I know Bad is subjective, but how many US Presidents have been re-elected with a bad economy.
The only one I can think off is Obama, he was incharge for most of the Great Recession, but he avoided political blame for it.
Economy was good in 2004, 1996, 1984. What about 1972, 1964, 1956?
Pretty good in each year you mentioned. Not so good in 1936 (FDR), but on the upswing.
Also, what?? Obama took over just as the Great Recession was in full swing. He presided over the recovery from it, albeit slowly. (His 2012 bore some resemblance to FDR’s 1936).
Much commentary was spent over how Obama had a huge handicap to overcome in 2012. Maybe Americans were rational enough (yeah, like that’s possible) to understand that the Great Recession started under Bush, but Romney really blew it. The election was his to lose, and he lost it despite the issue you raise here.
What matters in an election is the trend, not the current state, so 2012 was a good (not great) economy for Obama.
The sitting President (and leader elsewhere) are always blamed for the economy, no matter how fair or unfair is. Obama managed to ensure that Bush II still got the blame (not improperly).
Despite the headlines, the article basically says that Obama won despite the economy, for the reason I have identified, the voters did not blame Obama for the economy.
When Obama was running in 2012, much was made of the statistic that no president had won reelection with unemployment greater than 7.7%, so that it was impossible for Obama to with with 8.2%. I would ask whether they happened to recall the electoral college margin for this candidate who barely squeaked by at this high unemployment rate and whether they actually believed that at a 0.5% increase in unemployment would have translated into the 256 electoral votes required for that candidate’s opponent to win.
McCain famously suspended his campaign to work on a solution to the growing financial crisis. It was well established that Obama inherited an absolutely terrible situation, so there’s no reason for anyone to see where things ended up after 4 years, when compared to the average past 50, as his fault at all. It was much more reasonable to compare it to the situation he was put into, and it was clearly getting better, especially when compared to what happened after the stock market crash in 1929.
Because in 2012, the economy was growing and unemployment was shrinking. That’s good for a president running for re-election, not bad. It wasn’t very good, but like in 2004 (another year where things were recovering a little sluggishly) it was enough to get the president just over the hump.
I was only 12 at the time but IIRC the economy was overall decent in 1972 (in spite of Nixons commie wage and price controls he implemented earlier) and contributed to his landslide reelection. It wasn’t until a year or 2 after then that inflation and unemployment really started to kick in.
To condense to as simple a form as possible, “are you better off now than you were four years ago?”. The simplistic assumption would be that anyone who answers “yes” to that question would vote for the incumbent, and that anyone who answers “no” to it would vote for the challenger. To what extent is this consistent with the data?
Someone named Chronos should understand that time is a vector, not a pair of momentary states. 
From my understanding, the health of the economy took a backseat to the Vietnam War as the most important issue of the 1972 campaign.
If you look at the statistics at the time, the economy was fairly ok when Nixon was reelected. Had he had the economy of 1976 I’m not so sure he would have fared as well.
That’s what I meant. The economy was stable enough in 1972 for it to be considered a secondary issue in the campaign to the Vietnam War.
Then the answer in 2012 would be, hell no. The worst of the foreclosures and layoffs happened when Obama was in Charge from 2009 onwards.
When a car goes over the cliff, do you blame the driver or the guy at the bottom?
Have you discovered a way to catch the car in mid-air?
As I said, not talking about whether Obama deserved blame or not, but whether the economy was bad in 2012 when he was up for reelection. Seems to be yes it was.
Interesting that you phrased it as “from 2009 onwards” since unemployment stopped increasing and started falling steadily again in 2010. By 2012 there had already been roughly two years of economic growth from the bottom point in the recession.