Live Long And Prosper . . . Sans Nuts

Men supposedly live a lot longer, on average, minus the family jewels.

Story here.

Jeffrey Lord Doubts This Race Is Close

In The American Spectator, here:

After the election, Ed Rollins ran into the Washington Post's blunt-speaking editor Ben Bradlee and "harassed" Bradlee "about his paper's lousy polling methodology."

Bradlee's "unrepentant" response?

"Tough sh…t, Rollins, I'm glad it cost you plenty. It's my in-kind contribution to the Mondale campaign."

Got that? ...

How does one explain a president who, like Jimmy Carter in 1980, is increasingly seen as a disaster in both economic and foreign policy? How does a President Obama, with a Gallup job approval rating currently at 49% -- down a full 20% from 2009 -- mysteriously win the day in all these polls?

How does this happen?

Can you say "in-kind contribution"?

Election 2012: The Dilettante Radical Or The Conservative Liberal?

Can Liberals Count? Can Liberals Remember?

George Bush won Ohio in 2004 by 118,000 votes, but Andrew Sullivan remembers it differently, here:

"At this point in 2004, one recalls, George W. Bush was about to see a near eight-point lead shrivel to a one-state nail-biter by Election Day."

The real nail-biters were in Iowa, where Bush won by just 10,000 popular votes (7 electoral college votes), and in New Mexico, where Bush won by just 6,000 popular votes (5 electoral college votes), neither of which separately or together would have given victory to Democrat John Kerry.

Be that as it may, the real point of Sullivan's story is this:

"If Obama wins, to put it bluntly, he will become the Democrats’ Reagan."

Ah, no, he'll become the Democrats' W, or maybe their George H. W. Bush. Or if he's really really lucky maybe their Richard Nixon.

Obama's economic performance in the next four years would have to improve by 40 percent in seven key categories of economic measurement in comparison with all previous presidents to achieve the fair-to-poor record achieved by Ronald Reagan, whom I have shown elsewhere scored a lousy 42, just like Jimmy Carter.

President Obama's current score after 4 years is already 2 points worse than George Bush's score of 51 after 8 years, the worst two records in the post-war period. That means Obama would have to pull out  of his hat a veritable golden age to make him look as good as Reagan, which as I've said isn't saying much. To do it Obama would have to score a 32 in the next four years just to average out to a 42.

Can you imagine an Obama second term turning in an overall performance roughly close to that of JFK/LBJ, who rank 4th best out of 10 since WWII? Because that is what it would take.

Obama would have to go from worst for unemployment to 4th (think Clinton and W), starting tomorrow. He would have to go from worst to 4th for GDP (think Reagan and Eisenhower), for the next four years. He would have to go from worst to 4th for housing values (think Harry Truman). Only George Bush has been worse for the increase in Americans' total household net worth than Obama has been. To address that Obama would have to restore at least 1960s levels of prosperity to the country, if not Clinton era levels.

Fat chance.

Despite all the ruin which one man can rain down on a country through sheer incompetence and arrogance, the American people are a resilient lot and things will improve no matter who gets elected. The economy adjusts and moves on, and in many respects there is only one way to go but up. But if it's Obama who is elected again, I don't expect him to finish much better than a 48 after 8 years overall, because the first 4 have been such a disaster.

Romney Is Right: People Who Pay No Taxes Pay No Attention

Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

The way to make them pay attention is to make them pay.

If America Can Re-Elect George Bush In 2004 . . .

. . . it can re-elect Barack Obama in 2012, the two worst presidents, back to back no less, since WWII.

Naked Capitalism Knows A Rival Ideology When It Sees One

It's an amusing attack on the libertarian ideologue Megan McArdle by the anarchist communist ideologue Yves Smith, here, at Naked Capitalism, if you think of it as a cat fight.

The comments are so disturbing to "Strelnikov" (appropriately continuing to use the pseudonym "Yves") that she's thinking of closing down free speech in the comments section for her "shaming" posts only. Call it perestroika.

(image source)

"Naked Capitalism" Supports The Occupy Movement

In your heart you felt she was nuts, but now you know it.

Those occasional protestations to being a middle of the road type of person never rang true when you observed all those posts she's had from Washingtons Blog, the 911 conspiracy theorist, who shows up, by the way, also at Barry Ritholtz' The Big Picture.

No one goes from being a moderate directly to anarchist communism unless they were something more extreme all along.

The first principle of all ideology is to lie in order to gain the confidence of the people, and if not the confidence, an opening.

Obama Replaces Bush For Worst Economic Conditions Since WWII

If you thought George W. Bush was the worst president ever, you were right . . . until now.

Compared to every president since WWII in seven broad categories of economic measurement, Bush came in dead last. But in just four short years President Obama has managed to mess up what it took George Bush to do in eight. Call President Obama "The Quicker Screwer Upper."

My readers know that I have been examining and ranking every president from Truman to Obama in recent days from best to worst in a variety of broad economic categories: increase in the national debt, control of the rate of inflation, growth of the economy, real stock market performance for investors, increase in housing values for savers, increase in household net worth and rate of unemployment. Follow the links to examine the results for each one.

When put all together, it's easy to see who has been the best president overall, and who the worst. The ideal president, naturally, would score a 7 overall on this scale, placing first in every category compared to his peers. The worst president would score a 70, placing last by every measure. That last number tells you how I have counted the presidents. JFK, who was assassinated in his first term, is grouped together with his VP LBJ. Nixon, who resigned in his second term, is grouped together with his VP Ford. That leaves eight others: Truman, Eisenhower, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Younger, and Obama, stretching from 1948 until 2012.

Here's the list showing them all, from best to worst, including the numerical ranking in each category, and the overall score. Democrat Harry Truman comes out on top, and Democrat Barack Obama comes up in dead last. Over time the economic difference between Republican leadership in the White House and Democrat has been infinitesimally small, a difference of just 0.13 percent, slightly favoring Republicans who average 6.03 compared to Democrats who average 6.04.

Otherwise the main take away is that the only president to score in the 20s like long ago Truman, Eisenhower, and JFK/LBJ has been Bill Clinton, who spent the majority of his term in office with Republicans in control of the Congress. Any president who can again score in the 20s like him will necessarily be two times better economically for the country than George Bush and Barack Obama have been. They've both been unmitigated disasters.

Ranking for Debt+Inflation+GDP+SP500+Housing Values+Household Net Worth+Unemployment = score

Truman 1+6+2+1+4+6+1                       = 21

Clinton 4+5+3+2+1+4+5                        = 24

Eisenhower 2+1+5+3+6+7+2                 = 26

JFK/LBJ 3+3+1+6+8+5+3                     = 29

Carter 5+10+7+8+3+1+8                        = 42 (tie)

Reagan 10+8+4+7+2+2+9                      = 42 (tie)

Nixon/Ford 8+9+6+9+7+3+6                  = 48

Bush The Elder 6+7+8+5+9+8+7           = 50

Bush The Younger 9+4+9+10+5+10+4  = 51

Obama 7+3+10+4+10+9+10                   = 53 

Compared To Gold, Oil Is Still The Better Value

The gold to oil ratio is 19.11, over 27 percent elevated from 15.

Kudlow Is Right: Real Private Investment Is At October 1999 Level

Larry Kudlow is right. When it comes to inflation-adjusted private investment, the current level of private investment is at a level first reached way back in October 1999. The peak in this metric, which Larry Kudlow likens to our seed corn, was reached at the beginning of 2006. The current level is nearly 16 percent lower than that. That's a depression in investment dating back 6 years, and arguably 13 years, and goes a long way to explaining why George  W. Bush and Barack Obama rank at the very bottom of the list of post-war presidents for economic performance. View the chart and data here. 

ABC News Reports Obama Makes "False Claim"

False because . . . he's just mistaken? False because . . . he's just misinformed?

Gee, how about because he's lying?

The lengths to which these people will go to protect this snake. They exonerate him even as they convict him.

Story here.

Unemployment Since WWII: Obama Worst, Truman Best

The following rankings represent average monthly unemployment as reported in the BLS database, using November of the year elected through the October of the election year defeated or concluding service. As per usual, I do not count Truman's service in wartime, just his term from 1948 to 1952. Overall Republican performance is slightly worse than Democrat, 5.88 v. 5.75 percent.

The irony of this list is that Democrats head it and end it, with unemployment under Obama (46 months) more than twice as bad as under Truman, who 60 years ago posted what was to be the best unemployment record of any president since.

Truman                    4.44 percent

IKE                          4.82

JFK/LBJ                   4.91

Bush The Younger   5.21

Clinton                     5.28

Nixon/Ford               5.75

Bush The Elder        6.22

Carter                       6.55

Reagan                    7.58

Obama                     9.00

Rasmussen Takes Nevada Away From Obama And Into Toss Up

Here.

So on this math Obama is ahead 237 to 196 for Romney, with 105 electoral college votes up for grabs in now 9 states.

Real Clear Politics Puts Wisconsin In Obama Column

Here.

So Obama has an advantage according to RCP of 247 to 191 for Romney, with 100 electoral votes up for grabs in 8 states.

Net Worth Up Most Under Carter, Least Under "W" Since WWII

It's shocking, but true.

Total household net worth as reported by the Federal Reserve in its Z.1 Releases of the Flow of Funds Accounts shows that Jimmy Carter wins the award, hands down, for the increase in this metric during the course of his presidential term as compared with all other presidents in the post-war period.

In point of fact, the zenith of growth in total household net worth clusters around ole Jimmy with Nixon/Ford just preceding him taking 3rd position and Ronald Reagan coming after him taking 2nd. The whole period from 1969 through 1988 represents the time when Americans made their biggest gains in overall wealth.

I measured the overall gain from January 1 of the year of inauguration to the January 1 of the year leaving office, as summarized here by the St. Louis Federal Reserve. The overall percentage gain is then divided by the number of years in office, either 4 or 8, to get an annualized score, which is not the same thing, obviously, as actual annualized performance. Data from Truman is only for three years from 10-1-1949 to 1-1-53. For Obama, who just barely beats Bush The Younger for dead last, the data is for 1-1-09 to 6-30-12 taken from the very latest Z.1 Release yesterday (here).

Carter                 +16.02 percent per year

Reagan                 11.80

Nixon/Ford           10.21

Clinton                    9.74

JFK/LBJ                  8.78

Truman                   8.49

IKE                         7.39

Bush The Elder       6.17

Obama                    4.92

Bush The Younger  3.43

Election 2012: One Writes Off The Takers, The Other Writes Off Whites

Leading Authority Says We're Already In Another Recession

Here.

Flashback November 2011: 2012 Obama Campaign Writes Off Whites

The pot doth call the kettle black when complaining Romney has written off the 47 percent.

Democrats already wrote-off the white working class last November.

So Thomas Edsall for The New York Times, here:

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

Rush has been all over this like a chicken on a june bug.

Mitt Romney Reaps What He Sows, Or Something

The liberal President Ronald Reagan once handed down an 11th Commandment: "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

He learned this rule from his life among the Democrats, whence he came to the Republican Party after he realized his former pals were getting cozy with the commies. To this day it takes forever for the Democrats to abandon one of their own to the wolves, even when they deserve it. Recent cases include Charley Rangel and that wiener guy from New York.

But Republicans still haven't learned this rule, proving the other one about old dogs. One whiff of trouble and a fellow Republican drops you like a hot potato. Hence the Rep. Todd Akin affair, even whose money they've cut off and would cut off his nuts if they could (a little Rev. Jesse Jackson humor there). Mitt Romney, being more at home with liberal Democrats, waited while everyone else piled on Akin before he decided to do so. Not exactly a profile in courage. More like a man torn about what he believes and which party he belongs in. As a social liberal and a fiscal conservative, he really is a fish out of water, seeing that the Democrats are the former and the Republicans are neither.

So it's not a little amusing to see the Republican establishment and Romney's other would be supporters now crucifying Romney for his 47 percent remarks last May, only just recently made public. If anyone will be to blame for Romney's loss in a few weeks' time, it will be the Peggy Noonans, Bill Kristols and John Tamnys of this world, not the conservatives. Rush Limbaugh rightly points out the irony that the conservatives, Romney's fiercest critics during the primaries, are his defenders today against his critics who were his liberal supporters yesterday, who insisted at the time that Romney was the only candidate who could win.

Meanwhile the clerisy rallies round the redistributionist, under whom income inequality has only increased. Spreading the wealth around all right . . . among the wealthy.

Same as it ever was.