BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« Omission accomplished | Main | Oh, boo hoo »

Friday, October 05, 2012

So much for Romney's post-debate bounce

This morning's headline: U.S. unemployment drops to 7.8%, as economy adds 144,000 jobs

Yes, yes, yes. Job growth is still too slow. The number doesn't reflect the people who've given up the search. But this is exactly the sort of headline the Obama campaign needed to reinforce its narrative that the arrows are pointing in the proper direction and to change the story from Obama's crummy debate peformance, well encapsulated by Jon Stewart's on-screen graphic last night, "Obama, Where Art Thou?"

If you missed "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" last night or if you're not in the habit of watching because you don't care for his generally liberal bent, you must watch the opening segment of last night's show for his post-debate analysis. The opening segment of last night's episode of The Colbert Report on the same topic was also brilliant





So much for the "He can't bring unemployment below 8%."

But that is not jobs growth; it's keeping up with the population. The percentage change is largely due to more people giving up. This number is of no comfort to people looking for a job. Your statement says it all: The headline is good for Obama, even if the underlying reality is bleak, and that's the important thing. Precisely which arrows are pointed in the right direction?

The monthly jobs report can be spun in just about any direction from both ends of the political spectrum. It has come to mean nothing more than a headline.

That's the problem with using these figures to measure what they are trying to measure. But if the Republican line is "he promised to bring unemployment under 8% (which he never really did, but let's say we accept that)", then we go with this as an accepted measure of how things are going. And it's under 8%, so you have to use that for what it is. Perhaps not the proper measure, but the agreed upon measure.

The report is deliberately skewed because they know the real numbers won't come out until two days before the election. It's still 8%, don't let them deceive you.

That can't be right. THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT!!

What about all the people who stopped looking for jobs because Obama done wrecked the country so bad? What about all the people on vacation? I say the data was corrupted by liberal hackers!! Anyone notice how this "just happened" to come out in the liberal media the same week Obama blew the debate? Reverend Wright!!

The rumor kicking around the CBOT is that the numbers were fudged to make up for the bad debate performance. Yes, that's a rumor, but in the trading world, sometimes the rumors make or break you on many levels. I have no proof that he did fudge any numbers, nor do I personally believe it. The bond market went nuts over this news and the rumor mill helped it. Seems awfully convenient that the rate drops just under 8% now, however.

I think quotidian, Dave S,and LizH have it right. The number doesn't measure all the right things, but it's the agreed upon measure, and of course, it can be spun for either side.

Kip, you forgot to mention that he's black, and a muslim, and wasn't born in America (hint: none of those things is correct).

quotidian, you can expect that I'm going to ask for the evidence to support your conclusion "The percentage change is largely due to more people giving up." I believe you are in error.

Can a liberal ever make an argument without the har-har Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist/conservatives are so stupid and bigoted/har-har wheeze? It stopped being clever long ago.

Anyway, I did misspeak, because the participation rate did tick up slightly in September. But that is after hitting its lowest point for the general population since 1981 and its lowest point ever for men one month ago. Thus the 114,000 new jobs had larger impact on the percentage than they would have had in January 2009. Today's 7.8 percent would be more like 10 percent or higher in January 2009. To be charitable, we can say 9 percent, because not everyone who drops out of the work-hunting corps has "given" up. Point is, it still lousy and will get undue praise for breaking through the 8 percent mark. The media is rejoicing in this, and as Eric notes, this could bail out Obama from his debate debacle, but it is no great achievement

quotidian, compared with Romney's history of outsourcing jobs and plant closings -- and Bush's losing over 100,000 jobs EVERY WEEK during the end of the mine shaft collapse of his 2nd term -- this is amazing news.

Your point about the percent in January 2009 (three-fourths of which was the Bush administration, I hope you remember) is salient in showing how much it has improved under Obama.

Oh, and over republican filibusters and other sabotage.

You float a lot of numbers without any evidence to support them, just saying.

As for the wheeze, the easiest way to stop it is for the conservatives to stop acting so bigoted and stupid.

X: How has it improved under Obama? The official rate was 7.8 percent when he took office. That means the real rate is worse now because it's not counting unemployed people who stopped looking. You have interpreted this math backwards.
The workforce participation numbers are from the BLS.

Quotidian (and many of the other conservatives here),

I gotta ask - is there *any* such thing as good news as long as Obama is president? That is, is there *any* positive tidbit that you won't immediately and reflexively start trying to undermine? Honest question.

New Rule: Whoever mentions Reverend Wright first ... totally wins the thread!!

Mick Taylor: why hasn't anyone brought up SOLYNDRA??

Maybe the only agreement that you'll get about Obama in the form of good news from conservatives is that he's not as bad as Carter was, and that the directive to attack/capture/kill Osama bin Laden.

The main problem I have with using the job reports numbers is that the number is always adjusted as more detailed data gets processed-usually in a month or two.

But what I can't fathom is how when the initial numbers are bad, ideological pundits point to them as "proof." However, when the numbers are good, those same pundits say that they must be cooked to provide cover.

Last month's numbers were "bad." So the conservatives used those numbers to say things weren't working. Today's numbers were "good." So those same conservatives say the numbers were "faked" to provide cover for Obama's debate performance.

Of course, the fact that the numbers in the dataset were fixed on September 30 and the report in draft form by the time the debate took place on Wednesday should mean something.

The numbers are what they are. They use the same initial datapoints every month. They run the same algorithms on them every month. And the numbers are always adjusted as more data is added.

Nothing as complex employment statistics can be analyzed accurately in 5 days.

Kip, I believe this is the first time you have ever wrote that word! How did it feel?

"Honest question."

When the guy can't even get credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden or other al Qaedas, or not letting the Bush tax cuts expire, much less some jobs news, the answer is "no."

And Xuuths, knock it off. It's super-unfair to point out birtherism or the use of the "socialist/Marxists" epithet on the right. You're talking about some very, very thin-skinned people, remember. In law we call that eggshell skull. Obama's predecessor is off limits too, because clearly nothing that happened 3 1/2 years ago possibly could be relevant. Just remember that a lot of folks need the playing field has tilted at a 45 degree angle in their favor so they can compete.

C'mon guys...Al Gore didn't invent the internet so we could all be jerks to one another.

Mellow out!

It felt great, Mick Taylor: I enjoy mocking obsessive reactionary weirdos.



Liberals will stop throwing it into the faces of conservatives when conservatives stop bringing that stuff up in the first place.

Come on Kip, President Obama gets all the credit for relieving the world of ObL something I do not think Bill Clinton would have done, and futhermore, he did an outstanding job with a proper burial for the rat.
Hands down he got that job done,however, with all respect, it is yesterday's news, along with Wright, Eyers and that stupid piece of paper. Now it is about the next four years.

"mocking obsessive reactionary weirdos"

Like some one who would say "the true engine of economic growth will always be companies like Solyndra " ?

Some of you folks on the right have truly interesting values. It's fine to spend several trillion dollars we don't have on an unnecessary war that results in the death of thousands of American soldiers (not to mention Iraqi civilians), using an ever-shifting set of justifications, but the *real* atrocity is investing a tiny fraction of that amount in a green energy venture that didn't work. I hand it to Rove, Rush, Hannity, etc.: they are master puppeteers.

Sorry Kip, No one ever said your straw man was fine, those days are over, GWB is gone, we are now looking at the next four years.

Mick, you're a man of few words, and even fewer ideas.

@Xu: I didn't know the BLS provided weekly job statistics. Please provide evidence that the US lost over 100,000 jobs EVERY WEEK during the end of Bush's second term.

@Kip: Relax my friend. It's the weekend. Wars are stimulative to the economy.

Back to the original point of this thread: I don't think the jobs report will be enough to overcome the stench of the debate performance, any more than last months jobs report stopped the Obama's post convention bounce. But time will tell.

See what the polls say next week. I still think we have a race now.

I give Obama credit for a drop in unemployment. Now, was it the stimulus tax cuts, the payroll tax cuts, retaining the Bush tax cuts, or his helping get a Republican congress elected to control spending? We really want to raise the those rates now that the arrow is pointed in the right direction?

Ted, why don't you look at the income tax rates under Clinton -- they went up, and lots of jobs were created (lots).

I've previously (several times) supplied the links to income tax rates going back to when they were 97% at the highest point during a war (that's to counter those who say we shouldn't raise taxes during a war).

@Xu: What's up my friend? Y U ignore requests for evidence when that's your bread and butter?

lexi, you are an internet troll, so your requests are safe to ignore. (Here's a hint: if the report says 500,000 a month, that's 125,000 per week. Simple math.)

Xuuths - first of all, I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies to the democratic talking points. Almost daily I here that Obama fiscal policies are really conservative, republicans are blocking everything he does, yet he gets credit for anything good that happens.

Now, if you're saying that both sides make too big a deal over the top income tax rate, I would agree with you. If you're saying that Bill Clinton tax rates created jobs, please explain how that worked. If Obama can blame Bush for this economy, why don't Reagan / Bush get credit for the Clinton economy? How many people paid 97% when the rates were that high? Which part of the Obama economic plan gets credit for the drop in unemployment, and why?

@Xu: I see. So you meant to say "on average". Just a minor error. All is forgiven. No need to apologize. As a wise old old man once said, always ask for the evidence.

Ted, perhaps you could ask Boris to explain how Clinton created jobs, or any of your other questions (they've been answered before elsewhere in this blog), or perhaps something really radical: do the research yourself.

You are in error about "pointing out the inconsistencies to the democratic talking points." Either you misunderstood them (likely), are purposely misrepresenting them (also likely), misremember them (again, likely), or some other reason. But you are not accurately presenting them. (Here's my mantra: please provide the evidence to support your claim.)

If you are claiming that republicans are NOT blocking everything does, please provide the evidence of the majority of them voting FOR his policies. A quick check on the number of republican filibusters would be educational for you.


"Mick, you're a man of few words, and even fewer ideas."
Thank you Kip, you are truly the South end of a North bound horse.

500,000 x 12 / 52 = 115,384.6154 per week, simple math

Mick Taylor, thank you for corroborating my statement about Bush losing over 100,000 jobs per week, based on losing over 500,000 jobs per month.

It was more about your simple math, in any event GWB is no longer president, get over it.

@Xu: Thank you for correcting your error by adding the qualifier.

Now could you please provide evidence that the US lost 500,000 jobs per month? It looks like the number was significantly higher than that in the last three months.

I know it's very important to you that comments posted to an opinion blog be completely accurate so I'm sure you'll have no problem providing the evidence, and absent that evidence you'll issue another correction.

I think I'll have a nice Malbec tonight. What are you thinking about for you and the pup?

Mick Taylor, much like a very serious disease, it is not always easy to "get over it" when someone has wounded the country (economy, reputation, wars, etc.). It takes time and effort and a great leader -- one who often is unappreciated by those who would like to go back to the bad ol' days when they held more power.

I'm fine with getting over it, when others stop the nonsense that Obama hasn't done a good job of cleaning up a terrible mess. Is he finished with the task? No, but it was quite messy, and takes time. However, he has stopped it from getting worse, and has been making slow, steady progress.

This is just like Clinton's years -- you really should review it. Like Obama, he inherited a mess, and it took most of the first term to make slow progress. But progress was made, and then kicked into high gear in the second term.

The country tried Bush's plans (which is all Romney is offering), and they didn't work very well for the 99%.

This country would like nothing more than to "get over" George W. Bush; the toxic legacy of his eight years in office, including Iraq and the ruined economy (not to mention a terrorist attack on our soil) makes that impossible--which is why Republicans want him off-limits from all discussions and didn't invite him to their convention. I don't blame them, it's a shrewd tactic to minimize the most obvious symbol of the last time they had the exec branch.

And anyone who thinks the Republicans gave this president the credit he deserved for taking out Osama bin Laden (after his predecessor failed and brushed it off) must have just fallen off ye olde proverbial turnip truck.

@XU: I agree - Clinton's first term really blew.

PS: Please provide evidence that Bush's plans didn't work well for the 99%.

The u-6 unemployment rate has stayed the same. 14.7% last month and 14.7% the month before.

It is unlikely that the drop from 8% to 7.8% resulted in any net gain of employment.

Checking back in...

Yup, Xuuths, republicans have been blocking everything. In fact, it’s their economy:

So they get credit for any good economic numbers, correct?

We all know the answer about jobs during the Clinton era: tech boom, start of the housing boom, and the baby boomers in their peak spending years. If anyone can tie Clinton tax rates to job creation, please do so.

And the answer to the 97% tax rate? No one paid it, not even close:


….back to work


I know I'm in a very small minority here, and this will send lots of people into convulsions, but I don't think George W. Bush was that bad. I kind of miss him.

Truth is, if his term had ended in October 2007, he would've been viewed much more positively. The surge was working in Iraq, unemployment was good, and the DOW was at an all time high. And the economic collapse would have been blamed on whomever was in office at the time.

OK, I'll shut up because you must be hurting from laughing so hard.

"not to mention a terrorist attack on our soil"

So 9/11 was Bush's fault?

--Ted, you should read your links prior to providing them as evidence (unless you're just confused about what "evidence" means).

If you broke something and I start fixing it, you don't get credit for any of the fixing, but you are responsible for the breaking. It isn't that complicated.


Tom Blackford, you're right about Bush. Truth is, if his term had ended in February 2003, he would've been viewed much more positively -- not having started his 2nd unnecessary and unpaid for war in Iraq, no war crimes (*cough* waterboarding *cough*), etc.

Truth is, if his term had ended on October 6, 2001, he would've been viewed much more positively -- no unnecessary and unpaid for war in Afghanistan.

Truth is, if his term had ended on ... I think you get the picture.

@Brian, read Richard Clarke's book "Against All Enemies" for an education about Bush's many faults related to 9/11.

"So 9/11 was Bush's fault?"

Brian, the Bush administration ignored or mishandled intelligence related to the attacks; this is very easy information to find; I'm sure you know this.

But for the record, while greater vigilance couldn't have hurt, no--I do not "blame" Bush for Sept. 11. And I find Truthers as disgusting as Birthers.

It's impossible for me to believe that, should the same or similar catastrophe happen during an Obama or Democratic administration, that the right would support the president the way Democrats and liberals did Bush. I'd like to think otherwise, and I'm sure there are a few outliers on this board, but as a whole, no. And it would be a major part (if not the only part) of the Republicans' campaign strategy to blame the Democrats for it.

In fact, even without a terrorist attack on Democrat watch, Cheney, as VP, already did so, repeatedly, with his admonitions that voting Democrat makes our country less safe.

"the way Democrats and liberals did Bush"

I base this statement on Bush's 90% approval rating after the attacks, which indicates a majority of Dems/liberals in addition to Republicans supported the president post-Sept. 11.

"If you broke something and I start fixing it, you don't get credit for any of the fixing, but you are responsible for the breaking." Perfect, Xuuths. The economy tanked after the democratic congress took over in '07, and now the republican congress has the arrow pointed in the right direction. Glad we can agree, have a good weekend.

Ted, your so-called point may have validity if you would provide evidence that Bush vetoed the actions of the "democratic congress" and they overrode his veto.

You are clearly misinformed -- the conservatives on this forum have been clear that Obama and the democrats had complete control of congress for 2 years (no matter how many times Zorn corrects them), which is when the tide was turned.

Please, one last thing. I'm not perfect. Very, very outstanding, but not perfect. But I appreciate the honest and well-deserved praise. You're welcome. Have a good weekend.


I'll grant the point to Kip that if 9/11 happened 9 months into a Democratic president's term, the conservatives would still be hectoring the Democrat about it, but Kip, you threw the attack into your laundry list of Bush's faults. You recently cited a piece (which was full of old facts) that was supposedly a bombshell about the Bush administration neglecting intelligence that there would be a terrorist attack but made no case that Bush should have known that a band of guys with box cutters could fly planes into the WTC. Your political point is valid, but you seem not able not to imply that Bush was at fault for 9/11. And you have basically done the same thing that you are hypothetically accusing the Republicans of doing.

How is it possible to hold such contradictory pair of beliefs at once:

Belief A. Government borrowing and spending (on unnecessary projects no one was willing to bet their own money on) is great for the economy

Belief B. Unpaid for (= paid for by borrowing) unnecessary wars (that employ a lot of people) are bad for the economy


And folks,while a healthy growing economy is characterized by, among other things, low unemployment, the reverse doesn't hold. Most probably understand that the government hiring all the unemployed to dig holes (or to go to an unnecessary war) doesn't make for a healthy economy. But getting the unemployed hired into jobs by paying (with borrowed money) others to hire them to do tasks that use more resources than creates in value (i.e. is not profitable when those who get the revenue also pay the cost), very few see as equally unrelated to helping the economy regain health. But it is the same thing, just more cleverly hidden.

There has been enough said on the stimuli topic on another thread and many times over before. Here I am much more interested in the peculiar function of the mind that permits clearing contradictions and reversals of the causality arrow.


Please tell us what the Republican Congress has done to "have the arrow pointed in the right direction" besides 34 tries to repeal the Affordable Health Care Act, a dozen ties to make abortion illegal, numerous attempts to defund or eliminate federal agencies like the EPA, Dept. of Education, Dept. of Commerce, etc.

And while you're at it, please list any REAL attempts by Congressional Republicans to create jobs in America. Boehner has been sitting on the American Jobs Act for over a year now and has offered NOTHING that would accomplish the same thing as a replacement.

--@Wally :

Here's a web page with the U6 unemployment numbers.


Notice how it went from 9.2% to 14.2% in Dubya's last year in office?


On reflection, I'll amend my point about Truthers; they are much worse than Birthers, since they cynically and opportunistically use the murders of thousands to fuel a stupid, nihilistic conspiracy theory. Birthers are just bigoted fools; embarrassments. Truthers are malignant.

Who is responsible for Sept. 11? The 19 Islamists who committed the atrocity and anyone who planned it or helped them. Could the Bush administration have been proactive, given what we know now about the CIA brief about bin Laden and the potential of a strike within our borders? I think the answer to anyone other than an intransigent partisan is yes. Would it have prevented the attacks? I don't know; I don't claim to know. No one will ever know.

I don't know what "old facts" is supposed to mean; facts are facts. But I'm rather amazed that you apparently think that "while greater vigilance couldn't have hurt" is too strong a criticism of Bush. No one's ever going to call the Bush administration, for all it's "accountability" posturing, a buck-stops-here outfit. Exactly the opposite: the neocons used the fear generated out of the attack to ludicrously portray Republicans as protectors, when they abjectly failed on that account, and Democrats as the ones who allegedly make America vulnerable.

That's the very reason I think Republicans/conservatives/tea partiers will always have the advantage: they're much better at this sort of Machiavellian tactic than the left, i.e. that we were not attacked again after we were attacked the first time is proof we protect America. The Democrats wouldn't have the stones to make that argument; I don't think it would even occur to them that anyone would actually buy it, and if it did occur to them, they wouldn't know how to sell it.

By the way, Tom Blackford, I don't think George W. Bush was a bad person. Bush strikes me as an essentially decent guy, who was in way over his head and was essentially the puppet of the vice president and Karl Rove. Had Bush more backbone and more belief in his principles I think he could have been a decent president, as Republicans go.

---Re: "they [conservatives]'re much better at this sort of Machiavellian tactic than the left"

On average Kip is likely right, at least according to research I've read. It's Intelligence vs Smarts difference; IQ - operating on mind contracted symbols, the sphear where liberals are on average higher, vs. intuitive ability to make the right choices in the complex and uncertain world of people. (But just "on average": there are a lot of liberals with more smarts than many conservatives, and a lot of conservatives more intelligent than many liberals.)

ZORN REPLY -- This is such self-congratulatory bull manure, such condescending nonsense. I don't even bother scolding Lexi when he/she starts in with this partisan preening because he/she clearly doesn't know any better. But you, Boris, pose as someone who does. Shame on you.


I am sure I am guilty of a lot of things, but not what you seem to be accusing me of.

First of all, as you know, I am neither liberal nor conservative, so none of what I said can be self-congratulatory, even if there was anything judgmental in it, which there wasn't.

But you do know of my armature interest in cognitive psychology. So secondly, what I posted (in response to Kip's sweeping generalization about Machiavellian conservatives) was my recollection of research I read about I think in Pinker's The Blank Slate. Research that doesn't pass judgement, but describes some possible differences in AVERAGE personalities of liberals vs. conservatives. All you have to do is Google to come up credible references to studies of real differences. For example this onehttp://healthland.time.com/2010/12/21/the-biology-of-politics-what-makes-a-liberal-or-conservative/. It mentions critics of such theories as well.

And lastly, it is important to repeat AVERAGE differences. And in my first post I took pains to say what it does not mean.

Also, Eric,

Here is a description of one of IQ difference studies:

May be you objected to what I said IQ measures: ability to operate "on mind constructed symbols". ("mind constructed" = "abstract".) But if you ever took an IQ test, you would know that to be true. Likewise my equivalence of smarts with instincts corresponds to what you will find in this link: the researcher says "humans are evolutionarily programmed to be conservative". ("evolutionarily programmed" = "instincts").

Recall I sent you a link to Jonathan Haidt's TED talk:
that discusses research info differences, but ultimately aims at understanding "the other half" and Jonathan Haidt himself views both liberals and conservatives as a necessary part of a healthy society.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

July 2014 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group