I definitely think she'll run.

Does Weak March Jobs Report Doom Obama Re-Election Bid?

By Kevin Chupka AP

The March jobs report delivered a downside surprise with the economy adding only 120,000 new payrolls, while the unemployment rate ticked down to 8.2%.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle will pounce on these numbers with the Presidential election just seven months away. The question still remains: Just how much will it impact votes in November?

"I don't think there is a magic formula or a specific unemployment number that can guarantee the President's loss or victory in November," says Nathan Gonzales, deputy editor of the Rothenberg Political Report and founder of PoliticsInStereo.com.

Gonzales says it's more about the perception of the economy and not the actual data. If Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction, they will be less apt to change the leadership. This reality frustrates the White House he says, because voters could be susceptible to a sentiment that may or may not match the numbers.

Jobs reports like the ones released today are important, but it's more about the broader trend leading up to the election.

"If (the economy) starts to go down, there's more of a hiccup or a stalling…then that just plays right into the Republican hands being able to say 'look it's time for a change, the President's policies aren't working.'"

If jobs numbers are the more cerebral data point, gas prices are the in your face indicator for the average American.

"If gas prices are high I think that leads to a little bit of sense the country's not headed in the right direction," says Gonzales, "and that would fall on the shoulders of the incumbent president and people may be looking for a change once again."

Regardless of the weakness in the March numbers, Gonzales expects the President to stress overall economic improvement over the course of his first term.

"The economy was so bad that relative to where we were, those numbers start to look better and I think that's what the president is banking on saying 'at least we're not where we were — things could be worse.'" Such an argument is "very different from the hope and change message that we saw in 2008."

Gonzales points out that the same metrics used to handicap the Presidential race are at play for Congress too. And the bottom line is not good for Democrats. If America wants a change they'll take it out on the President and his party and if they are happy with the status quo incumbents in both parties stand a better chance at staying in office. That would mean an increased likelihood that Republicans maintain control of the house.

Will improving economic data lead to a second term for Obama, or will Republicans convince voters the country is headed in the wrong direction?

I think if Obama were to lose in November (and I don't think he will), Hillary will almost certainly run in 2016. But if he wins, I think 2016 will be a much tougher race for the Democrats.

National politics are cyclical. In four more years, it's possible that Americans will be ready for another "change." And if Hillary has the feeling that she can't win by virtue of her party affiliation, I don't think she'll run. Because I don't think she can go through losing again.

No Pizza Boy, this does not hurt Obama's chances for reelection. Americans are numb to this by now.

Stuff like Trayvon and contraception get 1000 times the attention and are what will motivate people to come out in November.

True, but if Obama wins and by the time 2016 rolls around we are near full employment and the economy is doing good then i beg to differ that most americans will want the dems to continue to stay at the top

Romney continues gaffgate.

He stated that the President spent too much time at Harvard. The President spent 3 years there; Romney spent 4.

How will Mormonism play this fall? Two answers:

(1) GOP will commit full-throated defense of Mormonism, including by the same Evangelical figures who previously had a history of Mormon-bashing. Potential for over-reach is there if, to put it bluntly, they overload liberal on that front.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/09/the_coming_war_on_mormon_jokes/

(2) It won't (surprisingly) play a major role this fall.

http://prospect.org/article/bait-and-convert

The truth is, neither side - the far right Evangelicals or the far left secular liberals - like us Mormons. That's not exactly news. But it will be interesting to see how both handle the issue. Ignoring it probably is the easiest route to go.

With all the anti-Christian rhetoric out there, there's a sense that "we're all Christians". With the contraception controversy and health care, Tebow bashing, atheist billboards, "Holiday Trees" etc.........there is a greater sense of unity among Christians than ever.

I think being a Catholic is more detrimental than Mormon to a GOP candidate.

Mmm, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure being Catholic has been an issue for some time. Kennedy was decades ago. Romney and the Mormons is today. The Evangelicals big thing with Mormons is that, in their opinion, we aren't Christians. So, with Romney, they are sort of between a rock and hard place. They want to get Obama out of office but they aren't very excited about voting for a Mormon. Which could mean them just staying at home instead of voting.

The truth is, faith shouldn't be a factor at all. Faith is a very personal thing, and should stay that way.

Everyone pays lip service to that idea but it isn't reality. In several recent polls, secular liberals have been even less favorable to a Mormon president than the far right Evangelicals. That's saying something.

It's official, Santorum finally dropped out. That leaves Mitt & what's his name? Oh yea Newt. I assume he'll be next.



TIS

Some people will say anything.

Romney did big numbers with Evangelicals in the Florida primaries.

Of course being Catholic is detrimental. And if a candidate is a Catholic, they're probably from the north which also hurts.

btw- Kennedy was a Democrat. I'm talking about the GOP which I see as a southern conservative party.

Well, good for Mitt, I guess.

It's funny, after all that talk about a long and drawn out primary, it looks like, calendar-date wise, this one will wrap up before Hillary and Obama wrapped up their own ugly primary four years ago.

I wonder if it has anything to do with his sick kid? He was just suspending campaigning the other day over it.

That will probably be his "official" reason.

The headlines should read:

"Santorum Pulls Out"

Losing 10+ with women in battleground states, You have to fight back somehow.

Romney Camp Can’t Explain How Obama’s ‘War On Women’ Works



Of course like the Buffett Rule, that 92% is shockingly like any election season %, pure garbage.



http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/04/lies-damn-lies-and-mitt-romneys-charts

"There are three types of lies: Lies, Damn lies, and Statistics" - Harry Truman.

EDIT - I would add that most women who did lose their jobs in the recession were from the public sector. But since cutting big evil government jobs helps the budget, this is a mute criticism.

I wonder: if not for the NK missle launch and the Martin/Zimmerman story (plus being friday), perhaps the Rosen stuff would've gotten more play in the media?

From an economic angle alone, I get what Rosen is saying. But she seems like the typical big-mouthed feminist who would look down on Ann Romney simply for staying home and raising a family, period. Is Rosen even married or does she have kids? Or is she another one of these "modern" types who have fooled themselves into thinking that can have the best of both worlds, only to find themselves years later having given up a family for their career. Old, alone (except for maybe a cat), nothing to show for it, and real bitter about it.

Silly women! Thinking they can have a career and a family! Don't they realize you need a penis for that??? Otherwise you end up bitter and alone!

I think that raising a family is the hardest thing a person can do. If that was Ann Romney's choice, why should anyone put her down? It was what she wanted, and as long as she was good at it and happy with what she chose, then good for her.

That was basically my point. Raising a family is the hardest thing one can do. And there's nothing a woman can do that is more important than being a wife and mother. But it seems women - and I used that term loosely here - like Rosen look down on women who are homemakers. Like they're betraying the sisterhood by not fulfilling their full potential. Dollars to donuts her comment about Ann Romney "not working a day in her life" was as much about that as about being married to a rich guy.

And after doing some quick research, Hilary Ronen is your poster-girl for everything that is wrong with some women nowadays. Seriously, they couldn't have created something so objectionable in a lab. She's a lobbyist, a Democratic talking head, and a GLBT activist. Ha! Does it get more cliche than that? Given her resume, her opinion is worth less to me than used toilet paper. Just saying.

The sad thing about some women of privilege (and I don't know enough about Ann Romney to know if this applies to her) is that they have never worked outside the home, yet they have little to nothing to do with keeping home and raising children. They are far too busy with their "charity events", shopping and hair and nail appointments. Then there are the dinner parties, hiring and firing of the help, meeting with the caterers and the florist - it's exhausting.

The sad truth in many cases is that those women have no clue about real life, and their homes and children are left in the care of servants.

As for women who work outside the home, I've done both. Believe me, going to the office is a hell of a lot easier. At least you get recognition for a hard day's work. However, as in everything in life, you reap what you sow. I never missed a school trip, play or concert. I made every parent/teacher conference. The homework was laid out on the kitchen table to be checked. My husband helped with math and science, while I supervised English and history. The family ate a home-cooked meal every night, around the table, as a family. I worked my butt off to make sure of it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with mom's staying home with their children. It certainly IS hard work. However, Mrs. Romney NEVER HAD to go to work and does not know what it's like to do so. She had the money for cooks, nannys, etc. Not to mention 2 caddies in the garage as her husband said.


TIS

You know, when I meet someone, I may ask them about what work they do, what is their profession or job. I expect them to tell me that they are a plumber, a lawyer, a teacher, a ditch digger, etc. In response to that specific question, I don't expect them to tell me that they are a parent. Even if in response to that question they tell me that they are a parent, I would probably still enquire about their job otherwise or I might interpret their answer as stating that they don't have one.

With six kids to raise, my wife was still able to achieve the position of a microelectronics company executive. When she was asked what job she did, I never once heard her answer that she was a mother. When people would ask me about her job, I would always answer that she was a company executive. Although I might volunteer that she also was raising six children, I never stated that in response to a specific question about her job or profession.

So, in that context, TIS is absolutely right.

I still remember on a couple occasions someone would ask, "do you work or are you just a housewife?"

Do you remember back in the 60's Women's Lib era, the term "Domestic Engineer?"



TIS

Yes, I do. Roseanne Barr used that in her comedy routine. It was a function of feminist efforts to propagate their philosophy about the universe of options available to women. Of course, the 60s was probably the first decade when women were offered a widespread opporunity to entertain options other than motherhood.

Oli,

You wanna hear something that sounds so totally "outdated". It was about 1969/1970ish. I worked as a receptionist in an insurance company. The bosses all had a big meeting to see....get this.....if it would be allowable for women to wear pant suits to work. I'm talking a regular pantsuit NOT slacks & a top. I am happy to say it DID pass. Ha ha. Damn, how old am I anyway????