Unemployment Rate Dropped In Every State That Elected A Republican Gov. In 2010

[jimnyc]

Is this just a coincidence?


In 2010, influenced by the Tea Party and its focus on fiscal issues, 17 states elected Republican governors. And, according to an Examiner.com analysis, every one of those states saw a drop in their unemployment rates since January of 2011. Furthermore, the average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%, compared to the national decline of .9%, which means, according to the analysis, that the job market in these Republican states is improving 50% faster than the national rate.

Since January of 2011, here is how much the unemployment rate declined in each of the 17 states that elected Republican governors in 2010, according to the Examiner:



Kansas - 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

Maine - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Michigan - 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%

New Mexico - 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%

Oklahoma - 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%

Pennsylvania - 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Tennessee - 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%

Wisconsin - 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%

Wyoming - 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%

Alabama - 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%

Georgia - 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%

South Carolina - 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%

South Dakota - 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%

Florida - 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%

Nevada - 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%

Iowa - 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%

Ohio - 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%

On the other hand, the unemployment rate in states that elected Democrats in 2010 dropped, on average, as much as the national rate decline and, in some states such as New York, the unemployment rate has risen since January of 2011.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/07/Unemployment-Rate-Dropped-In-Every-State-That-Elected-A-Republican-Gov-In-2010

[aboutime]

jimnyc. I think most of us can see, it's not a coincidence at all. But you can bet, those who must always support the Dems, and Obama will passionately insist...It IS a coincidence, and has nothing to do with whether the Gov. is Dem or Repub.....until....Somebody reminds them to look at the numbers in those states with Dem Gov's.

Then it becomes....STUTTERVILLE!

[SassyLady]

My first questions would be ..... did the unemployment drop in states that have Dem Governors?

[red states rule]

My first questions would be ..... did the unemployment drop in states that have Dem Governors?


The best example of a Dem Governor is Gov Brown in CA. They are looking at a $19 billion deficit and Jerry wants - guess what - higher taxes

In the last few days the Dems in the State Assembly approved a high speed rail project, and granted sanctuary to illegals- don't ask me how they plan to pay for either of these programs

[logroller]

The best example of a Dem Governor is Gov Brown in CA. They are looking at a $19 billion deficit and Jerry wants - guess what - higher taxes

In the last few days the Dems in the State Assembly approved a high speed rail project, and granted sanctuary to illegals- don't ask me how they plan to pay for either of these programs

That's the best example??? of what; correlation =/= causation?
CA unemployment rate for
2010: 12.4%
2011: 11.8%
As of May 2012: 10.8%

I'm not gonna pretend the third highest state unemployment rate Is something to brag about, but given the OP's implied causation, (R)= lower rate; the inverse, electing a (D) governor = higher unemployment, does not hold true.

[DragonStryk72]

That's the best example??? of what; correlation =/= causation?
CA unemployment rate for
2010: 12.4%
2011: 11.8%
As of May 2012: 10.8%

I'm not gonna pretend the third highest state unemployment rate Is something to brag about, but given the OP's implied causation, (R)= lower rate; the inverse, electing a (D) governor = higher unemployment, does not hold true.

I think it had more to do with the point of the places where the populace elected someone very different than who they usually had. Politicians, however much campaign money they might get from donors, still need voters in order to be in office. When things flipped in 2010, and they were shown rather graphically that we wanted actual change, and not just more conversation about change, it pushed them to action, not only because of the new folks coming in, but because it was a reminder to the remaining incumbents, especially career politicians, that their positions were tenuous, and the people were at the end of their rope with them.

[logroller]

I think it had more to do with the point of the places where the populace elected someone very different than who they usually had. Politicians, however much campaign money they might get from donors, still need voters in order to be in office. When things flipped in 2010, and they were shown rather graphically that we wanted actual change, and not just more conversation about change, it pushed them to action, not only because of the new folks coming in, but because it was a reminder to the remaining incumbents, especially career politicians, that their positions were tenuous, and the people were at the end of their rope with them.
California is still an exception then; Schwarzenegger (R) was replaced by a career politician Brown (D).

[tailfins]

That's the best example??? of what; correlation =/= causation?
CA unemployment rate for
2010: 12.4%
2011: 11.8%
As of May 2012: 10.8%

I'm not gonna pretend the third highest state unemployment rate Is something to brag about, but given the OP's implied causation, (R)= lower rate; the inverse, electing a (D) governor = higher unemployment, does not hold true.

Dumbed down news is not good even if it favors your point of view. Articles like this REALLY suck. Especially if one makes life decisions based on this stuff. The hype about Texas has caused too many unemployed to move there, thus making it NOT a good place to get back on your feet. My detailed analysis point to ND, MA or NH as the best places to get back on your feet.

[DragonStryk72]

California is still an exception then; Schwarzenegger (R) was replaced by a career politician Brown (D).

Well, Arnold had pissed off a lot of people as it was, due to the severe liberal bent of CA, so I was sort of surprised he lasted this long, and got as much done as he did. They really hated him in a way that few people really reach, but when you look at it, he bailed them out of some extremely hard times. I'd love to see what he could have done with a state like Florida, or jesus, NY. He's incredibly strong economically, and I think CA is gonna hurt for the loss, but that's their choice.

[fj1200]

The best example of a Dem Governor is Gov Brown in CA. They are looking at a $19 billion deficit and Jerry wants - guess what - higher taxes

In the last few days the Dems in the State Assembly approved a high speed rail project, and granted sanctuary to illegals- don't ask me how they plan to pay for either of these programs

See, now that didn't even come close to answering the question.


I think it had more to do with the point of the places where the populace elected someone very different than who they usually had. Politicians, however much campaign money they might get from donors, still need voters in order to be in office. When things flipped in 2010, and they were shown rather graphically that we wanted actual change, and not just more conversation about change, it pushed them to action, not only because of the new folks coming in, but because it was a reminder to the remaining incumbents, especially career politicians, that their positions were tenuous, and the people were at the end of their rope with them.

Unlikely, some of the states didn't have much change at all, GA, FL, and I'm sure others simply elected a new Republican. And for the ones that did switch you'd have to determine how much impact they could have had over that period of time.

[DragonStryk72]

Unlikely, some of the states didn't have much change at all, GA, FL, and I'm sure others simply elected a new Republican. And for the ones that did switch you'd have to determine how much impact they could have had over that period of time.

Yes, but again, the perceived change in the political winds likely forced a number of changes that the politicians might have otherwise held off on. There's this failed perception by people that you have to completely change out an entire side. You don't, you just need to change enough to show the rest you're serious.

[fj1200]

Yes, but again, the perceived change in the political winds likely forced a number of changes that the politicians might have otherwise held off on. There's this failed perception by people that you have to completely change out an entire side. You don't, you just need to change enough to show the rest you're serious.

But we're talking about a measurable difference between D and R in the statehouse. Perceptions of change are not what lead to measurable differences. You can argue that red states are more efficient and can bounce back better if there is no change or you can argue that actual change leads to actual measurable change. The numbers are encouraging but a bit superficial without more detail.

[Anton Chigurh]

That's the best example??? of what; correlation =/= causation?
CA unemployment rate for
2010: 12.4%
2011: 11.8%
As of May 2012: 10.8%Shows what mass exodus of people does. No longer there, no longer on the unemployment rolls. People are fleeing CA.

[red state]

Business from all over the world are moving into RED States....especially Southern States where they know they have a good selection of quality, hard working folks who have common sense. Another reason for population growth as well as economic growth is because the common sense folks in liberal states MOVE. They are sick and tired of paying for things that the lazy do not deserve and they are hungry for REAL freedom. The tax thing is one of the motivators that draw many folks for all over the world cuz it is lower taxes that pave the way for more business and (eventually) more jobs. As for California....we all know where that's going. We've bailed out everyone else and I foresee more bailouts for States such as California. That ain't gonna fly well with Red States and California may very well face a "if you break it, YOU fix it" scenario. Funny how liberals want everyone to support their way of life with little to NO tolerance of how conservatives live their lives (which is responsibly, morally, ethically and, most of all, INDEPENDENTLY).

[logroller]

Shows what mass exodus of people does. No longer there, no longer on the unemployment rolls. People are fleeing CA.

Not according to the numbers they aren't. Civilian labor force up 0.9% (172k) from May 2011-may 2012. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/specialreports/CA_Employment_Summary_Table.pdf

[Anton Chigurh]

Not according to the numbers they aren't. Civilian labor force up 0.9% (172k) from May 2011-may 2012. http://www.calmis.ca.gov/specialreports/CA_Employment_Summary_Table.pdfAs long as we believe the government, all is well.

[logroller]

As long as we believe the government, all is well.
I'd be happy to consider alternative data sources. I'm not aware of any, so...empty rhetoric instead?:dunno: just seems pointless to base a premise lacking any factual support.

[Anton Chigurh]

I'd be happy to consider alternative data sources. I'm not aware of any, so...empty rhetoric instead?:dunno: just seems pointless to base a premise lacking any factual support.Which, is what you just did in quoting the state of California.

[logroller]

Which, is what you just did in quoting the state of California.
Lol. You tried to refute my statement with an alternative explanation for the data; i showed you why, using the same source, your explanation doesn't hold water; so you revert to a source challenge. Hard to argue with that; although my source comes backed by the US Government. Your source comes backed by a tin cap.


As I said, present contradictory evidence...or evidence of data tampering, or something, anything...other than "I don't believe it, so it doesn't count." take a look, the OP itself is predicated upon data from the states; why even post a plausible explanation for the data if you think government data is bogus?

[gabosaurus]

Always remember ... There are lies, damn lies and statistics. ConReps embrace all three.

[jimnyc]

Always remember ... There are lies, damn lies and statistics. ConReps embrace all three.

And there are those that debate only with rhetoric and emotion, and wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the ass. They are called liberals.

[Anton Chigurh]

Lol. You tried to refute my statement with an alternative explanation for the data; i showed you why, using the same source, your explanation doesn't hold water; so you revert to a source challenge. Hard to argue with that; although my source comes backed by the US Government. Your source comes backed by a tin cap.


As I said, present contradictory evidence...or evidence of data tampering, or something, anything...other than "I don't believe it, so it doesn't count." take a look, the OP itself is predicated upon data from the states; why even post a plausible explanation for the data if you think government data is bogus?Are you kidding?

The census verifies people are fleeing California in droves. Several studies confirm it. Every state they are fleeing to, confirms it.

This is why I am snickering at your source, the hear no evil/see no evil/speak no evil, Baghdad Bob, CALIFORNIA state government?:lol:

[logroller]

Are you kidding?

The census verifies people are fleeing California in droves. Several studies confirm it. Every state they are fleeing to, confirms it.

This is why I am snickering at your source, the hear no evil/see no evil/speak no evil, Baghdad Bob, CALIFORNIA state government?:lol:
So you say, but I haven't seen you present anything to support your assertion. Not to mention, the us census is taken every 10 years...not sure how you'll correlate that with 2 and 4 year election cycles. but I await your response with that census data.

[logroller]

The census verifies people are fleeing California in droves. Several studies confirm it. Every state they are fleeing to, confirms it.


This census, the US Census, says otherwise:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Now unless gaining almost 350,000 from 2010- 2011 is "leaving in droves", I'll have to see these studies.
You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs.

[Gaffer]

This census, the US Census, says otherwise:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Now unless gaining almost 350,000 from 2010- 2011 is "leaving in droves", I'll have to see these studies.
You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs.

Don't worry, for every person that leaves cal there is a freshly arrived Mexican to take their place.

[aboutime]

This census, the US Census, says otherwise:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Now unless gaining almost 350,000 from 2010- 2011 is "leaving in droves", I'll have to see these studies.
You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs.

Anton. Give it up. There's no way to convince those who refuse to be convinced, no matter what.

The people in California...who are left to pay the increasing Higher taxes all know about the Exodus to other states.
But those who are sworn to protect, defend, and even deny that something is wrong are the ones who will remain behind like the Good, Well Trained, Uninformed Obama followers they are.
You simply cannot tell them anything the do not want to hear.

Anyone notice how LIBS always show their minimum educational levels by their simple references to STFU, which identifies a LIB, a mile away.
And sadly. They aren't smart enough to recognize the truth, under any circumstance.

[Anton Chigurh]

So you say, but I haven't seen you present anything to support your assertion. Not to mention, the us census is taken every 10 years...not sure how you'll correlate that with 2 and 4 year election cycles. but I await your response with that census data.I didn't make any assertion about that.

[Anton Chigurh]

This census, the US Census, says otherwise:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html

Now unless gaining almost 350,000 from 2010- 2011 is "leaving in droves", I'll have to see these studies.
You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs.Go to where it shows how many moved. That was the point. A net gain? Show me one state that didn't have a net gain. The birth rate still trumps the death rate.

You erected a straw man.

I say, "mass exodus, people leaving in droves" then you say, "Yeahbut, they still gained in overall population."

Overall population was never discussed.

See? You have refuted nothing.

[aboutime]

I didn't make any assertion about that.


Look out Anton. The BLAME BUSH excuse is about to surface. That's really the Assertion they are looking for to justify their whatever you care to call it now.

[logroller]

Don't worry, for every person that leaves cal there is a freshly arrived Mexican to take their place.
there may be data to support that!

Anton. Give it up. There's no way to convince those who refuse to be convinced, no matter what.

The people in California...who are left to pay the increasing Higher taxes all know about the Exodus to other states.
But those who are sworn to protect, defend, and even deny that something is wrong are the ones who will remain behind like the Good, Well Trained, Uninformed Obama followers they are.
You simply cannot tell them anything the do not want to hear.

Anyone notice how LIBS always show their minimum educational levels by their simple references to STFU, which identifies a LIB, a mile away.
And sadly. They aren't smart enough to recognize the truth, under any circumstance.
are you talking to yourself again?

[aboutime]

Go to where it shows how many moved. That was the point. A net gain? Show me one state that didn't have a net gain. The birth rate still trumps the death rate.

You erected a straw man.

I say, "mass exodus, people leaving in droves" then you say, "Yeahbut, they still gained in overall population."

Overall population was never discussed.

See? You have refuted nothing.



That's the very same kind of reasoning Obama used to brag about how the Unemployment Rate overall....is much better. Based on only 80,000 new Jobs, as compared to the 85,000 new Applicants for Social Security Disability claims.
OBAMA'S numbers seem to reek of Pre-school, Finger Counting. Highlighted by Toe counting.

[logroller]

Go to where it shows how many moved. That was the point. A net gain? Show me one state that didn't have a net gain. The birth rate still trumps the death rate.

You erected a straw man.

I say, "mass exodus, people leaving in droves" then you say, "Yeahbut, they still gained in overall population."

Overall population was never discussed.

See? You have refuted nothing.
You have refuted nothing. Ive presnted hard facts-- you've presented zero, zilch nada.You attack my data yet present none of your own; just anecdotes and right wing talking points. Unless you can show me some numbers that back up your position, I think we're done here.

[logroller]

That's the very same kind of reasoning Obama used to brag about how the Unemployment Rate overall....is much better. Based on only 80,000 new Jobs, as compared to the 85,000 new Applicants for Social Security Disability claims.
OBAMA'S numbers seem to reek of Pre-school, Finger Counting. Highlighted by Toe counting.

You just made those numbers up. :poke:

[Anton Chigurh]

You have refuted nothing. Ive presnted hard facts-- you've presented zero, zilch nada.You attack my data yet present none of your own; just anecdotes and right wing talking points. Unless you can show me some numbers that back up your position, I think we're done here.You have done nothing but 1.) Try to deflect from the topic of the thread and 2.) Employed logical fallacies and linked to irrelevant data, as tools for the straw building.

When you might have just been better off to shrug and not comment, instead of reflexive, emotional kneejerk defense of the Dem party.

I'm not a conservative, or a repug, or a "right winger." Never have been. Just for future reference.

[aboutime]

You just made those numbers up. :poke:

wanna bet? Guess you need to catch up with the latest numbers reported on Friday and Thursday of last week.

But then. If you say I made those numbers up. Fine with me. Liberals always deny any facts, or numbers that make Obama look worse than he actually is.

[Anton Chigurh]

or numbers that make Obama look worse than he actually is.
Those don't exist.:laugh:

[logroller]

You have done nothing but 1.) Try to deflect from the topic of the thread and 2.) Employed logical fallacies and linked to irrelevant data, as tools for the straw building.

When you might have just been better off to shrug and not comment, instead of reflexive, emotional kneejerk defense of the Dem party.

I'm not a conservative, or a repug, or a "right winger." Never have been. Just for future reference.

So says the guy who has said nothing in regards to the thread topic and failed to back up anything whatsoever with any data. The only thing that's straw-like is what you're grasping at! Don't worry; I'll not bother responding to someone who can't debate; clearly you're only here to stroke yourself.

[Anton Chigurh]

So says the guy who has said nothing in regards to the thread topic and failed to back up anything whatsoever with any data. The only thing that's straw-like is what you're grasping at! Don't worry; I'll not bother responding to someone who can't debate; clearly you're only here to stroke yourself.SO predictable.
I think we're done here.
Now sounds exactly like:

"I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term"

And:

"Unemployment will never go over 8% if we pass this stimulus."

:lol:

[Anton Chigurh]

So says the guy who has said nothing in regards to the thread topicBurning down your straw men isn't the same as discussing the thread topic, you're right. Thanks for admitting you never said anything regarding the topic either, as I pointed out before....

[logroller]

What state is growing more than all others... Texas...the bush state--coincidence? :lol::poke:

[Anton Chigurh]

What state is growing more than all others... Texas...the bush state--coincidence? :lol::poke:Sounds like you and California might like to study some on that donut?

[ConHog]

Sounds like you and California might like to study some on that donut?

The latest reported data (2010) shows CA ranked 12th in GDP per capita whereas Texas is ranked 24th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

I would humbly suggest that that says that California is more successful than Texas.

If someone has later figures, love to see 'em.

[Anton Chigurh]

The latest reported data (2010) shows CA ranked 12th in GDP per capita whereas Texas is ranked 24th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

I would humbly suggest that that says that California is more successful than Texas.

If someone has later figures, love to see 'em.Did I either dispute or agree to logroller's assertion?

No.

Therefore, your post is properly directed at logroller. He may have been talking about population growth, however.

[logroller]

The latest reported data (2010) shows CA ranked 12th in GDP per capita whereas Texas is ranked 24th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_GDP

I would humbly suggest that that says that California is more successful than Texas.

If someone has later figures, love to see 'em.

Certainly California economy is huge; eight largest in the world last i checked; but I was referring to growth rates, GDP and jobs. Not to say rates are everything, but they do allow for state to state comparison far easier than just numbers.

[Kathianne]

From last December, one measurement:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america.html?page=all


How well run are America’s 50 states? The answer depends a lot on where you live.

For the second year, 24/7 Wall St. has reviewed data on financial health, standard of living and government services by state to determine how well each state is managed. Based on this data, 24/7 Wall St. ranked the 50 states from the best to worst run. The best-run state is Wyoming. The worst-run state is California.

Comparing the 50 states can be a challenge because they are so different. Some states have abundant natural resources while others rely on service or innovation. State populations also can be more rural or more urban. Some had booming industries that are waning or that have disappeared altogether. Border states with large immigrant communities have populations that are growing rapidly. Many states in the Northeast are not growing at all. All of these factors affect the finances and the living conditions in a state.

Despite these differences, states can do a great deal to control their fate. Well-run states have a great deal in common with well-run corporations. Books are kept balanced. Investment is prudent. Debt is sustainable. Innovation is prized. Workers are well-chosen and well-trained. Executives, including elected and appointed officials, are retained based on merit and not politics.

To determine how well -- or how poorly -- a state is run, 24/7 Wall St. weighed each state’s financial health based on factors including credit score and debt. We also evaluated how a state uses its resources to provide its residents with high living standards, reviewing dimensions such as health insurance, employment rate, low crime and a good education. We considered hundreds of data sets and chose what we considered to be the 10 most important measurements of financial and government management.

This year, as a new component of our analysis, 24/7 Wall St. obtained additional budget data for each state. Examining the state’s revenue and expenditures, and what each government opted to spend money on, allowed us to determine if a state overspent limited resources, failed to devote funds to an urgent need of its citizens or spent a great deal of money but with poor results. While we did not use expenditures or revenue in our ranking, these numbers reflect how a state is managed. Together with other budget data, living standards and government services, it provided a complete picture of the management of each state. A fuller accounting of our methodology can be found at the end of the article.

The 24/7 Wall St. Best and Worst Run States is meant to be an analysis that will focus the debate about state management and financial operations. The analysis should also serve to empower and inform citizens who want who want to better understand the impact government decisions have on each state...


The list follows...

Worst 2:


49. Illinois
> State debt per capita: $4,424 (13th highest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 13.8% (23rd lowest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (25th lowest)
> Unemployment: 10% (10th highest)
Illinois has fallen from 43rd last year to the overall second-worst run state in the country. The state performs poorly in most categories, but is worst when it comes to its credit rating. Illinois has a credit rating of A+, the second worst given to any state, behind only California. The state has been on credit watch (http://www.pionline.com/article/20110110/PRINTSUB/301109981/) since 2008 because of budget shortfalls and legal challenges against then-governor Rod Blagojevich.


50. California
> State debt per capita: $3,660 (21st highest)
> Pct. without health insurance: 18.5% (8th highest)
> Pct. below poverty line: 14.5% (tied for 21st highest)
> Unemployment: 11.9% (2nd highest)

California has moved down one slot on from last year to earn the title of the worst-run state in the country. In the fiscal year 2009, the state spent $430 billion, roughly 14% of all the money spent by states in that year. Compared to its revenue, the state spent too much — California had the 10th lowest revenue per person, and spent the 15th most per person. California is the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P. Despite the huge amount the state spends each year, conditions remain poor. California has the second-lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma in the country, the second-highest foreclosure rate and is tied for the second highest unemployment rate in the U.S.
(http://247wallst.com/2011/11/28/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-an-analysis-of-all-50/2/)

Read more: Best and Worst Run States in America — An Analysis Of All 50 - 24/7 Wall St. (http://247wallst.com/2011/11/28/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-an-analysis-of-all-50/#ixzz20HkOftac) http://247wallst.com/2011/11/28/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america-an-analysis-of-all-50/#ixzz20HkOftac


BTW: TX comes in at 25th place.

[logroller]

Holy smokes--CA got an 'A-' credit rating from S&P... I think they gave Lehman bros an 'A' a month before they tanked. Is 'B' for bankrupt?

[red states rule]

From last December, one measurement:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/best-and-worst-run-states-in-america.html?page=all



The list follows...

Worst 2:



BTW: TX comes in at 25th place.


Looks like Mr Wind Song took a direct hit

You are on a roll Kat!!!!

[fj1200]

From last December, one measurement:

Certainly better than the nebulous corruption listing from a week? ago.

[Kathianne]

Certainly better than the nebulous corruption listing from a week? ago.

You lost me. :duh5:

[Roo]

Obama talking about jobs....

3583

[red states rule]

Obama talking about jobs....

3583




http://theheartofamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/obama-jobs-505x382.jpg

[fj1200]

You lost me. :duh5:

Do you recall the state corruption thread? I was referring to the criteria that I thought was suspect. :)

[Kathianne]

Do you recall the state corruption thread? I was referring to the criteria that I thought was suspect. :)

Aha! Lightbulb time! I actually had thought of that when reading, but didn't think anyone else would!

[red states rule]

Obama worshiper Soledad O'Brien thinks Obama should get credit for the states with low unemployment and not the Governors


http://www.mrctv.org/videos/soledad-obrien-asks-shouldnt-president-obama-and-not-governors-get-credit-states-low-unemployment