Obama will set precedent by winning re-election w/8%+ unemployment

[JEDI]

No president won re-election w/8%+ unemployment.

But the 21st century is the start of things anew.
For example: Bush broke the ZERO year curse

DISCUSS!

 

[a777pilot]

Romney wins with 320 Electoral College votes.

End of discussion.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Nice summary of the whole P&N forum here: one contentless, unsupported leftie cheerleading post, and a matching one from the right.

As an aside, I'd love a list of the states Romney is supposedly going to win to get 320 EV.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He may win. With the lock on power both our party overlords enjoy, the qualities of those standing for election are virtually irrelevant. It's just a matter of holding ones nose and picking one of two skunks. Many consider Obamas fur more lustrous and so he could pull it off.

 

[K1052]

It will be a question of voter turnout for the parties. Will losses from people understandably disillusioned with Obama's promises be enough to offset the clay like nature (and flavor) of Romney's politics that's made people ambivalent?

A race to the bottom.

 

[glenn1]

Obama will set precedent by winning re-election w/8%+ unemployment

And if he does, he'll set another precedent of unemployment remaining above 8% for most if not all of his second term. Unfortunately for everyone this go-around, we might not be able to send Obama to join the unemployment queue like Hoover or Carter because Mitt Romney for certain is no FDR or Reagan.

 

[lotus503]

He may win. With the lock on power both our party overlords enjoy, the qualities of those standing for election are virtually irrelevant. It's just a matter of holding ones nose and picking one of two skunks. Many consider Obamas fur more lustrous and so he could pull it off.

Spot on, however I suspect Romney wins via SuperPacs, and sheer money.

 

[Blackjack200]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt#Economic_environment

Unemployment fell dramatically in Roosevelt's first term, from 25% when he took office to 14.3% in 1937. However, it increased slightly to 19.0% in 1938 ('a depression within a depression') and fell to 17.2% in 1939, and then dropped again to 14.6% in 1940 until it reached 1.9% in 1945 due to World War II when increased manufacturing and conscription decreased the labor supply number.[94][95] Total employment during Roosevelt's term expanded by 18.31 million jobs, with an average annual increase in jobs during his administration of 5.3%.[96][97]

 

[EagleKeeper]

And you expect that it will make a difference?

Unless the Republicans loose the House and the Dem get stronger control of the Senate; you will see nothing change within the system.

What will happen is that in 4 more years; the Republican can point to the Dems in having accomplished nothing to recover the country and a massive debt pileup with higher unemployment.

What do you think the voters will then do.

Possibly setup a clean sweep

 

[mshan]

Headline rate is not homogenous across whole population, and differs drastically depending upon education attained (http://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea05.htm) or race / sex (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat07.htm)

Most of electorate has been locked in for quite some time, so it is only small sliver of truly persuadable voters in true swing states that will determine election. Alot of those states have lower than national average unemployment (Ohio low 7% range, Virginia under 6%, Florida is above national average, I think Nevada started from very high baseline, but is dropping fast).

Nate Silver said there have only been 16 elections since World War II, so set of data upon which this rules of thumb may not have tremendous predictive value (correlation, not direct causation?). Plus trend seems more important that actual number:

"The most significant change to our presidential forecast model this year is that it contains an economic index, which is used to guide forecasts along with the polls.

In fact, as you may have seen since we began our short daily summaries of the model’s output, new economic data often has just as much influence over the forecast as the latest poll from Ohio or Florida.

I have some fairly strong views about the right way to use economic data in a forecasting model like this one. This is fundamentally a very challenging problem because there have been only 16 presidential elections since World War II, and yet there are dozens and dozens of plausible economic variables to pick from. (The Federal Reserve’s Web site, in fact, now publishes about 45,000 economic statistics.)

The historical evidence is robust enough to say that economic performance almost certainly matters at least somewhat, and that poorer economic performance tends to hurt the incumbent party’s presidential candidate. Likewise, it seems clear that the trend in performance matters more than the absolute level — otherwise, Franklin D. Roosevelt would not have been re-elected easily with an unemployment rate well into the double digits (although rapidly declining) in 1936.

But we just do not have anywhere near enough to data to make confident claims about exactly which economic variables are important. For that matter, most of the more obvious choices for economic variables have performed about as well as one another on the historical data anyway. Each one gets some elections right and some wrong.

Let me explain some of the choices I made about the model in light of this problem."


http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes...-on-elections/

This other pollster (Princeton Election Consortium), who apparently was as accurate as Silver in 2008, looks like he only uses advanced statistics (i. e. no economic variables considered) to find central tendency from all the noise of all polls out there: http://election.princeton.edu/faq/

(Both pollsters said you really can't read much into polls for next couple weeks, till noise from each convention bounce have settled out)

 

[K1052]

Spot on, however I suspect Romney wins via SuperPacs, and sheer money.

Both sides have been pouring money into the election incinerator at breakneck speed and the polls have barely budged at all.

The debates will be the last and only place any remaining undecided votes make up their minds.

 

[MrColin]

Obama won more votes in 2008 because the racists didn't think they would even need to vote (he won the election because he was also pre chosen by the power elite but that's another story).

Robomney is the chosen one this time, look at Obama's re-election campaign. He's not even trying because he knows too, he's just obligated to put on a show. If you look carefully at the framing and language of the power elite owned media (including the supposedly "liberal biased" outlets), you will see that it is already decided.

There are also redistricting efforts underway to get the desired result, and with electronic voting we won't see the evidence of fraud that we did in 2000.

 

[mshan]

"Consider two media markets, Denver and Wheeling (which is a market evenly split between Ohio and West Virginia). Mr. Kerry received roughly 50 percent of the votes in both markets. Based on the large gains for Democrats in 2008, Mr. Obama should have received about 57 percent of votes in both Denver and Wheeling. Denver and Wheeling, though, exhibit different racial attitudes. Denver had the fourth lowest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won 57 percent of the vote there, just as predicted. Wheeling had the seventh highest racially charged search rate in the country. Mr. Obama won less than 48 percent of the Wheeling vote.

Add up the totals throughout the country, and racial animus cost Mr. Obama three to five percentage points of the popular vote. In other words, racial prejudice gave John McCain the equivalent of a home-state advantage nationally.

Yes, Mr. Obama also gained some votes because of his race. But in the general election this effect was comparatively minor. The vast majority of voters for whom Mr. Obama’s race was a positive were liberal, habitual voters who would have voted for any Democratic presidential candidate. Increased support and turnout from African-Americans added only about one percentage point to Mr. Obama’s totals."

How Racist Are We?: http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/09/how-racist-are-we-ask-google/

 

[Infohawk]

It will be noteworthy. I think you can explain it partially with shifting demographics and partially with the fact that when the economy gets really bad, people ultimately want government action which the Democrats represent.

 

[JEDI]

Obama won more votes in 2008 because the racists didn't think they would even need to vote (he won the election because he was also pre chosen by the power elite but that's another story).

Robomney is the chosen one this time, look at Obama's re-election campaign. He's not even trying because he knows too, he's just obligated to put on a show. If you look carefully at the framing and language of the power elite owned media (including the supposedly "liberal biased" outlets), you will see that it is already decided.

There are also redistricting efforts underway to get the desired result, and with electronic voting we won't see the evidence of fraud that we did in 2000.

hey colin, where did u buy your tin foil hat?

oh, now that Neil Armstrong is dead, i'm waiting for his secret tape to surface that proves the moon landings were done on a sound stage.

much like the promise not to reveal deep throat till deep throat died...

 

[mshan]

Invisible Chair Clint helps produce a negative bounce?:

"Although I have not seen Tuesday’s data yet (and can’t for some time because of a speaking engagement), enough is known to allow some advance comments.

Bottom line: not only is there no bounce so far, the data suggest the possibility of a negative bounce.


Update, 12:35pm: yep, there it is. ~10 EV and counting…"

http://election.princeton.edu/2012/09/04/the-incredible-shrinking-bounce/

 

[Moonbeam]

Nice summary of the whole P&N forum here: one contentless, unsupported leftie cheerleading post, and a matching one from the right.

As an aside, I'd love a list of the states Romney is supposedly going to win to get 320 EV.

777's stated purpose here is to have fun. His idea of fun is to propose election numbers our of his ass. The forum rules allow all this. Serious folk leave the forum to the jokers. How this is going to change without changing the rules is beyond me. Maybe folk should start asking the mods to change the rules.

 

[hal2kilo]

Obama won more votes in 2008 because the racists didn't think they would even need to vote (he won the election because he was also pre chosen by the power elite but that's another story).

Robomney is the chosen one this time, look at Obama's re-election campaign. He's not even trying because he knows too, he's just obligated to put on a show. If you look carefully at the framing and language of the power elite owned media (including the supposedly "liberal biased" outlets), you will see that it is already decided.

There are also redistricting efforts underway to get the desired result, and with electronic voting we won't see the evidence of fraud that we did in 2000.

Do tell.

 

[PJABBER]

Unemployment will be a contributing factor in that the hard core unemployed will look to Democrat policies to keep benefits flowing and to Republicans if they are still hopeful and seeking a kick start to the economy.

As many have commented elsewhere, long term ennui may be setting in. This will demotivate some from voting and spur others to do so when they might not have otherwise. Net, it will be the Democrats that will suffer from above average difficulties in getting their constituencies to the polls.

Gas prices, home prices, etc. will factor into the decision making as well.

Republicans will likely match the money spent by the Democrats and their unions this time, so the advertising blitz is likely to be a wash but altogether necessary to maintain parity.

The excitement at the moment is in the Republican ranks with Romney having the support of 90 percent of Republicans, compared to 79 percent support for Obama from Democrats. Independent voters were basically tied, 36 percent for Romney to 35 percent for Obama.

While Romney has been consolidating his support, key Obama groups such as both young and old voters and independents are not going to be as strong as they were for him in 2008.

Will voters turn out for either candidate? Right now the polls are showing a lot more enthusiasm from those who are supporting the R ticket. Maybe things will even up after the convention, but I expect the Dems will then see erosion after the lofty speeches and euphoria fade and hard realities are reintroduced by the Rs.

What will swing the election one way or the other? How well each side defines itself and their opponent and how effectively they will be able to get supporters to the voting booth.

 

[woodie1]

..... I suspect Romney wins via SuperPacs, and sheer money.

Despite no one knowing what Mitt really has planned for the USA if elected money will sway things his way.

I think with all the negative ads SuperPacs will produce no one will want 4 more years like the last 3.5.

 

[a777pilot]

Nice summary of the whole P&N forum here: one contentless, unsupported leftie cheerleading post, and a matching one from the right.

As an aside, I'd love a list of the states Romney is supposedly going to win to get 320 EV.

It would be a much shoter list if I were to give you the states that obama might win.

Obama wins the following states:

WA, OR, CA, NM, IL, MD, DE, NJ, NY, RI, MA, VT, MA, HI and DC.

That gives Romney 347 votes. I keep saying 320 just to make it sound closer.

 

[a777pilot]

p.s., That's 14 out of 57 states. Not too bad for obama.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Romney wins with 320 Electoral College votes.

End of discussion.

Your brain is going to explode in November...

 

[Doppel]

Romney wins with 320 Electoral College votes.

End of discussion.

Obama will win reelection, the more I see Romney the more I'm sure of this.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Obama wins the following states:

WA, OR, CA, NM, IL, MD, DE, NJ, NY, RI, MA, VT, MA, HI and DC.

That gives Romney 347 votes. I keep saying 320 just to make it sound closer.

I count 368. You have MA in there twice, btw.

So.. Romney is going to win Connecticut? Despite not being close to the lead in even one poll this entire year? Fascinating.

Same with Minnesota.

The others are at least theoretically possible to all go to Romney, but the polling data doesn't support it. What do you have to back up this idea of Romney winning every single swing state?

Personally, I think I trust Nate Silver more. He has shown himself to be reliable, he uses polling data, and he has a mathematical model based on reality.

(Well, and he doesn't post things that make no sense, and then when called on them reply with: "You guys took me seriously? This is the Internet!")