Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (51857)	6/1/2012 2:21:44 AM
From: calgal	1 Recommendation Respond to of 71588

Watching the Democratic Party Collapse in Dixie 1:34 PM, May 22, 2012 • By JAY COST Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts My goodness. This story is just plain nuts: Two weeks after an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of the vote against President Obama in West Virginia’s presidential primary, Arkansas could provide another potential embarrassment for the incumbent. That’s because only Obama and John Wolfe, a Tennessee lawyer, are on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in the Razorback State. (Wolfe took 12 percent — and nearly 18,000 votes — in a four-way fight in the Louisiana Democratic presidential primary in late March.) And a recent independent poll showed Obama running just seven points ahead of Wolfe in the southern Arkansas 4th district, which covers one-quarter of the state. The GOP surge in Dixie has really happened in three phases over the years. The first phase was in “New South” cities – places like Dallas and Tampa. This is what powered Dwight Eisenhower to a strong showing in Dixie in 1952 and 1956. It helps explain why the longest-running GOP states in the South have been places like Florida and Virginia. The second phase we really see after passage of the Civil Rights Act and the movement of the Deep South states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi to the GOP. These states did not bail on the Democrats because the Republicans promised to go back to Jim Crow; rather, their only tie to the Democratic party was based on the old segregationist regime. Whites in these states were naturally quite conservative, and without the special deal the Democrats had given them on civil rights, they start moving Republican, really as early as 1964.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (51857)	6/1/2012 2:22:16 AM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Watching the Democratic Party Collapse in Dixie 1:34 PM, May 22, 2012 • By JAY COST Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts My goodness. This story is just plain nuts: Two weeks after an imprisoned felon received 41 percent of the vote against President Obama in West Virginia’s presidential primary, Arkansas could provide another potential embarrassment for the incumbent. That’s because only Obama and John Wolfe, a Tennessee lawyer, are on the Democratic presidential primary ballot in the Razorback State. (Wolfe took 12 percent — and nearly 18,000 votes — in a four-way fight in the Louisiana Democratic presidential primary in late March.) And a recent independent poll showed Obama running just seven points ahead of Wolfe in the southern Arkansas 4th district, which covers one-quarter of the state. The GOP surge in Dixie has really happened in three phases over the years. The first phase was in “New South” cities – places like Dallas and Tampa. This is what powered Dwight Eisenhower to a strong showing in Dixie in 1952 and 1956. It helps explain why the longest-running GOP states in the South have been places like Florida and Virginia. The second phase we really see after passage of the Civil Rights Act and the movement of the Deep South states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi to the GOP. These states did not bail on the Democrats because the Republicans promised to go back to Jim Crow; rather, their only tie to the Democratic party was based on the old segregationist regime. Whites in these states were naturally quite conservative, and without the special deal the Democrats had given them on civil rights, they start moving Republican, really as early as 1964.

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (51857)	6/1/2012 6:00:38 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

A tale of 2 US employment surveys, at a glance June 1, 2012 4:50 PM cbsnews.com The U.S. economy added just 69,000 jobs in May, below April's gain of 77,000 and the fewest in a year. Yet the unemployment rate rose. How did the rate rise despite a small job gain? Because the government does one survey to learn how many jobs were created and another survey to determine the unemployment rate. Those surveys can produce results that sometimes seem to conflict. One is called the payroll survey. It asks mostly large companies and government agencies how many people they employed during the month. This survey produces the number of jobs gained or lost. In May, the payroll survey showed that companies added 82,000 jobs, and federal, state and local governments cut 13,000. The other is the household survey. Government workers ask whether the adults in a household have a job. Those who don't are asked whether they're looking for one. If they are, they're considered unemployed. If they aren't, they're not considered part of the work force and aren't counted as unemployed. The household survey produces each month's unemployment rate. In May, the household survey showed that the number of people who said they are unemployed rose by 220,000. That raised the unemployment rate to 8.2 percent from 8.1 percent. Unlike the payroll survey, the household survey captures farm workers, the self-employed and people who work for new companies. It also does a better job of capturing hiring by small businesses. But the household survey is more volatile from month to month. The Labor Department surveys just 60,000 households, a small fraction of the more than 100 million U.S. households. The household survey showed that the number of people who say they have a job surged by 631,000 in January and 428,000 in February. By contrast, the payroll survey seeks information from 140,000 companies and government agencies — and they employ roughly one-third of non-farm employees. The employers send forms to the Labor Department noting how many people they employ. They also provide wages, hours and other details. Most Americans focus more on the unemployment rate, which comes from the household survey. But economists generally prefer the jobs figure from the payroll survey. Economists note that the surveys tend to even out over time. In the past year, the payroll surveys have shown that employers added roughly 1.8 million jobs. The household surveys have shown that close to 2.3 million more people said they found work. © 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.