I will be able to tell you by July 2012 whether Obama will be reelected or not

[Mr.Phips]

The reason is that the movement of the unemployment rate in the second quarter(March to June) of every Presidential election but one(1956) has predicted the winner of the Presidential race.  If the unemployment rate falls during this period, the incumbent party holds the White House.  If it stays the same, the incumbent party loses narrowly.  If it rises, the incumbent party loses in a landslide.

Year     change in unemployment in second quarter      incumbent party win/loss %

2008      +.4%                                                               -7%
2004      -.2%                                                                +3%
2000       0                                                                      0
1996       -.2%                                                               +8%
1992       +.4%                                                               -6%
1988       -.3%                                                                +7%
1984       -.6%                                                               +19%
1980       +1.3%                                                             -9%
1976        0                                                                    -2%
1972       -.1%                                                                +23%
1968        0                                                                      -1%
1964        -.2%                                                                 +23%
1960        0                                                                      -1%
1956        +.1                                                                   +16%
1952        +.1                                                                   -12%
1948        -.4%                                                                 +4%


This test has worked in 15 out of 16 elections or 94% of the time.

[King]

Cool story bro.

[pbrower2a]

The reason is that the movement of the unemployment rate in the second quarter(March to June) of every Presidential election but one(1956) has predicted the winner of the Presidential race.  If the unemployment rate falls during this period, the incumbent party holds the White House.  If it stays the same, the incumbent party loses narrowly.  If it rises, the incumbent party loses in a landslide.

Year     change in unemployment in second quarter      incumbent party win/loss %

2008      +.4%                                                               -7%
2004      -.2%                                                                +3%
2000       0                                                                      0
1996       -.2%                                                               +8%
1992       +.4%                                                               -6%
1988       -.3%                                                                +7%
1984       -.6%                                                               +19%
1980       +1.3%                                                             -9%
1976        0                                                                    -2%
1972       -.1%                                                                +23%
1968        0                                                                      -1%
1964        -.2%                                                                 +23%
1960        0                                                                      -1%
1956        +.1                                                                   +16%
1952        +.1                                                                   -12%
1948        -.4%                                                                 +4%


This test has worked in 15 out of 16 elections or 94% of the time.

I try to look for correlation... and with some of the extreme results something more than the change of unemployment was going on. 1952 and 1956 have the same level of change in unemployment  yet wildly-different results for the incumbent Party... -12% and +16%. There is something else going on. Rake out those wins and losses of more than 10%, the ones in which something other than economic news trumps reality, and the number goes from 15 of 16 to 11 of 11. Eisenhower could have won in 1956 and LBJ could have won in 1964 if unemployment had in fact increased.

Rapid increases in unemployment would seem prima facie to indicate incompetence in managing the economy, with management of the economy as one of the primary concerns of the electorate. Falling unemployment may indicate that people are getting jobs, but it could also indicate that people are giving up. Rising unemployment can indicate mass loss of jobs, but it can also indicate people who have been out of the workforce seeking jobs.

1980 was arguably the roughest one on the list. At the very time when millions of young adults were entering the workforce, the government was trying to slow inflation through contractionary measures. Ouch!  By 1984 those had their effect -- at the price of falling real wages. But that said, at least restaurant meals were cheap because we had millions of talented people doing menial work and doing it well even if they hated their lives.

2012 will be vastly different from 1984 in that there is no obvious new industry capable of sopping up millions of workers at substandard wages as the fast-food business could. Even the fast-food business could shrink! Sure, it is possible to create jobs, but only if the total remuneration is held steady or is allowed to shrink.  In essence, one person's gained job depends upon others getting commensurate pay and benefit cuts. Working people could do better to keep as many people out of the workforce as possible -- perhaps by taking in Grandma from the Home for the Senile and Incontinent and letting unemployed family members get room, board, and an allowance while Social Security remains in the family. Of course if that happens enough times then the Home for the Senile and Incontinent might have to lay off people, increasing unemployment in the process.

People may be recognizing that these are the hardest times since the 1930s -- with a similar cause. More relevant may be the period 1930-1940. It could be that the paid workforce must shrink, lest wages become a travesty.
  

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

You know who else they thought would lose in July?



And:

[Mr.Phips]

You know who else they thought would lose in July?



And:

The unemployment numbers said differently.

[Pheurton Skeurto]

So basically these numbers suggest that if unemployment keeps plummeting, Obama will do better and better in the general. Huh.

[milhouse24]

Well 9.1% in May is pretty high, if it stays above 9% then Obama is gone either way. 

I'm not even sure if it drops, unless it is below 8% then Obama has a chance. 

Basically Obama is out no matter what and 2 months is not going to improve the unemployment figures,  I think hiring slows in the summer as well, unless you count part-time farm work.

Only one year left of the Obama administration, time to go for broke while you still have a chance Barry!

[TheGlobalizer]

Thank god I don't actually have to think about my vote.  Hooray for economic determinism!

[The Mikado]

Someone 4 years ago: "I can tell you who will win in 2008: the candidate that's not a Senator.  History shows that Senators don't win."

[King]

Someone 4 years ago: "I can tell you who will win in 2008: the candidate that's not a Senator.  History shows that Senators don't win."

That was Carl.

[milhouse24]

Someone 4 years ago: "I can tell you who will win in 2008: the candidate that's not a Senator.  History shows that Senators don't win."

But your thinking is flawed because they were BOTH Senators - Senator McCain and Senator Obama. 

Perhaps, it would be the one that's been a Senator the shortest?  Or the one who is not a geriatric?  Or the one who is not half-black? 

But unemployment numbers indicate real people, real voters, with real problems, that the current President is incapable of solving, whether rightly or wrongly, he will be seen as the scapegoat.  In sports, if the team hasn't been winning for the past 4 years, are you going to keep the Manager/coach around for another 4 years?  Probably not. 

[Kevin]

So basically these numbers suggest that if unemployment keeps plummeting, Obama will do better and better in the general. Huh.

I see the employment rate as going ether way but overall things suggest a stagnated economy.

The unemployment rate was steadily going down until the beginning of this year, and it has been gradually increasing again especially on a wave of domestic and international bad economic news like the plummeting housing market and the financial troubles in Europe.

However to simply base this all on unemployment figures would be too simplistic, as other other factors like the bad housing/property market, debt, fluctuating energy prices, the effects of international economic events, and other unresolved issues are going to play into this election. So this would be somewhat unsimilar in my opinion to past elections like 2004, etc when these problems didn't exist or weren't at the level that they are at now. 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This shows just how massively de-stablising the GFC was the US economy... it was a foundational blow.

[freepcrusher]

there are some days i secretly hope that obama loses in 2012. The republicans get the hot potato that is the economy passed to them in 2012 and a great depression (15+% unemployment) happens under them. Then the democrats gain 100 seats in house in 2014, and a few in the senate too, to set up another new deal coalition.

[milhouse24]

there are some days i secretly hope that obama loses in 2012. The republicans get the hot potato that is the economy passed to them in 2012 and a great depression (15+% unemployment) happens under them. Then the democrats gain 100 seats in house in 2014, and a few in the senate too, to set up another new deal coalition.

Is this kinda like in 2006 and 2008 when Democrats said they would be in the majority for decades?  How many seats did they gain in 2006 and 2008?

[TheGlobalizer]

there are some days i secretly hope that obama loses in 2012. The republicans get the hot potato that is the economy passed to them in 2012 and a great depression (15+% unemployment) happens under them. Then the democrats gain 100 seats in house in 2014, and a few in the senate too, to set up another new deal coalition.

Or he could, you know, do something to improve things, and show the value of his propositions.

From a fiscal conservative's point of view, it all looks like this:

• GOP-created problem due to lack of commitment to fiscal conservatism
• Major GOP losses due to the above
• Dem failure to correct problem due to lack of commitment to fiscal conservatism
• Major Dem losses due to the above
• Pending: Election of leader with commitment to fiscal conservatism