a trend? There hasn't been a Presidential election since then. You are making a lot of assumptions here. Your "model" is nowhere close to perfect. It's more of what you hope happens. We won't know anything until election day.

I don't see anywhere where Silver says he incorporates the ideology score into his model. That chart is based off of another statistical model he links to. Maybe I missed it, but I'm sure you have links from his with his up to date scores? Probably not. Romney is a moderate....maybe. He is nothing. He says what people want to hear. Silver doesn't really use bad demographic assumptions. He uses the polls that are available. Why are the polls getting these demographic problems if you say the electorate is completely different? Are they purposely rigged?

His predictions in 2010 were great as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FiveThirtyEight#2010_U.S._mid-term_elections

http://www.cjr.org/swing_states_project/pundits_versus_probabilities.php I guess everyone is wrong...

I still can't get your link to work but you're crazy if you think Romney is getting 321 electoral votes! You have him winning Penn, Michigan, and Wisconsin? This is just silly. Romney is never winning Nevada, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, or Michigan. As for my prediction: Obama 281-257 Pretty standard map overall. http://www.270towin.....php?mapid=bbtt Obama wins PA, MI, WI, IA, NV, NH, OH Romney wins FL, CO, VA, NC

If Romney wins, I will go on just as planned. I have said many times that I don't mind him. I don't like the fact that he isn't consistent with his views and will basically say anything to get elected. I disagree with him on some economic policy as well. With a Romney Presidency, I am hoping the Democrats will hold to the Senate at least. (Looks like they will now) I think Romney can work with them and won't have to cave to all Republican wishes,

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/christie_had_veeping_doubts_b1gkN5io8CtDgcuiuEgMqL I'm not saying it's true, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Pretty sure Wisconsin and Iowa are in Obama's corner. But, it would still come down to Ohio anyways.

Looks like Chris Christie is getting ready for 2016. Praising the President quite a bit today. But, there have been reports in the past that he doesn't think Romney can win this year so it's not surprising.

Clearly, he doesn't. Nate Silver goes through exactly how his model works and keeps the reader educated on it. The hate for him now is actually a little funny though. Because they will all look very silly come election day.

I guess the President doing a pretty good job on this. Glad we didn't get hit too hard here.

I haven't even finished reading the damn thing. Haha. There are plenty of reviews and critiques of the book online. I'll give you my full take after I'm done. It's hard to do extra reading when I have so much other stuff to do for school. But, if you look at the recession and crisis from a logical point of view, there were a lot of factors that would seem to add up to a slow recovery. The foreclosing of tons of homes, the massive pile of debt on consumers, and technological advances creating higher unemployment. A lot of different structural issues. Everything seemed to go wrong at once. We are seeing signs in most areas now. I am still worried about the regulation of banks to prevent another crisis again.

This book has all the information you need: http://www.amazon.com/This-Time-Different-Centuries-Financial/dp/0691152640 Hailed by economists everywhere...

Read up on past financial crisis recessions. It is usually always a slow recovery.

You do have some points here but I'm assuming your answer to this problem is to cut spending correct? The truth is that spending has never been decreased. The reason that the spending to GDP is still high right now has nothing to do with an exaggerated explosion in spending, but more with the fact that GDP growth is not as high as we want and was negative in 2008 and part of 2009. So our focus should be improving the economy and adding jobs instead of dumb austerity policies that usually have the opposite of the desired effect.

John Sununu is probably one of my least favorite people in the world. He is very arrogant and usually doesn't realize how stupid (or in this case, bigoted) he sounds.

The idea that just Mitt Romney being elected will help the economy is probably the dumbest thing I've heard in history. And Romney had the balls to tell that to people as if he some sort of...should I say...messiah?? There is this idea that cutting taxes on the top 5% will somehow create strong economic or employment growth. Truth is there is NO EVIDENCE for that idea. Another article of the effectiveness of tax reform with historical evidence: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/romneys-tax-plan-and-economic-growth/#more-156823 Cutting taxes on the middle class is okay but then to add to it with cuts for the rich/wealthy is only not necessary, it hurts our deficit problem. And Mitt promised a balanced budget within 6 years?? LOLOLOLL Schooling is not the same as a television set, or a regular good. It is the basic tools necessary for children to succeed. If you want to treat it that way, then only the kids with the most money get to the best schools. Poverty is a huge issue when it comes to children's success already because they don't get the same great education as other kids. I don't Obama's plan is to just throw money at the problem. Race to the Top is a start and hiring 100,000 new teachers is good for economic growth, adding jobs to the economy, and hopefully bettering education all together. Remember that many teachers have been losing jobs as the rest of the economy was adding them. Let's just get back to the old level. Unemployment will drop and we can work even more on getting the economy jump started more from new demand. At the same time, hopefully states and unions can come together to get teacher contracts under control a little bit. It's not a problem everywhere however. In some places in the south, anybody can teach! That should probably change too. But most of you probably think education should be a state thing only. But, I believe there are plenty of benefits of setting the same standards across the countries for not only students, but teachers too. We need to recruit teachers who really care about their profession and are dedicated to teaching.