The economy

[m4567]

Where do you think the economy needs to be, for either Romney or Obama to win? I remember thinking a few months ago, that 8.3% unemployment on election day 2012 was kind of a dream. It's at 8.2% in April. Who knows where it'll be in October/November.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I think it will probably be a little worse, but who knows.

[Politico]

If modern history is any guide, 7.2% could be the key figure (i.e., the rate in November 1984). Ford, Carter and Bush lost with the figure at 7.8%, 7.5% and 7.4% respectively. It was at 5.4% when Clinton beat Dole and when Bush beat Kerry. It was 5.3% when Bush beat Dukakis (a third consecutive win for Republicans), and also when Nixon beat McGovern.

Of course, the rate of change (and obviously its direction) matters as do other issues. For example, the incumbent party was ousted with unemployment below 4% back in 2000 and 1968.

The bottomline: Obama is finished if we dip into another recession. If that does not happen, he is still in serious trouble if the past month repeats itself over the next six months.

[oakvale]

The idea that there's some magic number above which re-election impossible is silly. No President has won re-election with unemployment over x, until one does.

[Democratic Hawk]

If modern history is any guide, 7.2% could be the key figure (i.e., the rate in November 1984). Ford, Carter and Bush lost with the figure at 7.8%, 7.5% and 7.4% respectively. It was at 5.4% when Clinton beat Dole and when Bush beat Kerry. It was 5.3% when Bush beat Dukakis (a third consecutive win for Republicans), and also when Nixon beat McGovern.

Of course, the rate of change (and obviously its direction) matters as do other issues. For example, the incumbent party was ousted with unemployment below 4% back in 2000 and 1968.

The bottomline: Obama is finished if we dip into another recession. If that does not happen, he is still in serious trouble if the past month repeats itself over the next six months.

Unemployment as of January 1981 7.5%, as of November 1984 7.2% [Reagan re-elected in a landslide]

Unemployment as of January 2001 4.2%, as of November 2004 5.4% [Bush 43 re-elected with an increase in his PV and the EC] - $3 trillion in debt on the part of GWB to see the US economy through a whopping contraction, in 2001, of 0.3%. A few thousand net jobs - in the public sector. Unemployment was to fall to a low of 4.6%, so higher than when Clinton left office

Unemployment as of January 2009 7.6%, currently 8.3% - a counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus of $800 bn (the ARRA), which was perhaps too conservative a response, but its fallen from its October, 2009 peak. It remains to be seen what happens from now to November

Obama, in all fairness to him, not every president (in fact no president) has been dealt the sh**ttiest hand since that which Hoover dealt FDR, while the 'Monetarist Recession' of the early 1980s was a forced one as a consequence of some rigid dogmatic contractionary monetary policy, though, of course, the slaying of the dragon led to strong growth

Hopefully, enough has been done to avert a reprisal of the 'Great Depression' or even a 'double-dip' and hopefully, there'll be no repeat of the 'Crash of 2008' - because the cost of, and the necessary response to, ain't come cheap. It runs into trillions. That said, in the short-term, I'm wary of spending cuts and cannot in good conscience sanction such until unemployment is below 5% but the bills have got to be paid. I shudder to think of what may have befallen the US economy had "austerity" been the GOP solution from 2009

[Politico]

Improvements in technology (e.g., the Internet) had more to do with the growth of the 1990s than anything done by anybody in Washington. Furthermore, the repealing of Glass-Steagall, a bipartisan mistake made by Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, had more to do with the 2008 financial crisis than anything done by George W. Bush (and it pains me to defend the man, who never should have became POTUS, but his actions had far less to do with 2008 than the actions of Clinton in the 1990s. With that said, I still think Clinton was a better president than Bush even though serious mistakes were made by him with regards to domestic policy whereas Bush's blunders were in the foreign policy realm).

Correlation does not imply causation, and things aren't always what they seem.

[Democratic Hawk]

Improvements in technology (e.g., the Internet) had more to do with the growth of the 1990s than anything done by anybody in Washington. Furthermore, the repealing of Glass-Steagall, a bipartisan mistake made by Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress, had more to do with the 2008 financial crisis than anything done by George W. Bush (and it pains me to defend the man, who never should have became POTUS, but his actions had far less to do with 2008 than the actions of Clinton in the 1990s. With that said, I still think Clinton was a better president than Bush even though serious mistakes were made by him with regards to domestic policy whereas Bush's blunders were in the foreign policy realm).

Correlation does not imply causation, and things aren't always what they seem.

Clinton was the only president between 1981 and 2008. I rated. Yes, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake. I can understand why it happened. All seemed to be going so spectacularly well

Speaking of correlation and causation, it hasn't escaped by notice the 1% owned a greater % of wealth on the eve of the 'Crash of 2008' than at any stage since the the eve of the 'Crash of 1929'. And all that tells me is that prosperity needs to be broad-based. How can that be most effectively achieved? And, historically, its been Democrats - whether during the Keynesian era or the Hayekian era - who have delivered on that. Not to mention more robust economic growth. Not to mention more jobs created. Not to mention, post-1960, certainly, more stronger stock market performance

The 'Crash of 2008' and the ensuring Great Depression has turned the neoliberal mantra on its head yet for some reason you've by your own admission have moved right. Neither classical liberalism or Jeffersonian small-producer 'populism' are really in sync with the 21st century

[ModerateCoward]

11.0 - sure Romney win
8.0 - sure Obama win

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Why do the unemployment numbers matter? It's Mitt Romney. Obama's got this in the bag.

[ModerateCoward]

Why do the unemployment numbers matter? It's Mitt Romney. Obama's got this in the bag.

Because it's hard to get re-elected if there is a great depression, even if your opponent is an android?

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Unless we start seeing third party numbers up around 30 percent, this election is ovah.

[ModerateCoward]

Unless we start seeing third party numbers up around 30 percent, this election is ovah.

Are you delusional? The only way Mittens is getting elected if he gets over 20% of registered D vote, for which you need unemployment to be well over 10%.

[m4567]

Yeah, there probably isn't a magic number. It's more the perception of the economy, and who the candidates are.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

Are you delusional? The only way Mittens is getting elected if he gets over 20% of registered D vote, for which you need unemployment to be well over 10%.

A third party can win with around 30 percent. Mittens won't be beating Obama under any circumstances.

[ModerateCoward]

Are you delusional? The only way Mittens is getting elected if he gets over 20% of registered D vote, for which you need unemployment to be well over 10%.

A third party can win with around 30 percent. Mittens won't be beating Obama under any circumstances.

I know it's hard to imagine, but Mitt can win. Also southern bible-thumping conservatives are a dying breed.

[IDS Speaker Ben Kenobi]

I know it's hard to imagine, but Mitt can win. Also southern bible-thumping conservatives are a dying breed.

And I don't see how that trend helps Romney.

[Politico]

I know it's hard to imagine, but Mitt can win. Also southern bible-thumping conservatives are a dying breed.

And I don't see how that trend helps Romney.

Did you really think Rick Santorum had any chance in hell of winning the presidency? The man would not have broken 40% with women. You do realize that more women vote than men, right?

You've gotta be kidding suggesting Romney/O'Donnell. She's a witch who cost the GOP a seat in the Senate.