Unemployment and the President's re-election chances

[Chronos]

Since this topic is threatening to take over the Elections forum, let's just consolidate all of the discussion here. Please keep this topic out of the other threads ostensibly on other topics. What is the impact of the unemployment rate on the 2012 elections, and in particular on Obama's chances of re-election?

To lead off the discussion, I present Nate Silver's current article on the topic. He finds that, while the unemployment rate does have some impact on a President's chances of re-election, it's far less significant than other economic indicators, and that even despite the current poor employment numbers, Obama is still more likely than not to win re-election. Can anyone contest his claims?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Since this topic is threatening to take over the Elections forum, let's just consolidate all of the discussion here. Please keep this topic out of the other threads ostensibly on other topics. What is the impact of the unemployment rate on the 2012 elections, and in particular on Obama's chances of re-election?

To lead off the discussion, I present Nate Silver's current article on the topic. He finds that, while the unemployment rate does have some impact on a President's chances of re-election, it's far less significant than other economic indicators, and that even despite the current poor employment numbers, Obama is still more likely than not to win re-election. Can anyone contest his claims?

So this is your "Let's not talk about the elephant in the middle of the room" thread to keep the other threads going?

Frankly, the gist of every other thread is "Candiate X cant' possibly beat Obama because republicans are eeeeeeeeeeeevil."

I guess there are people who think that Obama can win with unemployment as high as it is, although I suspect it will actually be higher in November, 2012. I just don't give them much credence.

No president has won since WWII with unemployment over 7.2%. Only one has won with it over 6%.

[Chronos]

No, this is a thread devoted to the elephant in the middle of the room.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

No, this is a thread devoted to the elephant in the middle of the room.

The problem is, it isn't just in the middle of THIS room. It's in the middle of everyone's room.

It's in the middle of Perry's room, Palin's room and Bachmann's room.

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

No president has won since WWII with unemployment over 7.2%. Only one has won with it over 6%.

So of the four incumbents that had unemployment over 6%, one won and three didn't? And of those three, at least one (Ford) had some pretty heavy baggage that didn't have to do with the economy.

Certainly having high unemployment is bad for the incumbent, and it may well cost Obama the Presidency, but its kinda silly to take four data points, rule one an exception, and then claim to have found some sort of empirical rule.

Or if you want to use the 7.2 number, "No president has won since WWII with unemployment over 7.2%." sounds pretty grim for Obama. "Bush II and Carter had unemployment over 7.2% and they lost" doesn't sound so bad. If you want to try and generalize from two data points, you should at least make explicit thats what your doing.

(Also, by cutting it off at WWII, you of course loose FDR, who won twice with an unemployment rate higher then the current one.)

[Simplicio]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

(Also, by cutting it off at WWII, you of course loose FDR, who won twice with an unemployment rate higher then the current one.)

Or if you like :"Since 1934, every President that has run with unemployment over 9% has won, Obama's victory is assured"

[Lance Turbo]

Over 30% of the incumbents who ran for reelection when unemployment was over 7% have won over 500 electoral votes in landslide victories.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Simplicio

So of the four incumbents that had unemployment over 6%, one won and three didn't? And of those three, at least one (Ford) had some pretty heavy baggage that didn't have to do with the economy.

Certainly having high unemployment is bad for the incumbent, and it may well cost Obama the Presidency, but its kinda silly to take four data points, rule one an exception, and then claim to have found some sort of empirical rule.

Or if you want to use the 7.2 number, "No president has won since WWII with unemployment over 7.2%." sounds pretty grim for Obama. "Bush II and Carter had unemployment over 7.2% and they lost" doesn't sound so bad. If you want to try and generalize from two data points, you should at least make explicit thats what your doing.

(Also, by cutting it off at WWII, you of course loose FDR, who won twice with an unemployment rate higher then the current one.)

You see, I don't rule one as an exception. Ford's supposed "heavy baggage" was that he pardoned Nixon, but frankly, most sensible people at the time thought that was probably for the best, as a trial would have been a lot worse for the country, picking at an old scab.

So you have four data points, three of which indicate a unemployment rate two percent lower than it is now is absolute poison. Really, a 9% unemployment rate is uncharted territory in the modern era.

Now, for the FDR number. The thing was, back in them oldy days, you didn't have monthly reporting of the figure that was widely disseminated. FDR took unemployment from 25% down to about 16% in 1936, which everyone considered real progress. It should also be pointed out that the GOP was completely obliterated as a political party by that point. It simply didn't have enough national figures to mount an effective challenge. I mean Alf Landon? Seriously?

By 1938, it crept back up to 19%, and the voters let FDR have it in the polls.

1940, it went back down to 14%, but there was a world war raging at that point, and most people knew America was going to get dragged into it eventually.

Also, FDR never would have withstood the media scrutiny we have today. Most Americans didn't even know he was confined to a wheelchair. It really was a different time.

Final point- It's not just where it is but where it's been. Under Bush, the average annual unemployment rate was about 5%. It peaked near six in 2002 and 2008. For Obama, the average unemployment rate has been over 9% all three of his years.

[Recovering Republican]

I want to elaborate on that last point.

It's not just where you are but where you've been.

If you take a look at the losers brackets, they had higher average unemployment rates than their precedessors. The winners had about the same or a bit lower.

Obama's average 9% is much higher than Bush's Average of 5%.

Let's look at some other stats.


According to the Census bureau, poverty under Obama is at the highest rate it's been in 50 years.

Gasoline prices shot up 67% on Obama's watch.

The decifit went from 410 Billion a year average under Bush to 1.4 TRILLION average under Obama.

The national debt increased from 10.6 Trillion to 14 Trillion on Obama's watch.

Bush's average inflation rate was .2% a month compared to Obama's .37 a month.

Home prices have decreased 33% from their 2006 peak, (again, 2006 is when the Dems retook Congress) and 7% in the first half of this year alone.

Now, I'm going to stipulate. A lot of this mess isn't Obama's fault. I'm a fair enough guy to admit that. But what he has done is failed to provide leadership to reverse these trends. I honestly think a lot of that is due to his lack of experience.

[Chronos]

The problem is, it isn't just in the middle of THIS room. It's in the middle of everyone's room.

It's in the middle of Perry's room, Palin's room and Bachmann's room.

No, the tail of the elephant is occasionally swishing over into their rooms, or maybe the tip of a tusk. When it comes time for the general election, and one specific Republican (whoever that might be) is running against Obama, then the employment rate will be relevant. Right now, though, we're still trying to figure out who the Republican candidate will be. And for that question, the employment rate is only tangentially relevant.

It should also be pointed out that the GOP was completely obliterated as a political party by that point. It simply didn't have enough national figures to mount an effective challenge. I mean Alf Landon? Seriously?

But don't you keep telling us that if the employment numbers don't improve, it won't matter who the republican candidate is, since Obama is doomed regardless? I mean, if you can say "Alf Landon? Seriously?", then why can't we say "Michelle Bachman? Seriously?"?

[diggerwam]

I have been saying that as long as progress is happening, I think Obama will win pretty easily (particularly against the current crowd of repubs). The problem, I think with the upcoming passage of the compromise, employment numbers probably won't improve. All this spending that is going to be cut will cost jobs, directly and indirectly. The private sector will never be able to absorb these govt employees (Fed & local) who will lose their jobs.

The upcoming compromise has to be passed, but there will be far more negative initial consequences than positive.

That said, it all depends who the repubs decide to run against Obama. He will be beatable, but not by the likes of Gingrich and Bachmann. I think Huntsman or Romney will be forced to have a teabagger VP. That might turn a lot of moderates off. Obama can be beat, I just don't think the repubs can straighten themselves out and actually do it.

[JimH52]

Unless unemployment drops before October 2012 to 8.5% or lower, Obama is a one term President. I cannot imagine any differently, although none of the present Republican candidates excite anyone.

[Leaper]

A thread of mine in this forum in which we discussed issues like this.

[42fish]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Ford's supposed "heavy baggage" was that he pardoned Nixon, but frankly, most sensible people at the time thought that was probably for the best, as a trial would have been a lot worse for the country, picking at an old scab.

Apparently, "sensible people" were in a minority during the 1976 election.

From the Gallup poll's website:
"A Sept. 6-9, 1974, Gallup Poll, which was in the field as the pardon was announced, found that only 38% of Americans said Ford should pardon Nixon, while 53% said he should not. There was little change in public support in additional polling conducted in 1976. By 1982, however, Americans were asked to look back on the pardon, and were more evenly divided in their views. By 1986, more than half of Americans (54%) said it had been the right thing to do."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26830/ame...l-pardons.aspx

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by 42fish

Apparently, "sensible people" were in a minority during the 1976 election.

From the Gallup poll's website:
"A Sept. 6-9, 1974, Gallup Poll, which was in the field as the pardon was announced, found that only 38% of Americans said Ford should pardon Nixon, while 53% said he should not. There was little change in public support in additional polling conducted in 1976. By 1982, however, Americans were asked to look back on the pardon, and were more evenly divided in their views. By 1986, more than half of Americans (54%) said it had been the right thing to do."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/26830/ame...l-pardons.aspx

Gallup is the same polling firm that had Carter winning the election of 1980... so I take that with a grain of salt.

Frankly, I live through that time, everyone was pretty happy to finally have Watergate, which had eaten up two years of everyone's time, finally behind them.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

I have been saying that as long as progress is happening, I think Obama will win pretty easily (particularly against the current crowd of repubs). The problem, I think with the upcoming passage of the compromise, employment numbers probably won't improve. All this spending that is going to be cut will cost jobs, directly and indirectly. The private sector will never be able to absorb these govt employees (Fed & local) who will lose their jobs..

Probably not. I mean, work would be an entirely new concept to them.


.

The upcoming compromise has to be passed, but there will be far more negative initial consequences than positive. .

Probably so. But when you increase the national debt by 40 in three years, that's kind of to be expected.


.

That said, it all depends who the repubs decide to run against Obama. He will be beatable, but not by the likes of Gingrich and Bachmann. I think Huntsman or Romney will be forced to have a teabagger VP. That might turn a lot of moderates off. Obama can be beat, I just don't think the repubs can straighten themselves out and actually do it.

Did the 2010 election not happen in your universe? Huntsman, the guy who used to work for Obama and is only polling at? 2% Really?

Bachmann I think is very viable. Gingrich, not so much. I still suspect Rick Perry is going to hop in and unite all the different factions, or at least that's what I hope happens.

[Recovering Republican]

Back to the premise that unemployment alone doesn't determine losers.

Okay, let's look at some of the other factors.

Looking at the four guys who were in the "dead zone" of 7%+, only Reagan won.

So let's look at other factors-

Gas prices. Ford had the after-effects of the 1974 Oil Shock. Carter had a second Oil Shock related to the fall of the Shah of Iran and the subsequent hostage crisis. Bush-41 had a similar problem with the Gulf War and the subsequent arson of the Kuwaiti oil fields by the retreating Iraqis.

Reagan, on the other hand, had a pretty easy time with oil. The Saudi kept the spigot open and the oil flowing. Gasoline was pretty cheap, and there was the advent of a lot of fuel efficient cars. (Many from Japan.)

So where does that put Obama?

Well, pretty much in the crapper. His pointless and unnecessary conflict with Libya has driven up the price of oil, along with his bowing to environmental extremists to limit oil exploration in this country.

[diggerwam]

My point is that any moderate middle of the road concilitory electable republican will be saddled with a tea party candidate for number two who will turn off more potential voters than they will actually bring to the table. I don't think a tea party-esque candidate can win a national election, I don't think they can get more than 35%.

[Chronos]

Ah, yes, Leaper, I had forgotten about that thread.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by diggerwam

My point is that any moderate middle of the road concilitory electable republican will be saddled with a tea party candidate for number two who will turn off more potential voters than they will actually bring to the table. I don't think a tea party-esque candidate can win a national election, I don't think they can get more than 35%.

..

But you'd probably be wrong.

Frankly, I know you guys think the TEA Party is made up of guys in white sheets, but really, they are mostly just average people who don't like paying half of what they make to government that isn't worried about their concerns and contemptuous of their values.

Now, some of this is misguided, because they will be the first ones to scream when a program the like is messed with. (Like the idiot who yelled at Obama "keep your government hands off my medicare!"). They should be mad at the multi-national corporations who've boxed up our manufacturing and shipped it overseas, but both parties have drunk the "Free Trade" koolaid that let this happen.

A lot will depend on who the candidate is. Take Mark Rubio. He beat the establishment pick, Charlie Crist, who then abandoned his own party and ran as an independent.

A charasmatic Tea Party candidate who appeals to people and seems like he or she can get the current mess fixed could win, regardless of how crazy she might sound.

[Koxinga]

I really don't want to participate in an All-Recovering-Republican-All-The-Time thread, but it seems this is the place to mention that Obama and his advisers look to me to be giving an impression of not only out of touch, but actively in denial. If Obama really believes Goolsbee's condescending nonsense about how Americans are too simple-minded to pay attention to unemployment figures, he looks set to not only to lose but to implode next year, the moment he's confronted with any serious challenge to his bubble of fantasy.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

I really don't want to participate in an All-Recovering-Republican-All-The-Time thread, but it seems this is the place to mention that Obama and his advisers look to me to be giving an impression of not only out of touch, but actively in denial. If Obama really believes Goolsbee's condescending nonsense about how Americans are too simple-minded to pay attention to unemployment figures, he looks set to not only to lose but to implode next year, the moment he's confronted with any serious challenge to his bubble of fantasy.

Why do you need to make it a personal issue, esepcially when you are essentially conceding I'm right?

The ironic thing was I was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt until fairly recently. I thought he was essentially right on health care and I think we do need to roll back the Bush Tax cuts. But his lack of concern on this issue, his arrogance in not realizing that the mood in the country has shifted.

I go back to Bill Clinton. When he lost congress in 1994, he went into "triangulation" mode. In short, he co-opted parts of the GOP agenda that suited him (deficit reduction, welfare reform) while opposing other parts that were not as popular. (Jesus, I'm using Clinton as a good example?) Same with Bush-43. He lost congress, but still found ways to get things done, like the surge, by co-opting parts of their message.

Obama seems to want to retreat into his "Happy Place" where 2010 didn't happen.

[Koxinga]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Why do you need to make it a personal issue, esepcially when you are essentially conceding I'm right?

'Cause you're a tiresome wanker who contributes nothing but insists on dominating the conversation. A blowhard. Someone who repels even those who'd be your ostensible allies in your wearisome little zero sum game.

Clear enough?

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

'Cause you're a tiresome wanker who contributes nothing but insists on dominating the conversation. A blowhard. Someone who repels even those who'd be your ostensible allies in your wearisome little zero sum game.

Clear enough?

I feel the anger rising within you...with every moment you become more my servant.... turn to the dark side!

Hey, hey, Mr. Moderator, what was that about not insulting other members again?

[Koxinga]

Since you won't visit the BBQ Pit thread dedicated in your name, I'm more than happy to risk a warning to tell you to your face that you are ruining this forum. BTW, idiot, I've been conservative likely longer than you've been alive.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Koxinga

Since you won't visit the BBQ Pit thread dedicated in your name, I'm more than happy to risk a warning to tell you to your face that you are ruining this forum. BTW, idiot, I've been conservative likely longer than you've been alive.

Unlikely.... since I'm about 50. Unless you are claiming you've been conservative since 1962 and Goldwater redefined it.

And frankly, the thing is, I used to be conservative, now I consider myself a pragmatist. I go with the solution that works. If the liberal idea works better, I support the liberal idea. If the conservative idea works better, I support the conservative idea.

[George Kaplin]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Frankly, I know you guys think the TEA Party is made up of guys in white sheets, but really, they are mostly just average people who don't like paying half of what they make to government that isn't worried about their concerns and contemptuous of their values.

Average people don't pay half of what they make to the government. They don't pay anything close to that. Not to mention that, for the vast majority of people, federal taxes have decreased under Obama. Right now, Americans are paying an historically low amount. Frankly, if you Teabag pussies just sacked the fuck up and started paying a little fucking tax for a change you wouldn't be so deep in the fucking hole. God, you people irritate me

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by George Kaplin

Average people don't pay half of what they make to the government. They don't pay anything close to that. Not to mention that, for the vast majority of people, federal taxes have decreased under Obama. Right now, Americans are paying an historically low amount. Frankly, if you Teabag pussies just sacked the fuck up and started paying a little fucking tax for a change you wouldn't be so deep in the fucking hole. God, you people irritate me

You know, this is one of those things I see, and it always amazes me.

Yup, working folks are probably only paying about 11% in income tax, and the wealthy do pay more.

But then when you get into all the other taxes - Social Security (6% and 6% matched by your employer) Medicare (1% and 1% matched by your employer) and State income tax (5% here in Illinois) Then you are getting closer about 23-30% depending on how you count it.

But wait, there's more. You have sales taxes, gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, alcohol taxes, fees, licenses, property taxes, and so on. Add those all up, and really, yeah, you are darned close to giving half of what you make to the government.

Now this is where I think "conservatives" have really fouled it up. They cut taxes before cutting government, and in effect, just made government more attractive. Look at all the goodies they get, and they don't have to pay for it.

[Bloodless Turnip]

Frankly, if you Teabag pussies just sacked the fuck up and started paying a little fucking tax for a change you wouldn't be so deep in the fucking hole. God, you people irritate me

I'm not a "Teabag pussy" but I'm going to reply to this anyway. So you're saying that more taxes will fix everything? How about a whole lot less spending out of the government? How about you pay more, since you think that's the right thing to do? I'm sure the government will be happy to cash that check you're going to send them.

[Chronos]

I should have known that even this thread wouldn't be able to stay on topic.

[twickster]

Koxinga, Recovering Republican, both of you need to stop the personal comments about each other or any other posters right now.

twickster, Elections moderator

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

No president has won since WWII with unemployment over 7.2%. Only one has won with it over 6%.

It must be nice to be able to make stew from one oyster.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by CaptMurdock

It must be nice to be able to make stew from one oyster.

Well, it's a pretty big oyster...


Also, please go back to my 1:55 post from yesterday, where I listed a whole bunch of other bread and butter kitchen table stats which look pretty bad for Obama.

At the end of the day it's this. This election will be decided by the independent voter who will look at 9.1 unemployment, which effects him directly even if he has a job. (bosses can skimp on raises, he always has to worry he can be replaced with someone who'll work cheaper.) He looks at his house, which is worth half of what he paid for it in 2007, but he's still has 25 years of mortgage payments and can't sell. It costs him $50.00 to fill up the gas tank.

And he's got a choice between Obama, who promised us sincerely that unemployment wouldn't rise above 8%, and Rick Perry (who has grown jobs in his state) or Mitt Romney (who produced a lot of private sector jobs and knows how to run a business.)

I'm not one of these jokers who thinks that Obama is a secret Kenyan plant by George Soros to destroy America. (Seriously, go to Town Hall some time, or RealClearPolitics). I do think what is obvious is that the man is out of his depth.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm not confident that enough Americans are confident that a Republican could do any better.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I'm not confident that enough Americans are confident that a Republican could do any better.

Then I would say that you are looking at it like a partisan.

Let's be clear. about 45% of the electorate will always vote for the Democrat, and about 45% will always vote for the Republican.

It's that 10% in the middle that swing it.

About 10 milion votes (of 130 million cast) separated Obama from McCain.

Really, you only need 5 million of those to switch sides or be fed up with Obama for the Republican to win.

When you count up all the people who are 1) Unemployed, 2) stuck in jobs they hate because there's really nothing better out there 3) like their jobs, but are frustrated that the poor economic conditions don't have wages keeping up with inflation- uh, yeah, I think you can find enough people to switch their vote.

[Chronos]

And you only need 5 million of those to be fed up with the Republicans for Obama to win. Your point?

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Then I would say that you are looking at it like a partisan.

A Canadian, actually.

Let's be clear. about 45% of the electorate will always vote for the Democrat, and about 45% will always vote for the Republican.

It's that 10% in the middle that swing it.

The electoral college muddies things up a bit, but granted.

About 10 milion votes (of 130 million cast) separated Obama from McCain.

Really, you only need 5 million of those to switch sides or be fed up with Obama for the Republican to win.

When you count up all the people who are 1) Unemployed, 2) stuck in jobs they hate because there's really nothing better out there 3) like their jobs, but are frustrated that the poor economic conditions don't have wages keeping up with inflation- uh, yeah, I think you can find enough people to switch their vote.

Yeah, but that doesn't address my point - are they likely to conclude that a Republic president will do better by them? I figure some percentage of the American electorate is always going to be unsatisfied but it's unclear to me that this consistently translates to voting out the incumbent (or least the incumbent's party). Are there significant numbers of dissatisfied Americans who voted Dole-Bush-Kerry-Obama in the last four elections and can be counted on to add <2012 Republican Candidate> in the next?

I guess time will tell, of course.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Chronos

And you only need 5 million of those to be fed up with the Republicans for Obama to win. Your point?

Republicans aren't in the White House. The running against Congress angle sometimes works, but not usually.

I can't emphasize this enough. Right now, Obama might be able to make a little traction by villifying Boehner the way Clinton villified Newt.

Except Obama isn't as crafty as Clinton and Boenher isn't a walking gaffe machine like Newt was then or is now. But let's say he actually is able to pull this off.

Well, it worked well for Clinton because Gingrich had to work hand in hand with Bob Dole, and Bob Dole was the nominee. It would be hard to link Boehner directly to any GOP hopeful except maybe Bachmann (because she's a Congressperson). More likely, the GOP will nominate a Governor. - Romney or Perry.

The second reason why this won't work. Besides having Ross Perot undermining Dole's base (again, something that won't be replicated this time), Clinton could point to a good economy. He brought unemployment down from 7.3 when he beat Bush-41 to 5.2.

[Recovering Republican]

@ Chronos -

Let me build on that past point. Approval of Congress almost always ends up being a reflection on the president. For instance, in November 2008, approval of Congress dipped to 18% while some 70% disapproved. Now, you would think that would have had serious consequences for Reed and Pelosi, but it didn't. Quite the contrary, the Dems made serious gains in both houses, even better than they did in 2006.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...roval-903.html

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

Originally Posted by Recovering Republican

Gasoline prices shot up 67% on Obama's watch.

Oh, this canard again. Obama doesn't set the price of gasoline; the market does. There is a rapidly expanding base, worldwide, of people ready to consume gasoline. The supply can't keep up with the demand, and likely never will. If you think paying $4.00 per gallon is bad, you haven't seen anything yet.

[Recovering Republican]

Originally Posted by Spectre of Pithecanthropus

Oh, this canard again. Obama doesn't set the price of gasoline; the market does. There is a rapidly expanding base, worldwide, of people ready to consume gasoline. The supply can't keep up with the demand, and likely never will. If you think paying $4.00 per gallon is bad, you haven't seen anything yet.

I'm sure I haven't...

ANd that's the point, isn't it?

No, he doesn't set the price, but he does have certain policies that have an effect.

1) He's the one who decided to make war in Libya, and then not really make war in Libya. So instead of stomping Khadafy like a cockroach or letting him finish off these rebels (who are chummy with Al Qaeda, so no great loss), he's made us a party to the stalemate.

2) Limiting Gulf Exploration- Not letting a good crisis go to waste.

3) ANWAR- can we finally all admit we don't give a flip about scrub grass in the frickin' tundra?

Now, those are all short term solutions. Long term, we need to wean ourselves off petroleum. But it's not like he's got any great ideas for that, either.

[Marley23]

The topic of this thread is unemployment, not gas prices, Congress, or the Ford and Clinton administrations.

[Bryan Ekers]

I'm kinda curious how much a president, any president, can be help responsible for economic indicators. I get that a lot of Americans want to blame (or credit) a president for bad news or good.

[Bloodless Turnip]

They can certainly be blamed for lying about them.

[MOIDALIZE]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I'm kinda curious how much a president, any president, can be help responsible for economic indicators. I get that a lot of Americans want to blame (or credit) a president for bad news or good.

Most of what the president can do is indirect, bully pulpit stuff. But there are a bunch of unfilled government positions in the Federal Reserve and other agencies that Obama could have filled via recess appointments, but didn't because he'd rather be the Grand Conciliator instead of the President.

[flickster]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

I'm kinda curious how much a president, any president, can be help responsible for economic indicators. I get that a lot of Americans want to blame (or credit) a president for bad news or good.

They can certainly be held accountable for both failed actions, such as the stimulus package, along with the perception of misdirected priorities. / interest, such as gun control or cap. & trade

[Chronos]

I guess gun control was just an arbitrary example there, just one possible thing that a President might hypothetically focus on rather than the economy?

[flickster]

Originally Posted by Chronos

I guess gun control was just an arbitrary example there, just one possible thing that a President might hypothetically focus on rather than the economy?

Not really...

Per Carney last week....

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future

Per Newsweek earlier this year

White House to Push Gun Control

[DoctorJ]

Presidential elections are rare events, rare enough that it's hard to extrapolate trends from them. Every Presidential election is the first time something happened.

It's possible to argue that Obama can't win with the unemployment rate where it is, but four data points spread out over nearly a century just don't make for compelling evidence.

[CaptMurdock]

Originally Posted by flickster

Not really...

Per Carney last week....

Obama To Unveil Gun Control Reforms In Near Future

Per Newsweek earlier this year

White House to Push Gun Control

Background checks. Oh dear Lordy, they comin' for us!