WHAT Growth? Naive Voters Re-Elected Obama While He/the Labor Dept/MSM Hid a Crashing Economy..

Reaganite Republican ^ | 30 January 2013 | Reaganite Republican

[Reaganite Republican]

US economy actually SHRUNK in the 4th Quarter...

Remember back in the closing weeks of the 2012 campaign... when Jack Welch questioned Labor Dept jobs stats that seemed to be cooked to prop-up Dear Leader on the eve of the election? If you'll recall, he stated (and was pilloried by the Left for it) that
'The economy would have to be growing at a breakneck speed' to make such numbers possible... and just as Welch had suspected- it ain't.

But it's even worse than any of us thought: now you know what politicized federal agencies, the MSM, and the Obama campaign worked so hard to obfuscate: that real US economic growth -and the job creation- they were telling us we should be so happy about doesn't even exist:

CNBC (highlights RR):

The U.S. economy posted a stunning drop of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter, defying expectations for slow growth and possibly providing incentive for more Federal Reserve stimulus. (Ed- ha ha, you wish)

The economy shrank from October through December for the first time since the recession ended, hurt by the biggest cut in defense spending in 40 years, fewer exports and sluggish growth in company stockpiles. 

The Commerce Department said Wednesday that the economy contracted at an annual rate of 0.1 percent in the fourth quarter. That's a sharp slowdown from the 3.1 percent growth rate in the July-September quarter. 

The surprise contraction could raise fears about the economy's ability to handle tax increases that took effect in January...

Any of you idiot Obama voters willing to 

admit you've been bamboozled yet?

CNBC   WSJ   CommonSenseEvaluation   Hillbuzz

[nikos1121]

Butpre vote surveys predicted an obama victory.

[justiceseeker93]

But pre vote surveys predicted an Obama victory.

Not true! I for one had been following national and state-by state polling here very closely. Both Rasmusmussen and Gallup (who had the best track records for accuracy) had Romney ahead, albeit by a slim margin, a day or two before Election Day in their final poll results.

The Romney camp's internal pollsters apparently thought the same thing because Romney campaign insiders were reported as "shellshocked" on election night.

The bottom line: regardless of a pollster's reputation and technique, you can't poll fraud and cheating!

[justiceseeker93]

Assuming for the sake of argument your numbers are accurate (and that Zero's total wasn't enhanced and Romney's total wasn't reduced due to fraud and cheating), what stands out is that Obama got three million less votes in 2012 than in 2008, yet still "won" re-election.

In so far as I know, no president had ever been successfully re-elected to a second term with a smaller absolute popular vote and a smaller percentage of the popular vote than he received in his first election! Michael Medved emphasized that point on his radio show long before the election and wrote a book called "Why Obama is Unlikely to be Re-Elected" published a couple of months before the election.