Update On The Mancession: Men Lose More Jobs Then Women Do Since January 2008

Earlier this month, the Pew Research Center released a study titled "In Two Years of Economic Recovery, Women Lost Jobs, Men Found Them." What is interesting about this report is that the title of this study contradicts what the Pew Research Center found: 

"Although the latest trends in employment are working in favor of men, the full period of the recession and the recovery has set men back more than women. From December 2007 to May 2011, the employment of men has decreased from 70.7 million to 66.1 million, or by 4.6 million. For women, employment has fallen from 67.3 million to 64.9 million, or by 2.4 million. Thus, while men have taken an early lead in the recovery, they still have far more ground to cover than women to return to pre-recession employment levels."

Professor Mark J. Perry, who teaches economics and finance at the School of Management at the Flint campus at the University of Michigan, provided a graph on his blog that gives a visual demonstration of the key paragraph above:

Here's Mark Perry's explanation of the graph: 

The chart above helps to graphically illustrate the paragraph above by showing monthly employment levels for men and women from January 2002 to June 2011.  Although it's true that men have made greater employment gains since the recession ended, it's also true that men are still much worse off than women when we consider the entire period from January 2008 to June 2011.  The current number of payroll jobs in the U.S. (131 million) is about 7 million jobs below the peak of 138 million jobs in January of 2008 when the recession was first starting.  Of the 7 million jobs lost since 2008, men have lost 4.6 million or 65% of the total, compared to 2.4 million fewer jobs for women, or 35% of the total.  

Bottom Line: Despite the recent job gains for men since early 2010, the Great Recession has still had a disproportionately and significantly negative effect on men compared to women, and it's not even close: For every 100 jobs lost by women since January 2008, men have lost 192 jobs, so it's still very much of a "mancession," despite the recent "hecovery."

The debate on the mancession has been raging for a while now. Some people think the mancession is now slowing down. Others think the trend is reversing in which they're calling it a "He-covery." 

The New York Times was the first to notice the mancession in February of 2009 and became a hot topic during the summer of that year. The Atlantic, in July of 2009, cited a statistic that "eighty percent of job losses in the last two years were among men." In August of 2009, Professor Mark J. Perry,  pointed out in an earlier blog article that the trend could be traced back to December of 2006. However, some people even questioned whether or not the mancession was real. Despite the minority who question this phenomenon, it is real and it still is an ongoing economic issue. 

This study from the Pew Research Center makes it clear that while unemployment has improved for men, its too premature to declare that men have made a full "hecovery".

The Progressive Holy Grail: The Next Big Idea

Robert Reich has written a scathing article about President Obama's dereliction of leadership on the debt ceiling crisis which is actually a good summary of Barack's overall leadership style:

Barack Obama is one of the most eloquent and intelligent people ever to grace the White House, which makes his failure to tell the story of our era all the more disappointing and puzzling. Many who were drawn to him in 2008 (including me) were dazzled by the power of his words and insights -- his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, his autobiography and subsequent policy book, his talks about race and other divisive issues during the campaign.

We were excited by the prospect of a leader who could educate -- an "educator in chief" who would use the bully pulpit to explain what has happened to the United States in recent decades, where we must go, and why.

But the man who has occupied the Oval Office since January, 2009 is someone entirely different -- a man seemingly without a compass, a tactician who veers rightward one day and leftward the next, an inside-the Beltway dealmaker who doesn't explain his compromises in light of larger goals.

In Amity Shlaes' book, The Forgotten Man, she gives us a detailed account of how FDR and other progressives wandered from one big idea to the next and would seem to support one idea only to abandon it later. Progressives make poor leaders because they're enamored with "big ideas" which usually means more spending, bigger government and a lack of a coherent policy on any issue. That's why progressives are unhappy with Obama because he can't guide the nation towards the next big idea.

This is the Achilles heel of progressivism as a philosophy and as a style of leadership. Vision is where a leader can has a destination in mind and leads the people towards it. But for progressives, they roam from one big idea and when they're done with that idea, they move in search of another big idea. That's not leadership. It aimlessness.

Robert Reich and other progressives desperately want Obama wants to be courageous about his aimless leadership style and get America to rally behind the progressive quest for the next big idea but they're disappointed that he can't do it. 

Obama cannot mobilize America around the truth, in other words, because he is continuously adapting to the prevailing view. This is not leadership.

Mr. Rich is starting to realize the fundamental flaw of progressivism. Its political philosophy that doesn't engender leadership. That's why the President would continuously adapt to the prevailing view on whatever issue that confronts him because its a roadblock on the journey to the next big idea.

Robert Riech and other progressives shouldn't be angry with Obama's aimless leadership style. He's following the progressive leadership model perfectly.

Joe Scarborough: Democrats Are Privately Saying Obama Isn't A Leader On The Debt Ceiling Issue

Joe Scarborough revealed that Democrats in Congress are starting to realize what everybody in America already know about Obama when it comes to leadership on economic issues. See the clip below:

Here's the key quote from the clip above: 

Joe Scarborough: "I have got to clear this up. Mika heard two days ago on Capitol Hill Democrats all saying the same thing. And that is, this president has been invisible, he is not a leader. They said this all behind closed doors. Democratic leaders, Democratic rank-and-file. In fact, 40, 50 of the most powerful Democrats on the Hill. I will just stop right there. The complaints were all the same. The president has vanished. He has left us here alone again like he did with health care. Where is he? Now, they didn't call him a loser, but they sure as hell didn't call him a leader."

Perhaps the people who are the most angry with Obama are progressive Democrats since they expect the President to work with them on the debt ceiling issue since Barack Obama considers himself a progressive: 

Largely missing from the closed-door negotiations and deal-trading in Washington's acrimonious debt ceiling battle are Congress' progressive stalwarts, the left-of-center lawmakers who fight for middle- and low-income individuals and families. That includes the House Progressive Caucus and a few dozen members of the Senate. The debt ceiling debate has left many of these lawmakers outraged at the White House for keeping them at arm's length and out of loop.

And make no mistake: After being frozen out of the process, their "yes" votes for a final compromise deal are no guarantee. "If the White House is assuming we will just go along," says Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the co-chair of the progressive caucus, "they are mistaken."

As the 2012 election grows closer and closer it will become more and more difficult for Progressives and liberals to find a reason to pull the lever for Obama in the ballot box. They might vote for him just to keep a Republican out of office but given how low the President's poll numbers are, the chances of progressives keeping this progressive President in office for another four years are very slim.

Former New York Governor George Pataki Considering A Run In 2012

While Rudy Guiliani is still considering another run for 2012, there's another New Yorker who is also thinking about jumping into the 2012 race. Former New York Governor George Pataki hasn't made any decisions yet but he seems to be testing out the waters to see if it is safe to jump in: 

“I am definitely considering a run for president,” former New York Gov. George Pataki told reporters here.Fresh off a trip to Iowa, Pataki was in the Granite State leading a discussion on the debt crisis at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at Saint Anselm's College. (Organizers claimed it was scheduled long before the current debt impasse began producing headlines.)
"We are engaged in generational theft. Politicians in Washington are stealing from our children's future… This is not leadership,” Pataki told the group.
When asked about the current GOP presidential field's handling of the debt problem, Pataki seemed dissatisfied.

"A Republican has to make as part of their campaign how they're going deal with the deficit and debt issue,” he told NBC News. “We have to have solutions. So far, I haven’t heard that. I'm certainly looking to see if someone has that plan in the tone of their campaign.”

Then Pataki paused to reiterate that he is taking a closer look at the White House. “I’m seriously thinking about it."

Pataki also mentioned stated that if he decides to throw his hat into the ring, his announcement might come quickly: 

As for when he might declare a run for the White House, Pataki knows the clock is ticking.

"I don’t want to put a specific date on it, but I understand that sooner is better than not.”

Pataki said it would “be great” if Texas Gov. Rick Perry entered the presidential race, but he stated firmly that Perry’s move would not ultimately affect his own decision.

“I will be very involved in some way, whether it's as a candidate or supporting another candidate or some other capacity."

Pataki would have an uphill battle if he decides to run in 2012. But George Pataki is right about one thing and that is he needs to decide soon on whether he's in or not. The same is true for Sarah Palin and Governor Rick Perry.  They have kept the public waiting to see if they will participate in the 2012 election and they should make their announcement soon.  

Mitt Romney Continues To Shrink Obama's Electoral Map

The Daily Caller had an excellent article published in April in which it talked about why Mitt Romney is the best candidate to defeat Obama in 2012. They reported that the Democrats know they have an an uphill battle getting reelected in 2012 but they think they have an awesome strategy in getting a second term for Obama:

Earlier this week, Obama’s reelection campaign manager Jim Messina made it clear “that Democrats couldn’t rely on their 2008 game plan to win a second term for Obama in 2012.” As Messina describes it, one of the keys to winning in 2012 is for Obama is to “[e]expand the electorate.”

Their ‘awesome plan’ may be difficult to implement because Mitt Romney is actually shrinking Obama’s electoral map:

“Ironically, there is one GOP presidential frontrunner who is currently expanding the electoral map on Team Obama — Mitt Romney.”

How is Romney shrinking Obama’s electoral map? It’s due to his strong appeal among Independents:

But there is one item that usually escapes the casual political handicapper: Romney’s appeal among independents. This group, which swung to Obama in 2008 and then to the GOP’s congressional candidates in 2010, will be the single most important voting block for either party in 2012. In two battleground states that had been trending blue — Michigan and New Hampshire — Romney has, at times, led President Obama in a hypothetical general election match-up largely because of his appeal among these voters.
Several polls show that Romney is also leading Obama in Florida, a state that is essentially a political microcosm of all the battleground states and a state that the eventual GOP nominee cannot lose if Republicans have any hope of winning the White House in 2012.

A few months later after the Daily Caller publish that article, it appears that Mitt Romney's strategy to get widen the electoral map for himself while shrinking it for Obama is working in key battleground states: 

The race for president isn’t a national contest. It’s a state-by-state battle to cobble an electoral vote majority. So while the national polls are useful in gauging the president’s popularity, the more instructive numbers are those from the battlegrounds.

Those polls are even more ominous for the president: In every reputable battleground state poll conducted over the past month, Obama’s support is weak. In most of them, he trails Republican front-runner Mitt Romney.  For all the talk of a closely fought 2012 election, if Obama can’t turn around his fortunes in states such as Michigan and New Hampshire, next year’s presidential election could end up being a GOP landslide.

Take Ohio, a perennial battleground in which Obama has campaigned more than in any other state (outside of the D.C. metropolitan region). Fifty percent of Ohio voters now disapprove of his job performance, compared with 46 percent who approve, according to a Quinnipiac poll conducted from July 12-18.  

Among Buckeye State independents, only 40 percent believe that Obama should be reelected, and 42 percent approve of his job performance. Against Romney, Obama leads 45 percent to 41 percent—well below the 50 percent comfort zone for an incumbent.

The news gets worse from there.  In Michigan, a reliably Democratic state that Obama carried with 57 percent of the vote, an EPIC-MRA poll conducted July 9-11 finds him trailing Romney, 46 percent to 42 percent. Only 39 percent of respondents grade his job performance as “excellent” or good,” with 60 percent saying it is “fair” or “poor.” The state has an unemployment rate well above the national average, and the president’s approval has suffered as a result.

In Iowa, where Republican presidential contenders are getting in their early licks against the president, his approval has taken a hit. In a Mason-Dixon poll conducted for a liberal-leaning group, Romney held a lead of 42 percent to 39 percent over the president, with 19 percent undecided. Even hyper-conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann ran competitively against Obama in the Hawkeye State, trailing 47 percent to 42 percent.

The July Granite State Poll pegs the president’s approval at 46 percent among New Hampshire voters, with 49 percent disapproving. A separate robo-poll conducted this month by Democratic-aligned Public Policy Polling shows him trailing Romney in the state, 46 percent to 44 percent.

Polls are just a snapshot, and these illustrate that the sour economy has been taking its toll on the president’s popularity. There’s plenty of time left before November 2012, but the fundamentals—projections of long-term slow economic growth, a White House struggling to tailor a message on job creation, and an energized Republican base—don’t bode well.

As the article points out, elections aren't won at the national level. They're won at the state level and the candidate needs to collect enough states to claim a victory. 

Mitt Romney, unlike his competitors, is focusing on the ultimate goal of winning the White House. That's why he's playing the long game by really focusing on building solid networks in each state, working to win the support of not just conservatives but independents and moderates, and focusing on his message of jobs and the economy. By focusing on these things, Obama's chances of getting reelected grows smaller and smaller. 

That's why Mitt Romney is also appealing to Americans. They're not satisfied and happy with Republican candidates who squabble with each other over stupid issues like Michelle Bachmann's migraines, sign ridiculous pledges and have short term goals like winning straw polls. 

Americans need a president who has a long term vision and is persistent in accomplishing those long term goals. That is why America needs Mitt Romney in the White House in 2012.

Congressman John Campbell Says We Need Mitt Romney

U.S House Representative for California's 48th congressional district, John Campbell, has just published his endorsement of Mitt Romney:

Today, economic issues dominate the scene in America. We have record-breaking, unsustainable deficits and face credit downgrades and a looming debt crisis. We are supposedly in the middle of economic recovery, but no one can really feel it. Unemployment is stubbornly high and shows no signs of coming down any time soon. Inflation is now running over 3%, which is relatively low, but since savings accounts pay essentially nothing, the wealth of Americans is being eroded. Europe and, yes, even China have economic challenges. Decisions about issues as diverse as national defense, the environment and immigration are all now impacted by the economic prospects and our current fiscal situation.

President Obama has been the major contributor to these problems. He has massively grown spending, deficits and debt in a misguided and failed Keynesian attempt to fix the economy. His strong and very liberal ideology continues to churn out job-killing policies in the areas of health care, energy, finance and manufacturing. He claims to love the jobs created by these industries, but his administration does whatever it can to restrict the products that these industries make and to punish those who would invest in them. And, his lack of competence and experience in matters of governance and the economy further hurt job creation and add to the uncertainty and the feeling out there that we are without direction and with little hope for the future.

“Hope and change” has failed. We need to change again. But, to whom?

I don’t want another president who has to learn management and governance on the job. I don’t want another president who doesn’t really understand how capital creates jobs and how jobs reward capital. I don’t want another president without executive experience in both the public or private sectors. I don’t want another president who blindly follows some academic ideology without assessing the practicalities of the situation he or she faces.

Please, no more people who can speak, but not lead. No more people who can read a talking point, but not think.

That’s why I am strongly supporting Governor Mitt Romney for President.

You can read the entire text of John Campbell's endorsement HERE. 

I don't know what else to add except to say that Congressman John Campbell is right. America really does need Mitt Romney to be the next President of the United States in 2012.

Former Governor George V. Voinovich To Endorse Mitt Romney

Former Ohio Governor and Senator George V. Voinovich will formally give his endorsement to Mitt Romney tomorrow:

Lately, Mitt Romney has been picking up alot of endrosements from of current and former governors back him for 2012. Former Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri will also officially give his endorsement to Mitt Romney and will help him raise money at an upcoming fundraiser. A few weeks ago, Nebraska Govenor Dave Heineman endorsed Romney as well.

Congratulations Mitt Romney for getting these endorsements!