Is Obama in for 2012?

[nageov3t]

It's going to be hilarious adding 2010 and 2012 to your list of election prediction blunders alongside 2006 and 2008.

I don't really see a prediction in PJ's post :\

 

[hal2kilo]

I don't really see a prediction in PJ's post :\

Oh really. He's quite versed in Fox talk. You know. "Some people say...."

 

[First]

I don't really see a prediction in PJ's post :\

I'm sorry it flew over your head.

 

[ProfJohn]

It's going to be hilarious adding 2010 and 2012 to your list of election prediction blunders alongside 2006 and 2008.

My 'blunders' have been greatly exaggerated.

In 2006 I made the mistake of listening to the conservative media and Republican talking points a little too much. We'd have to dig up a final 'prediction thread' to see how far off I was when the chips were on the line.

In 2008 though my final prediction wasn't that far off reality. I believe in the final prediction thread I expected Obama to win, but I didn't expect him to win a few of the surprise states that he won. (Indiana, North Carolina etc)

And now that we are coming into a cycle that favors Republicans I would expect that a lot of the people who were right in 2006 and 2008 will be wrong in 2010 as their predictions will be clouded by personal political opinion just as mine was in 2006 and 2008.

 

[ProfJohn]

Right now a prediction is impossible. If the election was held this fall he would surely lose, but he has 2 1/2 years to turn things around.

But I highly doubt that he can do that because Obama does not favor the type of pro-business decision that are needed to turn the economy around. The healthcare bill is a job killer and if they follow that with cap & trade and then immigration reform then nothing will save Obama by 2012.

Also, if the mid terms were held today the Democrats would lose the house and come close to losing the Senate. If Obama loses the house in the fall then he effectively becomes a lame duck for the next two years because there is virtually no way that the Republicans work with Obama to pass the Obama agenda.

A Republican congress with a Democrat Senate and President will most likely result in two years of dead lock with both sides setting themselves up for 2012.

At the end of the day though, Obama can only win in 2012 by turning around the economy and taking a major bite out of unemployment. And as I said before, Obama does not favor the types of policies that will turn unemployment around.

 

[exdeath]

Obama and co have pretty much signed death sentences for their party for the next few elections. They promised moderation and bipartisan politics while campaigning, and then immediately showed their true colors with nothing but power grabs and forced socialist mandates the moment they took over. Too much too fast. Democrats only got elected because of a desire to punish republicans, but democrats mistook that as a sign of public support for their Marxist policies. That will be their undoing.

The only question is will the other party have anything to bring to the table, or will they simply rely on a free ride on the coattails of failure from the previous party with no merit of their own, exactly like the dems did in 2008. I fear that 2012 will be a repeat of 2008; anybody but a D, meaning we are still stuck with mediocrity because anybody who steps up autowins.

Personally I don't care who is president in 2012 as long as Pelosi is never heard from again. She and her "hurry up and get our foot in the door at all costs so they are stuck with it" method of politics needs to go.

 

[First]

My 'blunders' have been greatly exaggerated.

In 2006 I made the mistake of listening to the conservative media and Republican talking points a little too much. We'd have to dig up a final 'prediction thread' to see how far off I was when the chips were on the line.

In 2008 though my final prediction wasn't that far off reality. I believe in the final prediction thread I expected Obama to win, but I didn't expect him to win a few of the surprise states that he won. (Indiana, North Carolina etc)

And now that we are coming into a cycle that favors Republicans I would expect that a lot of the people who were right in 2006 and 2008 will be wrong in 2010 as their predictions will be clouded by personal political opinion just as mine was in 2006 and 2008.

In 2008 you said, among other things, that the election would be very close until the end, even after Lehman, and specifically predicted the electoral college would be close (not just population). The electoral college was a blowout in Obama's favor and he won the popular vote by 5%+. I like your 2006 excuse though.

And I fully expect Republicans to notch significant returns in 2010, and I won't be wrong about that because it's entirely predictable barring obvious game-changers like Lehman or 9/11. Unlike you, I'm not personally vested in either team. Dems will in all likelihood hold slim majorities in both houses instead of the 59% they currently enjoy. Your 2nd reply is just more of the same drivel; absolutely no substance behind the idea that Obama's policies can't reduce unemployment and improve the economy enough to win in 2012. The proof is already in the pudding, it's baked into the proverbial cake; we've already seen unemployment and GDP numbers improve massively since the 15 months he has been in office. It's fact.

 

[ProfJohn]

Your 2nd reply is just more of the same drivel; absolutely no substance behind the idea that Obama's policies can't reduce unemployment and improve the economy enough to win in 2012. The proof is already in the pudding, it's baked into the proverbial cake; we've already seen unemployment and GDP numbers improve massively since the 15 months he has been in office. It's fact.

Ummm the unemployment rate when Obama took office was 8.5% today it is 9.7%.

Where is this 'massive' improvement you speak about?

 

[First]

Ummm the unemployment rate when Obama took office was 8.5% today it is 9.7%.

Where is this 'massive' improvement you speak about?

700,000+ lost jobs in January 2009 vs 160,000+ gained jobs in March 2010. GDP growth at 3%+ per quarter vs. -5%+ going into January 2009.

It's not difficult to see. Look harder next time. Though you're also the same guy that said in August 2008 that we weren't in a recession.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Let us not forget the other thread were we discussed how they changed how they count the unemployed the numbers are better than if counted befor the change . First is sufferring from the Messiah syndrom .

 

[ProfJohn]

700,000+ lost jobs in January 2009 vs 160,000+ gained jobs in March 2010. GDP growth at 3%+ per quarter vs. -5%+ going into January 2009.

It's not difficult to see. Look harder next time. Though you're also the same guy that said in August 2008 that we weren't in a recession.

When we have multiple months of good job growth then you can tell me how great the economy is, same with GDP growth.

Coming out of the 82 recession we had a full year of 8% growth and coming out of the 90/91 recession we had a full year of 4% growth. Based on where we are in the economic cycle we should be seeing 4+% growth for all of 2010, anything less would be a big disappointment based on historical trends (aka the bigger recession the stronger the following expansion)

 

[First]

When we have multiple months of good job growth then you can tell me how great the economy is, same with GDP growth.

So make a prediction then, are those numbers going to get worse, stay the same, or flat-line? The trend is undeniable, get over it.

Coming out of the 82 recession we had a full year of 8% growth and coming out of the 90/91 recession we had a full year of 4% growth. Based on where we are in the economic cycle we should be seeing 4+% growth for all of 2010, anything less would be a big disappointment based on historical trends (aka the bigger recession the stronger the following expansion)

How would you know what a recession is, you said the U.S. wasn't in one literally a couple weeks before Lehman collapsed.

In any case, anything less than 4% would certainly not be an historic disappointment since two GDP numbers from one quarter in each of two recoveries is nowhere near a "trend". But GDP expanded near 6% in Q4 last year anyway, so your point is utterly moot. We'll see fluctuations in GDP this year until the economy stabilizes and 4%+ for 2010 is likely anyway.

 

[ProfJohn]

First, here is the historical record for GDP growth by quarter
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg

1981-83 by quarter: +8, -3, 4, -4, -6, 2, -1, 0, 5, 9, 8, 8

1990-92 by quarter: 4, 1, 0, -3, -1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4

In both cases there is a clear pattern. The economy shrinks during the recession, then it levels out with little to no growth for a quarter or two and then it rebounds with solid long term growth.

Now 2008-present: 0, 1, -2, -5, -6, 0, 2, 5

Based on previous business cycles the second half of last year was the leveling out point and we should now start seeing solid growth for multiple quarters.

If we don't see solid growth and instead experience slow or even a double dip type recession then it would be a sign that we didn't fix the problems that caused the slow down in the first place or that our solution to the problem has created new problems.

 

[First]

First, here is the historical record for GDP growth by quarter
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg

1981-83 by quarter: +8, -3, 4, -4, -6, 2, -1, 0, 5, 9, 8, 8

1990-92 by quarter: 4, 1, 0, -3, -1, 2, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4

In both cases there is a clear pattern. The economy shrinks during the recession, then it levels out with little to no growth for a quarter or two and then it rebounds with solid long term growth.

Now 2008-present: 0, 1, -2, -5, -6, 0, 2, 5

Based on previous business cycles the second half of last year was the leveling out point and we should now start seeing solid growth for multiple quarters.

If we don't see solid growth and instead experience slow or even a double dip type recession then it would be a sign that we didn't fix the problems that caused the slow down in the first place or that our solution to the problem has created new problems.

And so far there is nothing significant to indicate a double dip and in fact the U.S. economy looks even better than it did coming out of the 91 recession despite this one being significantly worse.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ we shall see. The last two weeks have seen "surprising" jumps in unemployment claims.

Could be a blip or it could be a sign that our recovery is still a little weak and has yet to take hold.

 

[Tom]

Right now a prediction is impossible. If the election was held this fall he would surely lose, but he has 2 1/2 years to turn things around.

But I highly doubt that he can do that because Obama does not favor the type of pro-business decision that are needed to turn the economy around. The healthcare bill is a job killer and if they follow that with cap & trade and then immigration reform then nothing will save Obama by 2012.


At the end of the day though, Obama can only win in 2012 by turning around the economy and taking a major bite out of unemployment. And as I said before, Obama does not favor the types of policies that will turn unemployment around.

many of the companies that thought the health care reform was bad for them have changed their minds upon further review and now believe it may save them money.

And Obama is pro-business, as are all Democrats. Don't confuse Republican rhetoric for reality.

 

[ProfJohn]

^ care to provide proof and the names of these companies?

And while you are at it how about providing a list of companies that are going to do some hiring thanks to this bill.

And if you really want to start to wonder about Obama in 2012 then look at the unemployment rates in some of the states that Obama won in 2008.

Nevada 13% Florida 12% North Carolina 11% Ohio 11% Indiana 9.9%
He'll be very lucky to win any of these states next time around.