Effect of the latest jobs report?

Politics & Elections
1

It’s not that good, so it’s objectively, at the very least, not good for the President’s reelection chances. But it’s approached from different viewpoints: Fox Business’ article, of course, crows about it, saying that Vegas must be “slashing” Obama’s reelection chances. The AP “opines” that:

And, of course, the President is talking about other factors involved while Romney is pointing all ten fingers directly at the White House.

So how much of an impact will this have? I mean, it IS still over five months to Election Day, and people keep talking about voters’ short memories. If the economy at least LOOKS like it’s improving from where it is in October, I can’t see how that can’t help Obama’s chances to at least some extent.

What say y’all?

2

I think in a straight choice between Romney and Obama right now, voters will still lean toward Obama. In a good or even neutral economy I think Obama wins. This jobs report is bad the low job creation number actually means our unemployment rate increased, because each month the number of jobs has to at least match the number of new people entering the workforce to avoid an increase in the unemployment rate. However I don’t think it’s bad enough to change my long held prediction that Romney can’t beat Obama in present circumstances.

For Obama to get beat by the economy it has to be in genuinely bad shape, a genuine recession that is unambiguous and resulting in real GDP shrink. In those environments incumbents can be toppled even when they are otherwise popular.

In the present environment, with a weak candidate against him and a GOP that I feel is currently pursuing policies that alienate too much of the moderates with excessive pandering to the far right Obama can survive a stagnant economy. I don’t know if he could survive a full fledged recession, but that isn’t there yet–nor can we say for sure we’re heading into recession. (As always, if you think you know for sure where the economy is headed you can get rich, so put your money where your mouth is.)

3

(I should’ve also mentioned that the AP story - can’t find it right now, sorry - makes explicit connection to the Euro concerns I mentioned earlier, under the same logic I use in the OP there: good/middling economy = Obama wins, bad economy = Obama loses, Euro collapse = bad economy, ergo…)

4

I expect the Republicans will pursue their “jobs, jobs, jobs!” agenda by passing another bill restricting abortion.

5

I’m not sure of the effect, especially given the time remaining until the election; things can change literally overnight that can have a large impact on the vote.
Of COURSE Fox and their die-hard base see this latest report as (or at least will tirelessly promote the spin that it represents) yet another nail in the coffin of the “WORST PRESIDENT EVER!!!” :rolleyes:

Who gives a flying fuck? Fox is the propaganda arm of the GOP and its core base of viewers/readers will continue to ignore any facts which make this President look good and crow over any that make him look bad (and in reality, are likely to be ignorant of any facts which benefit Obama, given their primary source of “news”).

Their minds will not change, not even if Obama shits gold and cures cancer singlehandedly (they’d accuse him of undermining the gold markets and putting oncologists out of work).

Similarly, most die-hard Obama supporters are not likely to be swayed by these latest numbers.

I can speak for myself, being such a supporter (though I suppose there *are *things he could do which would put me off him and send me back to voting other-party like the unaffiliated voter I am, lo’ these last 20 yrs or so, but it would take a LOT for me to defect, given the only other viable alternative to 4 more years:eek:)

What I see when I look at this latest report is a continuation, however slow and disappointing, of 27 straight months of steady private sector job growth during which over 4 million private sector jobs have been created.

And that sure beats the hell out of the 8.8 million we LOST in about 2 years of private sector job elimination under and immediately following Bush.

Especially considering that Romney et al are offering more of the SAME policies (economic, trade, foreign) that got us into the ditch to begin with. Reversing course at this point seems to me just about the STUPIDEST and most DANGEROUS thing we could do.

I also see the obstruction in Congress and nationwide as Republicans and Tea Partiers elected during the mid-terms do their damnedest to undermine the recovery (including purging public sector jobs nationwide to sustain and raise the unemployment rate, blocking tax and other job-creating reforms and stimulus spending).
The ones to worry about are the rest of us; those who don’t really follow politics or economics all that closely and aren’t terribly passionate about core priciples or ideology. They are the ones the Right seeks to influence through the tactic of “repeating the lies often enough that people believe them.” (to paraphrase the Nazi credo).

And the ones the Left hopes to influence by repeating the facts in support of Obama as often as possible (yes, I am biased; already admitted it).

They are the ones most likely to switch loyalties based on how much they are paying for a gallon of gas or on that campaign commercial they saw last week.

And they probably represent the largest single segment of the electorate.

So hard to say what the immediate or (more importantly) ultimate effect will be.
For me, it is hard to wrap my brain around the idea that the majority of voters will buy the ideas that we are WORSE off now than 4 years ago and/or that the GOP is offering anything which would make things BETTER. :confused:

6

In what ways are we better off? For example, unemployment is much higher than 4 years ago. If we allow you to fast forward to January 2009 as your comparison point, then unemployment is still higher now than it was then.

The stock market (S&P 500) is lower. House values are lower. Real household incomes are lower.

Maybe you have some different metrics that show that are we not worse off. If so, enlighten us.

7

You’re crazy.

The plan is to create full employment by creating thousands of jobs for Birth Certificate Inspectors.

8

I suppose it’s inevitable that someone will open a thread like this every month until the election. But it’s not going to matter until September.

9

Seconding amarone’s question: what metrics, specifically, are you relying on?

10

Likewise, the Board Liberals will continue to ignore any facts which make this President look bad, and crow over anything they can possibly spin into a positive (and in reality, are likely to be ignorant of any facts which benefit Romney, given their shameless agenda whoring).

Their minds will not change, not even if Obama tortures kittens and causes cancer singlehandedly (they’d applaud him for providing entertainment and creating jobs for oncologists).

11

So is there any sort of news, economic or otherwise, that will make a difference before then? (Within reason, of course; if Obama or Romney went on a televised killing spree that culminated in a French kiss with Fred Phelps, I suppose that would legitimately and permanently harm that man’s chances.)

12

I don’t watch FOX, but every news show I listened to today, including PBS’s NewsHour, raised the question about this report and Obama’s election chances.

LEAPER: If we had a major terrorism attack, that would probably affect the election. But I think most people are going to base their views on pretty much all current events by what things are like in the fall, near the time of the election.

13

So given your statement above, you believe that the jobs report is both a legit topic of discussion wrt the election and that its impact will probably be minimal?

14

No. I think that all news outlets pimp the news, and the idea that it’s only FOX raising this issue is silly.

15

I don’t know how much this particular jobs report will affect the economy, but any bad economic news is a double economic whammy, in that it is both bad news by itself and reduces Obama’s chances of election by whatever degree. He’s better for the economy, so it’s a vicious circle.

Which isn’t to say he’s an economic powerhouse: he hasn’t had enough cooperation from Congress to put his policies to a real test (to put it mildly.) But compared to the party that has consistently tried to destroy the American economy, he’s pretty fucking great.

16

Based on what evidence?

17

“Our number one goal is to make Obama a one term president”. Therefore, the economy is by definition second on the agenda. There’s more but it’s so obvious as to not merit further attention.

18

Well, the second part of that is never strictly essential, is it? A POTUS running for re-election during a recession always has a disadvantage, regardless of what his opponent is offering.

19

OMG, this endless pedantic parsing of a one-off unprepared statement–and it can only mean one thing folks–is SO fucking tiresome at this point.

“The economy is our highest priority, and we believe Obama is disastrous for the economy. Therefore our number one goal is to make him a one-termer.” Explain why that’s not a valid way to interpret the statement. I’m not even saying that’s what he meant. I’m asking why your interpretation must be true and not this one.

As soon as someone quotes McConnell as proof that Republicans would accept anything or subordinate anything so long as Obama loses, IMO, he has nothing to offer. It’s a lazy, dishonest debating tactic.

20

Well, I have a neat little proof that Obama is better for the economy, but I don’t have space in the margin to write it.