Video: Obama In Tonight's Late Show With David Letterman

[Ulysses G.]

Cudos to President Obama, or as I like to call him, two-term Obama.

Don't count your chickens. A new report on voter registration trends finds that Democratic voter registration is down by more than 800,000 since 2008 in eight key battleground states. GOP registration has also declined — but by only 79,000, a tenth of the Democrats’ losses. For some strange reason, many democrats are not very enthusiastic about another 4 years of Obama.

[Jingthing]

I'm way beyond counting my chickens, but I don't begrudge sports fans the drama of acting like there is still a race. Also it would be a bad idea to project overconfidence. I'm sure Obama won't do that. He will fight this down to the wire as if it were really close. Which it ain't.

[keemapoot]

You can say what you like about Intrade, but the people who are putting their money on this race give it roughly 78% to Obama and 21% to Romney, with Romney in a freefall on the chart....

[Ulysses G.]

It is no secret that they are wrong on politics continually including predicting that the Supreme Court decision for health care would be repealed at 77%.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[keemapoot]

Keep trying. Old wise adage: follow the money:

"In the 2004 presidential election, the market favorite won the electoral vote in every state. This occurred when, even as late as election day, many pollsters and analysts were predicting a John Kerry victory. In Florida, a number of polls put Kerry ahead in that state, or said the race was too close to call. The betting markets, however, correctly and consistently showed Bush would win Florida comfortably."

"Intrade followed up in 2006 when the market favorite won each and every Senate seat up for election."

http://www.pollingreport.com/lvw_bet.htm

[Ulysses G.]

About a week before Ryan was picked as Romney's VP candidate, Intrade had 3 others higher that Ryan on their list. When it comes to politics they have a very poor record.

But even in the case of elections, the usefulness of Intrade is pretty questionable. As Slate's Daniel Gross noted in 2008 after Intrade's not-so-impressive performance in the Clinton-Obama primary, "The price movement tends to respond to conventional wisdom and polling data; it doesn't lead them."

Most of the people making bets on Intrade don't have access to better information than anyone else.

http://blog.foreignp..._to_intrade_now

Edited September 28, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

How is Obama going to improve his administration? It's a dead cinch what he has attempted so far isn't working, so how will he change if he gets another four years?

How do those fiscal forecasts look to you? Forget Romney's laugh and underwear for a minute and look at what Obama has done. Your straw man arguments are getting tiresome.

I don't think the numbers are that bad. It will be interesting to hear Romney actually say *how* he is going to improve them. If he flannels through the debates the way he's been flannelling in front of his supporters, offering nothing of any substance, then he's finished.

The Obama campaign received some campaign ammunition Thursday: The Labor Department said hiring was stronger from April 2011 through March 2012 than previously estimated. The economy created 386,000 more jobs in that 12-month period. That means the White House can now claim the economy has added jobs under Obama — a net gain of about 100,000.

Obama prefers to focus on job creation by private employers since they began reporting net hiring gains in February 2010. That total is now put at 5.1 million, up from a previously estimated 4.6 million.

In contrast to private employers, the public sector has been cutting jobs for the past three years. And the United States still has about 4 million fewer jobs than before the Great Recession.

Still, the economy is benefiting from growing confidence that it's on the right track. Consumer confidence jumped this month to its highest level since February. And steady gains in home prices, along with record-low mortgage rates, have helped fuel a modest recovery in housing.

Both trends could boost consumer spending, which drives about 70 percent of growth.

[Ulysses G.]

You do not think that the numbers are that bad? The government has been claiming that things are "impoving" for 4 years now. The unemployment is still above 8% and the economy grew at a scant 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. That was down from the 1.7 percent rate the government had previously estimated. The economy is dismal and the administration's attempt to spin the numbers does not change reality.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Here is what happens when a journalist dares to ask Obama a serious question about the economy.

http://teamcoco.com/...oth-on-the-view

Edited September 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

How is Obama going to improve his administration? It's a dead cinch what he has attempted so far isn't working, so how will he change if he gets another four years?

How do those fiscal forecasts look to you? Forget Romney's laugh and underwear for a minute and look at what Obama has done. Your straw man arguments are getting tiresome.

I don't think the numbers are that bad. It will be interesting to hear Romney actually say *how* he is going to improve them. If he flannels through the debates the way he's been flannelling in front of his supporters, offering nothing of any substance, then he's finished.

The Obama campaign received some campaign ammunition Thursday: The Labor Department said hiring was stronger from April 2011 through March 2012 than previously estimated. The economy created 386,000 more jobs in that 12-month period. That means the White House can now claim the economy has added jobs under Obama — a net gain of about 100,000.

Obama prefers to focus on job creation by private employers since they began reporting net hiring gains in February 2010. That total is now put at 5.1 million, up from a previously estimated 4.6 million.

In contrast to private employers, the public sector has been cutting jobs for the past three years. And the United States still has about 4 million fewer jobs than before the Great Recession.

Still, the economy is benefiting from growing confidence that it's on the right track. Consumer confidence jumped this month to its highest level since February. And steady gains in home prices, along with record-low mortgage rates, have helped fuel a modest recovery in housing.

Both trends could boost consumer spending, which drives about 70 percent of growth.

Miraculously some 40 days before the election and the Labor Department, headed by Linda Solis an Obama appointee, comes up with yet another 386,000 new jobs they missed somehow the year before? Did Labor also find a magical 400,000 or so that really didn't lose their jobs during the Obama administration as well? Where was this magic number six months ago?

Let me answer, teacher!!! The numbers didn't exist until they dreamed up something new to spring on the electorate!

Since you don't believe the economic figures are so terrible, let me assume you are either not an American or you have not yet lost your job under the massive weight of executive orders, regulations and rules issued by Obama.

You keep saying Romney needs to detail what he will do to create jobs yet you seem deaf to Obama's absence of saying what he will CHANGE in this administration to get people back to work. He has had nearly four years to accomplish what he needs to and has been an abject failure on every front...with the exception of being an engaging chap who loves to fly Air Force One and raise money for his perpetual campaign. He had a super majority in Congress for the first two years and wasted all his political capital on Obamacare rather than concentrating on the real problems in America, which were, and still are, jobs and the economy.

So, what is Obama going to do to turn things around that he hasn't already taken a stab at?

Simply cooking the books for new jobs doesn't help that 23,000,000 under/unemployed.

Edit in: Since you didn't provide a link to the imaginary 368,000 proud new job holders, I looked it up.

Here is a little more cynical approach to those remarkable figures:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The article opens with this...

Obama’s Labor Department just created 386,000 jobs. Does that mean unemployment will go down next Friday?

September 27, 2012 | 2:52 pm

Conn Carroll

Senior Editorial Writer

This morning the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics released its annual “preliminary estimate” of the “annual benchmark revision to the establishment survey employment series.” Using updated state unemployment insurance tax records, the BLS now estimates that the U.S. economy created 386,000 more jobs over the past 12 months then they previously thought.

So if the U.S. economy magically has 386,000 more jobs today than it did yesterday, does this mean that unemployment will drop dramatically next Friday when BLS releases it monthly jobs report? No.

...and closes with this...

So today’s BLS reestimate changes nothing. The current jobs market is incredibly weak and has gotten weaker the past two months. Couple that with news that U.S. durable good orders in August fell by the most since the recession, and economic growth for the second quarter was downgraded from 1.7 percent to 1.3 percent, and it is clear that the Obama economy is failing.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-labor-department-just-created-386000-jobs.-does-that-mean-unemployment-will-go-down-next-friday/article/2509206#.UGZkf5jMi5w

Edited September 29, 2012 by chuckd

[Neurath]

Miraculously some 40 days before the election and the Labor Department, headed by Linda Solis an Obama appointee, comes up with yet another 386,000 new jobs they missed somehow the year before?

"A government report on Friday showed a decline in real personal income in August"

No doubt put together by a bloody bush appointee, eh?

[chuckd]

Miraculously some 40 days before the election and the Labor Department, headed by Linda Solis an Obama appointee, comes up with yet another 386,000 new jobs they missed somehow the year before?

"A government report on Friday showed a decline in real personal income in August"

No doubt put together by a bloody bush appointee, eh?

What does your link have to do with an alleged 386,000 new jobs created under the Obama administration in the past year and somehow overlooked in their monthly reporting?

Until 40 days before the election, that is.

[keemapoot]

Meanwhile, according to a new poll, Thurston Howell III has Lovey's vote locked up, but Ginger not so much, and no way he's getting MaryAnn's vote.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/romney-leads-among-women-long-theyre-wealthy-140400745.html

[Chicog]

He had a super majority in Congress for the first two years and wasted all his political capital on Obamacare

Let me remind you that that was one of the things on which he campaigned, and it's somewhat idiotic in this day and age to actually criticise a politician (of any leaning) who actually does what he says he's going to do.

I don't remember it sailing through unopposed, either.

Is this all that American politics has become? "If you won't do what we want, we"ll just stop you doing what you want".

The self serving scum.

Anyway, all this doom and gloom you keep portraying seems to be falling on deaf ears. Perhaps the American people are wise enough to know who put them in this hole, how big it is, and who will spend money dragging them out of it, rather than spending it giving his rich mates more tax cuts. From a week or so ago:

All three of the weekly comfort index’s components improved. The index of Americans’ views on the current state of the economy rose to minus 71.3, the highest since mid-June, from minus 72.4. The personal finance barometer rose to minus 5.3 from minus 6.2, and the measure of Americans’ view of the buying climate climbed to minus 45.8 from minus 47.9.

“We saw last month consumer confidence ticked up, and I believe that we’re going to see that continue to tick up as the economy continues to stabilize,” David R. Jaffe, president and chief executive officer at Ascena Retail Group Inc., said during a Sept. 6 teleconference. Suffern, New York-based Ascena, whose brands include dressbarn, is specialty retailer of women’s apparel.

The Bloomberg Consumer Comfort Index is in line with the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan preliminary consumer sentiment for September, which unexpectedly rose to a four-month high of 79.2, according to a report last week.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Chicog

[koheesti]

On Weds. Letterman show, he had UK PM David Cameron as a featured guest. Letterman asked Cameron what he thought about these massive amounts of money and in Romney's case, 8 years of campaigning for the office of US President. Cameron described how in the UK, his entire campaign war chest amounted to $175,000! And, the campaigning process took about 6 months. Further, he described how TV ads are banned in the UK for candidates. These comments brought thunderous applause.

I agree. We need to dismantle and overhaul this whole defunct electoral process, starting with the superPACS.

As someone who used to be in the advertising business, I can tell you that while we the people hate political advertising, it is a windfall for media outlets, ad agencies, media agencies, etc. There are a lot of jobs and profits tied to the crap.

In the UK, can't the PM call an election whenever he feels like it? I guess small countries without a constitution can do that kind of stuff. What we really need is a king or queen who can disband Congress if they are deadlocked. Maybe we can officially give that title to Obama come January.

[koheesti]

The important thing this election is the dog tied to the roof of the car and scared shi_tless.

Keep your priorities straight!

A cat tied to the roof would be scared shirtless. A dog would probably love it. Well, a real dog that is, not the kind Paris Hilton can fit in her purse.

[koheesti]

In 2008 the program cost the federal government $772 Million but, like everything else under Obama, the cost has more than doubled to $1.6 Billion in 2011.

My question is, if it is a federal program, why is it called an "Obama phone"? Why not a "Bush phone" since GWB is the one that started the cell phone program.

In Russia, chicken legs and thighs are called "Bush Legs" because Bush 41 was President when the deal was made to export them to Russia.

How did US-grown chicken end up with such a name? Well, they say a poultry import agreement was reached back in the 80’s, during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. In Russian markets, the imported chicken was dubbed

NOZH-kee BYSH-a

, a diminutive form that has stuck, which would be translated

sweet, cute little Bush legs

. Usually it’s spoken with a smile and a chuckle. And when an American uses the term, the vendors get quite a laugh.

http://russiawithlove.blogspot.com/2009/01/bush-legacy-from-russian-perspective.html

Obama is too much of a narcissist to let anyone attach anyone else's name to any program.

[koheesti]

He had a super majority in Congress for the first two years and wasted all his political capital on Obamacare

I don't remember it sailing through unopposed, either.

Thanks to Blue Dog Democrats, not the minority party Republicans. So the Obama can turn that finger around and blame some of the American patriots of his own party for a change.

Is this all that American politics has become? "If you won't do what we want, we"ll just stop you doing what you want".

The self serving scum.

I agree with you here, it is bad. But it doesn't stop with Congress.

Some people in the country feel that if there is an election on a referendum and it loses, then they must have another referendum until they get the result they desire, then no new votes take place. OR, if the referendum still fails, they sue in court to change the will of the people. Self-serving scum here too.

It doesn't stop there either. Our own President, when Congress won't do what he wants, he just issues an Executive Order to change the law of the land. Yet another example of self-serving scum ignoring the will of the people.

Sadly, self-serving scumminess has become the way we do things in American politics and it is disgusting.

[Scott]

A post with an oversized chart has been removed. If posting pictures, please resize them otherwise it messes up the formatting for the thread.

[Neurath]

Miraculously some 40 days before the election and the Labor Department, headed by Linda Solis an Obama appointee, comes up with yet another 386,000 new jobs they missed somehow the year before?

"A government report on Friday showed a decline in real personal income in August"

No doubt put together by a bloody bush appointee, eh?

What does your link have to do with an alleged 386,000 new jobs created under the Obama administration in the past year and somehow overlooked in their monthly reporting?

Until 40 days before the election, that is.

It works like this: if you see good news from a government department which, at this stage in the election you hate to see, you attribute immediately it to the nefarious activities of Obama appointees trying to skew the election in his favor. The principle of symmetry would dictate an ideologically driven knee-jerk saying that bad news from a government department must be from a Bush appointee. Though I doubt that the principle of symmetry or consistency is one the idols your tribe.

[Neurath]

On Weds. Letterman show, he had UK PM David Cameron as a featured guest. Letterman asked Cameron what he thought about these massive amounts of money and in Romney's case, 8 years of campaigning for the office of US President. Cameron described how in the UK, his entire campaign war chest amounted to $175,000! And, the campaigning process took about 6 months. Further, he described how TV ads are banned in the UK for candidates. These comments brought thunderous applause. I agree. We need to dismantle and overhaul this whole defunct electoral process, starting with the superPACS.

As someone who used to be in the advertising business, I can tell you that while we the people hate political advertising, it is a windfall for media outlets, ad agencies, media agencies, etc. There are a lot of jobs and profits tied to the crap. In the UK, can't the PM call an election whenever he feels like it? I guess small countries without a constitution can do that kind of stuff. What we really need is a king or queen who can disband Congress if they are deadlocked. Maybe we can officially give that title to Obama come January.

There is a rumor going around that the Supreme Court did something not too dissimilar in 2000

[koheesti]

You do not think that the numbers are that bad? The government has been claiming that things are "impoving" for 4 years now. The unemployment is still above 8% and the economy grew at a scant 1.3 percent annual rate in the April-June quarter. That was down from the 1.7 percent rate the government had previously estimated. The economy is dismal and the administration's attempt to spin the numbers does not change reality.

Obama Lost the Recovery He Inherited from Bush

What we find is that the recovery from the bottom of the recession in January 2009 through June 2009, the official end of the U.S. recession, can only be attributed to policies implemented during the Bush administration, as no policy implemented by the Obama administration could have had any meaningful effect upon the economy during these six months.

Perhaps the strong recovery they inherited explains why President Obama's economics team predicted that the U.S. unemployment rate would never exceed 8% in the four years from 2009 through 2012 - they were counting on that positive momentum to continue. Little did they know that the economic policies they adopted in the early days of President Obama's administration would prove to be so impotent, acting instead to kill off the recovery they actually inherited and leaving the nation's economy adrift in the economic doldrums in all the years since....

http://finance.townh...rited_from_bush

Edited September 29, 2012 by koheesti

[Neurath]

In 2008 the program cost the federal government $772 Million but, like everything else under Obama, the cost has more than doubled to $1.6 Billion in 2011. My question is, if it is a federal program, why is it called an "Obama phone"? Why not a "Bush phone" since GWB is the one that started the cell phone program.

In Russia, chicken legs and thighs are called "Bush Legs" because Bush 41 was President when the deal was made to export them to Russia.

How did US-grown chicken end up with such a name? Well, they say a poultry import agreement was reached back in the 80’s, during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. In Russian markets, the imported chicken was dubbed

NOZH-kee BYSH-a

, a diminutive form that has stuck, which would be translated

sweet, cute little Bush legs

. Usually it’s spoken with a smile and a chuckle. And when an American uses the term, the vendors get quite a laugh.

http://russiawithlove.blogspot.com/2009/01/bush-legacy-from-russian-perspective.html

Obama is too much of a narcissist to let anyone attach anyone else's name to any program.

And you could help him out of his Narcissism by using the term "Affordable Care Act" rather than the term "Obamacare". How kind of you!

[koheesti]

On Weds. Letterman show, he had UK PM David Cameron as a featured guest. Letterman asked Cameron what he thought about these massive amounts of money and in Romney's case, 8 years of campaigning for the office of US President. Cameron described how in the UK, his entire campaign war chest amounted to $175,000! And, the campaigning process took about 6 months. Further, he described how TV ads are banned in the UK for candidates. These comments brought thunderous applause. I agree. We need to dismantle and overhaul this whole defunct electoral process, starting with the superPACS.

As someone who used to be in the advertising business, I can tell you that while we the people hate political advertising, it is a windfall for media outlets, ad agencies, media agencies, etc. There are a lot of jobs and profits tied to the crap. In the UK, can't the PM call an election whenever he feels like it? I guess small countries without a constitution can do that kind of stuff. What we really need is a king or queen who can disband Congress if they are deadlocked. Maybe we can officially give that title to Obama come January.

There is a rumor going around that the Supreme Court did something not too dissimilar in 2000

And as everyone knows but some still choose to ignore, a recount was done after the fact that showed that Bush did in fact win. So, Gores attempts to have only a couple heavily-Democratic re-counted failed and Democracy won the day. At the end of the day, if a ballot layout proposed by Dems, approved by Dems in control cannot be properly understood by uneducated Dem voters, they have only themselves to blame.

[Jingthing]

The right wing used Obamacare as a diss for years, and Obama decided to turn it around on their face by using it himself. He didn't ask for the bill to be named that. It happened. And now that it is clear this bill will stand and Obama will be reelected, and even almost impossible for Romney to totally kill it even if he does win, it will always be Obamacare. Like it or not, one term or not, Obama has a major legacy in expanding health care, and it is a great one. I favor calling it Obamacare.

[koheesti]

In 2008 the program cost the federal government $772 Million but, like everything else under Obama, the cost has more than doubled to $1.6 Billion in 2011. My question is, if it is a federal program, why is it called an "Obama phone"? Why not a "Bush phone" since GWB is the one that started the cell phone program.

In Russia, chicken legs and thighs are called "Bush Legs" because Bush 41 was President when the deal was made to export them to Russia.

How did US-grown chicken end up with such a name? Well, they say a poultry import agreement was reached back in the 80’s, during the presidency of George H. W. Bush. In Russian markets, the imported chicken was dubbed

NOZH-kee BYSH-a

, a diminutive form that has stuck, which would be translated

sweet, cute little Bush legs

. Usually it’s spoken with a smile and a chuckle. And when an American uses the term, the vendors get quite a laugh.

http://russiawithlov...erspective.html

Obama is too much of a narcissist to let anyone attach anyone else's name to any program.

And you could help him out of his Narcissism by using the term "Affordable Care Act" rather than the term "Obamacare". How kind of you!

No, I call it that because it, like Obama, is a disaster for the country.

Obama embraces the term 'Obamacare'

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/obama-embraces-the-term-obamacare/1#.UGa0WJjA_Ig

[koheesti]

The right wing used Obamacare as a diss for years, and Obama decided to turn it around on their face by using it himself. He didn't ask for the bill to be named that. It happened. And now that it is clear this bill will stand and Obama will be reelected, and even almost impossible for Romney to totally kill it even if he does win, it will always be Obamacare. Like it or not, one term or not, Obama has a major legacy in expanding health care, and it is a great one. I favor calling it Obamacare.

But why do they insist on calling a program for free phones Obamaphone? Because Obama is famous in the 'hood for buying votes with freebies so it is only natural they would attribute it to him.

[Ulysses G.]

He had a super majority in Congress for the first two years and wasted all his political capital on Obamacare

Let me remind you that that was one of the things on which he campaigned

Most Americans would have much preferred that he concentrated on creating enough jobs, cutting the deficit "in half" or immigration reform which he also campaigned on and did not deliver.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term. Now we are having an election to determine whether to give him more time or not. His opponent represents the policies of Bush that created the biggest economic crash since the great depression. Guess who Americans are going to choose?

Edited September 29, 2012 by Jingthing

[koheesti]

It is true he did not achieve all his promises in his first term. Now we are having an election to determine whether to give him more time or not. His opponent represents the policies of Bush that created the biggest economic crash since the great depression. Guess who Americans are going to choose?

Has Obama promised to cut the deficit in half his second term? Has he even promised to cut it at all? On Letterman he said it wasn't a short term problem and that there is nothing to worry about. Doesn't sound to me like a guy who has any intentions to cut anything (except maybe for cutting a deal with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt).

Edited September 29, 2012 by koheesti