Here’s a fairly simple disproof, using only data going back to 1976.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/charter.exe/fedstl/unrate+1976+2003+0+0+1+290+545++0
Just by a simple inspection of the graph, it looks like Reagan wins.
Also worth noting is that the current increase in unemployment is similar to that of the early nineties, and nowhere near as bad as the early eighties.
Your are no fun, Desmo. I wanted to Reeder to prove his statement, not have it disproven by easily-gotten facts. Such as the fact that the US Beuraeu of Labor Statistics says that our current unemployment rate was matched, or higher, in 1958, 61, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 91, 92, 93, and 94.
As I’ve noted elsewhere, the Bushistas are attempting to spin the unemployment rate as a sign of economic recovery, like pennies on the patient’s eyes mean he’s getting better.
Do you have a link to an article or something, elucidator? I haven’t seen anything about it yet.
Look, elucidator, obviously the economy hasn’t recovered yet, and might not recover before the election. But really, we aren’t having historically high unemployment. Don’t you remember the 70s and early 80s? Remember double digit unemployment? Now THAT was a recession. Kids today, I don’t know what they’re coming to.
I know, things suck compared to the late 90s bubble, but unemployment isn’t that bad…except in the high-tech sector.
Oh, one more point. I want to complain about the graph Desmostylus linked to. I hate, hate, HATE graphs that truncate the bottom. That graph chops off the bottom 3%. What that does is make the unemployment rate appear much more volatile than it really is. It is a subtle form of manipulation, but I really really hate it.
We aren’t having historically high unemployment, but we are losing jobs rather than gaining them. The last president who presided over an economy that lost jobs was Hoover.
All the presidents since Hoover have created more jobs during their presidency except Bush.
I believe the average American probably leans to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues but doesn’t bother to vote so long as peace and prosperity are the status quo. To the extent we currently enjoy neither, the incumbents are guaranteed to be toast.
Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 – Republicans like to pretend that was a technicality, but in fact it was a coup. Americans accepted the Supreme Court’s arbitration of the election to maintain an orderly succession of power, but it would be foolish to misconstrue civic-mindedness as any kind of public mandate.
Second, if I’m not mistaken the war in Iraq just exploded into a constitutional crisis. The administration has been criticised right and (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/060303A.shtml) since the weapons of mass destruction whose wherabouts they claimed to know never materialized, but the flashpoint occurred when the Bush administration admitted today that the President’s State of the Union address on January 18 contained a palpable lie.
Yes, though the American public needn’t consider any administration particularly extremist to turn them out of office.
This isn’t Italy: we don’t change our government like yesterday’s underwear. Americans will express their consensus of the Bush administration at the ballot box.
You mean like this?
Bush’s Record on Jobs: Risking Unhappy Comparisons
The New York Times ^ | July 3, 2003 | DAVID LEONHARDT
For George W. Bush, the race has begun to escape comparisons to Herbert Hoover.
With more than two million jobs having disappeared since Mr. Bush took office in January 2001, he finds himself in danger of becoming the first president since Hoover to oversee a decline in the country’s employment. Economists disagree on how much blame, if any, Mr. Bush deserves for the long slump, but even White House aides view the economy as one of the only big threats to his re-election campaign.
Even if the economy merely adds jobs at the average rate of the last 50 years, he will rank roughly in the middle of modern-era Republican presidents, who have held office during weaker periods of job growth than Democrats.
Employment gains would have to average about 120,000 a month for the American work force to return by the end of next year to its size in January 2001.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House Democratic leader, has begun summarizing Mr. Bush’s economic record as “$3 trillion deeper in debt, 3 million fewer jobs.” (While private-sector payrolls have fallen by more than 3 million, the overall decline has been 2.4 million because of government hiring.)
Speaking of palpable lies:
**JULY 10 2003: Bush need not apologize over Iraq-uranium statement, Powell says** (Associated Press)
Powell said the line in Bush’s speech reflected the best available intelligence at the time. Days later, as Powell prepared his Feb. 5 speech on Iraq to the United Nations, the secretary said he decided not to use the information.
**MARCH 14 2003: Fake Iraq documents ‘embarrassing’ for U.S.** (CNN)
*The documents, given to International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, indicated that Iraq might have tried to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger, but the agency said they were “obvious” fakes.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell referred to the documents directly in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council outlining the Bush administration’s case against Iraq.*
I’m not sure I ever trusted Bush, but et tu, Powell? Et tu?
I used to be of the opinion that Powell was a fundamentally decent human being who was sadly mixed up with a bad crowd Bush et al and toeing a party line rather then believing it. I would still like to think that but he has lied for a bad cause and cant escape his share of responsibility.