Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
No Barack bump in the polls!

Posted by tobr24u z6 RI (My Page) on
Thu, Oct 18, 12 at 4:08

In fact Mitt has a very slim lead in most! This really surprised me after the debate Tuesday which almost all concede Obama won. Please explain this to me. I'm begging you...


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

It's quite easy to explain. Most poll results that were released yesterday were compiled before debate 2.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

No,no! I just checked the latest and they were after!


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Let me tell you what worried me in the 1rst & 2nd debates:

Although Obama was very good, and spoke from the heart, Romney kept REPEATING that he will create jobs, fix the economy numerous times.

This may have seemed insignificant, but what the Reps are doing is employing a type of PSYCHOLOGY-REPETITION, slogans, chanting. That's what sticks on most peoples' minds. I know it sounds simplistic, and it IS, but most people do not remember all the stuff in between, including issues.

They just want to hear soundbites: economy, jobs, deficit.It's SUBLIMINAL.

People don't realize that they are being taken in on a psychological level. Lies don't matter, UNLESS you are intelligent enough to decipher this PSYCHO-BABBLE.

Romney reguritated what he was coached on masterfully, and used that repetition to his advantage, almost every time he opened his mouth. It's scary, but I'm thinking that he has some pretty sketchy advisors on his staff with a Psychology background. Many of his cronies are from the Bush era....how the heck did he get elected TWICE?!


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

I'm not seeing any results yet polls taken yesterday but Intertrade has the President at 65 Romney ay 35 and they have only been wrong once.

However it's close, darn close so. According to our friends on the other side of the fence it was never suppose to be this close, but close only counts in horseshoes.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Too soon, calm down tobr.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Notto is on to something.
I'm listening to mostly women callers on c-span this morning and almost all are going to vote for Romney and the reasons they mention are word for word the Republican talking points.
They believe the business man can create jobs .
They believe the president can bring the cost of gas down.
I'm also hearing an undercurrant of racism.
A husband called and said his wife doesn't want to wear
a burka. When the moderator asked why he said"all you have to do is look at him"

Lets hope that these easily manipulated callers are atypical.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

I still think Obama is going to win.

However, I did see the polls on the debate and while Obama won the overall debate, the areas of economy and finance went in Romney's favour.

What it comes down to is whether people are going to vote with their wallets or not.

Abortion, birth control, religion, role of government in private lives...these things seem to take centre stage in an American election. I think Obama will win based on that.

But even though Romney is polling higher on the economy and finance areas, I don't think Americans will vote on those issues this time around.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

This may have seemed insignificant, but what the Reps are doing is employing a type of PSYCHOLOGY-REPETITION, slogans, chanting.

*

ROTF! What an excuse!

No, Romney isn't hypnotizing likely voters.

But Barack Obama sure came close to it in 2008.

There were throngs of faces frozen with wild eyed adoration, there were tears of joy, there was "fainting," there was jumping up and down and people rejoicing that Obama was going to be paying their bills.

Yes, I just looked at the polls earlier and I didn't bookmark it, but Romney is still ahead in polls AFTER Tuesday's debate.

Obama didn't make any significant headway.
He just made his supporters feel better by arriving with a pulse but no answers to his last four years of failed promises and no plan for the next four years.

This may be sufficient for the loyal Democrats, but undecided voters that care about debt, about energy prices, national security, and JOBS, generally require more than what Obama delivered, even with Candy Crowley's help.

The Libya debacle and the fact that Obama has removed references to having Al Qaeda on their heels from his speeches.

One more thing he says he's done that he hasn't.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Maybe President Obama will ask Governor Romney how many jobs he created and how. Given his track record as a Governor - with that abysmal record, and as the head of Bain, with that sketchy record.

And after his 'active' money earning phase, how many jobs he's created since with his tax-advantaged hundreds of millions.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

It's his money, , why do you care how many jobs he's created with his money as a private citizen?

Where is there a law that anyone with savings or expendable income is required to create jobs?

Romney has hired a lot of people in his lifetime.
How many has Barack Obama hired with his OWN MONEY other than personal assistants?

Barack Obama hasn't seemed to be able to do much with his life unless it involves confiscating, begging for, and spending other people's money.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Demi, when he runs on having been a job creator and that is what he will do when president then it becomes our business.
Can't have it both ways.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Romney is a job creator.
Romney has created job and he knows how to do it.

He has created more jobs than Barack Obama ever has in their respective professions outside of being president.

So, what's to have both ways?

Romney hasn't created enough jobs for you as a private citizen?

I'll take him.

It's apparent that Barack Obama has been impotent in creating jobs with OTHER people's money.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Romney is a job creator.
Romney has created job and he knows how to do it.

How many is the question? If you say you can do it, then give proof, that's all.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Romney has created job and he knows how to do it.

Maybe you can share with us how he does it. Because he hasn't been able to explain it himself. And as far as I can tell, he hasn't created that many jobs at all. That Staples thing is a joke, and everyone knows it. Invest money for a few years, pull out, and then years later, the company expands, with 60% part time, minimum wage jobs. Whoopie.

But he sure knows how to make a boat load of money for himself, eh?


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Romney has cost significantly more American jobs that he has created. I think the point is if lower taxes mean wealthy people will create jobs then why hasn't he? More importantly why hasn't it worked in the last 12 years or so?

Facts are lower taxes do not create jobs they simply create wealth for individuals....which isn't a bad thing... but it isn't jobs.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

From Steve Kaplan, American Enterprise Institute, January 2012:

"How many jobs did Romney and Bain Capital create?

While we will probably never be able to measure the true numbers, it seems pretty clear that �looting� is an inaccurate description of what happened with these companies.

There are two ways to look at job creation. The first is to look at jobs created and lost in Bain Capital�s companies at the time Romney left Bain Capital at the beginning of 1999. The second is to look at jobs created and lost in those same companies today. This gives Romney and Bain Capital credit for having invested in those companies when they were young. It is inappropriate to include companies that Bain Capital invested in after Romney left because he did not have any impact on those investments.

While it is difficult, if not impossible, to get employment data on all of Bain Capital�s investments, and not all of the data are perfect, it is possible to look at some of the successes and failures to get a sense of magnitudes.

Among Bain Capital�s investments under Romney, the large job creators are clearly Staples and Sports Authority. Both of these were small, young companies when Bain Capital invested in them. Bain invested in Staples when it had only one store, so there were likely fewer than 200 employees at the time. Bain appears to have invested in the Sports Authority when it had fewer than ten stores. Unfortunately, there are no public data to say how many people were employed at that time. At the end of 1998, Staples had more than 42,000 employees, Sports Authority had almost 14,000, Gartner Group had almost 3,000, and Steel Dynamics had over 500. So at the beginning of 1999, when Romney left Bain Capital, these four companies alone employed almost 60,000 total employees. While some of the job growth at Sports Authority came from acquisitions, there is no doubt that these four companies created tens of thousands of jobs over the period.

Fast forward to today. By the end of 2011, Staples had about 89,000 employees. Sports Authority is now a private company. The last time it reported employee numbers, in 2006, it had 14,300 employees. In addition, Gartner Group had over 4,400 and Steel Dynamics had over 6,000 employees. Using the most recently available data, these four companies alone employed almost 125,000 total employees.

Bain Capital also successfully turned around several existing businesses during Romney�s tenure. For example, Bain Capital bought Wesley Jessen Vision Care for $6 million in 1994. It had been a division of Schering Plough and was not profitable. Bain Capital and a new CEO turned it around and sold it to Ciba Geigy for over $300 million in 2001. When it was sold, it appears to have had 2,600 employees. Today, the company is part of Ciba Vision.

Overall, then, the companies Bain Capital funded under Romney have created tens of thousands of jobs using any measure."


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

While we will probably never be able to measure the true numbers

And stop taking credit for Staples.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Polls mean next to nothing. I can't believe my future rests with "undecided" voters. Romney gives me the creeps. A liar, bully,and hater.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Romney is a job creator.
Romney has created job and he knows how to do it.

Romney's goal was not job creation. It was wealth creation which is why he partnered with Michael Milliken before MM was carted off to jail and in fact, was working with him while MM was under investigation by the SEC.

For 15 years, Romney had been in the business of creative destruction and wealth creation. But what about his claims of job creation? Though Bain Capital surely helped expand some companies that had created jobs, the layoffs and closures at other firms would lead Romney's political opponents to say that he had amassed a fortune in part by putting people out of work. The lucrative deals that made Romney wealthy could exact a cost. Maximizing financial return to investors could mean slashing jobs, closing plants, and moving production overseas. It could also mean clashing with union workers, serving on the board of a company that ran afoul of federal laws, and loading up already struggling companies with debt.

There is a difference between companies run by buyout firms and those rooted in their communities, according to Ross Gittell, a professor at the University of New Hampshire's Whittemore School of Business and Economics. When it comes to buyout firms, he said, "the objective is: Make money for investors. It's not to maximize jobs." Romney, in fact, had a fiduciary duty to investors to make as much money as possible. Sometimes everything worked out perfectly; a change in strategy might lead to cost savings and higher profits, and Bain cashed in. Sometimes jobs were lost, and Bain cashed in or lost part or all of its investment. In the end, Romney's winners outweighed his losers on the Bain balance sheet. Marc Wolpow, a former Bain partner who worked with Romney on many deals, said the discussion at buyout companies typically does not focus on whether jobs will be created. "It's the opposite-what jobs we can cut," Wolpow said. "Because you had to document how you were going to create value. Eliminating redundancy, or the elimination of people, is a very valid way. Businesses will die if you don't do that.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Dark Side of Mitt Romney


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

As for the polls, here in swingstate Colorado, there are a whole series of new ads directed at women. They're the voting group who caused the big shift after debate #1 - so its one after the other after another. The Romney side pushing the economic argument, the Obama side pushing the health issues.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

The polls take a few days to "catch" up.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Intrade says your wrong small bump still has Romney losing!


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

  • Posted by kwoods Cold z7 Long Is (My Page) on
    Thu, Oct 18, 12 at 12:30

Ohio


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

More on the Staples myth from my link above:

For years Romney would cite the Staples investment as proof that he had helped create thousands of jobs. And it is true that his foresight in investing in Staples helped a major enterprise lift off. But neither Romney nor Bain directly ran the business, though Romney was active on its board. At the initial public offering, Staples was a firm of 24 stores and 1,100 full- and part-time jobs. Its boom years were still to come. Romney resigned his seat on the board of directors in 2001 in preparation for his run for governor. A decade later, the company had more than 2,200 stores and 89,000 employees.

Assessing claims about job creation is hard. Staples grew hugely, but the gains were offset, at least partially, by losses elsewhere: smaller, mom-and-pop stationery stores and suppliers were being squeezed, and some went out of business entirely. Ultimately, Romney would approvingly call Staples "a classic �category killer,- like Toys R Us." Staples steamrolled the competition, undercutting prices and selling in large quantities. When asked about his job-creation claim during the 1994 Senate campaign-that he had helped create 10,000 jobs at various companies (a claim he expanded during his 2012 presidential campaign to having "helped to create tens of thousands" of jobs)-Romney responded with a careful hedge. He emphasized that he always used the word "helped" and didn�t take full credit for the jobs. "That�s why I�m always very careful to use the words "help create, " he acknowledged. "Bain Capital, or Mitt Romney, "helped create" over 10,000 jobs. I don't take credit for the jobs at Staples. I helped create the jobs at Staples."


Howard Anderson, a professor at M.I.T.�s Sloan School of Management and a former entrepreneur who has invested with Bain, put it more plainly: "What you really cannot do is claim every job was because of your good judgment," he said. "You�re not really running those organizations. You�re financing it; you�re offering your judgment and your advice. I think you can only really claim credit for the jobs of the company that you ran."


The same year Romney invested in Staples�digging into a true start-up-he also inked the biggest transaction, by far, that Bain Capital had put together until then. And with this $200 million deal, he waded full-on into the high-stakes financial arena of the time: leveraged buyouts, or LBOs. Whereas a venture-capital deal bet on a new business, pursuing an LBO meant borrowing huge sums of money to buy an established company, typically saddling the target with big debts. The goal was to mine value that others had missed, to quickly improve profitability by cutting costs and often jobs, and then to sell.

...

Billions of dollars were being made in the field of leveraged buyouts in the roaring 80s, and Romney was fully in the game, continuing to ratchet up his favored strategy. On the campaign trail in 2011, Romney said his work had "led me to become very deeply involved in helping other businesses, from start-ups to large companies that were going through tough times. Sometimes I was successful and we were able to help create jobs, other times I wasn�t. I learned how America competes with other companies in other countries, what works in the real world and what doesn't." It was a vague summary of what was a very controversial type of business. In his 2004 autobiography, Turnaround, Romney put it more bluntly: "I never actually ran one of our investments; that was left to management." He explained that his strategy was to "invest in these underperforming companies, using the equivalent of a mortgage to leverage up our investment. Then we would go to work to help management make their business more successful."

Romney's phrase, "leverage up," provides the key to understanding this most profitable stage of his business career. While putting relatively little money on the table, Bain could strike a deal using largely debt. That generally meant that the company being acquired had to borrow huge sums. But there was no guarantee that target companies would be able to repay their debts. At Bain, the goal was to buy businesses that were stagnating as subsidiaries of large corporations and grow them or shake them up to burnish their performance. Because many of the companies were troubled, or at least were going to be heavily indebted after Bain bought them, their bonds would be considered lower-grade, or "junk." That meant they would have to pay higher interest on the bonds, like a strapped credit-card holder facing a higher rate than a person who pays off purchases more quickly. High-yielding junk bonds were appealing to investors willing to take on risk in exchange for big payouts. But they also represented a big bet: if the companies didn�t generate large profits or could not sell their stock to the public, some would be crippled by the debt layered on them by the buyout firms.

The arcane domain of corporate buyouts and junk-bond financing had entered the public consciousness at the time, and not always in a positive way. Ivan Boesky, a Wall Street arbitrageur who often bought the stock of takeover targets, was charged with insider trading and featured on the cover of Time magazine as "Ivan the Terrible." Shortly after Romney began working on leveraged deals, a movie called Wall Street opened. It featured the fictional corporate raider Gordon Gekko, who justified his behavior by declaring, "I am not a destroyer of companies. I am a liberator of them! � Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit."

Romney, of course, never said that greed is good, and there was nothing of Gekko in his mores or style. But he bought into the broader ethic of the LBO kings, who believed that through the aggressive use of leverage and skilled management they could quickly remake underperforming enterprises. Romney described himself as driven by a core economic credo, that capitalism is a form of "creative destruction." This theory, espoused in the 1940s by the economist Joseph Schumpeter and later touted by former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, holds that business must exist in a state of ceaseless revolution. A thriving economy changes from within, Schumpeter wrote in his landmark book, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, "incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." But as even the theory's proponents acknowledged, such destruction could bankrupt companies, upending lives and communities, and raise questions about society's role in softening some of the harsher consequences.

and more about Romney at Boston.com.

Here is a link that might be useful: Mitt and the Junk Bond King


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

epi,
Who the heck wants to work at Staples?

Even if Romney had created those jobs, NOBODY can live on $8/hr. Certainly not in my state.

I don't want to see more of those jobs. We need mfg, and other good paying jobs, not more retail.

Yes, I know about Romney scamming Wallstreet. It amazes me that many are not paying attention. That's what's wrong with this country. Majority derserve what they get-low paying jobs and no healthcare. Go Romney!.....sarcasm*


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

epi,
Who the heck wants to work at Staples?

Notto, what is your problem? Where am I advocating employment at Staples? I'm not. Take that chip on your shoulder and go address someone else.

Mitt's accumulated his wealth partially on the backs of others misery, something that no one is mentioning when they glorify Mitt.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

So, if investing in companies is a good idea, then as President, will Romney be investing in companies with our tax payer dollars? Or what?

Its hilarious actually to watch him repeat ad nauseum that he knows how to create jobs, alternating with complaints about how gvt can't create jobs* - so therefore elect him to head up the gvt.

So I guess my investments in my mutual fund that I kept there for 2 years created jobs, just like Romney's investments in Staples. So vote for me?

*well, except for military, defense contractors, roads, airports, teachers, firefighters, park rangers, and all that -


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

y epiphyticlvr 10 (My Page) on Thu, Oct 18, 12 at 13:43

epi,
Who the heck wants to work at Staples?
Notto, what is your problem? Where am I advocating employment at Staples? I'm not. Take that chip on your shoulder and go address someone else.

Mitt's accumulated his wealth partially on the backs of others misery, something that no one is mentioning when they glorify Mitt.

*********************************************

Epi,
I apologize. My sarcasm wasn't pointed at you, but at the miserable Staples jobs, which is the type that Romney will create, which is scary.

As you point out, he will do more of what he has done in the past. You cannot change the stripes on a Zebra.

I agree with you.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Mitt's accumulated his wealth partially on the backs of others misery,

Partially?

He did it by using leveraged buyouts to take control, then run up enormous amounts of debt, used that debt to pay himself, then sold off the companies who often later went broke. Anyway, its called "creative destruction" euphemism for looting companies.

Oh, and Staples where they invested some money and later pulled out, the company going on to create 40,000 part time, no benefit, near-minimum wage jobs.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

"40,000 part time, no benefit, near-minimum wage jobs."

All of whom claim the Earned Income Credit and are part of the 47%. Way to Go Mitt ..put them there and then denigrate them.

...and you can be darn sure that will not be a deduction that "goes away". Corporate America will never let their lap dog do that.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Partially?

Touche! I stand corrected. I was trying to be nice. ;)

No problem Notto.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

The Nate Silver poll that came out a little while ago is very favorable for Barack Obama. His poll is the one I trust the most and he's extremely good and has a great record of correct predictions. He's said all along Obama will win and I believe he's right.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Just to clarify, Nate Silver doesn't do a poll. He takes all the poll data out there and uses his methods and computer models he developed for compiling it.

The man is a GENIUS! Yes, I know, I keep saying that. But, it's so true.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Nate Silver's model does more than use poll data, by the way. It factors in data from many other sources (jobs reports as one example).


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

Yes, true, he factors in all kinds of other news. In fact, he recently mentioned that he's going to change the model for 2016 to incorporate it faster than it does now.


 o
RE: No Barack bump in the polls!

jill, thanks for correcting me. I'm fairly new to Nate Silver and don't always pay attention as well as I should.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here