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.
Absolutely. Voters care more about the rate of change in unemployment than the actual unemployment.
I have been saying this for awhile (not here, obviously). If the unemployment rate drops below 7%, then Obama will be a shoe in. Heck, even if it drops below 8%, it will help him and make it more difficult for a Republican to win the Oval Office.
However, if the UE rate starts to climb, then Obama will have a much tougher challenge keeping his job.
And what's going to happen to the discouraged unemployed if they start seeing the UE rate drop? They re-enter looking for work and they'll increase the UE %.
The labor participation rate at this point is the lowest it's been since 1984.
And what's going to happen to the discouraged unemployed if they start seeing the UE rate drop? They re-enter looking for work and they'll increase the UE %.
Yep. This is why I don't think there will be significant improvements in the UE rate even if the economy does improve significantly (not that I expect it to).
Interesting hypothesis, we will see in November 2012!
If the Rs choose Romney, I do think the economy will be important. Regardless of what people think of him, Romney does seem like a shrewd businessman, and it Mr. O cannot pull it out of the fire, they may want to try him.
I always find it interesting that when numbers/trends don't add up to support what conservatives hope for, they claim they're meaningless. They've spent the last 2 years claiming that Obama can't win with an unemployment rate above ____. Now that things are improving, and the current trend supports his likelyhood of reelection, magically trends don't matter. Got to love conservatives and their hypocricy.
Reagan was the only modern president since FDR to win reelection with unemployment over 7.2%, but that number is just part of the economic picture. GDP was 7-9% for the entire year preceding the 1984 election. Inflation declined ten points and the misery index was cut in half. This proved Reaganonmics worked!
Today, in spite of record federal spending, bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus programs, unemployment is declining at half the rate it was back then, inflation is rising and the misery index which was below 8% when Bummer came into office now stands at 12%. So where's the proof that Obamanomics has been a success?
Reagan was the only modern president since FDR to win reelection with unemployment over 7.2%, but that number is just part of the economic picture. GDP was 7-9% for the entire year preceding the 1984 election. Inflation declined ten points and the misery index was cut in half. This proved Reaganonmics worked!
Today, in spite of record federal spending, bailouts and trillion dollar stimulus programs, unemployment is declining at half the rate it was back then, inflation is rising and the misery index which was below 8% when Bummer came into office now stands at 12%. So where's the proof that Obamanomics has been a success?
2% GDP?
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.
Interesting hypothesis, we will see in November 2012!
If the Rs choose Romney, I do think the economy will be important. Regardless of what people think of him, Romney does seem like a shrewd businessman, and it Mr. O cannot pull it out of the fire, they may want to try him.
He is shrewed. He fires workers, rehires them at lower wages without benefits then resigns with a lifelong multi-million dollar pension. Just the shrewed businessman the American people are looking for I reckon.
momonkey, Reagan, like Obama, was aided by both a personality edge vs other pols, and with the exception of Romney, both opposing parties featured very weak candidates in both 1984 and 2012.
That matters deeply. I'm not sure if we could set both mens ages to reasonable levels via a time machine, Reagan could have beaten Clinton in either 92 , and definitely not in 96.
The amazing thing about the last several decades is I have yet to see both parties feature strong candidates. There have been Reagan and Clinton, but in all 4 elections, the opponents ran Divison II candidates. I doubt very much either party has the guts to run a strong candidate against an incumbent with a good record, especially with a good economy.
From the standpoint of mimicking the great Celtic-Laker 80s rivalry, Clinton vs Reagan would have been fun simply to watch. Perhaps Ali vs Frazier would have been an even better analogy.
We keep getting races with at least 1 turkey, and IMO, in 2000 and 2004, we had 2 turkeys each.
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.
