How about a third chart, one showing rise and fall of the sum of all private jobs plus the all public jobs other than census jobs?

In October, the economy added 159,000 private-sector jobs, far exceeding expectations. It's the best private-sector total since April, and the second strongest report since the start of the Great Recession in late 2007. It was also the tenth consecutive month of private-sector growth -- a streak unseen in more than three years.

This needs to be repeated by every Democrat in office at every opportunity until the next jobs report.

How long until a right-wing blogger gives credit for the marginally better job report to the Republican victory? "Well, employers knew from the polls that Republicans were expected to win, so they started hiring based on those expectations!" It's the partner of the BS "uncertainty" argument.

This is the only place I hear about these numbers.

SP is right. The Republicans will not fail to take credit for that which the Democrats have earned.

Obama needs to start campaigning for 2012 now.

I know I've said this many times here, but I see a different role for the DNC than they apparently see for themselves. Hording cash until the election cycle and then adding it to the mix fails to think outside the box. What if we never let the political discourse get away from us in the "out years"? Why wasn't the DNC running the "bikini chart" for the entire last year -- a brutally simple 30 second spot: "The red lines getting worse were job figures under Republicans. The blue lines getting better are jobs under Democrats. Which future do you want? For jobs, support Democrats."

And they should be doing it now, too.

Don't get too excited about the 151k gain; analysts are saying these stem from temporary hiring for the holidays. In essence, they are the private-sector equivalent of Census jobs.

I would love to see a similar chart for the Reagan recession of 1982. Given that the best case scenario for Obama is the historical Reagan result of a strong recovery in '83/'84 followed by a landslide victory, how high would the job creation numbers have to get to become comparable?

The Democrats blew it. Leaving aside the initial inadequacy of the original stimulus, they still could have put together a second, larger jobs bill.

Then they should have turned it into political theater. They should have spent the summer holding hearing after hearing on the jobs bill. Invite expert after expert to come down and explain what unemployment will look like with and without a jobs bill.

You want to play bipartisan? Fine. Say "We will examine ANY Republican idea for creating or saving U.S. jobs that is based upon established economic principles." What's that? No conservative economist will deny that the jobs bill would create jobs? Too bad. "Even Republican economists agree that this will create jobs in the next 18 months."

Have big charts. Then, in the beginning of September, have the vote. Pass it through the House. Pop the champagne.

Then, in the Senate, make the GOP filibuster. break out the cots. Let everything else grind to a halt. Who cares? "The American people are frustrated with the delaying tactics of the GOP. But they also understand that nothing is more important than getting Americans back to work."

The filibuster lasts 3 weeks. Reid refuses to recess. In early October, the GOP breaks ranks. Scott Brown says "I can't look my constituents in the eye and tell them that my time is better spent reading a phone book. This isn't about expanding the size of government. This is about accelerating road and rail investment as well as keeping existing state and local jobs that are at risk of being cut. This is a one time injection, not a permanent government expansion."

Obama signs the bill two weeks before election day. A rejuvenated Democratic base comes out to vote. The Democrats maintain a narrow 5-seat majority in the House.

Steve Benen, it is interesting that you continue to use only an ancient form of measuring employment. U3 is not a real measurement of the health of the economy, try U6. Did you mention the adjustment for Aug and Sep? No! Steve, why don't you mention that 450k are still filing for initial jobless claims? Look, labor force participation has now dropped to the lowest rate it has been since 1984, at 64.5%. Steve do you think that's good? 159,000 of new jobs, just enough to meet population growth. What about the 8-10 million laid off the past two years. We are in a world of hurt and all you journalists do is measure around the margins. Pitiful!

Hoi Polloi Wingnutia, you're not looking at the data. Seasonal workers would have been hired in Nov/Dec and laid off in Dec/Jan, and the graphs show that in the previous years as well, but if you draw a trend line, you'll see that we're on a nice crest, which just so happens to mirror the trough that occured under Bush.

Thanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love learning more on this topic. If possible, as you gain expertise, would you mind updating your blog with more information? It is extremely helpful for me.