The biggest reason Obama could lose in 2012 is . . .

[Dos Equis]

the unemployment rate being over 7.2 percent.  Heard someone say today that no president has won reelection when the unemployment rate is over 7.2 percent.  Found this 2008 article that seems to confirm the importance of this threshold.

Unemployment and presidential elections 
By 12:30 a.m., Sunday, May 25, 2008

With overwhelming majorities of voters and other survey respondents telling pollsters that the economy is the most important issue during the 2008 election year, the unemployment rate, as it has in comparable periods, will play a major role in the presidential election. As history has demonstrated, not only will the level of the unemployment rate be a major factor; so, too, will its trend.

The April unemployment rate was 5 percent, which is relatively low by historical standards. Indeed, the current unemployment rate is comfortably below the average unemployment rates for the 1970s (6.2 percent), the 1980s (7.3 percent) and the 1990s (5.75 percent). The April unemployment rate of 5 percent is the same as the 2000-07 average rate.

The April unemployment rate is also near or below prevailing unemployment rates in November of many presidential-election years. The November unemployment rates for elections since 1960 were as follows: 6.1 percent (1960), a recession year when John F. Kennedy defeated two-term Vice President Richard Nixon; 4.8 percent (1964), when President Lyndon Johnson won a full term after completing Kennedy’s first term; 3.4 percent (1968), when Nixon defeated then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey; 5.3 percent (1972), when Nixon won a second term in a landslide over George McGovern; 7.8 percent (1976), when Jimmy Carter defeated incumbent Republican President Gerald Ford, who replaced Nixon after he resigned; 7.5 percent (1980), a recession year when Ronald Reagan defeated Mr. Carter; 7.2 percent (1984), when Reagan won re-election in a landslide over Walter Mondale; 5.3 percent (1988), when then-Vice President George H.W. Bush succeeded Reagan by beating Michael Dukakis; 7.4 percent (1992), when Bill Clinton defeated incumbent Bush; 5.4 percent (1996), when Mr. Clinton won re-election by beating Bob Dole; 3.9 percent (2000), when George W. Bush defeated then-Vice President Al Gore; 5.4 percent (2004), when President Bush won re-election by beating John Kerry.

According to the preceding review of the last 12 presidential elections, today’s unemployment rate of 5 percent is lower than nine and higher than three (1964, 1968 and 2000). Interestingly, the party out of power won the White House in 1968 and 2000 when the unemployment rate (3.4 percent in 1968 and 3.9 percent in 2000) was well below today’s rate of 5 percent. What is especially striking about the prevailing unemployment rate for the 2000 election (3.9 percent) is the fact that Mr. Gore failed to retain the White House for the Democratic Party despite the fact that the unemployment rate (and, for that matter, the budget balance as well) improved for eight consecutive years during the Clinton-Gore administration. During the 1968 campaign, the Vietnam War overshadowed the fact that the unemployment rate for the September-November period (3.4 percent) was the lowest it had been since October 1953.

On Election Day 1972, 1988, 1996 and 2004, the unemployment rate stood between 5 percent and 6 percent. In all four cases, voters retained the party occupying the White House. Three times they re-elected the president (1972, 1996 and 2004); and once voters promoted his vice president (1988).

On Election Day 1960, 1976, 1980, 1984 and 1992, the unemployment rate was higher than 6 percent. In four of those elections, voters evicted the party occupying the White House. Only in 1984, when the November unemployment rate stood at 7.2 percent, did the incumbent party retain the White House. That accomplishment perfectly illustrates the role that the trend in the unemployment rate plays. While the level of the unemployment rate on Election Day in 1984 (7.2 percent) was relatively high by the Election Day standards, the fact is that the monthly unemployment rate had not been lower than 7.2 percent since April 1980.

Moreover, the unemployment rate had plunged 3.6 percentage points from its cyclical peak of 10.8 percent that had been reached two years earlier (November 1982), which coincided with the bottom of the deepest post-World War II recession. During 1980 and 1992, when incumbent presidents resoundingly lost their bids for re-election despite the fact that the November unemployment rates (7.5 percent in 1980 and 7.4 percent in 1992) were not much higher than November 1984’s 7.2 percent, the unemployment rate had been steadily climbing for some time. Specifically, the jobless rate increased from 5.7 percent in July 1979 to 7.8 percent a year later and from 5.2 percent in June 1990 to 7.8 percent in June 1992.

If the rate continues to rise between now and November, Republican John McCain will likely have difficulty retaining the White House for his party. That would be true even if the jobless rate tops out at 5.3 percent or 5.4 percent (the two levels at which voters retained the White House party four out of four times since 1972). If the economy falls into recession (if it has not already done so), Mr. McCain’s chances will deteriorate further. Since 1960, voters ousted the party occupying the White House during the two presidential-election years that the economy was in recession (1960 and 1980).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/25/unemployment-and-presidential-elections/

[andreisdaman]

this makes sense..I kinda agree with this

[Soul Crusher]

UE is still at 9%, still far higher than when obama came in to office.   

[240 is Back]

good points - BUT - what was the ENTITLEMENT rates in those years?

If you gave 2% more unemployed people - but 5% more people getting a govt check for doing nothing - then he might be good.

Perhaps he knows this 7% figure and has been pushing for entitlements so hard as a means for offsetting the UE rate.   Hell, anyone getting an Obama check (when they know the repub will cancel it) is going to vote Dem. 

[Dos Equis]

GOP ties job numbers to anti-tax stance in debt talks
By Alan Silverleib, CNN
July 8, 2011

Washington (CNN) -- Top congressional Republicans on Friday used the new dismal jobs report to blast Democrats' push for more tax revenue in the ongoing debt ceiling negotiations, arguing that such a move would derail an already shaky economic recovery.

Federal officials reported Friday that the economy added only 18,000 jobs in June -- far below the number predicted by most economists. Unemployment inched up another tenth of a point to 9.2%.

"Today's report is more evidence that the misguided 'stimulus' spending binge, excessive regulations, and an overwhelming national debt continue to hold back private-sector job creation in our country," said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "A debt limit increase that raises taxes or fails to make serious spending cuts won't pass the House."

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, said the jobs figures "serve as a warning that as we address the debt limit increase we shouldn't do so in a way that raises taxes and impedes the ability of small businesses to create jobs and get people back to work. ... Let me be clear: Republicans will not agree to tax increases. Period."

. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/08/debt.talks/index.html

[Dos Equis]

CBO: Unemployment won't improve much by Election Day
By: Brian Hughes | Examiner Staff Writer Follow Him @BrianHughes_ | 08/24/11

A report from the Congressional Budget Office indicates that the nation's unemployment rate will be nearly 9 percent by the time President Obama attempts to win re-election in 2012.
President Obama will face a nearly 9 percent unemployment rate well into his re-election bid next year, according to a new report that amounts to a warning flag for an incumbent who had banked on a vastly improved jobs situation by the time voters flock to the polls.

Projections released Wednesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office say the unemployment rate will hover around 8.5 percent during the final three months of 2012, meaning Obama will still be at the helm of a stagnant economy by the November 2012 election.

The 8.5 percent unemployment rate would be an improvement over the current 9.1 percent rate and the CBO does not expect another recession. However, Obama will be forced to overcome an unemployment rate that no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt has been able to shake during a re-election campaign.

"The United States is facing profound budgetary and economic challenges," the CBO report says. "With modest economic growth anticipated for the next few years, CBO expects employment to expand slowly."

Political analysts dispute whether the president can effectively point to modest growth when he makes his case to voters already skeptical of his economic acumen.

"Laying blame for the economy on Obama is neither economically true or politically effective," said Simon Rosenberg, founder and president of the left-leaning think tank NDN. "Republicans aren't going to be able to run on 'Obama failed' and [the president] can't say he totally succeeded. It creates a ground for robust debate."

But others say the level of joblessness may be too staggering for the president to overcome.

"I've always said that if unemployment is over 9 percent, Obama loses," Daniel Mitchell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, said. "If it's under 8 percent, there's no way he loses. If it's between 8 percent and 9 percent, it's anybody's guess."

Both Mitchell and Rosenberg, however, agreed that Republican policies under President George W. Bush would undercut arguments that Democrats and Obama were solely responsible for today's stagnant economic climate.

That didn't stop Republicans on Wednesday from pouncing on Obama.

"Where are the jobs?" asked House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

While the CBO report offered little encouragement on jobs, it did predict a slight decrease in the federal budget deficit to $1.28 trillion this year.

According to the report, just one in 10 consumers are expecting real gains in their income in the year ahead, matching a "level of pessimism last seen in 1980."

And even that minor improvement could prove overly optimistic since the report was completed in July before the first-ever downgrade of the nation's credit rating and shaky stock market.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/08/cbo-unemployment-wont-improve-much-election-day

[Dos Equis]

White House Projects 9 Percent Jobless Rate Ahead of 2012 Election
Published September 01, 2011
FoxNews.com

The White House projects that the unemployment rate will still be above 9 percent next year as President Obama seeks to win a second term.

The new figures from the White House budget office predict that the economy will grow by just 1.7 percent this year, a full percentage point less than the
administration predicted at the beginning of 2011. The economy grew by just 0.7 percent in the first half of the year, the slowest pace since the recession ended two years ago.

But the White House does not forecast the economy sliding back into recession.

The White House report also sees the budget deficit topping $1.3 trillion for the fiscal year that ends at the end of this month. That is $300 billion less, or 20 percent lower, than the White House's estimate in February of $1.65 trillion, but slightly higher than last year.

That would still be the third-highest deficit on record.

The White House attributed the revised estimate to a combination of higher-than-expected tax revenues and lower-than-expected government spending.

The White House also projected that deficits over the next decade will fall by $1.45 trillion mainly because of last month's deal to reduce government spending in exchange for increasing the nation's borrowing limit. Now a congressional "super committee" will try to find another $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction by Thanksgiving.

"We need to get back on a sustainable fiscal path and we must invest in long-term economic growth and job creation," White House budget director Jacob Lew said.
Obama plans to outline his ideas for jump-starting the economy and creating jobs in a primetime address to a joint session of Congress and the nation on Sept. 8. That date was negotiated only after the White House and House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, disagreed over Obama's request to give the speech a day earlier -- Sept. 7 -- at a time when the Republicans had scheduled a presidential debate.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Thursday that Obama's proposals will improve the economic forecast if it's passed.

"Economists will be able to look at this series of proposals and say that based on history, based on what we knew, based on their collective expertise, that it would add to economic growth and it would cause an increase in job creation," Carney said.

The nationally broadcast address from Congress will put Obama face to face with conservative Tea Party Republicans who are sure to fight any new "stimulus" spending that he might propose.

"By its own admission, the Obama administration's record on job creation and fiscal  responsibility is abysmal," said Rep. Paul Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee.

"Today's report confirms that the president's policies have failed to deliver on his promises of job creation, deficit reduction, and much needed economic growth," he said. "Since taking office, the president's policies have made a difficult situation worse."

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Democrat on the Budget Committee, said the report is another reminder that the super committee must focus on job creation as it searches for savings.

The White House report said that higher oil prices, an economic slowdown in Europe, continuing weakness in the housing sector and the disruption in global supply chains after the devastating earthquake in Japan have dragged down the economy. Uncertainty over raising the U.S. debt ceiling hurt as well, the report said.

"In sum, economic growth and job creation, while positive, have not been strong enough to bring the unemployment rate down to an acceptable level," the budget office reported.

No president in modern times has won re-election with unemployment as high as 9 percent, and Obama's poll numbers have suffered in recent weeks amid a steady drumbeat of bad economic news.

The White House delayed released of the report, which was due in mid-July, as the debate over the debt limit and accompanying budget deal wore on. The delay caused a need to factor in new economic data released over the summer -- including downward revisions in the growth in gross domestic product -- and the result was a gloomier forecast than it would have issued based on information available in June.

Fox Business' Peter Barnes and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/01/white-house-projects-percent-jobless-rate-ahead-2012-election/

[Straw Man]

I don't get it

the Bush tax cuts have been going for 10+ years now and Obama added his own tax cuts

I never quite figured out how tax cuts create demand which would necessitate jobs but given all the tax cuts we should be drowning in jobs

[blacken700]

http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2011/05/03/do-tax-cuts-create-jobs/&sa=U&ei=WRxhTu2HCsbG0AGeyOwk&ved=0CBsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNERBDO8Ew4kTA_QvBWrAqxZkcQtbQ

It’s a mainstay of conservative orthodoxy that tax cuts create jobs. In fact, the complexity of the tax code does create jobs for high-priced tax attorneys and accountants. But do tax cuts create “real” jobs?

The answer appears to be no for companies big and small. After all, U.S. public companies pay well-below the official 35% tax rate while 13.5 million American workers search unsuccessfully for jobs  And start ups tell me that tax cuts don’t affect whether they’ll create new jobs. In short, the tax cut rhetoric, while effective politics, is lousy economics.

George H. W. Bush wisely pointed out in his 1980 debate with Ronald Reagan that expecting to balance the budget with tax cuts and defense spending increases was “voodoo economics.”  But along with Reagan’s ascendancy came the rise of huge budget deficits — that Bush wisely helped end when he agreed to raise taxes in 1990.

Despite $858 billion in December 2010 tax cuts, companies still complain that they pay too much in tax. General Electric (GE) has become famous for paying no taxes on its $5.1 billion in 2010 U.S. profits while keeping a big staff of lawyers on hand to make sure it pays as few of them as possible. Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that GE is not alone and that the prevailing estimate for the actual U.S. corporate tax rate is 25% — costing the U.S. about $100 billion in lost revenue.

But corporations have absolutely no reason to complain about taxes. After all, they earned record 2010 profits of $1.68 trillion and 85% of them are beating their first quarter 2011 earnings estimates as 70% are growing revenue faster than expected while their operating margins stand at a near record 19.8%.

And companies are achieving that record profitability by squeezing workers. After all, 2010 productivity rose 3.9% while unit labor costs fell 1.5%. To get more work out of the same number of workers while paying them less, it helps to have 13.5 million people out of work and the easy ability to hire part-time labor and outsource to countries that pay much lower wages.

So tax cuts have not spurred big companies to create jobs. But what about start ups? Based on my October 2010 interviews with 17 start up CEOs, my conclusion is that not a single one of them would create a job based on tax cuts. All of them told me that their decision to create a new job would be based on whether the long-term cost of that new job would be offset by higher revenues and profits.

As Dick Cheney famously pointed out — deficits don’t matter. And his supporters are probably profiting from the weak-dollar, commodity-inflation bet whose profitability depends on the persistence of those deficits.

[Skip8282]

I don't get it

the Bush tax cuts have been going for 10+ years now and Obama added his own tax cuts

I never quite figured out how tax cuts create demand which would necessitate jobs but given all the tax cuts we should be drowning in jobs

OK, then what's the solution?

[tu_holmes]

OK, then what's the solution?

It's certainly not tax cuts is it?

I personally believe it's the breaks we give in import tariffs.

Why would you make stuff in other countries just to be sold here if it was just as much to import them.

You wouldn't.

[Straw Man]

OK, then what's the solution?

I'm not really sure but the problem was 20 years in the making (decimation of our manufacturing base, corporate loopholes that incentivize companies to manufacture and book profit overseas, etc..) is not going to be a quick or easy fix

I also think the real estate and credit markets are going to continue to be a big drag on our economy for quite some time and I don't have an easy fix for that because I think the banks are benefitting just as much from the foreclosures as they did from the bail outs.  

I think a good start would be a comprehensive and long term (i.e longer than a few months) infrastructure initiative.   EVen Repubs are starting to get on board with this.  

Money out in the economy and in the hands of working people will get spent and that will foster demand.    

[Skip8282]

It's certainly not tax cuts is it?

I don't know...maybe it is tax cuts. 

I'll be the first to admit that I'm far too ignorant on economics to have the answers. 

But, nothing ever happens in a vacuum where we can isolate things down.  I have read things like CBO and GAO reports that almost always point out a myriad of factors all going on at once that affect things like unemployment, the economy, etc.  And they typically just hit the major shit...who knows how many smaller factors all play a contributing role.

Brilliant economists from both sides always argue their points well.  So, what's the solution?

[Soul Crusher]

Its the cost of doing business overall.   We have out priced ourselves economically. 

[Skip8282]

 

I think a good start would be a comprehensive and long term (i.e longer than a few months) infrastructure initiative.   EVen Repubs are starting to get on board with this.   

Money out in the economy and in the hands of working people will get spent and that will foster demand.   

I think a lot of people, myself included, would get behind that.  Not so sure a politician, on any side, could sell it in our "fix-the-problem-right-now" country.

[Soul Crusher]

I think a lot of people, myself included, would get behind that.  Not so sure a politician, on any side, could sell it in our "fix-the-problem-right-now" country.

How does spending 800k for ball washing Africans comport with this? 

[Skip8282]

How does spending 800k for ball washing Africans comport with this? 

lol, I don't think that was what he was referring to.

[Soul Crusher]

lol, I don't think that was what he was referring to.

Well - supported that so he needs to explain how the ball washing aids the economy.   

[Fury]

I don't get it

the Bush tax cuts have been going for 10+ years now and Obama added his own tax cuts

I never quite figured out how tax cuts create demand which would necessitate jobs but given all the tax cuts we should be drowning in jobs

Stunning response. You can just as easily say, "I never quite figured out how tax increases create demand which would necessitate jobs but given tax increases we should be drowning in jobs."

Why is it that places like Hong Kong and Singapore, who have some of the lowest tax rates in the world (along with the two freest economies) are so much more economically successful than tax-burdened Europe? If more taxes are the answer then why are all these EU countries bankrupt and incapable of producing any sort of economic growth? They've taxed themselves right into irrelevance with nothing whatsoever to show for it (beyond rioting and bloodshed, of course).

It's not surprising that you don't understand simple economics as you're nothing more than a Keynesian stooge. Japan has really "stimulated" their economy by spending their way to a 220% public debt-to-GDP ratio. Two lost decades and counting for them.

You Keynesian fucktards can't produce one single modern-day example of it actually working. It's always, "We just need to spend MORE." Of course, "more" is completely subjective as evidenced by your claims that the trillions already spent by Obama weren't enough. Your entire life is driven by the theoretical concept of a multiplier, which is why you have no rebuttal for the argument that the multiplier produced by food stamps indicates that we could food stamp our way to prosperity. After all, "every $1 in food stamps returns $1.84 to the economy." 

[tonymctones]

It's certainly not tax cuts is it?

I personally believe it's the breaks we give in import tariffs.

Why would you make stuff in other countries just to be sold here if it was just as much to import them.

You wouldn't.

ive said this as well but you also need to make our corp tax rate comparable to those countries we outsource to.

Also the amount of tarrif we would have to levy to make our labor force comparable to them would be alot and this would cause them to levy tarrifs on our exports.

Althouth I think b/c we import much more than we export it would probably be a net gain.

[tu_holmes]

ive said this as well but you also need to make our corp tax rate comparable to those countries we outsource to.

Also the amount of tarrif we would have to levy to make our labor force comparable to them would be alot and this would cause them to levy tarrifs on our exports.

Althouth I think b/c we import much more than we export it would probably be a net gain.

That is my theory... We buy much more from others than they buy from us, we are the biggest economy, so we would come out on the winning side if we caused them to build more things here because of the tariffs.

[MM2K]

Stunning response. You can just as easily say, "I never quite figured out how tax increases create demand which would necessitate jobs but given tax increases we should be drowning in jobs."

Why is it that places like Hong Kong and Singapore, who have some of the lowest tax rates in the world (along with the two freest economies) are so much more economically successful than tax-burdened Europe? If more taxes are the answer then why are all these EU countries bankrupt and incapable of producing any sort of economic growth? They've taxed themselves right into irrelevance with nothing whatsoever to show for it (beyond rioting and bloodshed, of course).

It's not surprising that you don't understand simple economics as you're nothing more than a Keynesian stooge. Japan has really "stimulated" their economy by spending their way to a 220% public debt-to-GDP ratio. Two lost decades and counting for them.

You Keynesian fucktards can't produce one single modern-day example of it actually working. It's always, "We just need to spend MORE." Of course, "more" is completely subjective as evidenced by your claims that the trillions already spent by Obama weren't enough. Your entire life is driven by the theoretical concept of a multiplier, which is why you have no rebuttal for the argument that the multiplier produced by food stamps indicates that we could food stamp our way to prosperity. After all, "every $1 in food stamps returns $1.84 to the economy." 

I laugh when Keynsians talke a about a "multiplier" effect. Yeah right. More like a DIVIDER effect!!! HAHAHA!!!!

[Straw Man]

Stunning response. You can just as easily say, "I never quite figured out how tax increases create demand which would necessitate jobs but given tax increases we should be drowning in jobs." Why is it that places like Hong Kong and Singapore, who have some of the lowest tax rates in the world (along with the two freest economies) are so much more economically successful than tax-burdened Europe? If more taxes are the answer then why are all these EU countries bankrupt and incapable of producing any sort of economic growth? They've taxed themselves right into irrelevance with nothing whatsoever to show for it (beyond rioting and bloodshed, of course).

It's not surprising that you don't understand simple economics as you're nothing more than a Keynesian stooge. Japan has really "stimulated" their economy by spending their way to a 220% public debt-to-GDP ratio. Two lost decades and counting for them.

You Keynesian fucktards can't produce one single modern-day example of it actually working. It's always, "We just need to spend MORE." Of course, "more" is completely subjective as evidenced by your claims that the trillions already spent by Obama weren't enough. Your entire life is driven by the theoretical concept of a multiplier, which is why you have no rebuttal for the argument that the multiplier produced by food stamps indicates that we could food stamp our way to prosperity. After all, "every $1 in food stamps returns $1.84 to the economy." 

Nonsense

no one ever said tax increases created job yet Repubs have said or implied repeatedly that tax decreases create jobs

there is plenty of evidence to suport the claim about things like food stamps, unemployment benefit etc.. returning more $'s to GDP than they cost.

here are a couple of links which themselves have sources

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/Senate-Finance-Committee-Unemployment%20Insurance-041410.pdf

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=863

I know you don't agree on  this so do you have anything to support your argument other than your ideology

[Soul Crusher]

Are you fucking kidding?  So why not put the entire nation on food stamps and send ui checks?  Everyone could stay home do jack squat and the economy would roar right? 

[Straw Man]

Are you fucking kidding?  So why not put the entire nation on food stamps and send ui checks?  Everyone could stay home do jack squat and the economy would roar right? 

no one has ever suggested that but then,  of course,  you knew that already

right?