Romney Keeps on Winning

[Jay Trotter]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And do you know how to check the archives for the forums "over there"?

12-13-2008, 10:11 AM

[hcap]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...p-train-296567

And From Comedy Central...

http://www.indecisionforever.com/blo...y-dating-sites


"Ever since Rush Limbaugh's infamous "slut" comment, sponsors have been fleeing the show faster than Rush running from a pill-sniffing dog. At this point, he's so used to people pulling out, it's no wonder he thinks free birth control is unnecessary.

Despite speculation, the right-wing radio blowhard insists that business is booming…

Limbaugh, citing claims he had lost 28 sponsors, said that is "out of 18,000. That’s like losing a couple of french fries in the container when it's delivered to you in the drive thru."

Fortunately for Rush, there's still one kind of business that doesn't mind advertising on his show – creepy dating websites…

[W]hile AOL and Allstate headline the more than 20 advertisers heading for the exits, at least two new would-be sponsors — matchmaking sites SeekingArrangements.com (pairing sugar daddies and sugar babies) and AshleyMadison.com (for adulterers) — are vying to fill that vacuum…

"Advertising on Rush seems to be the logical move, he's actually a sugar daddy," Seeking Arrangements founder and CEO Brandon Wade told the Daily Beast…

"[E]ven though a lot of Republicans are not willing to say they embody the sugar-daddy lifestyle," many in fact do, he said, claiming that 60 percent of the site's male members say they are Republicans… Noel Biderman, the CEO of AshleyMadison.com offered a less contorted explanation… "I know my audience listens to Rush Limbaugh."

So, companies that cater to adulterers and sugar daddies want to advertise on the radio show of a thrice-married cradle robber. That's a little on the nose, don't you think?

"Sugar daddy" is definitely a term that comes to mind when thinking of Rush Limbaugh. Not because he's married to a woman half his age, but because he looks like he has a raging case of diabetes."

[hcap]

http://politicalwire.com/archives/20...ing_radio.html



March 10, 2012

Advertisers Flee Right Wing Radio

Premiere Networks is circulating a list of 98 radio advertisers who want to avoid "environments likely to stir negative sentiments... They've specifically asked that you schedule their commercials in dayparts or programs free of content that you know are deemed to be offensive or controversial (for example, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Tom Leykis, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity)."

John Avlon notes "the irony is that the same market forces that right-wing talk-radio hosts champion are helping to seal their fate. Advertisers are abandoning the shows because they no longer want to be associated with the hyperpartisan -- and occasionally hateful -- rhetoric. They are finally drawing a line because consumers are starting to take a stand."

And

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...vertisers.html

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

Actually, the captive ditto head audience should welcome El Gasbag featuring Barney's Butt Crack Cream.

Usually they bend w-a-y o-v-e-r, and accept willingly whatever he has to offer with gusto.

Are you challenging stinky for his Crown of Ignorance?
I'd rather be a ditto-head than an Obama idiot.....
[YT="hcap's protege!"]Bg98BvqUvCc&feature=related[/YT]
[YT="And more lining "]woBC5b3Ti0M&feature=related[/YT]

[Tom]

Advertisers Flee Right Wing Radio

What, no charts and graphs?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

What, no charts and graphs?

A graphic illustration of a typical Ditto Head at a republican convention.

Warning: Shocking content.
You may need a tube of Barney's Butt Crack Cream to ease the pain.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[Tom]

I rest my case.

[highnote]

Sorry for double-posting this. I posted this in a different thread by mistake.

I have read often in posts here on PA the opinion that Obama is the worst president ever. I would argue Obama is not the worst, just the one that some people like the least.

Here are some objective numbers that, in my opinion, are important factors in rating presidents: The increase or decrease in the Unemployment Rate and S&P 500 index during their term.

                 Unemployment   %Increase       S&P 500   %Increase
                 Rate

GHWB 1989        5.4                            286       
     1993        7.4            37%             436       52%

Clinton 1993     7.3                            436
        2001     3.9           -46.5%          1342      210%

GWB 2001         4.2                           1342
    2009         7.3            74%             832     -263%

Obama 2009       7.8                            850
      2012       8.3             0.6%          1370      163%

Under the first Bush, Unemployment increased 37%, but the S&P 500 also increased 52%. Bush also started and ended the Persian Gulf War.

Clinton inherited a domestic economy on the decline. He turned things around by decreasing unemployment by a whopping 46% and tripling the S&P 500. The World Trade Center was bombed shortly after he took office. This occured on his watch, but never happened again while he was president. Hard to say whether this was the fault of the previous admin not giving his admin good info or if it was a failure of his admin. I am of the belief that you have to blame the people in charge today -- not the people who were in charge.

GWB took office in 2001 and in his 8 years unemployment rose by an ugly 74% and the S&P 500 fell by 263% from 1342 to 832. That is just pathetic. The World Trade Center was bombed shortly after he took office. As I wrote earlier, you have to blame the people in charge. Bush is to blame for the WTC bombing. He knew it happened under Clinton. He should have been prepared. Bush started, but didn't finish the Iraq and Afganistan Wars and left the economy in shambles and like his father, left the door open for the democrats to win the office of the president.

Obama took office in 2009 and has had only a 3 year track record on which to judge him. Unemployment has risen by a slim 0.6% and the S&P 500 is up 163% to an all time high of 1370. He ended the Iraq War and eliminated Bin Laden. There has not been a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil under his watch.

Now, there are a lot of other factors to judge a president on. War and the domestic economy are the only two presented here because they are discussed a lot.

I think it is too early to call Obama the worst or best president. Obama is better than either of the Bushes on unemployment and stock market returns, but he still has 9 months in which to screw things up. Of the four listed above, Clinton gets the best marks, but the WTC attacks are big negative.

I am interested in hearing what other obective factors people find important.

Sources:

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=%5EG...g=w&z=66&y=198

[boxcar]

Geesh, who would have guessed that we have such a value-laden prez in office?

Boxcar

[highnote]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Geesh, who would have guessed that we have such a value-laden prez in office?

Boxcar

My retirement portfolio has done better under Obama than under GWB. On that factor, Obama has delivered much better value -- about 326% better value.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

My retirement portfolio has done better under Obama than under GWB. On that factor, Obama has delivered much better value -- about 326% better value.

and how is that relevant ? I would think that would flatter you or your adviser more than anything else.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by swetyejohn

My retirement portfolio has done better under Obama than under GWB. On that factor, Obama has delivered much better value -- about 326% better value.

JR beat me to it. But if you want to measure Obama with something meaningful, look at something other than your personal portfolio. Look at the Nation's "portfolio", e.g. debt, deficit, housing market, etc., etc.

Boxcar

[highnote]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

and how is that relevant ? I would think that would flatter you or your adviser more than anything else.

It is relevant because the markets, historically, tend to go up under Democratic presidents. Maybe it is because they focus more on domestic issues?

Whatever the reason, it's a lot easier to win when the market is going up -- at least in my experience.

If I was allowed to sell short in my IRA then I might have done well under GWB.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by boxcar

JR beat me to it. But if you want to measure Obama with something meaningful, look at something other than your personal portfolio. Look at the Nation's "portfolio", e.g. debt, deficit, housing market, etc., etc.

Boxcar

All politics are local. My house has retained it's value -- in fact, it has increased in value since Obama took office.

That said, debt, deficit and housing are important. I am sure that there will people who will vote against Obama because they are/were negatively impacted by those factors.

Further to the point, unemployment under GWB rose 74% and the market decreased by 263%. Do you think that might have had some impact on the deficit, debt and housing prices?

[highnote]

Originally Posted by boxcar

JR beat me to it. But if you want to measure Obama with something meaningful, look at something other than your personal portfolio. Look at the Nation's "portfolio", e.g. debt, deficit, housing market, etc., etc.

Boxcar

I'd also add that if you want to look at something besides your own portfolio look at the unemployment numbers. That is why I included S&P 500 returns as well as unemployment in my table.

I just read an article on Barrons that said 227,000 new jobs were added in February and claims this is good for the incumbent.

http://online.barrons.com/article/SB...d=yahoobarrons

With repect to housing, that free fall started around 2007 if memory serves me. The Obama admin stopped the bleeding. It takes time to heal the wound.

When a man falls off of a foot stool it takes a second to get back up. When a man falls down a flight of stairs it takes longer to get back up.

Housing fell down the stairs and will take longer to recover. As more people get back to work housing will improve. The corporate sector has benefitted from the rebound in the market. It takes time for the corporations to hire and then time for employees to put the money back into the economy.

Election is still months away. Will be interesting to see how the economy plays out.