• 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.

What will happen in the election if there is no improvement in the job number?

G

greatar4

Member
Joined
Nov 27, 2010
Messages
61
Reaction score
9
Location
Homestead, Fl
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
At the end of this year from December to February, the number of jobs that were added on the economy every month was above 200,000 a month. This has really helped the President as far as his approval rating is concerned. In March it suddenly drops to 120,000 and in May it went further down to 69,000. The job report for the month of June is scheduled to be release on Friday this week. What do you think is going to happen if the job number is getting worse and worse? Will it be possible for President Obama to win a second term with an unemployment rate that is above 8%?
 
I'll bet job numbers for June are higher than for May. A lot of summer hiring goes on at the first of June.
 
If there is no improvement in the job numbers, then November is going to be a very close race. If there are moderate improvements, Obama will win in a landslide.
 
tessaesque said:
I'll bet job numbers for June are higher than for May. A lot of summer hiring goes on at the first of June.
Click to expand...

The numbers are seasonally adjusted (though some posters here prefer misleading numbers).
 
disneydude said:
If there is no improvement in the job numbers, then November is going to be a very close race. If there are moderate improvements, Obama will win in a landslide.
Click to expand...

I think it's going to be close no matter what.
 
disneydude said:
If there is no improvement in the job numbers, then November is going to be a very close race. If there are moderate improvements, Obama will win in a landslide.
Click to expand...

Please define landslide with reference to which races in the past 20 or 30 years you think qualify. The term gets thrown around often and the implications of it never seem to match up with what people ACTUALLY are suggesting once they're pressed. What is a landslide to you?
 
Born Free said:
I don't, by the election, it will already be decided, people want jobs, and Obamacare repealed.
Click to expand...

Can you prove that "the people" want obamacare repealed? By this I mean prove that there is a clear mandate by the people of the united states for Obamacare to be repealed.
 
Zyphlin said:
Please define landslide with reference to which races in the past 20 or 30 years you think qualify. The term gets thrown around often and the implications of it never seem to match up with what people ACTUALLY are suggesting once they're pressed. What is a landslide to you?
Click to expand...

Electoral landslide such as 2008, 1996, or 1984. Something along the lines of 350-180 or so electoral votes. The popular vote will probably be within 5-7% points.
 
disneydude said:
Electoral landslide such as 2008, 1996, or 1984. Something along the lines of 350-180 or so electoral votes. The popular vote will probably be within 5-7% points.
Click to expand...

Wow...so basically you have a close win, a landslide, and almost nothing in between with "landslide" being a gigantic margin to possibly fall within.

So you think 1984 (98% electoral, 98% of states, 18.8% popular vote) is equivilent to 1996 (70% electoral, 63% of states, 5.5% popular)? You think those two elections should be mentioned in the same breadth in terms of descriptions of margin of victory?

Let's look at another you listed...2008....with one you didn't list, 1988.

2008 you had 68% electoral, 57% of states, and 7.2% in popular. That compares to 1988 where you had 79% of electoral, 78% of states, and a 7.7% lead in popular vote. That's 10% more electoral votes, 20% more states, and about even on the popular...yet those two things should be viewed as similar in margins?

Actually...by your reasoning...we've had a "landslide" victory in 9 of the past 13 (dating back to 1960) Presidential elections. Of the 4 that don't qualify, one didn't get to the 350 mark because a 3rd party managed to get 48 electoral votes from states likely to have swung towards him. So basically "landslide" by your definition is pretty much your average Presidential victory.

If you wish that to be your definition, so be it. However...to me...it waters down the word and frankly makes your use of it one that is ignored and derided. It's akin to saying a guy who scored 25 points in a NBA game had a "MONSTER" game scoring because you view anything between 25 and 75 points as a "monster" game.

Landslide should be reserved for instances like 1964, 1972, 1980, and 1984 with '88 on the boardline. 80%+ electoral, 80% plus of the state, and double digit lead in the popular vote.

Things like 1992, 1996, and 2008 were good, strong solid wins but were by no means landslides. I think it does a siginificant disserviec to the term to suggest that 1996 and 1964 or 2008 and 1984 are anywhere close to in the same ballpark.

I think this election is likely to be close, but I wouldn't be shocked to see a win similar to 2008. I'd be flabbergasted to see anything close to the actual landslides I listed above.
 
Zyphlin said:
Wow...so basically you have a close win, a landslide, and almost nothing in between with "landslide" being a gigantic margin to possibly fall within.

So you think 1984 (98% electoral, 98% of states, 18.8% popular vote) is equivilent to 1996 (70% electoral, 63% of states, 5.5% popular)? You think those two elections should be mentioned in the same breadth in terms of descriptions of margin of victory?

Let's look at another you listed...2008....with one you didn't list, 1988.

2008 you had 68% electoral, 57% of states, and 7.2% in popular. That compares to 1988 where you had 79% of electoral, 78% of states, and a 7.7% lead in popular vote. That's 10% more electoral votes, 20% more states, and about even on the popular...yet those two things should be viewed as similar in margins?

Actually...by your reasoning...we've had a "landslide" victory in 9 of the past 13 (dating back to 1960) Presidential elections. Of the 4 that don't qualify, one didn't get to the 350 mark because a 3rd party managed to get 48 electoral votes from states likely to have swung towards him. So basically "landslide" by your definition is pretty much your average Presidential victory.

If you wish that to be your definition, so be it. However...to me...it waters down the word and frankly makes your use of it one that is ignored and derided. It's akin to saying a guy who scored 25 points in a NBA game had a "MONSTER" game scoring because you view anything between 25 and 75 points as a "monster" game.

Landslide should be reserved for instances like 1964, 1972, 1980, and 1984 with '88 on the boardline. 80%+ electoral, 80% plus of the state, and double digit lead in the popular vote.

Things like 1992, 1996, and 2008 were good, strong solid wins but were by no means landslides. I think it does a siginificant disserviec to the term to suggest that 1996 and 1964 or 2008 and 1984 are anywhere close to in the same ballpark.

I think this election is likely to be close, but I wouldn't be shocked to see a win similar to 2008. I'd be flabbergasted to see anything close to the actual landslides I listed above.
Click to expand...
You are correct about 1 thing....1988 should have been included. That race was also a landslide. I don't know how you can argue with a straight face that an electoral difference approaching 350-180 is not a "landslide".

By your measure, the only thing that can be considered a "landslide" would be something akin to a shut-out....which is a ridiculous standard.
 
Last edited:
Simple, the way I just did.

Results like 2008 have no business being classified as being similar to the results of 1964 or 1984. I am as baffled by your straight face in attempting to suggest they should actually be classified in the same category of victory
 
Zyphlin said:
Simple, the way I just did.

Results like 2008 have no business being classified as being similar to the results of 1964 or 1984. I am as baffled by your straight face in attempting to suggest they should actually be classified in the same category of victory
Click to expand...

Its akin to you suggesting that a basketball score of 100 - 45 is not a landslide....because it wasn't 100-4. Both games are landslides.
 
greatar4 said:
At the end of this year from December to February, the number of jobs that were added on the economy every month was above 200,000 a month. This has really helped the President as far as his approval rating is concerned. In March it suddenly drops to 120,000 and in May it went further down to 69,000. The job report for the month of June is scheduled to be release on Friday this week. What do you think is going to happen if the job number is getting worse and worse? Will it be possible for President Obama to win a second term with an unemployment rate that is above 8%?
Click to expand...
First .. Dec-Feb -dated reports actually contain information for the second week in October thru the first week in November ("Dec" report) thru the second week in December thru the first week in January ("Feb") report.

So, obviously, increases were related to seasonal shopping.

There is always a drop after the holiday season.

Regardless, the numbers about job creation/loss will likely not be a factor in the election.

What will be a factor relevant to jobs will be the reports of how many Americans are out of work, how many Americans are on food stamps, how many Americans who are working have had their wages down-sized, how many Americans are working part-time at Home Depot because they were replaced on their full-time job by illegals, how many Americans are homeless ...

And it will be less about the numbers themselves and more about how many people are spreading the news of those numbers.

Regardless, the election, as nearly always, will be decided by which of the candidates, in the public's eye, looks, sounds, behaves the most "presidential", who will be the less buffoonish carrying the little black box and working with nuclear superpowers.

The comparative percentage of a candidate's gaffes is thus inversely proportional to the comparative percentage of votes he will receive.

Regardless, Americans will lose in November no matter which candidate survives, as neither wing-candidate is good for Americans in even the slightest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom