Democrats Beginning to Admit that Obama Could Lose… Was Last Week Obama’s Kick-Off to an Inglorious Demise?

As I was working away at my desk with ‘The Five’ playing in the background, died in the wool liberal Democrat Bob Beckel, the youngest deputy assistant secretary of state ever, for the Carter administration and the campaign manager for Walter Mondale's 1984 presidential campaign just freely admitted that Obama is losing in the polls right now between 5 and 7 points.

The Democrat desperation is showing from all sides.  The decisive loss in Wisconsin was  perhaps the beginning of the true panic. Then there have been the consistent torpedoes being thrown at Obama by former President Clinton; the devastating jobs numbers combined with ever closer looks at the ‘real’ job loses and manipulation of the figures that have been fed to the public by the Obama administration; the recent vetting of Obama that should have but didn’t happen in 2008 and the ‘failure’ of almost every attempted ‘created diversion’ by the Obama campaign... including their latest media blitz. 

Diane Macedo from the Fox Business network appeared on Huckabee over the weekend, along with Charlie Gasparino.  She said that the White House continues to repeat the 4.3 million jobs created number as fact, but to get to that number they only count jobs lost and created since 2010.  They have completely taken the millions of jobs lost in 2009 under President Obama out of the equation. In reality they have only created 55,000 net jobs.

We are also now losing thousands of baby-boomers monthly from the job market as they are retiring in droves.  These jobs and people are also not being portrayed accurately in the job number calculations just like other people who have stopped looking for work, no longer qualify for unemployment or have taken low-paying or part-time jobs so are underemployed.

In actuality, unemployment, if calculated correctly using all the figures, is somewhere at an average of between 14% and 16% across the country (Donald Trump said in an interview with Greta Van Susteran that it was more like 21 to 22%) and whichever set of numbers you choose they do not include the underemployed.

Then add to this Obama’s latest so-called ‘gaffe’ where he said that the private job market is doing just fine but the government sector needs help. Reince Priebus, RNC Chairman, said this was not a gaffe but a look into Obama’s ideology and the beginning of a push for another bailout. Additionally there is the new focus on classified security information having been allegedly ‘purposely’ leaked from the White House to make Obama look good and to up his numbers (They have upward of 13 sources who have come forward.)  Plus there is a renewed cry for information, truth (and for heads to roll) on the Fast and Furious front.  Many now believe that both Eric Holder and President Obama knew/know about both. McCain says Eric Holder has no credibility to oversee the leaks investigation. Most who have followed Fast and Furious and understand the connections within the White House circle (the Chicago Team) would agree.

For a brilliant guy President Obama sure says a lot of stupid things. Obama’s latest gaffe was so bad that even Candy Crowley was hammering David Axelrod on it. Obama claimed that the private sector was doing just fine and basically he already fixed that - it was just state & local governments that are struggling. Hear Crowley go after Axelrod and check out Glenn’s dismantling of Obama’s contention HERE.

As reported early last Wednesday morning on Breitbart, the media had obviously conspired with the Obama campaign over the Memorial Day holiday to start last week off with a well-organized media blitz meant to knock Romney off message and to aid and abet the Obama campaign's desire to define the former Massachusetts governor as an extremist. And we all saw this play out as the corrupted MSM blew up a wildly hypocritical narrative around Romney's ties to Donald Trump.

Well, I have good news… According to Byron York, Romney's refused to take the bait.

Mitt Romney's refusal to repudiate Donald Trump sent a signal, both to Democrats and the voting public: With the nation's future at stake in this November's election, Romney will not accommodate calls that he disown supporters who make ill-considered, unpopular, or sometimes outrageous statements on matters not fundamental to the campaign.

Romney aides believe that cooperating with Democrats and media figures who are demanding a Trump disavowal would most certainly lead to more calls for more disavowals of other figures in the future -- leaving Romney spending as much time apologizing for his supporters as campaigning for president. Team Romney views it as a silly and one-sided game designed to distract voters from the central issue of the race, which they remain convinced will be President Obama's handling of the economy.

By one-sided, they mean not only that Obama has not disavowed SuperPAC contributor Bill Maher for a number of Maher's statements that were particularly insulting to Republican women. They also mean the press, with, as Team Romney see it, questionable associations of its own. Has David Gregory, moderator of NBC's "Meet the Press," repudiated his colleague Al Sharpton, the MSNBC host with a decades-long record of incendiary statements and actions? ...

Another reason Romney is wary of such concessions is that John McCain tried them, and they didn't do him any good.

Romney also raised more money last month than any other politician has ever done.  He raised more money last month than President Obama. Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee reported they raised a combined $76.8 million in May, about $17 million more than President Obama and Democrats collected (who were previously considered an unbeatable fundraising machine).

On Wednesday, President Obama took another break from Washington by flying to California for a series of five fundraisers, including a gay-rights gala in Beverly Hills. (Remember that one… where Obama lowered himself and the dignity of his office to tell an off-colored sex joke about his wife?) But on Thursday, fundraising statistics released by both campaigns showed that GOP nominee Mitt Romney had surpassed President Obama for the first time in May, out-raising the president’s campaign $76 million to $60 million.

“We got beat,” said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina

Obama has nearly taken employment back to the 1950s… and that is not a good thing; only 58.6 percent of all Americans are employed — 1 percentage point higher than in 1956… under 59 percent of Americans employed for 33 consecutive months and counting.  The most startling figures that Team Obama consistently take out of the equation are exactly that, how few people are actually working compared to the population and the pool of available workers, for they don’t count all those that have dropped off the unemployment rolls and those that are underemployed.  Amazingly the highest unemployment is among blacks, Latinos, teens and recent grads (who are back living with their parents, have no work or are underemployed and have student loan payments) yet they seem to be the last to see that the Obama hope and change promise was all an illusion.

Stuart Stevens, who is Mitt Romney’s chief strategist, is also a novelist and memoirist, and last week he offered up a couple of bon mots (witticism or good words) that help frame the challenge President Barack Obama faces as the economy sputters.

“They think this campaign is ‘Travels with Charley’, Stevens says. “We think it’s more The Grapes of Wrath.’” 

“Travels with Charley in Search of America: (Centennial Edition)” is John Steinbeck’s gentle quasi-memoir of traveling across the country in 1960 with his poodle.“The Grapes of Wrath,” for those Americans who slept through eighth-grade English, is his searing novel of the migrant Joad family in the Depression.

Stevens insists that this election will have everything to do with the economy and nothing to do with how Romney treated his dog, and his second quip reflects the same analysis in a more positive context.

“They think the election is about eHarmony.com,” he says, referring to the dating website devoted to measuring compatibility. “We think it’s about Monster.com,”the job-finder site.

The photo below is a good snap shot of last week and where the Obama campaign finds itself.  Obama is chattering on repeating the same mantra that hasn’t worked.  His chief campaign advisor, David Axelrod, looks and sounds pained.  The ever loyal MSM or ‘lamestream’ media is looking a bit deflated these days.  And the main focus of the Obama campaign is dirty tricks, created diversions, and walk backs. From hope and change to smear and fear…

President Obama capped off his inglorious week by holding a hastily called news conference at the White House on Friday in an attempt to shift focus from the Wisconsin loss as some in the Democratic Party blamed Pres. Obama for staying out of the Wisconsin fight and essentially abandoning them... plus no doubt wanting to spin the bad job numbers.

It turned out poorly for him.

During his discussion of the economy, President remarked that the “private sector’s doing fine.” Within an hour, Governor Romney and other GOP leaders were ridiculing the president for his comment and preparing campaign videos to exploit the gaffe.

As the President walked out of that press conference Friday, a reporter called out to him for his reaction to the Wisconsin recall election. The president just kept walking.  But before he reached the door, another reporter shouted a final question, asking Mr. Obama if he’d enjoyed the pie that his self-appointed ‘Health Czar wife’ had purchased for him… reminding the room that giving up pie, large sodas and fast food is for the little people who need to be led.  At least Marie Antoinette was willing to let them eat cake!

Ask Marion~

Technorati Tags: Obamaland,manipulation of the public,jobs,media bias,media corruption,Wisconsin,Bob Beckel,let them eat cake,Team Obama,Election 2012,2012 Election,The Five,Reince Priebus

Jobs, Economy, Job Numbers

A Closer Look at the Jan. Jobless Numbers: Are They ‘Being Made Up?’

You may recall that major media outlets rejoiced and the markets jumped last Friday when the January jobs report was released.

“Labor Department today lowered the U.S. unemployment rate by two-tenths of a point to 8.3 percent, the lowest it’s been since February 2009,” Emily Knapp of Wall St. Cheat reported, “January data showed nonfarm payrolls to have risen a whopping 243,000, wildly exceeding even the most optimistic of economists’ projections.”

However, although the markets did indeed react positively to the good news, many analysts were skeptical of the data in the report.

“A month ago, we joked when we said that for Obama to get the unemployment rate to negative by election time, all he has to do is to crush the labor force participation rate to about 55 [percent],” editors at Zero Hedge wrote.

“Looks like the good folks at the BLS heard us: it appears that the people not in the labor force exploded by an unprecedented record 1.2 million. No, that’s not a typo: 1.2 million people dropped out of the labor force in one month!”

What does this mean?

Zero Hedge explains:

So as the labor force increased from 153.9 million to 154.4 million, the non institutional population increased by 242.3 million meaning, those not in the labor force surged from 86.7 million to 87.9 million. Which means that the civilian labor force tumbled to a fresh 30 year low of 63.7% as the BLS is seriously planning on eliminating nearly half of the available labor pool from the unemployment calculation.

Even conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the report, claiming that the data was “corrupt as it can be” because the Labor Force Participation Rate has been repeatedly adjusted.

Is Limbaugh out of line on this?

“After countless attempts to discredit or defend Friday’s jobs report, we can all agree on one thing: The data is complicated,” Gus Lubin of Business Insider writes. “So complicated that the BLS could make the economy look better than it was and no one would be sure.”

David Stockman

That’s more or less what David Stockman, former budget director for President Ronald Reagan, wrote in an email to former hedge fund manager Bruce Krasting.

On his blog “My Take on Financial Events,” Krasting wrote, “Is the current [Labor Force Participation Rate] a temporary phenomenon, or is this the ‘New Normal?’”

Krasting believes that if the current Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) is the “new normal,” it could have severe – even dangerous – effects on the economy.

Why?

“Virtually all of the economic models used by CBO, OMB, SSA and private economists are assuming that the long-term LFPR will be in the mid-to upper 60s. The consensus is 2-3 [percent] higher than where it is today,” Krasting writes.

“If you plug in a rate of 63 [percent] versus 67 [precent] over the next ten-years, it makes a huge difference on the size of the deficit and the public debt. It would cause the deficits at Social Security and Medicare to explode. The percentage of GDP attributable to the government would inevitably rise. The economy, and society in general, would be socialized [emphasis added],” Krasting writes.

In response to Krastings’ criticism of the jobs report, Stockman writes: “…if you spend a little time with these numbers you will know that they are being made up.”

Here’s the email (via Wall Street Examiner):

…I’m wondering if this goes much deeper. I don’t particularly believe in tin foil hats, but all of these mainstream economists treat the BLS and BEA data like it’s holy writ—when it’s evident that the reports are so massaged, estimated, deemed, revised, re-bench marked and seasonally adjusted that any month-to-month change has a decent chance of being noise. What deep secret might they be hiding?

So on the labor force participation rate they say, “No it didn’t go down in January because the 2012 numbers are re-bench marked for the 2010 census,” but for some reason the BLS didn’t bother to update the 2011 civilian population numbers, including December. Thus, the BLS published apples-to-oranges numbers on this particular variable and the footnote says the December participation rate would have been the same as January, if they had revised it!

Yet on another variable— the establishment survey jobs count—they were also busy re-benchmarking–but here they did update the originally reported numbers for every month of 2011. Even then, it is hard to say what got updated because the originally reported numbers each month are then revised during the next two reporting months—with any excess or shortfall reallocated to earlier months outside the three month window, which are not published on a revised basis, even though they have been revised! This reflects a wacko thing called the concurrent seasonal adjustment method.

… your point is that the longer-term trend of the labor force participation rate is really bad, and this truth is absolutely validated by the January report. Except it would have been equally bad in December had it been reported with the new census data…

But the mainstream narrative never gets to the trend. In this case, the plain fact is that we are warehousing a larger and larger population of adults who are one way or another living off transfer payments, relatives, sub-prime credit, and the black market. My suspicion is that this negative trend and many others like it get buried by the monthly change chatter from mainstream economists and on bubble vision, and that these monthly deltas are so heavily manipulated as to be almost a made-up reality. Call it the economists’ Truman Show.
…
In short, if you spend a little time with these numbers you will know that they are being made up. Funny thing that I remember during the depths of the 1982 recession Reagan read in Human Events one night that the seasonally adjusted numbers were being manipulated and one should look at the unadjusted numbers, instead. The next morning during an economic update briefing Reagan said, he wanted to talk about the “unadjusted” unemployment rate. Marty Feldstein turned white as a ghost, and then talked him out of it. Hmmm!

Read the full email here.

People line up at a Workforce Plus job fair, Thursday, March 26, 2009, in Tallahassee, Fla. 75,000 Floridians lost their jobs in February. The state's unemployment rate rose to 9.4 %, the highest since 1976. (Photo: AP)

Gallup: These Are the Most ‘Economically Confident’ States

Gallup has released an intriguing report that ranks the most “economically confident” states in America.

And although the report lists the most “confident” states, don’t be fooled into thinking these areas actually believe that the U.S. economy is improving. On the contrary, the report is careful to point out that, nationally speaking, faith in the U.S. economy is slipping.

In fact, out of all the areas surveyed, the place with the highest confidence rating (the District of Columbia) isn’t even a state!

“Economic confidence dropped in all states . . . in 2011, reflecting the overall decline nationally,” Gallup reports. “The declines range from a low of 3 points in Idaho and West Virginia to a high of 22 points in Delaware.”

Overall, two-thirds of the participants in the Gallup phone survey believe that the economy is getting worse, according to the data.

What does this mean?

“Americans overall and in every state remain more negative than positive about the economy, creating a challenge for President Obama as he seeks re-election this year, given the strong relationship between economic conditions and an incumbent’s re-election success,” Gallup reports.

It continues:

“On a near-term basis, however, economic confidence picked up in January of this year, perhaps foretelling a more positive uptick to come in 2012. Americans are also substantially more confident about the economy now than they were in the year Obama was elected. Thus, it is not clear if voters will reward him for the signs of economic improvement that have come in recent years, or hold him accountable for the fact that the economy is still struggling nearly four years after he took office.”

Perhaps before any conclusions are drawn from the Gallup report, a few things should be pointed out.

First, as mentioned several times on The Blaze, before accepting survey results, one should take into account the possibility of “sampling errors.” That is, one must bear in mind of the likelihood of skewed polling data.

Second, as the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein notes, there are some rather inexplicable results in the Gallup report:

… residents of Washington are more optimistic than, well, anyone else. Our Index is -4. The next-most optimistic state, North Dakota, is at -26. That’s rather odd, given that North Dakota’s unemployment rate is 3.4 percent, while the District of Columbia’s is stuck above 10 percent.

Indeed, that is odd.

“One possibility is that the poll is wrong,” Klein writes, “Another is that the political nature of the economic crisis leaves residents of Washington feeling more in control than residents of other states.”

Echoing the sentiments of Mr. Klein, even Gallup is slightly confused by the results: “There are no clear patterns in the states that rank in the top and bottom 10 in economic confidence. For example, the top 10 states vary by region and political leanings, including the most (Hawaii, along with D.C.) and least (Utah) Democratic states.”

This begs the obvious question: how did Gallup structure its phone survey?

Gallup explains:

Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking January 1-December 31, 2011, with a random sample of 174,639 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones…Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.

Okay, now that the methodology is understood, what do the results mean? That is, what does it mean when Gallup says that the District of Columbia has a “-4″ economic confidence rating?

The Index is based on the average differences between Americans’ assessments of current conditions (11% excellent or good and 48% poor in 2011) and their views of whether the economy is getting better (29%) or worse (66%). The Index has a theoretical range of -100 to +100, with negative scores indicating respondents are more negative than positive about the economy.

So, with that in mind, and despite the possibility of “sampling errors,” these are the most economically confident states (and the District of Columbia), according to Gallup:

Photo 2 of 11

10. Utah

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -31

Photo 3 of 11

9. Massachusetts

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -31

Photo 4 of 11

8. Iowa

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -30

Photo 5 of 11

7. South Dakota

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -30

Photo 6 of 11

6. Hawaii

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -30

Photo 7 of 11

5. Maryland

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -28

Photo 8 of 11

4. Nebraska

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -27

Photo 9 of 11

3. Minnesota

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -27

Photo 10 of 11

2. North Dakota

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -26

Photo 11 of 11

1. District of Columbia

Economic confidence from -100 – +100: -4

(H/T: The Huffington Post)

Here‘s the Chart That Has One Finance Writer Feeling ’Something Is About to Happen’

Joe Weisenthal is the intrepid finance writer over at Business Insider. He’s usually more plugged in than a Chevy Volt. So when he looks at a chart and says he feels “something is about to happen,” it’s not a bad idea to pay attention. And that’s just what he did.

Here‘s the chart from Weisenthal’s Wednesday-morning post:

I‘ll let Weisenthal explain what he’s seeing;

The above chart is the VIX. Sometimes it’s called the “fear index”. Whatever you want to call it, it’s a quick way of looking at how much investors are willing to pay for downside protection in the market. Right now, complacency is high, and nobody wants to pay much for “insurance.”

Once again, we‘re getting close to what’s been a floor for the index (since the crisis) and so it seems inevitable that something is going to come along and jolt everyone awake. [Emphasis added]

In other words, the lower the line on the chart, the more complacent people are. And when people are complacent, they don’t prepare. And that’s usually when something big happens to wake them up.

So what are the risks out there? Check out his post on Business Insider to see.

h/t to the Blaze

JOBS 'SAVED OR CREATED' IN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS THAT DON'T EXIST

Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says.

There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.

And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified.

Late Monday, officials with the Recovery Board created to track the stimulus spending, said the mistakes in crediting nonexistent congressional districts were caused by human error.

"We report what the recipients submit to us," said Ed Pound, Communications Director for the Board.

Pound told ABC News the board receives declarations from the recipients - state governments, federal agencies and universities - of stimulus money about what program is being funded.

"Some recipients clearly don't know what congressional district they live in, so they appear to be just throwing in any number. We expected all along that recipients would make mistakes on their congressional districts, on jobs numbers, on award amounts, and so on. Human beings make mistakes," Pound said.

The issue has raised hackles on Capitol Hill.

Rep. David Obey, D-Wisc, who chairs the powerful House appropriations Committee, issued a paper statement demanding that the recovery.gov Web site be updated.

"The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."

ABC News was able to locate several examples on the government's Web site outlining hundreds of millions of dollars spent and jobs created in Congressional districts that have been misidentified.

For example, recovery.gov says $34 million in stimulus money has been spent in Arizona's 86th congressional district in a project for the Navajo Housing authority, which is actually located in the 1st congressional district.

Click Here to Track the $787 Billion Stimulus Plan

The reporting problems are not limited to Arizona, ABC News found.

In Oklahoma, recovery.gov lists more than $19 million in spending -- and 15 jobs created -- in yet more congressional districts that don't exist.

In Iowa, it shows $10.6 million spent – and 39 jobs created -- in nonexistent districts.

In Connecticut's 42nd district (which also does not exist), the Web site claims 25 jobs created with zero stimulus dollars.

The list of spending and job creation in fictional congressional districts extends to U.S. territories as well.

$68.3 million spent and 72.2 million spent in the 1st congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

$8.4 million spent and 40.3 jobs created in the 99th congressional district of the U.S. Virgin Islands.

$1.5 million spent and .3 jobs created in the 69th district and $35 million for 142 jobs in the 99th district of the Northern Mariana Islands.

$47.7 million spent and 291 jobs created in Puerto Rico's 99th congressional district.

Stimulus Fund Mystery - Interesting facts and figures, but none of these districts exist.

The recovery.gov Web site was established as part of the stimulus bill "to foster greater accountability and transparency" in the use of the money spent through the stimulus program. The site is a well-funded enterprise; the General Services Administration updated it earlier this year with an $18 million grant.

ABC News' Zach Wolf contributed to this report.