Obama, more business's are closing everyday because of all the new regulations that they have to enforce....more taxes against business and now Obama care will take care of the remaining full time people when started in 2014
We won't know until Romney provides some detail of his accountability level within Bain Capital particularly related to acquisitions of other companies; and would depend some one Romney's previous positions as well.
A clear understanding must be established of what sort of decisions he took part in, or was able to take part in during his time there, and how those decisions, or potential lack thereof, affected employees of companies that "did business" read: get bought out by, or divested to) Bain Captial. While I have little information about the company's doings, and much less info that I could consider to be unbiased by its unabashed leftist or rightist leanings, I get the idea that "doing business" with Bain Capital led to at least *some amount* of eliminating high-paying US jobs in favor of lower-paying equivalent jobs in foreign countries without the "crippling" cost of US labor imposed by such things as minimum wage, FMLA, OSHA adherence, EPA adherence, and other related "excessive labor costs" imposed by Federal regulations to keep American laborers safe & productive.
The wiki for Bain Capital currently reads like huge slam piece as far as job creation vs job deletion goes, upon analysis:
Not sure how well I trust the wiki's accuracy.
Either way, it should be made clear up front that neither presidential candidate has directly created nor downsized a job. Their decisions and policies, on the other hand, have certainly been indirectly responsible for both gains and losses in employment. Sometime's it's not always Obama's fault when thing's fall through, and I give Romeny the same benefit of the doubt - though it must be said that Romney wasn't repeatedly roadblocked by congress in his work at Bain, as Obama has been in his work as the US President.
If you're asking which candidate's election will result in the creation of more jobs, that's just a crap-shoot, you probably already knew bore asking, as that's that way it always has been.
Then we have the reality that unemployment figures alone are poor indicators of (true unemployment itself, for one thing) but also many other things that we tend to see as crucial function of quality of life, wealth distribution, and other metrics, and unemployment rates can be a notoriously poor indicator of more meningful metrics, like the average family's cumulative change in disposable income, and net worth, over the last 4 years, or the last 4-8 years, the last 20 years. And of course there's all the numbers-fudging with unemployment tracking that stems, for one thing, from what's considered by the outlet as a "good job" or not, particularly with so many people in people with my situation (unemployed/underemployed college graduates holding 4-year degrees in outsourced industries like engineering, architecture and math.