Bzzzzzzt. Wrong. The Economist is liberal by US standards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist
" According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."[ "

Wow, the Economist is liberal. Is Fox news conservative? I thought they were perfectly moderate! /sarcasm

Thucydides please comment only on the points in the article not your own points.

Good god...even if it were an endorsement "America could do better than Obama..." is HARDLY an endorsement! And who knows what they said 4 years ago...so before you take that as a **resounding** endorsement of Obama, better check their record........but Beyond that...uhhh....the article is dated NOVEMBER 3...***2 days from now**** WTF??? The Economist doesn't know what day it is...but they are endorsing candidates.

So much, so wrong with this...

And Obama is generally rightist, as is obvious to anyone not caught up by the US political mindset.

The Economist endorsing a candidate carries a bit more weight than, say, Meatloaf or Nicki Minaj.

Nicki Minaj's endorsement will sell me on anything, 2WL. Same with Snooki.

More to the point....Economics Growth...something you think the "Economist" would be concerned about...has SHRUNK every year of Obama's Presidency....to the point that the economy is growing SLOWER than the rate of population growth. i.e. -- Effectively, the economy has SHRUNK under Obama. By rational application of definitions: We are in a sever recession, if not a depression. The number of people that have been out of work *so long* they don't even count on unemployment rolls grows daily....so the so-called 7.8% unemployment rate is a **complete** lie.

The Economist???? Really? Because this magazine doesn't seem to know much about the economy.....<sad>...

Wow, krellin, it did not take too much google-fu to find a couple of whopper mistakes in your last post.

"Economics Growth...something you think the "Economist" would be concerned about...has SHRUNK every year of Obama's Presidency"

False.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/188185/percent-chance-from-preceding-period-in-real-gdp-in-the-us/

".to the point that the economy is growing SLOWER than the rate of population growth."

False.

http://petemurphy.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/quarterly-u-s-population-growth-rate.pdf

A couple of other quick statistics for you...

DJIA closing value, Jan. 2, 2001: 10646.15
DJIA closing value, Jan. 2, 2009: 9,034.69
DJIA closing value, Oct. 26, 2012: 13,107.21

http://www.fedprimerate.com/dow-jones-industrial-average-history-djia.htm

Draugnar, conservative means being pro-life, supporting capital punishment, monarchy, organized religion or institutions for purity of language or whatever. Liberal means supporting free trade, less bureacracy, more globalisation, immigration or legalisation of drugs and prostitution. Because, once again, The Economist is an European magazine, so it doesn't use conservative or liberal as tribalistic umbrella terms segregating the good guys from the bad guys but as actual descriptors retaining their natural meaning. Confucius would shit his pants if he had to rectify the names liberal and conservative in the US.

@uly - I just quoted a former editor. He says it was always liberal. I'm not going to argue with him. He is the expert, not you or I.

The Economist has endorsed austerity policies throughout Europe, and is generally an anonymous collection of fanboys for the David Cameron government. Considering they've repeatedly claimed Obama is not sufficiently pro-capitalist, this endorsement says a lot about how bad Romney is. Ditto the endorsement by Bloomberg.

The Economist calls itself a "radical centrist"/European liberal magazine. It's basically a craven weathervane endorsing whatever they think is popular. They were for the Iraq war before they were against it.

A quick google search shows the Economist endorsed Obama four years ago and John Kerry 4 years before that. Doesn't sound bvery conservative to me. Sounds more like a liberal mouthpiece for the last 8 years at least.

Again, an easy Google search. Do some fucking work you lazy fucktard Draug.

2000: George W. Bush
1996: Bob Dole
1992: Bill Clinton
1988: no endorsement
1984: no endorsement
1980: Ronald Reagan

http://www.economist.com/node/12499760

So yeah, there's your liberal mouthpiece. Old blowhard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance

Look at the endorsements for British elections.

Also: George W Bush in 2000, Bob Dole in 1996, Clinton in '92, no endorsements in 88 or 84, Reagan in 1980.

I subscribe to the Economist. I know the bs they peddle very well. They are not "liberal mouthpieces" by any stretch.

Only *3* Labour Party endorsements since 1955. That's almost as bad as my local paper.

So out of 7 endorsements (and yes I did see all that) they have endorsed 4 dems and 3 reps. Hardly a right wing magazine when they endorse more dems than reps and on the occassions where a rep has run a second time, they haven't endorsed him. In fact Obama is the first time they've endorsed the same guy twice.

But since you broguth it up, their endorsement count is Dems 4, Reps 3. Righty magazine... Yeah right! (pun intended).

@Putin , the first response from the OP says it is a conservative magazine. Are you now saying you give money to a conservative rag? Cause that would be too fucking hillarious. I'm countering the OPs claim it is a rightwing magazine. It's not. But of course you are going to continue to counter it isn't left wing either rather than admit there is a middle ground and maybe in reality it falls there.

15 UK elections, 12 endorsements for the Tories, 3 for Labour - 2 of which were for Phony Tony & Nu Labour. They also are homers for the Canadian Conservatives, French UMP, German Christian Democrats, and Australian Liberals.

I did argue it is "in the middle", genius, although generally right leaning. American politics are far skewed and the Republicans are so nuts that they have been forced to endorse Democrats.

Generally right leaning despite endorsing 33% more Democrats for president than Republicans... Uh huh. What's your next tale to tell us, Pinocchio?

They've endorsed 400% more Tory campaigns than Labour.

See, being a stupid American, I don't know whether the Tories or the Labour is liberal.

Middle ground does not appear to be Putin's strong suit.

Pssh, I'm the the most milquetoast communist you'll ever meet.

That being said, as a fiscally conservative but socially liberal individual, I find it increasingly difficult to vote for Republicans as they tack farther and farther towards the lunatic fringe of anti-abortion, anti-women, anti-gay activism. Weird, since the libertarian push that so invigorated the Tea Party appeared to have missed social issues entirely. "hands of my ..." should, if applied consistently, apply to "money," "body," "personal life," sex life," and many other seemingly incompatible views espoused by some of the more despicable Republicans out there these days. If I were more confident that Mitt Romney actually were the moderate he portrayed himself to be in the general election campaign, the decision between him and Obama would be more difficult.

... And I would believe that, Putin. You have time to take off from the communal farm to play Diplomacy, after all!