Barack Obama

It's Pretty Amazing That Economic Forecasts Went Dark the Minute After Obama Won Re-Election…

|

The invaluable John Merline of Investor's Business Daily points to oddly-timed shifts in the way that the media is describing the economy these days.

Merline notes that just prior to the election, the Fourth Estate was mostly falling over itself to pronounce that the economy was finally getting hotter than July:

Generally, the press agreed that growth would accelerate after the election, regardless of who won. Two days before Election Day, BusinessWeek proclaimed that "the economy is on course to enjoy faster growth in the next four years as the head winds that have held it back turn into tail winds." It added that "consumers are spending more and saving less," while "home prices are rebounding" and "banks are increasing lending." It predicted, "The die is cast for a much stronger recovery."

The AP, The New York Times, USA Today, and other sources were in on the deal.

Now that the election is over and Obama is safely ensconced in a second term—and pitching $255 billion in new stimulus spending—many of the same folks are reporting that, would you believe it, the economy's really in the crapper!

According to the New York Times, the administration's argument is that "the sluggish economy requires a shot in the arm."And, indeed, the Times paints a rather grim picture of the current economic situation.

Data show "the recovery once again sputtering," it reported Tuesday, adding that the "underlying rate of growth (is) too slow to bring down the unemployment rate by much." Manufacturing and exports are lagging, it noted, while consumers and businesses are "holding back" and "wage growth is weak."

Whole thing here.

Advertisement

NEXT: LA, Long Beach Ports to Resume Operations After Strike

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. *ahem*

    Fuck. The. Media.

    1. They’ve already done it to us…

      1. For demigod-like titans of capitalism you people sure do whine a lot.

        1. We have been supplanted by the captains of crony capitalism.

        2. Fuck off, sockpuppet.

        3. Meaning the progressive social model has finally taken full root?

        4. We didn’t get blown by the whores but we’re footing the bill. I think that entitles us to object.

          1. To object to the poor moochers who run major media companies?

            1. Fuck off, sock puppet.

            2. To object to the poor moochers who run major media companies?

              Pretty freaking hilarious, considering you work for one, asshole! Do you bosses know that you talk about them this way?

        5. For demigod-like titans of capitalism you people sure do whine a lot.

          No argument presented.

  2. I don’t know why, but for some reason I thought the press would, in general, this time around not give Obama the pass he got in 2008. I mean, his record was there for all to see this time around, not hidden as it was where only a reporter actually trying could find it.

    But the mindless cult of personality is amazing. It really goes to show that journalists are not at all adept at critical thinking or independent thinking for that matter. Not only did he get a pass, but they made a concerted effort to carry Obama to reelection. And now it seems they’re going to carry his policies to fruition as well.

    1. But now that he’s been re-elected and they don’t need to worry about those dirty others taking over, they can really go to town on him! Right? Right?

      1. The White House needed them to change the narrative on the economy so that he could talk up stimulus, and news stories have shifted on cue. That suggests we won’t see anything but a couple tepidly challenging Jake Tapper questions for the next four years, unless Obama goes on Univision again.

        1. I’d like to see him on Russia Today with Alonya and any Reason staffer.

          1. I’d like to see myself on Alonya. OH YEAH

            1. Kool Aid Gue chuckles and misses his cue.

              1. With an ‘e’? Really? Not even on the same side of the keyboard. Oh, hunt and peck. Hand preoccupied with other things. Just scratchin’ yur balls, I bet!

          2. Too bad Alyona isn’t on RT anymore 🙁

            1. Meh. I was never that impressed with her.

              1. I approve of this comment.

                1. Sonofabitch thread wall got me again!!! I approve of the “good” doctor’s comment…

  3. The light at the end of the tunnel has been switched off. It was powered by Solyndra.

    An interesting essay – we are broke, financially and politically and institutionally, but once we hit bottom we have an opportunity to fix things. But only an opportunity, not a guarantee.

    “The essay contains a section on the country’s disastrous financial condition; readers who do not need that reminder (or can no longer bear it) may wish to skip that part.”

    1. I’m pretty sure the light at the end of the tunnel is a train.

        1. It’s trains all the way down.

    2. Don’t kid yourself. The capacity for self-delusion is almost infinitely strong. Argentinians have been smacked in the face with the consequences of exactly this sort of statist tomfoolery since the days of Peron and they still don’t fucking get it.

  4. It’s possible that it’s not a conspiracy and the economic indicators actually turned sharply downward as soon as Obama was reelected.

    1. Lots of major economic indicators looked really bad before the election. There was plenty of reason to be skeptical of those that looked OK; remember the omission of a major state from the employment reporting?

      A reasonably objective media would not have been saying that we had finally turned the corner. A more realistic assessment would have been that we were still bottom bouncing, and the outlook was more negative than positive.

      1. Europe was imploding and China was slowing down.

      2. Well, on the plus side, if it turns out that we head straight back into recession, they will lose credibility. The Democrats will be burned hard by a second recession.

        1. Nah. They’ll blame it on Bush and the Republicans.

          1. “John Boehner’s radical libertarian agenda”

            1. Lucifer our Lord!

              1. Joyfully, Eternally Serving Unholy Satan!

            2. “John Boehner’s radical libertarian agenda”

              That will be the name of my next band.

              1. This will be quickly shortened to “Boehner’s Agenda”.

            3. Jon Chait is cranking up the old word processor as we speak to denounce the dire libertarian menace.

        2. You’re assuming they won’t find a way to blame it on TEAM RED, and that TEAM RED won’t be stupid enough to fall into that trap.

          1. Obstructionist kulaks. The narrative is already bought, and the majority of the people blame the republicans for the fiscal cliff being in front of us in the first place. Certainly they deserve a huge chunk of the pre-stimulus blame, but that isn’t the motivating factor. The majority of politically active Americans are motherfucking communist now. One day some of you guys who believe in minarchy will figure out what country you are in, and between the warmongers and communist feasting on the producers, it is not a pretty one.

        3. I’m sure they can still milk the “it’s all Bush’s fault” for a few more years.

          1. Progressives have been calling Hoover a laissez-faire President for 70 years, even though he was nothing of the sort. They’ll be milking the “Bush’s Fault” narrative for about that long, too.

            1. Well, Hoover did spend FDR’s administration denouncing FDR’s interventions? that’s how he got the laissez-faire reputation.

        4. No reason to speculate about the Democrats will blame things on. Just ask Tony what he blames…

          You think Tony would ever blame the Democrats for anything?

          1. Not just for the sake of doing it.

            1. Or at all, unless you thought they were caving in to those nasty evul Rethuglikkkans.

              1. The only mortal sin in the Church of the State is not spending enough of other people’s money, or spending it on politically unpopular things.

            2. God Tony you’re a stupid fuck!

  5. Let the mockery of those who think great swathes of the media are effectively, objectively, Democratic operatives begin!

    Personality cult, tribal loyalties, who knows why the Dem Op media is what it is. But can we at least stop arguing about the fact that, indeed, the Dem Op media is real?

    And more tenacious and effective than many thought. They certainly dragged their guy across the finish line this year, and I for one thought their influence had been eroded too much by the intertubes for that to happen again.

    1. Doesn’t matter; Fox News; Romney’s a liar who likes rape and misogyny in general.

    2. Or maybe more people just voted for Obama.

      1. Come on sockpuppet, at least say something mutually exclusive with Dean’s suggestion.

      2. Fuck off, sockpuppet.

      3. Tony speaks for the sheep.

        Democrats good.

        Republicans Bad.

        Baaaaaaaaaaaaa.

        1. Like you have room to talk. The only difference between our arguments pre-election was that your guy eventually lost.

          1. Fuck off, sock puppet.

          2. My argument was that Obama is such a disgusting socialist that as awful as Romney was, Romney was better than the alternative.

            Your argument was that Obama is a pathetic socialist, too?

            You lying sack of shit.

            1. You lying sack of shit

              Ken, socks are inanimate objects, incapable of human actions and responses.

              A sock can no more lie than a gun can pull its own trigger.

              Just sayin’.

            2. They weren’t exactly the same, I guess. My argument had nothing to do with what Romney was, since that was irrelevant. My argument was that the Republican party is full of batshit crazy fundies and illiterates who have no business running a country. Romney’s neither but he also has no spine, which makes him a dangerous prospect as a president.

              1. So in regards to why I supported Romney, you admit to lying.

                That’s improvement for you, Tony! Now you just need to admit that you’re a sack of shit.

                1. Well Obama’s no socialist, so you’re lying too. Or stupid. Pick one. He’s center-left or center-right depending on who you ask. Unless you ask an idiot.

              2. Fuck off, sock puppet.

          3. The only difference between our arguments pre-election was that your guy eventually lost.

            What if I didn’t have a guy, Tony w/spaces?

  6. Also, who posted this? What is reason trying to hide?

    1. Not snarky enough to be The Jacket. No baseball references, so it’s not Welch.

      1. Not typed in invisible ink so it’s not Cavanaugh or Lucy.

  7. BusinessWeek proclaimed that “the economy is on course to enjoy faster growth in the next four years as the head winds that have held it back turn into tail winds.” It added that “consumers are spending more and saving less,”

    It’s hard to believe, since it sucked so horribly before, but Business Week has actually gotten worse since Bloomberg bought it.

    1. So Macro-Economics all boils down to wind headings? Thank goodness, if government spending, regulations, and tax policies had anything to do with it, we would be fucked.

      1. So Macro-Economics all boils down to wind headings?

        What would you rather have, animal spirits?

        1. Ritually slaughter an economics reporter and examine their entrails?

          1. That just might work! Quickly, bring us a reporter, STAT.

      2. It’s vectors nudged towards the Innumerate One all the way down.

  8. the “underlying rate of growth (is) too slow to bring down the unemployment rate by much.”

    Golly, I wonder what sort of “revision” will be made to the previous couple of months’ employment reports.

    1. “Oops, we just discovered this whole big box of jobless claims that was in the closet.”

      1. “Oops, we just discovered this whole big box of jobless claims that was in the closet.”

        Nope those are 2008 Minnesota Senate Ballots

    2. “That darn Booooosh!”

      1. “Try the liberal call, boy!”

        BOOOOSH. BOOOOSH!

  9. It’s good when they need it to be good (to get Obama re-elected). It’s bsd when they need it to be bad (avoid “fiscal cliff” and blame repugs for obstruction). It’s called propaganda. It’s why I don’t believe anything these people say.

    1. The MSM actually hailed this deal when the Democrats passed it. Now it’s the WORST THING EVAH because political hay can be reaped from it.

  10. Your defeatism is giving me a sad, Reason.

    Obama’s light will shine upon us and bring us peace, joy, and prosperity. Negative thinking is a crime against social solidarity and forwardness.

    1. Also, fried chicken.

      1. Yes, negative thinking is a crime against fried chicken too.

        1. Man I love fried chicken! (No racist)

          1. Fried chicken as we know it was created in West Africa. They have nothing to be ashamed of, unlike Italians and their love for Chef Boyardee.

          2. The first person who thought “let’s get a vat of oil really hot then throw food in it” was a genius.

            1. You’d never know it by the ones that came after him:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=473QNZss0PM

  11. This is hardly a rigorous study of media reports, or a neutral source. I consume a lot of media and was never under the impression the economy would be returning to full employment and robust growth any time soon without further stimulus. I’m sorry if you guys were duped.

    1. We aren’t the ones who thought “caring” was more important than the economy.

    2. Fuck off, sock puppet.

    3. Isn’t the whole point of “stimulus” to, you know, “stimulate” job growth?

      I guess the reality of an ever-shrinking labor force participation rate shows that yesterday’s “stimulus” is really today’s “circle jerk.”

      1. What’s your plan to increase employment again? Give rich people more money? Was that it?

        1. Fuck off, sock puppet.

        2. Because not taking is giving! DERP!

          1. “Not taking” doesn’t create jobs either.

            1. Fuck off, sock puppet.

              1. He seems to be ignoring you. Time for a new strategy.

            2. Yes, it does. When would-be entrepeneurs are reasonably confident their investment and effort will pay off, jobs are created. When they fear that regulation, taxes and unstable business climate will not yield that profit, no investment is made and no jobs created.

              Guess which we’ve had since the statist misrule of Barack Obama began?

              1. Bullshit nonsense. When did capitalist titans of industry become such delicate little flowers?

                You succeed or fail in the environment you’re in. You’re perfectly happy telling the indigent that, so why can’t the wealthy suck it up a little?

        3. Ah yes, the magical Tonyland, where
          “a man who walks by a mugger unmolested” = “the mugger game money to the man”

          Take that concept, and the concept that “Black people are evil for depriving white people of the right to express their democratic will in support of Jim Crow”, and apply the proper weights to them and you can reconstruct his arguments substantively, leaving only a 25% residual.

        4. Letting people, rich or not, keep more of the money they have != “Giving them money”, you disingenuous fuck.

          1. Which has what to do with creating jobs?

            1. Fuck off, sock puppet.

            2. Who do you think creates jobs? Oh, never mind – it’s pointless.

              1. Unemployment goes down when there is demand for labor.

                Giving a millionaire a tax cut does not automatically equal increased demand for labor, as you guys constantly claim.

                1. Correct, because deficits don’t “stimulate” shit. You have to cut government spending.

        5. What’s your plan to increase employment again? Give rich people more money? Was that it?

          What’s your plan to sustain employment again? Give poor people more food stamps? Was that it?

          1. more like giving politically connected companies money – see Solyandra.

          2. Giving money to poor and middle class people spurs more economic demand, since they will spend it, than giving it to rich people, who have the luxury of saving.

            1. “Giving money to poor and middle class people spurs more economic demand, since they will spend it, than giving it to rich people”

              Bullshit. Rich people spend their money you idiot. Middle class people pay back debt.

            2. How does that create jobs as opposed to absorbing excess capacity?

        6. What’s your plan to increase employment again?

          If “employment” is the goal, why not just give people money to dig ditches?

          1. It would certainly be more productive than giving rich people a tax cut.

            1. By definition, it would not.

    4. without further stimulus

      Most recent talking points alert.

    5. “I consume a lot of media and was never under the impression the economy would be returning to full employment and robust growth any time soon without further stimulus.”

      What a fucking idiot!

      Because Tony consumes a lot of media, he was under the impression that the economy would never get back to normal without more stimulus, and this–in Tony’s world–is evidence that people were NOT duped by the media into believing stupid things about the economy?

      That’s what being unintentionally hilarious is all about, or, rather, it would be hilarious if it weren’t so pathetic.

      1. “Because Tony consumes a lot of media, he was under the impression…”

        …that the moon is green cheese.
        Shithead is abysmally ignorant; if anything he posts appears above the level of infantile whining, it’s purely coincidental.

    6. I’m sorry if you guys were duped.

      Umm, we weren’t the one who were duped. We were bitching all along about the reporting showing sudden mysterious recovery that began sometime in September.

      1. The dumbass admits he was duped by the media, and then he cites his being duped as evidence that he wasn’t duped by the media.

        He has his head so far up his ass, it’s amazing.

    7. BTW, Tony, I realize basic math is not your forte, but I can pull out the revenue and spending-to-GDP numbers for you again from the White House’s web site, and then we can talk about what the actual problem is with real-world data.

      1. The actual problem is unemployment.

        1. Wait, unemployment is still a problem?

          Alert the media! If its fits the narrative, they might care!

        2. Not when you’re getting an unemployment check for doing nothing.

    8. “I consume a lot of media”

      When we told you to eat Sh*t, you obviously took it literally.

    9. Re: Tony,

      I consume a lot of media and was never under the impression the economy would be returning to full employment

      It would have taken a total disconnect with reality in order to believe that there’s such a thing as “full employment.”

      Only labor camps can boast about having “full employment.”

      without further stimulus. I’m sorry if you guys were duped.

      Who’s being a dope again, Mr. Economics Illiterate?

    10. Well then you’re the only one. Because I remember hearing this argument from my mother that the economy was coming back under Obama and unemployment was down, and blah blah blah (insert media fed indoctrination quotes here).

      In short, you’re a liar.

    11. Further stimulus? The original stimulus bill was supposed to have us at 5% unemployment. What happened?

      1. It wasn’t big enough.

        Would you care to offer a counternarrative that explains the huge shift in job losses to job gains that happened to coincide with the stimulus?

  12. Is there any data to support the assertion IBD makes? No.

    Does that matter if they’re telling you what you want to hear? I guess not.

    1. The assertion that IBD makes is that the media is changing its coverage. And yes, they do provide support for that assertion. I would quote the part where they do that, but it’s the text of the whole fucking article.

      1. You can’t make sweeping generalizations about the “mainstream media” and support them with a few anecdotes.

        1. Yes you can. That’s inductive logic. That’s like freshman year, first semester.

          What you can’t do is cite every piece, written or broadcast, in the mainstream media before the election. It’s physically impossible.

          1. I think you mean confirmation bias.

            1. Fuck off, sock puppet.

            2. T o n y| 12.5.12 @ 10:51AM |#
              “I think”

              Not possible, shithead.

          2. A few anecdotes may support an argument, but they hardly prove it. I could easily look back at the same time frame and find and equal number of anecdotes where the media said the economy was getting worse. The original author made a claim and it is his duty to support it in a meaningful way, which means statistically significant results from a scientific study, not a half dozen anecdotes.

            If you relax your standards for people who agree with you, then you must also relax your standards for everyone else (or else be a hypocrite). If you believe everything that is supported by a few anecdotes, then you will believe anything.

            1. “I could easily look back at the same time frame and find and equal number of anecdotes where the media said the economy was getting worse.”

              Then do that!

              You have an internet connection, right?

              I didn’t say there weren’t any examples of people in the mainstream media being gloomy on the economy. I said that evidence was given to support that conclusion.

              Holy shit, that’s what inductive logic is all about, right? Deductive logic means the conclusion follows from the premises. Inductive logic, on the other hand, always contains an element of uncertainty.

              All inductive conclusions are subject to revision given new data that conflicts with them. That doesn’t mean we can’t use a few examples to support an argument.

              Fer shit’s sake.

            2. If you believe everything that is supported by a few anecdotes, then you will believe anything.

              See also: Cop shoots dog, Mayor bans salt.

            3. The original author made a claim and it is his duty to support it in a meaningful way, which means statistically significant results from a scientific study,

              So, no one should comment on anything until they have conducted a grant-supported study and published a peer-reviewed article?

              And you impose this standard right after you make this claim, without any statistical support:

              I could easily look back at the same time frame and find and equal number of anecdotes where the media said the economy was getting worse.

              1. And you impose this standard right after you make this claim, without any statistical support:

                I could easily look back at the same time frame and find and equal number of anecdotes where the media said the economy was getting worse.

                If I followed through on this and then claimed “The media isn’t biased on this issue!” I would look just as bad as you IBD look right now.

                So, no one should comment on anything until they have conducted a grant-supported study and published a peer-reviewed article?

                The main problem here is that IBD quotes 4 major press sources, but makes sweeping claims about “the press” in general in the concluding paragraph.

                Look, there are plenty of good reasons to hate on Joe and Tony. This isn’t one of them.

                1. Every political blog–left, right, and everything in between–is in actuality a propaganda site that presents facts and ideas in a slanted way to its dedicated audience. The fact that so many commentators blindly and obediently believe everything they read is gratifying to the professional propagandists. It happens here and at every other political blog and news network and media site. And every commentator believes that his favorite site is righteous and all the other ones are wrong.

                  1. “The fact that so many commentators blindly and obediently believe everything they read is gratifying to the professional propagandists. It happens here and at every other political blog and news network and media site. And every commentator believes that his favorite site is righteous and all the other ones are wrong”

                    That is demonstrably false–on this site.

                    We certainly don’t believe everything Nick or any of the staff here write just because it’s from them. We’re jumping on them in every thread for being wrong, betraying the cause, or being stupid.

                    The only thing everybody agrees on here is that Tony is an ignoramus. The rest of disagree with each other and our leaders on just about everything. That’s the great thing about being a libertarian…

                    Since we all agree on freedom and people being free to make their own choices, we don’t have to agree on very much else–and we don’t! Go to a Reason staff meeting, and tell them that the commenters at Hit & Run always agree with whatever the staff writes, and I’ll be they laugh you right out of the room.

                2. I think I’m following, some guy.

                  Making a generalization is not allowed unless there is a statistical study to support it. That’s the standard?

                  You do realize that this ranges from impossible to absurd for damn near any topic, yes?

            4. Re: Some guy,

              A few anecdotes may support an argument, but they hardly prove it.

              Those were not anecdotes, sg. The article is quoting actual news reporting by some very important news outlets.

              which means statistically significant results from a scientific study, not a half dozen anecdotes.

              This is not a survey on opinion, sg. Don’t be a fool – those outlets memorialized forever their interpretation of the data, before the election, in written pages. The author of the article is simply pointing to the inconsistency with the interpretations or opinions before the election and after.

              Also, you’re being disingenous: The author points out to very important news outlets whose articles are reprinted by several papers and quoted by many news reporters, so don’t suddenly ask for a “scientifically rigorous” test that is superfluous and needless.

          3. Inductive logic will not work if the sample size is too small.

            You can get data on every single media story published during that period. It takes a bit longer than a 15 minute blog post, though, so it’s basically physically impossible.

            1. Then say the sample size is too small, and go out and find some counterexamples.

              Don’t tell me that you can generalize from specific examples. Don’t say he didn’t cite any examples.

              There are all sorts of ways of attacking inductive logic–and you know this, joe. Saying the inductive logic thingy doesn’t work isn’t one of them.

        2. But you can listen to a government spokesman and make sweeping generalizations that all result in “we MUST tax the ‘rich’ in order to give that money to the poor (after being filtered through various federal and state bureaucracies to be handed out as graft and stolen by “workers”).

    2. Shut the fuck up, Joe, you retarded disgusting homunculus.

    3. “Two days before Election Day, BusinessWeek proclaimed that “the economy is on course to enjoy faster growth in the next four years as the head winds that have held it back turn into tail winds.” It added that “consumers are spending more and saving less,” while “home prices are rebounding” and “banks are increasing lending.” It predicted, “The die is cast for a much stronger recovery.”

      The AP, The New York Times, USA Today, and other sources were in on the deal.”

      If you want counterexamples, go out and find them. Just because you don’t like their data doesn’t mean it isn’t data.

      1. A single data point from a single source is insufficient to make the case that the entire media purposefully changed its coverage to advantage Obama.

        Assertions from the IBD are not data.

        1. The example he gave is data.

          So he gave one example. Why don’t you come up with a counterexample?

          Go to a mainstream media source in the days before the election and find something gloomy.

          There’s gotta be one out there! When you find it, that won’t refute his statement, but simply saying that he didn’t offer any examples is baloney. Go find some counterexamples–don’t just tell us he didn’t offer any when he did.

          1. You’re arguing semantics, Ken, and you’re making yourself look bad.

            What if Joe had said: “Is there any statistically significant data to support the assertion IBD makes? No.”

            How would you respond to that?

            1. The IBD piece gives four or five examples. What do you want, a book?

              1. That’s an excellent response!

              2. I want statistically significant data, cited and summarized.

                1. I want statistically significant data, cited and summarized.

                  For which proposition?

                  That the media downplayed negative news and played up positive news, or that the media didn’t downplay negative news or play up positive news?

                  We have competing claims, here. One is supported with a few examples, the other with, well, not even that.

              3. 4 or 5 examples out of thousands of articles published is not a representative sample. Nor is it a random sample– these were chosen by a highly ideological author attempting to make a highly ideological point.

                The fact that you guys see this non-study as ironclad proof, but constantly question the value of highly rigorous data indicating climate change is absurd.

            2. How would I respond to it? By asking a couple of questions:

              (1) Is it even possible to do a rigorous statistical analysis that is ultimately grounded on a subjective analysis of language?

              (2) Do you ask this question of every expression of opinion, or only ones you find uncomfortable?

              1. (1) Is it even possible to do a rigorous statistical analysis that is ultimately grounded on a subjective analysis of language?

                Yes. It’s done all the time. Just google “analysis of subjective data” or something like that.

                (2) Do you ask this question of every expression of opinion, or only ones you find uncomfortable?

                I always ask that people support their assertions in a meaningful way. For example, I’m totally on board with the fact that there is a media bias in favor of the Democrat party. I still think this was a pointless article.

                1. I googled “rigorous statistical analysis of subjective data” and came up with, well nothing that seemed the least bit relevant.

        2. If you want counterexamples, go out and find them.

          1. That’s not my burden, anymore than its an atheist’s burden to prove that god does not exist.

            Rejecting an argument based on insufficient evidence is enough.

            1. Not in the real world, where rigorous proof is rarely available but decisions must be made anyway. See Bayesian analysis.

              As of right now, there is evidence for Leftard hypocrisy and general stupidery, and no evidence against, meaning the ‘for’s’ are probably right.

              1. Bayesian analysis is predicated on using the best possible information available to you.

                Using 4 or 5 articles out of thousands, chosen without any sampling technique, is nowhere near the best information available.

                1. “Using 4 or 5 articles out of thousands, chosen without any sampling technique, is nowhere near the best information available.”

                  Looks to me like he used 4 or 5 of the most prominent mainstream media outlets.

                  Regardless, using five data points is better than simply denying the data–without providing any of your own. You sound like a climate change denier, here.

                  You want to dispute the data? Fine! I’m all ears. Show me a link. I don’t think any of those outlets are behind a pay wall. Show us how wrong he is. Link away!

        3. What, the school didn’t call you for work today, joe? That sucks. I hope you’re making good use of your time by starting drinking early, you pathetic midget piece of shit.

        4. A single data point from a single source

          Isn’t that your entire ideology, shitbag?

        5. I have to tell everyone that I love the level of abuse that gets heaped upon deserving targets around here.

          1. “What makes the grass grow?”

            “BLOOD! BLOOD! BLOOD!”

            1. Yeah, this is what we call a “target rich environment”

    4. Here’s some more:

      In conversations with POLITICO, some of the left’s most influential voices in media said that, with the concerns of re-election over, they intend to be more critical of the president’s performance and more aggressive in urging him to pursue a progressive agenda as the clock ticks on his last four years in office.

    5. Re: The Dehydrated,

      Is there any data to support the assertion IBD makes? No.

      What data you want to see, you dope? The article is talking about the way several media outlets were interpreting and reporting the data before the election and how they interpret and report the data now.

      It’s the same data everybody had, except different opinions on it before and after the election. The article is focusing on the conveniently-shifting opinions regarding the same fucking data.

      Does that matter if they’re telling you what you want to hear? I guess not.

      Does it matter to you that you equivocate and fly off tangents almost every single time?

      I guess not.

      1. You’re making the assumption that the economic data a month before the election was exactly the same as the economic data a month after the election.

        There is no reason to assume this is true.

  13. Citi cutting 11,000 jobs.

    How can this be?

    1. Racism, duh.

    2. Big, evil bankers just tryin’-a rape the common man. There should be a law that requires Citi and other big financial institutions to never fire or lay off anyone, ever, for any reason – even death.

    3. If the lunatic democrats actually carry out their threat to raise everyone’s taxes (and I still don’t think they have the stones to do it), we’re going to see MASSIVE layoffs in January and February, far more than the normal amount that usually happens after the holiday season.

      1. Just hand over those rich guys, or you are all going to get it!

  14. Negative thinking is a crime against social solidarity and forwardness.

    “Always with the negative waves, Moriarty.”

  15. was never under the impression the economy would be returning to full employment and robust growth any time soon without further stimulus.

    Speaking of dupes.

  16. Give rich people more money?

    Yes, “our” plan exactly.

    We want the government to write checks to rich people, so they can buy gold coins and precious stones and fill their swimming pools with them and loll around in their ill-gotten wealth.

    Occasionally, they can emerge to urinate on some beggar.

    1. If you’re really rich you can just fill your swimming pools with beggars and crowdsurf them. It’s a good idea to wait until you’re out to pee on them, though.

  17. Occasionally, they can emerge to urinate on some beggar.

    Well you can be pissing in the pool, even if it is just a money pool.

  18. So South Park was right, except Cartman stole and hid a bunch of economic data, not votes.

  19. Oh, also “UNEXPECTED”!!!11!

    1. Also, unprecedented and draconian.

  20. Now that the election is over and Obama is safely ensconced in a second term – and pitching $255 billion in new stimulus spending – many of the same folks are reporting that, would you believe it, the economy’s really in the crapper!

    Gee, what a shock! And just in time to pitch a new stimulus no less.

    1. that last one was so thoooper!

    2. Hey, it’s been four years. Those union boss mansions don’t just upkeep themselves, you know.

  21. The original author made a claim and it is his duty to support it in a meaningful way, which means statistically significant results from a scientific study,

    Intellectually rigorous analysis is the Progressive Party talking point of the day?

    Excellent; I eagerly await Zero the Munificent’s detailed catalog of those “tough cuts” he referred to.

    1. I love how so many forum-goers here immediately assume that any dissenting post is from a progressive.

      As I said above, I’m totally on board with there being a media bias in favor of the Democrats. My own eyes and ears have told me that. I just think this article was pointless anecdotal drivel.

      What is it they say about assumptions?

      1. Are you assuming that the forum-goers here don’t know the ideological background of particular dissenting posters?

        What is it they say about assumptions?

  22. Now that the election is over and Obama is safely ensconced in a second term – and pitching $255 billion in new stimulus spending – many of the same folks are reporting that, would you believe it, the economy’s really in the crapper!

    A guy goes to a bazaar and looks at a camel some Arab had for sale. “Is he trained? Is he in good shape?” “Yes, he’s the best camel you could possibly buy! He’s fit, obedient and strong! A great deal, sir!”

    The guy buys the camel and finds out later that the poor animal is limp, sick and stubborn. He goes back to the Arab and screams “You thief! This camel is no good! He limps, he’s mangy and is not obedient at all!”

    The Arab replies: “Shut! Don’t speak trash about the camel otherwise you won’t sell it!”

    Same in this case.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.