• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Conservatives lose either way.

Billy the Kid said:
You and I had a go on the Latino thread abouy "devout/birth control" and you posted a link that refuted my opinion. OK, I gotta know what is "padding your post count"?
Click to expand...
So what "opinion" of mine was your "Latino vote" suppose to counter....here? If it was in reference to something in the Latino thread, why did you not post it there?

Weird....I don't get it.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
So what "opinion" of mine was your "Latino vote" suppose to counter....here? If it was in reference to something in the Latino thread, why did you not post it there?

Weird....I don't get it.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the delay. Been busy.

I did post my comments on the Latino thread.
 
No spin going on here... You'd see it if you'd stop walking around with blinders on...

There's just the realistic problem Obama has to deal with how bad the economy has been, and in particular his handling of it have been...

He said the bucks stops with me, but then tries to pass off blame... it doesn't work that way...

the fact that under his watch, the debt grew to record heights, grew to over 100% of the GDP, grew more under Obama in 4 years than Bush's 8 years, and grew in so many other ways that all reflect bad on his administration is something that will hamper him in this election...

add that he had 4 budgets that he submitted, each with over $1T in deficit spending... and his excuse was i was continuing Bush's policies just makes him Bush III and just as guilty and worthy of being voted out as Bush was...

then, you have the fact that he is on the verge of becoming the first president since WWII to finish with a net negative job loss... even if you take out the jobs lost in his first year (by blaming them on Bush), he still only just passes Bush by a small amount... so his job record is a liability ("about what Bush's was" isn't a catchy slogan)...

what do you know... this president just keeps making history... maybe he will be the first president to get re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.2%... Given that the latest number was 8.3%, and it's predicted in a best case scenario to be at about 8%, he's going to have to be...

add more Americans are oposed to most of his policies (auto-bailout, ObamaCare, fannie & freddie bailout, ARRA, cash for clunkers, etc.), it's gonna be a tough sell once the election gets serious, and these issues become what's talked about...
 
rcart76 said:
Okay let consider the options here.

1) Romney Beats Obama - You completed your short term goal of getting Obama out of the office. Now you replace him with a guy you don't even like but your hate for Obama is so strong that you will sacrifice republican values to get him out of office. However, this will eliminate your chances of getting the conservative president you want like Bush, Daniels, or Christie in the office for eight years.

2) Obama is re-elected - This is probably making you throw up right now thinking about it. You will have to tolerate him for another 4 years.


Bottom line, regardless of your choice, your party is still screwed for at least 4 years.
Click to expand...

I don't see either being overly bad for conservatives.

President Obama is basically an indecisive version of President Bush aside from the occasional pandering to the liberal community which the House of Representatives and Supreme Court keeps in check. When the mandate is overturned or Obamacare struck down completely his first term will resemble a third Bush term if Congress had restrained the latter's spending. I would consider that a conservative win overall.

Romney, on the other hand, has seemingly abandoned all liberal tendencies in an attempt to win the Republican nomination and I doubt he commits career suicide and reverses himself if he were to win the election.
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
No spin going on here... You'd see it if you'd stop walking around with blinders on...

There's just the realistic problem Obama has to deal with how bad the economy has been, and in particular his handling of it have been...

He said the bucks stops with me, but then tries to pass off blame... it doesn't work that way...

the fact that under his watch, the debt grew to record heights, grew to over 100% of the GDP, grew more under Obama in 4 years than Bush's 8 years, and grew in so many other ways that all reflect bad on his administration is something that will hamper him in this election...

add that he had 4 budgets that he submitted, each with over $1T in deficit spending... and his excuse was i was continuing Bush's policies just makes him Bush III and just as guilty and worthy of being voted out as Bush was...

then, you have the fact that he is on the verge of becoming the first president since WWII to finish with a net negative job loss... even if you take out the jobs lost in his first year (by blaming them on Bush), he still only just passes Bush by a small amount... so his job record is a liability ("about what Bush's was" isn't a catchy slogan)...

what do you know... this president just keeps making history... maybe he will be the first president to get re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.2%... Given that the latest number was 8.3%, and it's predicted in a best case scenario to be at about 8%, he's going to have to be...

add more Americans are oposed to most of his policies (auto-bailout, ObamaCare, fannie & freddie bailout, ARRA, cash for clunkers, etc.), it's gonna be a tough sell once the election gets serious, and these issues become what's talked about...
Click to expand...
Despite your discontent, roughly half of those polled think he's doing a good job and he leads every Republican running against him.

Oh, and by the way, you're wrong about no president ever getting re-elected with a U3 unemployment rate above 7.2% before. Once again, Reagan proves your diatribe wrong.
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
Despite your discontent, roughly half of those polled think he's doing a good job and he leads every Republican running against him.

Oh, and by the way, you're wrong about no president ever getting re-elected with a U3 unemployment rate above 7.2% before. Once again, Reagan proves your diatribe wrong.
Click to expand...
Early polls, before the Republicans even have a nominee are pretty much useless (especially when theyre national polls and not state by state polls... ). I agree, at the moment if theres an election of Obama vs. the field, Obama wins...

Trouble is, most people would've taken that bet on the same poll on the Packers repeating as SuperBowl champs back in AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC, and even JAN... but they didn't, did they... When it's one on one elimination, it's a whole different ball-game, with different match-ups, of strengths and weaknesses...

I have no doubt, that once an anti-Obama candidate is chosen, and has full support of that entire movement, political momentum will be on his side... and when you go through strengths and weaknesses... Mitt Romney is simply a better candidate for the job than Obama...

My claim was on the issues, Obama is on the wrong side compared with the American people...


ON THE ISSUES

Auto Bailout = 51% disapprove 49% approve (which is a stark turnaround, and a poll taken after super bowl commercial, but still majority against)
Polls: Americans split over auto bailout support – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

ObamaCare = 49% oppose, 36% support
NYT/CBS Poll: Almost Half Oppose Obamacare, Just 36% Back It

Wall St bailout = 49% furious against it, 90% angered by the situation, 37% back it (and was really the reason you had OCCUPY start up)
Occupy Wall Street backed by 37 percent of Americans, poll says - Mackenzie Weinger - POLITICO.com

Cash for Clunker = 54% oppose, 38% support (but as the article suggests, it's too old to be informative, my guess is public sentiment is still the same)
Rasmussen Cash for Clunkers poll too old to be informative - National Political Buzz | Examiner.com

Polls are worse for the ARRA, and most are in propaganda by the liberals or the Presidents own administration... (my guess is the 2010 elections answered that question pretty fairly, with a giant swing right)

Yes Obama has approval ratings... people like the guy, they dont wish him ill will... he speaks calmly, and cracks jokes... even sings :roll: But, theres a huge issue between liking someone, and thinking theyre the best guy to manage the country's finances.. When people go to the voting booth, they most often vote their wallet... high deficit, high Debt, high food prices, high gas prices, high unemployment, etc. not a good sign... Most Americans aren't in favor of those things...


ON UNEMPLOYMENT AFFECTING INCUMBANTS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

*In November of 1948 the unemployment rate was 3.8% (When Truman was first elected, after taking over for FDR)
In November of 1956 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Eisenhower was re-elected)
*In November of 1964 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Johnson was elected in JFK's place)
In November of 1972 the unemployment rate was 5.3% (When Nixon won re-election)
In November of 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% (When Reagan won re-election)... IDK where you get your stats from...
In November of 1996 the umemployment rate was 5.4% (When Clinton won re-election)
In Nov of 2004 Bush's unemployment rate was 5.4% (When Bush won re-election)

When Bush Sr lost in 92, unemployment was 7.4%
When Carter lost in 80, unemployment was 7.5%
*When Ford lost his attempt at becoming elected President, unemployment was 7.8%

(coindentally the only time when an incumbent President wasn't re-elected with an unemployment rate of 7.2% or lower was when Johnson chose not to seek re-election with an unemployment rate of 3.4%, which would've been the lowest of any of them...)

So 1 president was elected with an unemployment over 5.4%, and that economy recovered from being 10.8% just two years prior... which was an amazing economic recovery... (he also benefited from the strong sense of nationalism created to combat the Soviet Union, and the Success of the US at the Olympic Games of 1984 in Los Angeles)... This lead him to a sweep of all states except Mondale's home state of MN...

So the question is, will a recovery of 3 years from 10% unemployment down to 8%, compare more with the Bush Sr, Carter, Ford ineffective stagnation economies... or will it appear as the Reagan economic recovery...

I don't see the nationalism emerging... I see a strongly fractured nation of competing splintered groups who are begrudgingly forced to combine in order to accomplish anything... At the moment, that thing they seem to want to accomplish is to get rid of Obama...
 
Last edited:
Unemployment will be well below 8% by the election. It may be below 7%. Unemployment May Drop to 6% by Mid-2013, N.Y. Fed Study Finds - Businessweek

Do you have any polls on the killing of bin Laden? What about the fact that consumer confidence is at a four year high? What about the fact that people are more optimistic than they've been since '08? What about the massive recovery of the stock markets? And mostly, what separates this election from others, what about the fact that Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression -- and the fact that his opponent is essentially promoting the same policies that led to the Great Recession?
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
Early polls, before the Republicans even have a nominee are pretty much useless (especially when theyre national polls and not state by state polls... ).
Click to expand...
I'm not predicting a November win for Obama based on any polls. As I've said, polls are nothing but a snapshot. The reason for posting them is to show that you don't have the support you think you do. Despite all of your kvetching, America still wants Obama over any one of the 4 (soon to be two) Republican rivals. And again, I'm not predicting a win in November. I'm speaking of right now.

And if it's state-by-state polling you prefer, that's in Obama's favor too ...

Obama: 332
Romney: 206

2012 Elections, Electoral College Projection - Election Projection
 
IndepCentristMA said:
In November of 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% (When Reagan won re-election)... IDK where you get your stats from...
Click to expand...
I don't know where you get your rational from.

The 7.2% unemployment rate for November, 1984 was the unemployment rate at the end of November. The election was held at the beginning of the month when the unemployment rate was 7.4%, not 7.2%.

So no, your claim that no president was ever re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.2% is just ridiculous. Even more ridiculous when you consider FDR's first re-election in 1936 when the unemployment rate was as high as 17%, or his second re-election in 1940 when the unemployment rate was over 14%.

But back to Reagan ... Reagan started with an unemployment rate of 7.5% and by the end of October, 1984, it was just 1/10th of a percent lower at 7.4%. That was enough for him to win in a landslide. Where the unemployment rate will be by this election remains to be seen, but the trend is that it is coming down and could very well be around what it was when Obama started. I don't see a landslide for Obama if that happens but I'll be amazed if he loses.
 
AdamT said:
Unemployment will be well below 8% by the election. It may be below 7%. Unemployment May Drop to 6% by Mid-2013, N.Y. Fed Study Finds - Businessweek

Do you have any polls on the killing of bin Laden? What about the fact that consumer confidence is at a four year high? What about the fact that people are more optimistic than they've been since '08? What about the massive recovery of the stock markets? And mostly, what separates this election from others, what about the fact that Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression -- and the fact that his opponent is essentially promoting the same policies that led to the Great Recession?
Click to expand...

"Median Forecast

Unemployment will average 7.6 percent in the last three months of 2013, according to the median forecast of economists surveyed by Blue Chip Economic indicators this month. The average for the 10 lowest estimates was 7 percent.

Fed policy makers predict an unemployment rate of 7.4 percent to 8.1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2013, based on their so-called central tendency forecasts, which exclude the three highest and three lowest of 17 projections."

Yeah... that's more like it... So if Obama was facing re-election in the last quarter of 2013 it would be better news for him... Trouble is that's not the forecast for November of 2012... In November of 2012 it is projected to be at 8.0% if keeping at current growth rates (which with fuel prices as high, the opposite tends to occur)...

No, I dont have polls on some issues that only Obama's most ardent supporters will care about... for MOST supporters its what have you done for me lately... and that's forced ObamaCare on us, kept a net job loss despite spending +$700B on fixing the economy, and put 4 straight years of $1.4T deficit spending and driven the debt up to $16T (over 100% of GDP)... Getting S&P and Moody's to lower our credit rating for the first time in history...
 
Last edited:
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I'm not predicting a November win for Obama based on any polls. As I've said, polls are nothing but a snapshot. The reason for posting them is to show that you don't have the support you think you do. Despite all of your kvetching, America still wants Obama over any one of the 4 (soon to be two) Republican rivals. And again, I'm not predicting a win in November. I'm speaking of right now.

And if it's state-by-state polling you prefer, that's in Obama's favor too ...

Obama: 332
Romney: 206

2012 Elections, Electoral College Projection - Election Projection
Click to expand...
Again... those same polls are taken when it's Obama vs 4 candidates who arent the nominee yet... meaning they dont have unified anti-Obama support fully behind them... When that occurs youll see a poll shift... You may even see that this week, if Romney sweeps WI, MD, and DC... You may also see it if Romney's poll numbers rise in PA against Santorum, which they're likely to do...

Many polls already have a tie or Romney ahead nationally... and in many scenarios, Romney could swing NH, NJ, PA, OH, MI, and IA in the general election... that would be a win... provided they hold onto at least 1 of VA and NC... given the popularity of VA's repulican governor, I'm sure he could keep that state red... Then, you have to consider the impact of the future VP candidate...

I think you also need to consider you don't have the support that you think you do...
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
I don't know where you get your rational from.

The 7.2% unemployment rate for November, 1984 was the unemployment rate at the end of November. The election was held at the beginning of the month when the unemployment rate was 7.4%, not 7.2%.

So no, your claim that no president was ever re-elected with an unemployment rate over 7.2% is just ridiculous. Even more ridiculous when you consider FDR's first re-election in 1936 when the unemployment rate was as high as 17%, or his second re-election in 1940 when the unemployment rate was over 14%.

But back to Reagan ... Reagan started with an unemployment rate of 7.5% and by the end of October, 1984, it was just 1/10th of a percent lower at 7.4%. That was enough for him to win in a landslide. Where the unemployment rate will be by this election remains to be seen, but the trend is that it is coming down and could very well be around what it was when Obama started. I don't see a landslide for Obama if that happens but I'll be amazed if he loses.
Click to expand...
Well... I showed you the stats and the source... you can be dismissive of them all you want... here, they are again...

ON UNEMPLOYMENT AFFECTING INCUMBANTS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

*In November of 1948 the unemployment rate was 3.8% (When Truman was first elected, after taking over for FDR)
In November of 1956 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Eisenhower was re-elected)
*In November of 1964 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Johnson was elected in JFK's place)
In November of 1972 the unemployment rate was 5.3% (When Nixon won re-election)
In November of 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% (When Reagan won re-election)... IDK where you get your stats from...
In November of 1996 the umemployment rate was 5.4% (When Clinton won re-election)
In Nov of 2004 Bush's unemployment rate was 5.4% (When Bush won re-election)

When Bush Sr lost in 92, unemployment was 7.4%
When Carter lost in 80, unemployment was 7.5%
*When Ford lost his attempt at becoming elected President, unemployment was 7.8%


Now you can cry about it all you want... Reagan dropped it from 11% to 7.2% in two years... without spending upwards of $700B to do so... Obama has only dropped it from 10% to 8.3% in 3+ years (with it projected to be at 8.0% at the end of the 4th)... that's not the same kind of turnaround which Reagan won the landslide off of, and as I said, it wasn't fueled by the same nationalism which united the nation against the Soviets with Reagan in 84, and the US sweeping most medals at the 84 Olympic Games... Not even in Obama's best dreams does he have as much support as Reagan did in 84... His recovery seems more like the slow lagging ones of Carter, Bush Sr, and Ford....
 
I believe Obama will win. With that said, I think the GOP is going through a period that is difficult for them to come to terms with. They either need to divide into two new major parties or come back to being a real player in our two party majority system. I think similarly by the end of Obama's term, Democrats will need a through readjustment.
 
JohnWOlin said:
I think similarly by the end of Obama's term, Democrats will need a through readjustment.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, I think the Dems are going to have to turn into fiscally conservative and socially liberal if they are going to win any majority after the Obama administration.

Maybe if that actually happens, I'll return to being a Dem.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Now you can cry about it all you want... Reagan dropped it from 11% to 7.2% in two years... without spending upwards of $700B to do so...
Click to expand...

Uh, Reagan also went from 7.5% unemployment to 11% unemployment in two years, so after four years, unemployment was almost exactly where it was when he took office. Similarly, unemployment now is almost exactly where it was when Obama took office. Of course Reagan did gain momentum from the sharp drop over two years (following the sharp rise the previous two years).
 
IndepCentristMA said:
*In November of 1948 the unemployment rate was 3.8% (When Truman was first elected, after taking over for FDR)
In November of 1956 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Eisenhower was re-elected)
*In November of 1964 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Johnson was elected in JFK's place)
In November of 1972 the unemployment rate was 5.3% (When Nixon won re-election)
In November of 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% (When Reagan won re-election)... IDK where you get your stats from...
In November of 1996 the umemployment rate was 5.4% (When Clinton won re-election)
In Nov of 2004 Bush's unemployment rate was 5.4% (When Bush won re-election)

When Bush Sr lost in 92, unemployment was 7.4%
When Carter lost in 80, unemployment was 7.5%
*When Ford lost his attempt at becoming elected President, unemployment was 7.8%
Click to expand...


Oh coooooome oooooooooooooooooon. Not only do the unemployment numbers use different metrics from one time period to another, the president is not a King, you also have Congress to content who by the way have the majority of legislative power. You cannot draw ANY conclusion from these numbers.
 
Matt Foley said:
Oh coooooome oooooooooooooooooon. Not only do the unemployment numbers use different metrics from one time period to another, the president is not a King, you also have Congress to content who by the way have the majority of legislative power. You cannot draw ANY conclusion from these numbers.
Click to expand...
Only there's a clear pattern to how the people have voted in regards to them... I'm not suggesting that it's conclussive, I'm merely floating out that in order to get re-elected Obama would have to be the first president in the modern era to get elected with an unemployment rate of 7.2% (or 7.4% if you want to go by Reagan's October 84 number)... Ford, Carter, and Bush lost elections as the incumbent with unemployment numbers over 7.4% All the other incumbants that won had unemployment numbers much lower...
 
AdamT said:
Uh, Reagan also went from 7.5% unemployment to 11% unemployment in two years, so after four years, unemployment was almost exactly where it was when he took office. Similarly, unemployment now is almost exactly where it was when Obama took office. Of course Reagan did gain momentum from the sharp drop over two years (following the sharp rise the previous two years).
Click to expand...
Which I pointed out already... Reagan dropped the numbers so rapidly, and gained momentum from the nationalism at the time... (Mondale didn't help things with the Ferraro selection, but he was already way behind in polls before that, so you can't pin the loss on her). Obama doesn't have the benefit of the sharp spike that Reagan had, and doesn't have the same source of nationalism. Obama's economy more resembles Carter and Bush Sr's.
 
 
JohnWOlin said:
I believe Obama will win. With that said, I think the GOP is going through a period that is difficult for them to come to terms with. They either need to divide into two new major parties or come back to being a real player in our two party majority system. I think similarly by the end of Obama's term, Democrats will need a through readjustment.
Click to expand...
It happens to both parties after they lose elections and it actually benefits them in the long run. I'll quote my favorite sports coach of all time:

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul more than getting the hell kicked out of you.

Democrats are most certainly headed for an identity crisis after Obama. With no real leader backstage ready and waiting for their turn to go on, there's going to be real division over the direction the party is going.
 
GoTim1985 said:
It happens to both parties after they lose elections and it actually benefits them in the long run. I'll quote my favorite sports coach of all time:

"There's nothing that cleanses your soul more than getting the hell kicked out of you.

Democrats are most certainly headed for an identity crisis after Obama. With no real leader backstage ready and waiting for their turn to go on, there's going to be real division over the direction the party is going.
Click to expand...

Ya just seem to be rooting for the team.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Which I pointed out already... Reagan dropped the numbers so rapidly, and gained momentum from the nationalism at the time... (Mondale didn't help things with the Ferraro selection, but he was already way behind in polls before that, so you can't pin the loss on her). Obama doesn't have the benefit of the sharp spike that Reagan had, and doesn't have the same source of nationalism. Obama's economy more resembles Carter and Bush Sr's.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point that unemployment actually increased 3.5% in Reagan's first two years, so the improvement over the next two years was just wiping out the damage that he had already done. In contrast, the unemployment rate only rose about 1.5% (and was already spiking) after Obama took over.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Well... I showed you the stats and the source... you can be dismissive of them all you want... here, they are again...

ON UNEMPLOYMENT AFFECTING INCUMBANTS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

*In November of 1948 the unemployment rate was 3.8% (When Truman was first elected, after taking over for FDR)
In November of 1956 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Eisenhower was re-elected)
*In November of 1964 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Johnson was elected in JFK's place)
In November of 1972 the unemployment rate was 5.3% (When Nixon won re-election)
In November of 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% (When Reagan won re-election)... IDK where you get your stats from...
In November of 1996 the umemployment rate was 5.4% (When Clinton won re-election)
In Nov of 2004 Bush's unemployment rate was 5.4% (When Bush won re-election)

When Bush Sr lost in 92, unemployment was 7.4%
When Carter lost in 80, unemployment was 7.5%
*When Ford lost his attempt at becoming elected President, unemployment was 7.8%


Now you can cry about it all you want... Reagan dropped it from 11% to 7.2% in two years... without spending upwards of $700B to do so... Obama has only dropped it from 10% to 8.3% in 3+ years (with it projected to be at 8.0% at the end of the 4th)... that's not the same kind of turnaround which Reagan won the landslide off of, and as I said, it wasn't fueled by the same nationalism which united the nation against the Soviets with Reagan in 84, and the US sweeping most medals at the 84 Olympic Games... Not even in Obama's best dreams does he have as much support as Reagan did in 84... His recovery seems more like the slow lagging ones of Carter, Bush Sr, and Ford....
Click to expand...

No one is going to cry, your numbers are all well and good but Obama will be relected regardless, the Republicans have seen to that.
There is nothing in those numbers that takes into account the current GOP platform, and its candidates who have zero chance of selling it to voters.
 
Last edited:
IndepCentristMA said:
Well... I showed you the stats and the source... you can be dismissive of them all you want... here, they are again...

ON UNEMPLOYMENT AFFECTING INCUMBANTS IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

*In November of 1948 the unemployment rate was 3.8% (When Truman was first elected, after taking over for FDR)
In November of 1956 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Eisenhower was re-elected)
*In November of 1964 the unemployment rate was 4.3% (When Johnson was elected in JFK's place)
In November of 1972 the unemployment rate was 5.3% (When Nixon won re-election)
In November of 1984 the unemployment rate was 7.2% (When Reagan won re-election)... IDK where you get your stats from...
In November of 1996 the umemployment rate was 5.4% (When Clinton won re-election)
In Nov of 2004 Bush's unemployment rate was 5.4% (When Bush won re-election)

When Bush Sr lost in 92, unemployment was 7.4%
When Carter lost in 80, unemployment was 7.5%
*When Ford lost his attempt at becoming elected President, unemployment was 7.8%
Click to expand...
Pay attention, because you missed this the first time ... I'm not dismissing your stats or your source -- I'm dismissing your logic. It makes no sense to cite the unemployment rate at the end of November in relation to elections held at the beginning of November. It is not rational to say the unemployment rate when Reagan was re-elected was 7.2% when the unemployment rate wasn't 7.2% until 3 weeks after the election. The only unemployment rate one can lucidly rely on for when Reagan was re-elected would have been October's unemployment rate, which was the unemployment rate at the end of October and released to the public in early November. The same holds true for every other president you listed:

Truman: 3.7%
Eisenhower: 3.9%
LBJ: 5.1%
Nixon: 5.6%
Reagan: 7.4%
GHW Bush: 7.3%
Clinton: 5.2%
Bush: 5.5%

And you're still ignoring FDR, who was re-elected with an unemployment rate as high as 17%; and then again at 14%.

IndepCentristMA said:
IDK where you get your stats from...
Click to expand...
BLS: U3 Unemployment Rate

Now ya know.

IndepCentristMA said:
Now you can cry about it all you want... Reagan dropped it from 11% to 7.2% in two years... without spending upwards of $700B to do so... Obama has only dropped it from 10% to 8.3% in 3+ years (with it projected to be at 8.0% at the end of the 4th)... that's not the same kind of turnaround which Reagan won the landslide off of, and as I said, it wasn't fueled by the same nationalism which united the nation against the Soviets with Reagan in 84, and the US sweeping most medals at the 84 Olympic Games... Not even in Obama's best dreams does he have as much support as Reagan did in 84... His recovery seems more like the slow lagging ones of Carter, Bush Sr, and Ford....
Click to expand...
At the time Reagan was re-elected, the unemployment rate had dropped from 10.8% to 7.4% ... but that was after it went up from 7.5% to 10.8% while he was president. What Reagan accomplished in regards to the unemployment rate was to bring it back down to where it was when he started in time for the election -- pretty much what Obama is on target to accomplish.

As far as the recovery under Obama, that cannot be compared to others you mentioned since this recession was much deeper and more structural in nature. Those presidents weren't handed an economy close to collapsing. Those presidents also didn't have to deal with a workforce contending with retiring baby boomers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom