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%.
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.
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.
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.
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?”?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
Probably not. I mean, work would be an entirely new concept to them.
.
Probably so. But when you increase the national debt by 40 in three years, that’s kind of to be expected.
.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
