13 keys to the white house: Obama got re-election in the bag

On the Maddeningly Inexact Relationship Between Unemployment and Re-Election
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...d-re-election/
By NATE SILVER

Make no mistake: the higher the unemployment rate in November 2012, the less likely President Obama is to win a second term.

But we should be careful about asserting that there is any particular threshold at which Mr. Obama would go from favorite to underdog, or any magic number at which his re-election would either become impossible or a fait accompli. Historically, the relationship between the unemployment rate and a president’s performance on Election Day is complicated and tenuous.

An article in today’s Times notes, for example, that “no American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.” That was the unemployment rate in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan resoundingly won a second term.

This type of data may be of limited use for predictive purposes, however. Reagan won re-election by 18 points, suggesting that he had quite a bit of slack. An unemployment rate of 7.5 percent or even higher would presumably have been good enough to win him another term.

It’s also not obvious that Roosevelt should be excluded from the calculus, particularly given that the economic crisis the country is working its way out of now is the most severe since his administration. He won re-election in 1936 with an unemployment rate of 16.6 percent, and again in 1940 with a rate of 14.6 percent.

For Roosevelt, at least, the unemployment rate was headed in the right direction: down from 19.8 percent in 1933, the year he took office. This was also true for Reagan, although only barely so: he inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent from Jimmy Carter, seeing it drop to 7.2 percent in time for his re-election.

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama took office was 7.8 percent — and he may not follow in his predecessors’ footsteps by leaving it in a better place than he found it. As of last month, private forecasters like Wells Fargo and The Wall Street Journal’s forecasting panel were anticipating an unemployment rate close to 7.8 percent by late 2012. But those forecasts preceded a bevy of poor economic reports, which may lead some economists to lower their estimates.

Looking at unemployment in this way — as the rate of change over a president’s term — is probably the more worthwhile approach. But it, too, is not always reliable. Unemployment increased by 1.9 percentage points over the course of Richard M. Nixon’s first term, but he won re-election easily. It also increased in George W. Bush’s and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first terms, and their re-election bids were also successful. The unemployment rate fell to 3.9 percent from 5.3 percent, meanwhile, in Bill Clinton’s second term — but his vice president, Al Gore, could not beat Mr. Bush in the Electoral College.

There are also cases in which the data behaved more intuitively: Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush all faced high unemployment rates when they lost their re-election bids, as did Gerald R. Ford in 1976, and that was surely a factor in their defeats. But historically, the correlation between the unemployment rate and a president’s electoral performance has been essentially zero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 101A

Analyze all you want, if the Republicans put up a decent candidate, Obama will get thumped. He IS Carter v. 2.0 WITHOUT the peace accords!

---

:lol who would that be?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

On the Maddeningly Inexact Relationship Between Unemployment and Re-Election
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...d-re-election/
By NATE SILVER

Make no mistake: the higher the unemployment rate in November 2012, the less likely President Obama is to win a second term.

But we should be careful about asserting that there is any particular threshold at which Mr. Obama would go from favorite to underdog, or any magic number at which his re-election would either become impossible or a fait accompli. Historically, the relationship between the unemployment rate and a president’s performance on Election Day is complicated and tenuous.

An article in today’s Times notes, for example, that “no American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.” That was the unemployment rate in November 1984, when Ronald Reagan resoundingly won a second term.

This type of data may be of limited use for predictive purposes, however. Reagan won re-election by 18 points, suggesting that he had quite a bit of slack. An unemployment rate of 7.5 percent or even higher would presumably have been good enough to win him another term.

It’s also not obvious that Roosevelt should be excluded from the calculus, particularly given that the economic crisis the country is working its way out of now is the most severe since his administration. He won re-election in 1936 with an unemployment rate of 16.6 percent, and again in 1940 with a rate of 14.6 percent.

For Roosevelt, at least, the unemployment rate was headed in the right direction: down from 19.8 percent in 1933, the year he took office. This was also true for Reagan, although only barely so: he inherited an unemployment rate of 7.5 percent from Jimmy Carter, seeing it drop to 7.2 percent in time for his re-election.

The unemployment rate when Mr. Obama took office was 7.8 percent — and he may not follow in his predecessors’ footsteps by leaving it in a better place than he found it. As of last month, private forecasters like Wells Fargo and The Wall Street Journal’s forecasting panel were anticipating an unemployment rate close to 7.8 percent by late 2012. But those forecasts preceded a bevy of poor economic reports, which may lead some economists to lower their estimates.

Looking at unemployment in this way — as the rate of change over a president’s term — is probably the more worthwhile approach. But it, too, is not always reliable. Unemployment increased by 1.9 percentage points over the course of Richard M. Nixon’s first term, but he won re-election easily. It also increased in George W. Bush’s and Dwight D. Eisenhower’s first terms, and their re-election bids were also successful. The unemployment rate fell to 3.9 percent from 5.3 percent, meanwhile, in Bill Clinton’s second term — but his vice president, Al Gore, could not beat Mr. Bush in the Electoral College.

There are also cases in which the data behaved more intuitively: Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush all faced high unemployment rates when they lost their re-election bids, as did Gerald R. Ford in 1976, and that was surely a factor in their defeats. But historically, the correlation between the unemployment rate and a president’s electoral performance has been essentially zero.

---

interesting stuff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

interesting stuff

---

I hope he's the candidate because, his policies will probably not lower unemployment. If he has any hope of improving our economy, he's going to have to adopt some conservative economic policies. I don't see that happening, I believe he's fully invested in his losing strategy and too narcissistic to change.

That's where the "elder statesmen" come in. But, even there, they'll have to be black. Maxine "turn me loose" Waters perhaps?

Just a musing from an old man. Normally, I would say Obama is a cooked
goose in the upcoming election. But cries from Wisconsin keep ringing
in my ears. Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a
man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws
and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

What does this portend? What did Jimmy's boy say? "Take out these
Son's of Bitches". I have a feeling this is going to be an election like
none this country has ever witnessed. Normal rules of politics will not
apply. I am afraid blood will literally flow in the street of our land.

I pray I am wrong. I really do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xrayzebra

Just a musing from an old man. Normally, I would say Obama is a cooked
goose in the upcoming election. But cries from Wisconsin keep ringing
in my ears. Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a
man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws
and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

What does this portend? What did Jimmy's boy say? "Take out these
Son's of Bitches". I have a feeling this is going to be an election like
none this country has ever witnessed. Normal rules of politics will not
apply. I am afraid blood will literally flow in the street of our land.

I pray I am wrong. I really do.

---

Whatever it is, remember, they lost in Wisconsin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xrayzebra

Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

---

he's George Bush Jr.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

Whatever it is, remember, they lost in Wisconsin.

---

Exactly. And they learned a lesson. Never to let it happen again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xrayzebra

Just a musing from an old man. Normally, I would say Obama is a cooked
goose in the upcoming election. But cries from Wisconsin keep ringing
in my ears. Maybe I am wrong as two left feet, but Obama seems like a
man with few worries, to me anyhow. He is a man who flaunts the laws
and doesn't worry about consequences. He plays a game of rewarding
his friends and donors with no thought of consequences. He openly
defies the citizens of this country with no outward thought of consequences.

What does this portend? What did Jimmy's boy say? "Take out these
Son's of Bitches". I have a feeling this is going to be an election like
none this country has ever witnessed. Normal rules of politics will not
apply. I am afraid blood will literally flow in the street of our land.

I pray I am wrong. I really do.

---

Are you going to vote for rick perry? Exchange Obama's name with Perry's in your ramblings and you have the right wing version of him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro

Are you going to vote for rick perry? Exchange Obama's name with Perry's in your ramblings and you have the right wing version of him...

---

You know George, I don't know who I am going to vote for, except it wont
be for Obama. As far as I know no right winger has said take the
SOB's out or have they said the Left Wing of the Democrat party can
go to hell.

You call my musing's ramblings. Okay, maybe they are. But son at my
age I don't much care. I was expressing myself, while I still can, and one
way or the other I will be proven right or wrong. As I said, I hope I am
wrong. I really do. But riots in the streets are not unheard of in this
country. And this next election could be coast to coast, border to
border with all kinds of racial implications brought on by some who are
in power and don't want to relinquish it.

You can like it or not. It matters little to me what you think of my
"ramblings".

I again say, I hope I am wrong.

Oh, I forgot to add. Perry's admission of faith might indicate a threat
to you, it does to many. But to some, like me, it shows courage on his
part to admit to a higher being than himself.

Obama would never make that mistake. God that he is to himself and
his lessor believers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cheguevara

:lol who would that be?

---

There is not one in the race right now; which actually brings up the MOST important factor is whether or not a president wins reelection:

WHO HIS OPPONENT IS.

i'd like to hear more about these riots.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xrayzebra

You can like it or not. It Oh, I forgot to add. Perry's admission of faith might indicate a threat
to you, it does to many. But to some, like me, it shows courage on his
part to admit to a higher being than himself.

---

So in a country that has vastly more believers than non-believers, it's courageous to say you believe in god?

That's like saying it's courageous to come out heterosexual.

And blood in the streets? Are you out of your mind?

And by normal rules you mean we aren't going to have the Supreme Court throw out votes? No more misconduct? Sounds great to me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xrayzebra

And this next election could be coast to coast, border to border with all kinds of racial implications brought on by some who are in power and don't want to relinquish it.

---

What "racial implications"?

"What "racial implications"? "

Who always provokes class warfare?

Also, have you read this?

Mayor Bloomberg predicts riots in the streets if economy doesn't create more jobs

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/...#ixzz1Y8mBUTnr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clambake

i'd like to hear more about these riots.

---

You never change, do you. Still never contribute much to a conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vici

And blood in the streets? Are you out of your mind?

---

I'm not ready to say there will be widespread violence during the next election cycle but, anyone who discounts the possibility didn't live through the 60's.

can someone please tell me what will trigger these "racial riots"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hater

can someone please tell me what will trigger these "racial riots"?

---

i'm guessing ray gets it from rush. if his radio is as old as he is, it's probably stuck on one channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yonivore

I'm not ready to say there will be widespread violence during the next election cycle but, anyone who discounts the possibility didn't live through the 60's.

---

What do the 60s have to do with now? A possibility? Anything I guess is possible but this is so remote it's beyond stupid to even mention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vici

What do the 60s have to do with now? A possibility? Anything I guess is possible but this is so remote it's beyond stupid to even mention.

---

Well, the chief comparison between now and the 60's is how partisan and rancorous the two political parties have become.

But, my question is, why would they necessarily be race riots? I think they're more likely to be incited by unions.

Here's Mayor Bloomberg's take.

Mayor Bloomberg predicts riots in the streets if economy doesn't create more jobs

Bloomberg's take was not racial at all. As a matter of fact, he was talking about college graduates, and what happened in Cairo over unemployment.

Where's the "racial riots" again?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

Bloomberg's take was not racial at all. As a matter of fact, he was talking about college graduates, and what happened in Cairo over unemployment.

Where's the "racial riots" again?

---

I didn't say it was racial. In fact, I asked the same question as you. My point -- and I didn't even read the article -- prominent politicians are starting to talk about the current climate resulting in violence.