• Ochotexto

    Forget Freddie+Fannie., if Romney looked like Paul he could be a lobbyist for Barnum+Bailey.
    You showed this same source JS with McCain beating Obama.
    Long way to go before your magical underpants go to the White House.

  • JustAnotherBloke

    Hey John,

    What’s the record for comments on one of your posts? This one looks like a contender.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      It’s up there.

  • The Machinist

    No doubt about it. Most of a persons electability is more on appearance than issues, which is sad.

  • The Machinist

    Romney is a total phony and the biggest RINO there is. As you like to say, RINOs lose elections. This man is a jackass and picks his positions depending on what crowd he is talking to. The only real republican in that field is Ron Paul. He is honest, and has always stuck to his guns. He is the only one who has the right ideas on the economy, and foreign policy, which I know you don’t agree with (the foreign policy part). There are very few things i disagree with this guy on, too bad he is “unelectable”.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      If Ron Paul looked like Romney he would be the next president.

      • Tim

        and if your aunt had balls she’d be your uncle.

  • bald guy

    Great economic news today! The US economy gained 243,000 jobs in January, far above expectations. The unemployment rate dropped to 8.3%. Leaving politics out of this, it’s great for America.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      Except for this:
      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! 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. As for the quality of jobs, as withholding taxes roll over Year over year, it can only mean that the US is replacing high paying FIRE jobs with low paying construction and manufacturing. So much for the improvement.

      If the labor force shrinks, it means fewer people looking for jobs and that means lower unemployment.

      • Ken

        I’m sure someone will tell you that those are just right wing statistics.

        Except of course they come from the government itself.

        More and more people dropping out of the work force. Some discouraged and giving up. Others just choosing to live on welfare and food stamps.

        • bald guy

          You ignore the job growth. Forget about unemployment, which is going down. The job growth itself is very strong. And, the fact is, “.hiring was widespread across many high-paying industries.”

          Tough to handle the good news, ins’t it. As the economy gets better and better, and more and more jobs are created, and unemployment goes down, and consumer confidence goes up, and spending goes up, more and more jobs will be created….this is great!!!

          Unless your only goal is to defeat Obama. Obama haters are the only ones upset about the good economic news.

          The Dow is at its highest point since 2008 and Nasdaq reaches levels not seen since 2000!!

          The people who bet with their money know the good news.

          It’s a bad time to be an Obama hater.

          Oh, and to you people who took your money out of the market, you missed out on a 2.1% gain this week in the S&P!!!

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I thought the market was gambling. That’s what I hear every time someone comes up with the outrageous suggestion to let people keep their money and invest it instead of having it confiscated for social security.

      • bald guy

        Let’s leave aside the unemployment rate and look solely at the job gains: Your comment about lower paying jobs is just wrong. Look at the facts:

        Employers added a net 243,000 jobs last month — that’s the most since April and far better than economists’ expectations for a gain of only 150,000..

        “It’s a strong number, a very strong number, I would say,” said Vassili Serebriakov, a currency strategist at Wells Fargo Bank. “It’s consistent with the broad improvement in the U.S. economic data, but I think the extent of strength in today’s report is somewhat of a surprise, and this is a good sign for the U.S. employment market and the U.S. economy.”

        The upbeat tenor of the January jobs report was further strengthened by revisions to November and December payrolls data, which showed 60,000 more jobs created than previously reported. In addition, hiring was widespread across many high-paying industries. And average hourly earnings rose four cents, which should help to support spending.

        It seems difficult for you to admit things are improving, as if that really happens and is sustained, it improves Obama’s chances of reelection.

        I know you want to talk down the economy for help defeat Obama. It’s a shame you can’t acknowledge the good news. It seems like your hate of Obama is stronger than your love of America.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          I don’t hate Obama. I actually like him as a person. He just has a distorted, dangerous view of what America is supposed to be.

    • Dan

      Today was indeed “a touchdown” for the Obama administration. Especially because 80% of the public only reads the headlines.

      http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/03/news/economy/jobs_report_unemployment/index.htm?hpt=hp_t1

  • oksteelerfan
    • Tim

      They probably have wives at home who frown on that.

  • The Machinist

    Charities should be helping the poor not the government. Without all these government programs there would be less poor people, because the people who use government programs would be forced to do everything the could to access the necessary items for survival. Food, clothes, and shelter.

    • Mike from Monroeville

      Yes, Better to be subject to the whims of rich people. Why dont we go back to feudalism too?

      • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

        This is a constitutional republic. We’re supposed to be subject to the LAW. Not rich people. Not poor people. The LAW as in the Constitution. If we followed the original intent of the Constitution, who was in charge wouldn’t matter so much. The constitution is meant to restrain government.

  • Mike from Monroeville

    Since the 60s the poverty rate has gone down. So its helped a lot. Under your way of thinking we should close hospitals because people still keep getting sick.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      The War on Poverty created the welfare state. It was/is an abject failure. There are people who own a car, a big screen TV, a cell phone, have cable TV and central air conditioning who are officially considered poor. They need to take a trip to Central or South America.

      • Dan

        So your solution is….to let these people be as poor as they are in South America??? That’ll show ’em!

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          No my solution is to not consider them perpetually poor and tell them to get a job. And you know full well that that’s not my solution. You and I could go out tomorrow morning and line up 10 job interviews by noon. I see now hiring and help wanted signs every where. They’re not great jobs. But they are jobs. A “poor” person could work two part time jobs but I’m guessing that the government programs probably make it unwise for them to work because they get more for not working. That’s called perpetuating “poverty.”

        • oksteelerfan

          I can’t speak for John, but I’m for helping the needy up to a certain point. I don’t want to see any kid starving. There has to be a limit though. If you’re a drug addict then I shouldn’t have to support you spending your welfare check and letting people use your “access card” as it’s called here so you can support your drug habit and it not going to your kids.
          If you’re on welfare for 2 years then you’re not trying to better yourself and I should no longer have to support you.
          I certainly should not have to pay for you to have a cell phone, it is not a necessity.
          We offer them a free education and they don’t take it. We try to help them find jobs, but they don’t want a job.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            There is no way any able-bodied person in America should get an unemployment check for 99 weeks.

          • Deuce

            Not exactly 100% true, John. My mom bought a house….one month later her job of 26 years was eliminated without warning. She was able to get unemployment and depends on that especially for the mortgage she took on since she obviously had no idea her job was going to be eliminated. She also saved a good deal of money but used half of that as a down payment for the house. Since then she’s applied for countless jobs….just even menial low paying jobs…K-mart, Walmart, Giant Eagle, etc….just anything for a paycheck….no call backs. Hence, this is why unemployment was extended….it was for people like her. There’s always going to be people who abuse a system…just take a look at your fellow republicans who abused the system in the banking industry and it’s lack or regulations to bankrupt not only our own country but the whole world.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            The economic meltdown was caused by government interference in the housing market. Mostly by democrats.

          • Chad Farthouse

            Bullshit.

          • DormontDirtBag

            Gentlemen, let’s watch the language. OKSteelerfan is a lady.

          • Deuce

            See, here is the problem with your political opinions and things that sometimes you refer to as “facts”: Nobody denies Democrats had a hand in the meltdown….but you, for some reason, can’t except the responsibility of the Republicans and seems to be predicated on your preference for Republicans. By all means, have your preference for Republicans…that ability to choose is what America is about…but please don’t deny cold hard facts because of your political preference. And this is a problem in America today: too many people letting personal bias interfere with actual facts. Sorry, John, but this also includes you.

            The ’08 meltdown started a long, long time ago in the 80’s with Republicans deregulation. Hank Paulson, Republican, pushed strongly for deregulation only to have the great irony of him dealing with the problems that arose later. There are too many to name on the Republican side.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            They’re all to blame. The difference between you and me is that you think it was a lack of government control. I thnk it’s too much government interfetence. The biggest problem was the real estate bubble and that was a direct result of government interference beginning with Carter in 1977. Bush tried to reform Fannie and Freddie on 2005.Toothless Barney and the dems said everything was wonderful.

          • Deuce

            You’re contradicting yourself…you say it was because of government interference….then you say Bush tried to intervene and was thwarted. I’m guessing because Bush is a Republican that him wanting to intervene doesn’t count as government interference?

            And it didn’t start with Carter…deregulation of the banking industry began with Reagan. Also, before Bush, Brooksly Born, former chair of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, tried to regulate derivatives and was thwarted before she could even begin in the 90’s.

            I have no idea what you are talking about in regards to government interference being the cause….it was derivatives and their lack of being regulated that accounted for the collapse. It was also the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act , led by Republicans Phil Gramm and Jim Leach in 1998 (with Clinton and Co’s blessing), that paved the way for investment banks with commercial banks and allowed them which dangerously allowed the banks to both become bigger and more centralized and to play with private citizens money risking massive financial losses to private citizens who would not normally have their money gambled with and lost as the repealed Glass-Steagall protected from such dangerous financial activity.

            I don’t know exactly what you are saying…Glass-Steagall is government intervention….but that worked. Repealing it is not government intervention and is deregulated and look at what eventually happened? There’s been countless studies on what transpired and they all came to the same conclusions….do you seriously not know this? Also, the Savings and Loans industry was deregulated in the 80’s and that’s what caused the S&L scandal later that same decade…a harbinger of what was to come.

            Even now, with all the past evidence as proof, the loudest group fighting the hardest against any type of financial regulations are the Republicans. Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Repeating the same act over and over again yet expecting the same result.

            The banks are even bigger now and more centralized….10 banks hold 77% of U.S. assets…it’s even worse than pre-2008. This is insane. Fighting to stop even the smallest amount of regulation when it’s been perfectly illustrated that it’s clearly needed is utterly psychotic.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I’m not contradicting myself. Bush was trying to reform Freddie and Fannie. Freddie and Fannie represent government interference in the mortgage business. It was the creation of Freddie and Fannie that made Bush feel the need to reform themThere are people who think the tax code should be overhauled. I agree. That would be government intervention but it is necessary because of government enacting an income tax that never should have been enacted and then allowing it to require 4,000 pages to explain it. I’m all for government intervention that would eliminate the problems caused by the original intervention. The major cause of the latest econmic meltdown was the federal government –beginning with Jimmy Carter in 1977–FORCING banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. Those mortgages were then bundled and sold to financial institutions at the suggestion and with the encouragement of Fannie and Freddie. Thde bubble burst. The value of the real estate went into the toilet and the big banks were screwed. Actually the taxpayers were screwed because we were forced to bail them out.

            *********************************************************************************************************************
            “The timing of the repeal of Glass-Steagall makes this deregulatory move a convenient scapegoat for the financial crisis. But the crisis began with the housing collapse, a result of government encouragement of unsound lending practices. Financial firms took too much risk with mortgage-backed securities, in part because of moral hazard engendered by government guarantees and partly because bond rating firms were not as independent as was once thought. The limited liability that the investment banks gained when they became corporations may also have amplified moral hazard. There is no good reason to believe that Glass-Steagall, had it remained in effect, would have prevented any of these problems.”

            About the Authors
            Warren Gibson teaches engineering at Santa Clara University and economics at San Jose State University. …

            Jeffrey Rogers Hummel is an associate professor of economics at San Jose State University. …
            http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/the-rise-and-fall-of-glass-steagall/

            And then there is the great Dr. Walter E Williams,(former head of economics dept. George Mason U.) who says asking congress to fix the crisis is like calling the arsonist to put out the fire. He has some facts about deregulation.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i06peJfgUqI

          • Deuce

            John, I’m referencing your response below since I can’t comment and reply directly on it.

            CDO’s and derivatives did not start until the 80’s….I have no idea why you are blaming Carter other than you just simply want a Democrat to blame. Facts are facts, dude….I know it hurts you personally and you want to always blame a Democrat for everything but you have to accept reality and facts.

            Also, banks did not lower their standards for giving out loans until the late 1990’s and early 2000’s because predatory lending was making them billions and they were insured for losses so it didn’t matter to them if the mortgage was paid or defaulted because in the beginning they were getting their money regardless. Again, you’re just changing history and revising it so you can blame a Democrat. Seriously, WTF? Were you beat up continuously by Democrats when you were younger? Because your distortion of the truth and facts to fit your preconceived and biased notions don’t add up to anything else.

            As for the bailouts…yeah, I agree in principle that the tax payers were screwed because it was a tax payer funded bailout…but do you honestly realize what would have happened if they weren’t? I didn’t like Bush or the rest of his croonies but he did the right thing which anybody would’ve done. Credit markets were frozen and no solutions were working….sure, technically, the bailouts didn’t work per se, but just the talk and eventual passing by Congress helped the stock market rise a little back off the edge. If it continued the way it did all those banks would’ve been gone and the ensuing and eventual economic depression would’ve made the Great Depression look like a pothole with how quickly and absolute the economic meltdown would’ve been….it would have all came crashing down. Bush and all the rest of them are idiots but I applaud them big time for trying their best to stop something that would’ve been absolutely catastrophic.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Sung to the tune: “It was all Bush’s fault.”

            The Democratic Party also gave America � Jimmy Carter. Our recent economic crisis began with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. America had just gone through the turmoil of the late 60�s and early 70�s, a period in which the anti-American Leftists/Fascists/Communists gained much political power as they took over the Democratic Party. Jimmy Carter was just the right weak white man that the anti-American Leftists/Fascists/Communists wanted. He was easily swayed towards anti-Americanism dogma, and his anti-Americanism is still prevalent in his actions today. I contend that Jimmy Carter is clearly the �Father of Modern Terrorism�.

            The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977:

            * The Community Reinvestment Act is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as “redlining.” The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses. It has been subjected to important regulatory revisions.

            * The bill encouraged the Federal National Mortgage Association, commonly known as Fannie Mae, to enable mortgage companies, savings and loans, commercial banks, credit unions, and state and local housing finance agencies to lend to home buyers. It also encouraged the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac, to buy mortgages on the secondary market and sell them as mortgage-backed securities on the open market. Due to massive financial losses, on September 7, 2008 the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) put Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under the conservatorship of the FHFA.

            * Clinton Administration Changes of 1995 � In 1995, as a result of interest from President Bill Clinton�s administration, the implementing regulations for the CRA were strengthened by focusing the financial regulators� attention on institutions� performance in helping to meet community credit needs.

            * George W. Bush Administration Proposed Changes of 2003 � In 2003, the Bush Administration recommended what the NY Times called “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” The Bush administration recomended changes were generally opposed along Party lines and eventually failed to happen. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) claimed of the thrifts “These two entities � Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac � are not facing any kind of financial crisis, the more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

            Summary:

            Jimmy Carter created the ‘Foundation Block’ of this economic crisis, the Democratic Party then started building upon it, and Bill Clinton “strengthened” the entire disastrous process by giving even more power to anti-American Leftist/Fascist/Communist groups like ACORN.

            When President Bush “43” offered Congress a chance to fix the looming economic crisis � in 2003 � Democrats like Representative Barney Frank and Senator Chuck Schumer said there was no problem. Then � in 2005 � John McCain Warned Of Mortgage Collapse, and Democrats like Senator Barack Obama blocked the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005.

            Yeah, it was all Bush’s fault.

            Remember, it was Jimmy Carter that claimed Bush to be the worst president, which became the mantra for the democratic party, and shouted repeatedly during the 2008 Obama campain. It is my contention that Obama was running against Bush, as perceived by the many ignorant Obama worshipers, and helped him get elected. –JB

          • Deuce

            Again…to your response below: where did I say it was Bush’s fault? You’re not really doing yourself a favor and the more you argue it the way you are the more you’re proving what I said to be true: you’re just looking not for facts and truth….but to blame Democrats.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            The writer wrote “Sung to the tune….” I didn’t. How about his facts?

          • Dan

            Where do you think a drug addict is going to get money if you suddenly rip away their Access card? At that point it becomes about survival.

            I agree with you in theory, but it just doesn’t work in application. It’s not long before crime skyrockets if you just rip people off welfare.

            I agree with John’s comment below about unemployment.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Decriminalize drugs.

          • Dan

            As long as the decriminalization is limited to private property I’m fine with that.

          • GeeWhiz

            “As long as the decriminalization is limited to private property I’m fine with that.”

            And as long as a person’s urine isn’t a criteria for getting an office job, I’m fine with that too.

          • oksteelerfan

            You don’t think an employer should have the right to drug screen employees?

            IMHO a person signing a check, should have the right to hire or not hire anyone they want and if they don’t want people working for them that do drugs that should be their right.
            I know a guy that hired a woman in the office. Suddenly money started disappearing. She was embezzling funds to pay for her drugs. He now drug screens everyone.

          • oksteelerfan

            Can people not protect their own property?

            I hate to break it to you though, welfare is not eliminating people from robbing or killing people.

            The facts are regardless of whether people want to admit it or not, there is only one choice and that is to drastically cut spending. The government can’t tax us enough to get us out of this mess and eventually we’re all going to be faced with this country bankrupt and every man for himself if we don’t start doing something soon.

      • oksteelerfan

        I can remember a time in this country when poor people barely kept a roof over their head and they made very few trips to the grocery store and most of their food came from what they grew in a garden or what they killed to put meat on the table. They might not have had a lot, but they didn’t ask for hand outs and they still managed to feed and clothe their kids.

        • Chris

          And this was such a great time, why dont we go back to that.

          • oksteelerfan

            It’s not about going back to the time, it’s about people making making chicken salad out of chicken shit when they have to.
            People worked and did what they had to do to feed their family.

            As fat as everyone is it probably wouldn’t hurt a few of those on welfare to till some ground, plant some seeds and grow their own food. I actually do that every year and I’m not poor. But it takes work, lots of it. It also wouldn’t hurt them any to go out and hunt for food. They might lose a few pounds walking out in the woods looking for game to shoot.

            But no you’re right this way is better, buy their food, pay their rent, pay their heating bill, give them a phone and a monthly check to either sit on their ass drinking beer or shooting meth in their veins. Do you honestly think if we quit giving, they wouldn’t learn to work?

            Michelle should be all for it, they could grow their own veggies.

      • Chris

        in the US, all the things you listed should be obtainable be everyone, not just the rich.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          They are. There was a time when only rich people had cars,phones, dishwashers etc. Those things are attainable by everyone. All it takes is a job. Why should I be forced to pay your rent?

          • Mike from Monroeville

            We should just put the poor in jail.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Maybe we should exterminate them. We’ve had pro abortion people here say that the unborn babies are better off being killed than facing a life of poverty. We should decriminalize drugs. That would get about 80% of the poor out of jail.

          • CS

            Im not talking about the people that sit at home and get paid by the goverment. I am talking about the honest people who work hard for minimum wage. It’s a shame that when these discussions about welfare start it’s automatically assumed that 90% of the people are abusing the system when in fact probably only about 10-20 % are. And it’s not as easy to get a job as you might think. Many people who work office jobs making 40k a year or whatever, when they get laid off they are really only qualified to do that type of job. Many times, and i have had friends tell me this first hand, when they are forced out of a decent job and want to get anything so that they are not on unemployment, these lower paying jobs like mcdonalds or what have you will not higher them due to them being “overqulified”. I just hate to see some of these systems get bashed by people who have been lucky enough to have never had to use them. There are more people on welfare who truly need it than there are that abuse it.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            3% of families depend on minimum wage jobs. The minimum wage (which was created to prevent blacks from being hired) always results in fewer jobs. A minimum wage job is supposed to be entry level and in the vast majority of the cases they are. Unemployment insurance should be privatized.

        • oksteelerfan

          Why should it be a right they should be able to obtain them if they don’t work for them?

          • CS

            you dont think there are plenty of people out there that work harder than you or anyone else in this thread that cannot afford any of these things.

        • Paul

          Obtainable. Correct. Not given to them. Obtainable- like through actual work and drawing a paycheck.

          Also, to comment on a comment above about help wanted signs being around. From experiences I’ve heard, they get applicants, it’s just that they can’t pass the drug screen.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Wy wife told me last week that someone at PNC Bank told her that they can’t find people to work as tellers. That used to be a pretty good job for someone starting in the work place. A little too boring now, apparently.

          • Dan

            If you want to climb the corporate ladder as slow as possible, go work at a big bank. Unless you have a master’s degree, expect to work in the same department for 30 years with a 2-3% raise anually.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Who said anything about climbing the corporate ladder? We’re talking about getting a J O B.

          • Tim

            Maybe they would get more applicants if they paid more.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Maybe you wouldn’t be so picky if you weren’t getting a check for 99 weeks.

          • Matt

            That reminds me of the stories form the housing bust. They had secretaries who were making $30K/yr with a two year degree. During the boom they need people to process the loans, so they levated the secretaries and they were making $60K plus, went out bought houses based on that income. Then with the bust they lost their job all together and their homes have been foreclosed they sit aorund and complain that they can find a job that pays them $60K/yr.

          • oksteelerfan

            See that’s the problem with welfare and the liberal way of thinking. If these people were hungry they’d take the job even if it only paid a bologna sandwich.

            If people had any pride they’d take a min. wage job long before they’d take a handout.

            I was talking to a guy the other day who has owned a construction business for 30 years. He said he has contacted the unemployment office for years when has openings because it always brought him several applicants who wanted to work. He said gradually it started bringing him applicants that only wanted him to sign their card stating they had applied but they weren’t really interested in a job. This year he had 2 openings and got zero applicants from the unemployment office and has only filled one of the openings and it’s not a minimum wage job even with no experience he’s offering more than min. wage.

            John’s background says he’s probably never worked in construction but I bet if his choice was go on welfare or take a job in construction he would take it.
            I know I would take it if I needed a job.

  • Lefty

    John, you have to admit Bush’s debt figures are skewed because he didn’t include the money from his 2 wars in his numbers. Obama does:

    “Debt added during George W. Bush’s eight years: $5.2 – $5.7 trillion (mixed numbers).
    Debt added to-date Barack Obama: $1.8 – $2.4 trillion (mixed numbers). Includes Bush’s “off the books” DEBT.
    Portion of the $10.5 trillion added to the national debt during the past 32 years that came during Republican presidencies: $8.7 trillion.
    Percentage of that $8.7 trillion added during George W. Bush’s two terms: 63%.”

    • Ken

      Keep reading that Huffington Post.

      Don’t forget to add in that “off the books” debt that Obamacare is racking up. How many trillions is the government now on the hook for in future benefits.

      Natl. debt was $10.626 trillion when Obama took office. $15.5 trillion now.

  • Mason

    I will enjoy hearing the excuses when all attacks are against Obama and not R vs R. Romney is already even in most head to heads. He will easily shoot up by more. Reality also is that most swing states are very running from the dems. Obama will have almos no chance in many states he won last time – like FL, NC and VA. He has a much tougher fight than Bush had in 2004.

    • Vermonter

      Take Indiana, Florida and North Carolina away from Obama, and what’s the result?

  • Mike from Monroeville

    You go on believing that Mr. ” I dont care about the very poor” is going to ride to victory.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      How much has “caring about the poor” helped the poor. How did that War on poverty work out. The government is not capable of caring. It should get out of the way.

      • Mason

        Good job only giving half the quote mike. Try not to get your posts from msnbc. Listen to his entire statement.

        • Dan

          Here’s the whole statement. Followed by the obvious WTF follow-up of “anything that needs a net is not ok!!!”

          http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-1-2012/indecision-2012—mitt-romney-on-the-poor

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            It’s people going back to FDR and LBJ who professed to “care” about the poor who have promoted policies that make them more likely to be poor.

          • bald guy

            Leave it to Romney to make a class warfare statement. His statement divided us into rich, poor, and middle classes. And he clearly stated he doesn’t care about the poor or the rich.

            But, wait. He did say if the safety net for the poor needs to be fixed, he’ll do that. He’ll provide more assistance to the poor.

            That’s why Limbaugh and other conservatives don’t like Romney’s statement.

            Which Romeny do you believe?
            The pro-choice Romney, or the anti-choice Romney?
            The pro-Obamacare Romney or the anti-Obamacare Romeny?
            The Romney who doesn’t care about the poor or the Romeny that wants to help them more?

            Pick a Romeny. Any Romney. He’ll say anything to get your vote. As far as convictions, he doesn’t have them.

            While I disagree with Gingrich’s views, and least he has them, states them, and sticks to them. I’ll take a principled conservative over a Romney, who just doesn’t seem to have any principles.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Either romney is better than Obama

          • Dan

            Yea, your life has been affected so negatively. We’re almost out of his first term and he has yet to do anything you tea partiers whine about. “He’s plotting to do this, he’s scheming to do that, he wants to do this.” Wah wah wah. Still waiting for any of it to actually happen.

            Create a make-believe version of the opponent and attack it relentlessly. Put words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads. How patriotic.

          • bald guy

            I want a president that’s decisive. Romney is decisively indecisive. That’s the worst.

            Basic management training teaches people that the best thing to do is make a good decision. The next best is to make a bad decision. The worst is to be indecisive. For a businessman, Romney doesn’t know the basics.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            For a bad business man he sure has a lot of money in the bank.

          • bald guy

            The best way to have a lot of money in the bank is to be given a lot of money in the bank. Romney may be an excellent investor. As far as being a good manager / decision maker? He’s unproven / untested.

            He’s good at buying and selling companies. He knows how to make money by firing people.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            He didn’t inherit his money. If you take over a company that is losing money and you find that it’s losing money because of out of control labor costs because of too many workers or incompetent workers, what else are you going to do but fire people? You lose all crediblity when you try to reduce what he did to firing people. It’s juvenile.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I don’t care if Romney cares about the poor. It shouldn’t matter whether the president does or does not. We’ve had plenty of presidents who claimed to care. I didn’t believe any of them. Republicans give more to chairity…which means they care WITH THEIR OWN MONEY.

          • bald guy

            Even the GOP establishment is upset that Romney simply just say his focus was the middle class. It was stupid of him to dismiss the rich and the poor.from needing attention. He could have made that point implicitly, instead of explicitly saying that. It shows Romney’s weakness as a candidate, which is what is upsetting to the GOP.

      • Norman strikes again

        John, Tony Norman strikes again in today’s post-gazette. Any idea why the post-gazette permits Norman to spew his constant anti-white, anti-republican rhetoric all of the time? If Obama had made a half-statement like Romney did, would Norman call him out on it? If your answer to that question is “no,” ask yourself why. Tony Norman’s agenda has gotten real old. The post-gazette needs to put an end to that column.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          I like Tony. He’s a nice guy. I know where he’s coming from. He’s a liberal columnist. Gotta have those, too. He says Romney pays less in taxes than average Americans –which is bullshit and then he praises Obama for bringing politics to a prayer breakfast. Obama says he wants the rich to pay more because he believes in the concept of “Love thy neighbor”. This is a guy who gave almost NOTHING to charity until he had to because his tax records were going to be made public. It’s more of the same moronic, class envy drivel.

          • oksteelerfan

            I guess Wright taught him you’re supposed to take Paul’s money and give it to Peter.

          • oksteelerfan

            I wonder how this scripture fits in with Obama’s campaign speech?

            For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.”

            11We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.

          • Evan Torrance

            I’ve read that buffoon one too many times. He is black first, and liberal second. No white person in the world could write the things he does about people of other races. To me, he’s no better than the DJ in Memphis (that mostly got swept under the rug.). Tony Norman promotes hate through the disguise of peace & justice. He might be a nice guy to your face, but with his pen, he spews hate–and gets paid for it. Not sure how he sleeps at night.

    • Ken

      It’s amazing how quickly an out of context remark like Romney’s caring about the poor (the next part of Romney’s comment was omittedy by Mike, probably intentionally). That was the part talking about the safety net that already in place to take care of the poor.

      There are no “poor” in the US by world standards. Poor people in most nations are starving. Here, they’re overweight and watching big screen TVs.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

        Most of the “poor” adults rely too much on others and need to get off their asses. Obama wants to reverse the welfare reform that forced millions to go out and get a J O B. If you greaduate from high school, get a job and don’t have kids before you get married. Your chances of staying poor are slim to none.

        • oksteelerfan

          Where exactly does it end on helping the poor?

          The government provides them food, housing, health care, phones, some cases pay their utility bills, education and a monthly check.

          In addition to all that there are non-profit groups that exist through government grants that will provide them with new refrigerators, stoves, furnaces, air conditioning, insulate their houses, give them new doors and windows, replace floors, roofs.

          What else are we supposed to give them?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I talked to someone on Sunday who was doing some furnace repair work in a Section 8 house. (Government pays the rent.) He said there were four guys sitting around drinking beer watching a big screen TV at 3 in the afternoon. You and I were paying the rent, the utility bills and the groceries.

          • oksteelerfan

            My husband and I have many friends in the service industry and we hear stories like that all the time.
            Yet you’ll hear people say they have to look for a job, but if that’s true then how come so many don’t have a job?

          • Dan

            An obvious and sad case of abuse of the system. Of course tighter monitoring of the system and how the funds are used would mean more caseworkers (government employees), more spending, and regulation, and we can’t have that, right?

          • Paul

            That would make the program unfeasible and untenable, which is what it is. Now you’re getting it!!

          • Blasto

            I could not agree more with all of you in regards to the ample assistance given those who don’t deserve it. Where I don’t agree with you is for some reason you feel the GOP will do something about it. They have proven that it’s merely a talking point and they are enablers just like the dems.

          • Matt

            That is where Romney’s extended quote bothered me a little. He said he was focused on the 90-95% who are struggling. There are maybe 20-25% really struggling, and those are people who go to work every day soemtimes working multiple jobs to provide a standard of living a hair above those on the government dole and worrying that it can be taken away at any moment.

            The people that bought a $500K house that is only worth $300K now, tehy are not struggling, maybe unlucky and in a tight spot, but not struggling. I don’t think a family of four making a $120-150K is struggling either. They probably think they are struggling because they over extended themselves, but that is their own doing.

    • oksteelerfan

      People on here keep accusing John of making stuff up and then one of you comes on here spreading lies.
      I don’t even like Romney and honestly believe he’s not conservative.

      However, the media, especially Rachel Maddow, who I watched some of last night, played over and over that one part of the sentence and left out they have safety nets and I don’t care about the rich, it’s the middle class I care about they’ve been hurt the most by this Obama economy.

    • jimmike

      Honestly, how can anyone think that Romney just wants to sweep the “very poor” under the rug. His point was that the very rich can take care of themselves without any help and the very poor already have assistance from enough government programs. His concern is for the bulk of America….you know, the ones that feel the pinch when more of our tax dollars go to the very poor that don’t want to let go of what the government provides for them. Don’t take everything everyone says literally. Context, people, context. I remember a certain someone telling the American public that jobs will be created, unemployment will go down.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

        We’re alrrady giving the “very poor” free housing, free food, free health care and even free cell phones. What’s next HBO?

        • Dan

          The point is that the answer is not to keep these people trapped in poverty. “Oh well, they’re good, they’re in the safety net!” is one of the worst attitudes you can have about the situtation, and that’s Romeny’s attitude as evidenced by his WHOLE statement yesterday.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            What more do you want the government to do for them. They already get “free” housing, medical care, food, utilities and cell phone service. The more this is discussed, by the way, the more votes Romney will get. The very poor either don’t vote or only vote for people who promise them more “free” stuff. Most people are tired of having their money confiscated by the government and thrown at problems that government money only seems to make worse.

          • Dan

            I’m not running for election acting like I have all the answers, John, so what you would have ME do is irrelevant. It’s what Romney would do that is relevant. An he apparently doens’t have any ideas because the whole situation is just as peachy as those of the very rich.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            He said enough is being done. I’m guessing that 90% of the electorate agree. The fact that you would interpret his statement to mean that he thinks everything is peachy is not surprising.

          • Dan

            He’s the one who said he’s not worried, not me. I’m just going by what the man said.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Why should he be worried?

          • Dan

            Shouldn’t any leader be concerned about it’s weakest, most defenseless citizens? Which side has fat cat lobbyists throwing millions upon millions at our policymakers in Congress every day? The very rich or the very poor?

            Hey, if you want the guy looking out for the Wall Street hedge fund managers who flooded his Super PAC with million dollar donations, by all means vote Romney. Those guys are hurting and are in real need of a voice, not the people struggling paycheck to paycheck who will have to work until the day they die.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            The difference between you and me is that you think SAYING you care is the same thing as actually caring. Romney says he wants yo lower taxes and reduce regulations. Obama wants the rich to pay their “fair share.” I think Romney is more likely to help the economy and create jobs for people than Obama. I think leaders should care about everybody.LBJ may have really cared about the poor. His War on Poverty made things worse, created the welfare state and caused the black illegitimacy rate to skyrocket. So what good did his “caring” do? The federal government and therefore the president shojld have NOTHING to do with who’s poor and who’s not. Just get out of the way.

          • Lefty

            John wrote: “Romney says he wants yo lower taxes and reduce regulations.”
            If you check the analysis, Romney’s plan would lower tax on the wealthy, and double the rate of the poor. It’s what Joy Behar was squaking about today.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Bullshit.

          • oksteelerfan

            Lefty says Obama wants to double the rate on the poor. The only way that could be done is get rid of EIC and even then it just means you’re actually making them pay something, instead of paying them to file.

          • oksteelerfan

            OOps I meant to say Romney wants to double the rate on the poor and the only way to do that is get rid of EIC which makes them actually pay income tax instead of paying them to file.

            Obama wants to give them more of our money.

          • bald guy

            The GOP establishment, who backs Romney, is upset because he specifically called out the poor, in a class warfare statement. The GOP doesn’t concern themselves with the poor, but they’re not supposed to say that. They are supposed to tacitly imply it by not talking about the poor.

            If Romney said he’s going to focus on the middle class, and left it at that, then there would have been no problems.

            His mistake was calling out the rich and poor and saying he doesn’t care about them.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            And the left wing media are having a field day by taking it completely out of context just like his “I like to be able to fire people.” By which, of course, he meant that he would rather have services provided by private companies so that they could be fired when they don’t perform. The left has now decided that he meant he enjoys firing people which is moronic, juvenile and dishonest.

          • Dan

            What are they taking out of context? He thinks the very poor and the very rich are just peaches. Every single news broadcast I’ve seen has played his full statement AND his clarification statement later on. What you’re not seeing is it is the RIGHT that cringed at that statement more than anyone. Romney can’t connect with the people and the people can’t connect with Romney. That’s what happens when you casually throw around more $10,000 bets and say $370,000 in income is not that much. And when you stash most of your cash in tax evading offshore accounts.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I’ve seen and heard commentators say Romney doesn’t care about the poor. They don’t follow thay with ….because theu have a safety net. The bigger point is that Romney’s wealth is IRRELEVANT. It doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is what he wants to do to fix the economy. If he can do that, why would anybody give a shit if he puts 10,/// a pop in the slot machines in Vegas. Stop the whining. It’s unbecoming.

          • Tim

            By “the left wing taking it out of context” do you mean such noted liberals as Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and Jon Huntsman? Its disengenous to lay the responsibility solely at the left wing media.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/09/mitt-romney-2012-new-hampshire-primary_n_1194237.html

            Of note, Santorum declined to take the comment out of context and he remains at about 10%.

          • Dan

            You keep saying his wealth is IRRELEVANT except that it is talked about EVERY TIME Romney is discussed on TV, in print, and online. He lives in a bubble. He is inherited wealth. He has no idea what a normal life is about. He wears his mom jeans around and thinks it makes him one of the people. He’s unbelievably uncomfortable talking about himself because he doesn’t know how to relate to anyone who isn’t wearing a suit. You say this is me whining, no, I could not care less, this is the PUBLIC PERCEPTION of him. His wealth IS relevant if the public PERCEIVES it to be relevant– and they do. Fix the economy? Fix the economy for who?? THAT’S the question that people want answered.

            To keep saying that Romney’s wealth is irrelevant in this election shows an enormous lack of perception. Again, in the bubble.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            It is irrelevant to whether he can be president. If being “of the people” is so important, I’m guessing you’re a huge Sarah Palin fan.

          • Dan

            If his wealth isn’t relevant this wouldn’t be smack dab in the middle of the main page of CNN.com under the headline, “Is Mitt Romney’s tax rate fair?” It’s like this every day. New day, different headline, same story.

            http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/02/will-mitt-romney-speak-out-on-the-legal-loophole-known-as-the-carry/?hpt=hp_t2

          • bald guy

            Actually, you aren’t hearing the GOP saying it was bad media or being taken out of context. They’re not backing Romney on this. Of course, people who drank the Romney kool-aid see no wrong.

            And, of course, today Romney said he “misspoke.” In other words, he didn’t mean what he said. No longer is he saying “out of context.”

            You have less of a problem with what Romney had to say than with how HE feels about what he said!! What a hoot! That Romney kool-aid must really taste great!

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I don’t care what he thinks about the poor. I don’t care how much he paid in taxes. I don’t care what church he goes to.

          • Matt

            That is one of the biggest misconception that they are trapped. Everything is there for them to get out, but they have to do the work.

          • Lefty

            Matt, you’re showing a misconception used by those who are completely out of touch. You say everything’s there for them to get out of poverty because it was there for you. But people are poor for a reason. Most were never taught how not to be.
            Not everything is there for them: an education that teaches them the lessons of hard work, honesty, integrity and personal responsibility. Engaged and educated parents that aren’t dead, in jail or uninvolved. Stable, supportive homes. Money for extra tutoring if a child falls behind. Interest in helping a child that falls behind.
            You can say that the opportunity is there, and yes, it is out there. But how do the poor get to it? Teachers and counselors can only try so hard, but if the parents and the home life wipe out any progress then where’s your theory now?

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Nobody denies that. Government attempts to fix it have made it WORSE and are a waste of money.

          • Matt

            Lefty you can make excuses all day long. I’m not saying it is easy. It’s not just education. There are plenty of uneducted immigrants who have started and built their own businesses, because no one would hire them. There are people that rise out of poverty in the arts and athletics. It is about want to and discipline not excuses.

          • bald guy

            Trapped, no. Very difficult to escape out? Yes.

            The misconception is that we don’t need to do anything to help, that everything is there for them to be successful.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            The point is that trilions and trillions have been spent since LBJ’s war on poverty began in 1964 and the poverty rate is virtually he same. It doesn’t work. An entire industry has been created around the welfare state with hundreds of thousands of unionized federal workers who have a stake in making sure that there are always people on welfare or they lose their jobs. How much does it cost for every dollar that is sent to people on the public dole. How many redundant agencies and redundant jobs do you think we could find in about half an hour?

        • bald guy

          My son has a disability and is unable to work. Not by choice. By disability. He is poor. He gets SSI. He doesn’t get free housing. He doesn’t get free food. His $30 a month of food stamps isn’t enough to feed him. He pays for a potion of his health care. He doesn’t have cable.

          Maybe if you knew some of the people involved, you’d have a better understanding of what the real situation is, instead of simply passing on information you’ve heard from others who have no idea of what’s going on.

          Go out there and meet some poor people with disabilities. Get to know them. Get to understand their frustration with not being able to get a job. My son gets passed over again and again, because of his disability. He WANTS to work. But, employers choose applications without a disability over my son again and again.

          There are 5 applicants for every job opening. No doubt, there are some who don’t want to work. But a lot of people who want to work just can’t find a job, any job.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Obviously, there are exceptions and I sympathize with your son. I don’t think it should be FEDERAL issue. If states or counties want to have programs to help the people who truly can’t help themselves, then they can taylor the programs to fit the local situation and because it’s local, there is at least a slightly reduced chance of waste and fraud because it’s easier to monitor. Also, if someone living in a county, state or municipality doesn’t think the programs are good enough or if he thinks his taxes are too high and that the programs are riddled with fraud and waste, he can MOVE. It’s the one size fits all mentality that I disagree with.
            Plus, there is nothing in the US Constitution that gives the federal government the right to take money away from one person and give it to another.

          • bald guy

            You don’t understand how this works. These programs are funded at the Federal level, with States in charge of the services. The state, in turn, has each county handling the direct monitoring / providing of services. So, your concern about local administration of services is unfounded.

            Thank you for your understanding of my son’s situation. I’m sure you wish the best for him, even if it means my family and I will have to move to another community or state.

            But what happens if no states are wiling to help people like my son, with a disability? I can’t move to another country. Is your solution just to deal with it? Beg? Is that the America you want?

            Thank God, most Americans don’t think that’s what America is all about. We’re a better country than you would have us be..

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            They should be funded at the state and local level. The levels of bureaucracy are what contribute to the fraud and waste.

          • oksteelerfan

            That’s where your argument is flawed, I have been out there and met some of these people on disability and some of these people on welfare and that is why I take the stand I take.
            Once upon a time I believed in welfare and disability and helping those in need. On some levels I still do.
            However for every person who deserves it because they fell on hard times and are taking the free education offered to them or were only on welfare for a short amount of time before they found a job, there are on the very conservative side 50 that use welfare as a way of life or on disability because they’re too fat or too lazy to work.

          • Dan

            You’re so out of touch oksteelerfan it’s funny. 1 out of 50 eh? Are you just making up “facts” in your head now?

          • Matt

            The American’s with Disablilities Act is where the argument is really flawed.

          • bald guy

            So, do a better job handling fraud. Don’t get rid of the program if it’s helping people in need.

            There’s a lot of money being wasted in the military. But, I’m not in favor of getting rid of the military.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            The military is a legitimate function of the federal government and has to be run by the federal government. Paying people’s rent is not a legitimate function of the federal government. If it’s going to be done it should be done locally.

          • oksteelerfan

            Anytime a politician or state tries to do something about the fraud the left starts screaming, usually calling it racism. I guess they think blacks are the only people on welfare.
            The drug testing for welfare recipients, the left screamed bloody murder. A bill was introduced and I believe passed in the house banning the use of cards in liquor stores and strip joints and at least one democratic congress woman called it racist.

            Besides the fact this country can’t continue spending more than they bring in and they can’t ever tax us enough to fulfill their lust for spending. Tough decisions have to be made, we can’t eliminate defense, I don’t think any of us would argue that their budget shouldn’t be looked at and see where/if cuts could be made. Somebody is going to have to make some tough decisions though and some programs are going to have be cut or this country is going to collapse.

    • Chris

      A republican could never help the poor because it goes against what they believe in fundementaly. The majority of the poor are unable to help themsleves because of lazyness, lack of skill and education, and lack of “want to”. You cant make a lazy person want to work hard but there are to many of them to just say ” let them rot and be poor” so the only soultion is to help them as much as possible., even if it means taking that money from hard working people.

      • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

        Charity.

        • Paul

          You know, it’s like kids that won’t eat the food in front of them. It’s because they’re not hungry enough. There’s no incentive to go find a job if you’re getting paid not to. It’s a pretty simple solution- quit paying them to sit around.

          • oksteelerfan

            My brother and I were talking about when we were kids the other night and when we were told dinner is ready everyone went to the dinner table, we didn’t have to be told twice and we ate what was in front of us because we knew it was a long time until breakfast.

        • bald guy

          People aren’t charitable enough. It’s sort of like saying, let the military rely on charity. Those who want to pay for it are free to do so. Those who don’t want to pay don’t have to.

          Or, those who want to pay for the National Parks can do so. Those who don’t care, don’t have to.

          Those who want to pay for research can do so.

          Let the libraries rely on charity….no public funding.

          All of these are great ideas, if they would work. They don’t.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            This is supposed to be a free country. If people don’t want to pay for a library, in a free country they are not FORCED to do so.
            If they don’t want to pay for National Parks, then they shouldn’t be forced to pay for them. The government should get out of the park business and sell the land.
            Providing for the common defense is the first function of the federal government. To compare it to a library or a national park is ridiculous.

          • Chad Farthouse

            “This is supposed to be a free country.”
            Yet you want to control w omen’s uteruses and restrict who someone can marry.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            No. I want an unborn child to be free to live and I don’t think the government should have anything to say about anybody’s marriage. If you commit yourself to a lamp for life and call it marriage. I won’t.

          • Chad Farthouse

            Maybe that lamp from A Christmas Story. Hubba hubba!

          • Chad Farthouse

            I got the hots for that lamp from A Christmas Story. Hubba, hubba, hubba!

          • GeeWhiz

            What about insuring domestic tranquility and promoting general welfare? (Oops, there’s that word again.) All that is required to form a more perfect Union.

  • bald guy

    I looked at the poll. It has nothing to do with a head-to-head matchup between Obama and Romney or between Obama and Gingrich. Almost all of those head-to-head matches show Obama winning.

    The poll you pointed to assumes that Obama will win only those states where he had a “net positive approval rating” during 2011. That’s meaningless. There are lot of people that don’t like Obama but they like Romney and Gingrich even less.

    But, I don’t blame you for bringing up this meaningless poll. As you’ve stated before, you are only repeating what you read elsewhere.

    • Paul

      Yeah John, open you own polling company, ask the same questions and get the same results. Then you wouldn’t have to repeat what you read elsewhere. Makes sense to me.

  • Dr. Phibes

    The enthusiasm for Obama is certainly lower than in 2008. However, most Dems are going to vote Obama because he’s not a republican and most republicans are going to vote for Romney because he’s not Obama. The favorable/unfavorable ratings are not the strongest indicator of whether someone votes for him.

    I agree with Mason though, once the GOP race is over and the focus becomes Obama, O’s numbers should drop even more, and that is encouraging.

  • IsraelP

    That’s running against someone called “Republican nominee.” That’s a guy with no background, no history, no dumb remarks – and no third party competition.

    I’m afraid it’s way too early to be so confident. See where he is in ten months.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      Look at history and see how many incumbents with similar numbers have won.

      • Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

        Politics in America changes every election cycle, any body paying even a little attention can see that.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          History is history. Presidents with his economic numbers, predictions of no improvement in the unemployment numbers and his approval numbers don’t get re-elected.

      • IsraelP

        And number #32 defenses (or whatever) don’t get to Super Bowls. History may be instructive, but it doesn’t make toast.

  • Tony

    http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/02/obama-up-in-ohio.html

    He’s up on all GOP contenders in Ohio. If he wins Ohio its almost impossible for him to lose. He’d have to lose PA. That link was based on approval ratings so its meaningless and pretty stupid to base an electoral map on.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      Gallup disagrees.

      • Chad Farthouse

        Gallup provided the raw numbers. The interpretation and editorializing of those numbers were done by Conn Carroll of The Washington Examiner. I’m doubt that he is objective. Even the map comes from 270toWin.com, which tells a different story with a different map on their homepage. You’re being unusually misleading today John. Keep dreaming.

        http://www.270towin.com/

      • Tony

        Wrong you linked to a right wing web site that put together an electoral map based on Gallup approval numbers. It had Obama losing Oregon and Pennsylvania. Do you think that’s going to happen. Obama is way up on Romney in Ohio. You can put together an electoral map.

        http://www.270towin.com/

        Can you find a scenario where Obama wins Ohio and loses the election?

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          Gallup is a right wing website?

          • bald guy

            No, the right wing web site took the good Gallup data and made garbage conclusions / conclusions from it.

            Any of us who have worked in research, know that good methodology and good data collection,a and good data analysis are only part of the goal. The last step, drawing appropriate conclusions, is also critical.

            i don’t question the data. But the conclusions that are being drawn are laughable. It shows the ignorance of the person who wrote the article.

            I am not surprised that the people who believe the least in science are the ones who have the most difficulty using it.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I believe in junk science less than you. I’ll give you that.

          • Vermonter

            No, but PPP is a Democratic polling company.

        • Ken

          Obama is not going to win in Ohio. It was an anomaly that he won there in 2008, driven by high unemployment. In three years, things are no better.

          • Tony

            You can’t really think that the economy is no better in Ohio than it was in 2008. You do remember that the US was losing 200,000 jobs a month and the Dow was at 6500 right? You guys really know how to stick with a talking point, I’ll give you that.

          • bald guy

            That may well be true. But, Obama can win without winning Ohio. The GOP nominee can’t.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            The republican could win PA.

          • speagle

            Not with Philly voter fraud!

          • bald guy

            About as likely as Obama winning OH. The GOP candidate could win without carrying PA, but Obama would have a difficult time. It’s just like OH, in reverse.

          • John

            The republican won the governor race in PA. The GOP candidate could absolutely win Pennsylvania.

      • bald guy

        Tho poll of polls shows Ohio as a toss up. This is a state the GOP candidate HAS to win. Obama can win the election without carrying Ohio. If Obama carries Ohio, the GOP nominee is toast. Vice versa, not so.

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      When an incumbent is below 50 percent he almost always loses because the undecidede break for the challenger.

      • bald guy

        You are correct in non-presidential races, where undecides break slightly for the challenger. But, when you look at the history of US presidential elections, that is not true. That pattern has not been the case.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          A comparison of the final tracking polls with the actual results in the presidential elections of 1964, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1992 and 1996 — races in which an incumbent president was seeking re-election — shows that more than 85 percent of the undecided voters eventually went to the challenger — even when it was hopeless types like Sens. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) and George McGovern (D-S.D.).

          Incumbent Final Polls (in percent) Actual Vote (in percent)
          1996 Bill Clinton 51 49
          1992 George Bush Senior 37 37
          1984 Ronald Reagan 58 59
          1980 Jimmy Carter 42 41

          This happens because elections are fundamentally a referendum on the incumbent. The first step in voters’ decision-making process is to answer the question “does he deserve re-election?” Undecided voters have basically answered that question in the negative, and their undecided status reflects the fact that they don’t know enough about the challenger (yet) to feel comfortable stating a public preference.

          Does this mean that literally all undecided voters cast their ballots for the challenger? Presumably not, though an overwhelming majority do. In addition, some who support the incumbent in pre-election polls are low-information voters basing their answer simply on name recognition, but who defect to the challenger at the last moment.

          There have been four incumbent presidential elections in the past quarter-century. If we take an average of the final surveys conducted by the three major networks and their partners, we find that in three of these the incumbent fell short of or merely matched his final poll number, while exceeding it only once, and then by just a single point (Ronald Reagan). On average, the incumbent comes in half a point below his final poll result.

          The numbers for challengers look quite different. In every case, the challenger(s) — I include Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996 — exceed their final poll result by at least 2 points, and the average gain is 4 points. In 1980, Ronald Reagan received 51 percent, fully 6 percentage points above his final poll results.

          (Toast.)

          • Stew

            This is absolute gold, John. Thanks very much. Hope bald guy reads this and sulks away.

          • bald guy

            No such luck, Skew. Read my response. I know life would be easier if everyone agreed with you. I actually enjoy discussing issues with people holding different views than I have. How boring just to say “I agree.”

            It’s sad that your wish is that people with views other than yours just “sulk away.” This isn’t a matter of winning or losing or defeating other people. We share thoughts, views opinions. It can get heated. We may find common ground, but at times we will be at loggerheads and just agree to disagree. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

            In praise of John, I believe these interchanges are exactly what he wants. John readily publishes the supportive views and also the most critical commentaries I and others have to offer.

            John can dish it out, but he also can take it. He has a thick skin and isn’t easily offended. If John didn’t want to hear what I had to say, he’d have banned me a long time ago!

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            You’re right and you don’t know anybody with thicker skin than mine. I don’t allow personal insults –not because they hurt my feelings –but because they’re gutless when made anonymously.

          • bald guy

            The trend, as you point out, is a slight, but not big, trend towards the challenger. Carter lost a point. Reagan gained a point. Bush Sr. stayed the same, and Clinton lost two points. So, there’s not a big break either way.

            From what I’ve read, the rule of thumb is:

            Approval rating of 50% or higher, the President will likely win.
            48%-49%, – photo finish
            47% or lower, the President will likely lose.

            The latest poll of polls has Obama at 46.5%. But, he’s far from toast. Especially as in a head-to-head matchup, the poll of polls shows Obama leading Romney by 1.9%, with 47.4% of the vote.

            That clearly shows that there are those that do not approve of Obama, but they still prefer him over Romney or Gingrich. Obama gets more votes than his approval rating, which has consistently been the case for incumbents in past presidential elections.

            The most important polling is done on a state-by-state basis, as that’s how electoral votes are allocated. The most recent data show :

            Obama – 217
            Republican – 195
            Toss Up – 126

            with 270 electoral votes needed to win. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Obama hasn’t had to defend his record yet.

          • bald guy

            Obama has been under constant attack for over three years, from before he took office, though every action he’s taken.

            It’s the Republican nominee who has yet to be subjected to the same level of scrutiny that Obama has been submitted to.

            However, the Romney / Gingrich negative ad battle has exposed each candidate to the kind of battering the nominee can expect in the general election. That actually could help the GOP nominee as he has had a chance to respond now, a long time before the election.

            Sad to say, I think the GOP nominee and Obama campaigns will focus their attention on negative ads. Your comment stressed the attacks yet to come Oama’s way. That’s an admission the lack of positive messaging from the GOP. Expect Obama and the Democrats to do the same.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Obama had a slobbering media promoting him from the minute he showed up. He wasn’t vetted 1/2 as much as Sarah Palin was. He’s been under attack from Republicans but, outside of Fox News and talk radio, he’s gotten as close to a free pass from the media that a president can get. Incumbent’s records are always attacked. That’s not negative campaigning. It’s politics. The only thing that matters is whether the attacks are based on fact.

          • Dan

            A slobbering media???? My god, the paranoia is at a fever pitch. Maybe more conservatives should get off their asses and join the media then.

            How can anyonewho watches nothing but Fox News even pretend to know what the rest of the media is saying about the guy???

          • bald guy

            Slobbering media? The media has done a great job covering all the Republicans in Congress as day after day, they batter Obama.

            Obama has taken the best punches the GOP has had to offer. The Democratic attacks on the GOP candidate have barely begun. Right now Gingrich and Romney are doing it to each other, so the Democrats can wait.

            Thankfully, Romney is providing lots of juicy comments during this primary season that makes him an easy target.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            How much coverage has Solyndra and Fast and Furious gotten? How about the corruption at ACORN?

          • oksteelerfan

            Speaking of Fast and Furious, Brian Terry’s Mother to Holder:

            “THIS IS FOR YOU SON,” Mrs. Terry posted on Facebook at about 3:30 p.m. “Mr. Holder. How come you can never say my sons name. You never have. All i ever hear you say is ‘i didnt find out or I cant say’ Im actually tired of hearing your double talk in answering questions. What a joke you are. You know my son was a real AMERICAN, a WARRIOR, and a HERO, who was also protecting COWARD POLITICANS like you.”

            Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/02/brian-terrys-mother-to-holder-youre-a-joke-and-a-coward/#ixzz1lMTQfJY8

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Obama will be hearing a lot about that in the campaign.

          • oksteelerfan

            And on Solyndra, Friday WH document dump.
            http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/01/you-know-how-you-can-tell-its-friday-by-the-solyndra-document-dumps/

            BTW do you think Fast and Furious wasn’t a political move to take a back door to gun control?
            Maybe it was part of what Obama was talking about when he told Sarah Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it,” “We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”

  • Lefty

    Are you kidding me? You actually had me worried there. This poll was approval rating. That’s a poll between Obama and somebody’s rainbow idea of a perfect president. You put him against a Republican nobody and Obama gets everyone who approves of him, and some that don’t.
    I’ve said before that I think Romney could win, but I think and hope Obama will. But basing any opinion let alone declaring “Toast” off of that poll is foolish.
    With every boastful entry you post, my enjoyment will go up that much more if he’s sworn in for a second term!!!!!!!!! Can’t wait!

    • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

      Gallup has some experience with approval ratings and how they predict elections. The author said that it’s information that should have the Obama people shitting their pants. But I wouldn’t worry . The poll numbers are Bush’s fault.

      • Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

        No! The recession, deficit, unjust wars, high unemployment, loss of respect around the world, wall street greed, freddie n frannie, and banking crisis are Bush’s fault. Just to name a few. But don’t worry, when President Obama’s policies come to fruition America will be back on top, unless of course we turn things over to the Republicans again.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          You have serious emotional problems if you think Fannie and Freddi are Bush’s fault. Toothless Barney was saying in 2007 that evetything was fine with them and rejected all republican attmepts to reform them and Obama has tripled the debt after calling Bush unpatriotic for having 1/3 the debt that he has. Obama and he democrats received more money from Wall St. than the republicans did.

          • Lefty

            John, you have to admit Bush’s debt figures are skewed because he didn’t include the money from his 2 wars in his numbers. Obama does:

            “Debt added during George W. Bush’s eight years: $5.2 – $5.7 trillion (mixed numbers).
            Debt added to-date Barack Obama: $1.8 – $2.4 trillion (mixed numbers). Includes Bush’s “off the books” DEBT.
            Portion of the $10.5 trillion added to the national debt during the past 32 years that came during Republican presidencies: $8.7 trillion.
            Percentage of that $8.7 trillion added during George W. Bush’s two terms: 63%.”

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            You won’t hear me defending Bush’s spending.

          • Lefty

            Then don’t cut him a break when bashing Obama. If you want to compare the two (” Obama has tripled the debt after calling Bush unpatriotic for having 1/3 the debt that he has.”) then take out the Iraq and Afghanistan money, and Obama has hardly added a trickle.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            Non-defense spending. Defense is a legitimate function of the federal government. Paying for someone’s cell phone service is not. You can debate the justification for the wars —both of which were authorized by congress –but you can’t debate the legitimacy of spending money on defense. The legitimacy of the welfare state and bailouts are very much up for debate.

          • Lefty

            I’m only debating this statement by you: “Obama has tripled the debt after calling Bush unpatriotic for having 1/3 the debt that he has.”
            I’m fairly certain you weren’t quoting just “non-defense spending.”
            I’m fine with you hating Obama, and much as you guys don’t want to believe it, us liberals hate waste and abuse of social services as well. But just be reasonable and well informed in your criticisms.

          • Ken

            Debt was $10.626 trillion when Obama took office.

            It’s about $15.5 trillion now.

            Great record.

          • Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?

            Why don’t you ask Newt (the guy you say you would vote for) about Freddie and Fannie, he made a few million from them.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I would vote for Newt over Obama. He claims he was telling congress not to increase funding. Of course, once again it’s ridiculous that the federal government is in the motgage business.

          • Matt

            While you’re at it ask Obama about economic advisor Franklin Rains.

      • bald guy

        The problem is, Gallup didn’t predict the presidential race based on Obama’s approval ratings. They look state-by-state and hypothetical matchups between Obama vs. each of the potential GOP nominees.

        That’s the only valid polling. What you cited and repeated is garbage. People at Gallup, for that matter, anyone that knows anything about polling, would be the first to say that.

        • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

          Nobody predicted anything. The writer said the numbers should have people at the White House worried. You don’t think they’re worried?

          • bald guy

            You didn’t say the White House should be worried. You said Obama is toast.

            And, the writer predicted a landslide victory against Obama. Again, very different from saying the White House should be worried.

            Is the White House worried? They’d better be. This shapes up to be a close race. If the White House is sitting back and thinking they have this in the bag, they’re wrong.

            Similarly, the GOP nominee better not start off with the attitude that Obama is toast. They’re still behind.

            Neither side should be thinking they have this in the bag. At this point, slight edge to Obama, but too close to call.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            The writer did not predict a landslide loss. He said if polls stay the same it looks like it would be a landslide. I think Obama has no chance. That means he’s toast. If they find out that Romney is a serial rapist in August that would make me re-think it. Right now -toast.

          • bald guy

            You forgot what happens if the economy continues to improve, we get good job growth, and unemployment goes down. If the past month is an indication of what’s to come between now and November, then Obama is a shoo-in.

            The GOPs only chance is to hope that things do not continue to improve for America. I’m sure the fundamentalists are praying for that.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            I don’t think things can improve enough. Not enough time. All recessions come to an end, but there’s a lot more than the unemployment rate that he’s going to have to defend.

          • bald guy

            There’s plenty of time. FDR was reelected with unemployment rates higher than they are now. Of course, that was after the Depression. And, Obama’s is after the worst recession since the Depression.

            Obama may not win, but he’s certainly not “toast.” I think the improving economy has you afraid of Obama’s chances.

          • http://justwatchthegame.com John Steigerwald

            And FDR prolonged the depression.

  • Mason

    Wait to see how bad it will get once the primaries are finished and republicans get to focus their message on Obama. It is going to be an interesting few months in politics.

  • Chuck

    Thanks John. That poll just brightened up my whole day.