Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So many words, so much air...
1) Reagan was reelected because of a variety of reasons, unemployment being just one.
2) Trends are important but the the recession of the 1980s is nowhere near the gloom and doom that engulfs America in 2012. It was bad for many, but unlike today, 1980s was still viewed as temporary. In 1980s the US still had much of its industry and the national deficit was also different.
3) Obama may be reelected simply because republicans cannot bring a worthy opponent. Life sometimes is like that.
The article attempts to make a point by minimizing the effect of the actual unemployment rate. Ford wasn't an exception to the rule as the article suggests. The downward unemployment trend didn't help Ford because the actual rate was still 7.8%. In Ford's case, the decrease was too little, too late. That unemployment increased slightly didn't hurt Ike because the actual unemployment rate on election day 1956 was 4.3%.
Furthermore, not all trends are created equal. The 7.2% rate Reagan ran on in 1984 was the result of a 1.3% decline from the previous year. And that was a 2.3% decline from the year before. Reagan's 3.6% decline in two years is impressive, but Obama's 1.3% decline over two years is not. In fact, it suggests that the higher unemployment rates of Obama could be a permanent component of Obamanomics.
The article attempts to make a point by minimizing the effect of the actual unemployment rate. Ford wasn't an exception to the rule as the article suggests. The downward unemployment trend didn't help Ford because the actual rate was still 7.8%. In Ford's case, the decrease was too little, too late. That unemployment increased slightly didn't hurt Ike because the actual unemployment rate on election day 1956 was 4.3%.
Furthermore, not all trends are created equal. The 7.2% rate Reagan ran on in 1984 was the result of a 1.3% decline from the previous year. And that was a 2.3% decline from the year before. Reagan's 3.6% decline in two years is impressive, but Obama's 1.3% decline over two years is not. In fact, it suggests that the higher unemployment rates of Obama could be a permanent component of Obamanomics.
Agreed.
Predicting the outcome of the coming elections based on this trend is shaky at best. Even if Obama is reelected, it may simply be due to a weak republican candidate.
Yes, you're right, the 1984 economy and the 2012 economy are excatly the same. A 7.2 for Reagan is much better than a 7.2 for Obama, "the misery index" is excatly what voters will be focusing on..Yes, you've got it all figured out.
NOT!! Stop it with the spin. It's embarassing.
As stated perviously, the present recovery is a joke with unemployent declining at roughly one third the rate it was in 1983-84.
So what is your argument in favor of continuing Bummer's policies?
Agreed.
Predicting the outcome of the coming elections based on this trend is shaky at best. Even if Obama is reelected, it may simply be due to a weak republican candidate.
Well, with Gingrich still leading nationally and Romney sitting on a boatload of cash it's hard to see a scenario in which the nominee is too weak to ask "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?"
With a record number of Americans convinced we are on the wrong track, the election is theirs to lose.
[quote=Frozenyo;22451264 Unemployment was 9.8 percent in November 2010, two years before voters decide whether Obama gets to stay in the White House. It was down to 8.7 percent in November 2011, a year before the vote. It fell to 8.5 percent in December and is expected to fall further by Election Day."
More good news for The President and the American people.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not. Unemployment among Blacks has remained steady at 13.5, the same it was before the economy tanked. Those who fell for the hope and change mantra and expected the most from "their black president" ended up short changed, it seems. No improvement for them as far as jobs go.
You may feel a tingle go up your leg at the 8.5 unemployment figure, but it's a residual sensation, a leftover from the elections. They play with the numbers to get the democrat base re-energized. Let's face it, he needs something, considering his record. Hope you don't fall for it again.
That's the reason they have to ignore the current trend. With the jobless rate falling, all they're left with are social issues and there will never be enough social conservative votes to win a Presidential election.
The current trend is an average unemployment rate decline of 0.0615% per month.
Under Reagan the unemployment rate declined 0.138% per month.
The current trend you are crowing about will give you 7.9% unemployment on election day.
While higher than Reagan's 7.2%, that may good enough if the other economic factors are in line.
On election day 1984 voters had already seen more than a full year of reports of economic growth consistently over 8%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
