Hussra wrote:
cept when the unlikeable bush faced off against the not that well known kerry, the economy was the determining factor. as it has been in every presidential race going back, back, back. and the unlikeable Bush thumped the not disagreeable Kerry.
and even if Kerry had been a combo Oprah, Clay Aiken and Jeter, unlikeable Bush still wins in 2004. People vote their pocketbooks. Always have, always will.
if unemployment is still at 9% in November 2012--Repugs could've run Putin-Jong-un ticket and thumped Obama. Just ask the agreeable Jimmy Carter--who lost to the at that time seemingly "frightening" ex-actor. The hagiographic view we have of Reagan today is not anything like the scary warmonger many perceived Reagan to be in 1980.
And unemployment is just a proxy for general economic health; which the trend and not the absolute number is what you look at to see if the incumbent candidate/party retains or loses office.
Like Obama, Reagan wins re-election, handily, with an unemployment level not much different than what it was when he took office. but the trend both times favored those 2 candidates.
What does it mean for 2016?
Reagan, right before the campaign for 1984 began, called Paul Volcker into his office and lectured the Fed chairman about not raising interest rates too much, too fast right before the election. "Pulling the string", Reagan called the Fed's action of boosting rates and thereby tamping down economic activity and, more importantly for Volcker and his bondholder bosses on Wall St, inflation.
Volcker, if iirc, boosted rates some, but maybe not as much as he might have otherwise. And he pretty much left rates alone until after the election--at which point, at the urging of Martha Seger, the Fed begins cutting rates and the Reagan recovery really takes off. Reagan prolly would've appreciated Volcker cutting rates before the election, but maybe Volcker took Reagan's "hands off" remonstration literally.
Yellen's signaling suggests a mild rate bump--quarter point over the rest of this year. And, despite the seemingly low unemployment rate, the low workforce participation rate means that the economy is unlikely to overheat and drive up wages and prices. Yellen, while at the SF Fed, predicted a protracted recession and slow recovery. Expect Yellen to error on the side of not raising rates.
All of which should add up to the Democrat retaining the White House in 2016.
President Elizabeth Warren.
While generally true I don't think this was remotely true in 2004. Without 9/11 Bush would not have even sniffed a second term. I think he was already referred to as an accidental president like 30 days into his term, and had generally revealed himself to me a mildly retarded lightweight. After 9/11, he was able to avoid blame and stand on rubble looking competent. Plus, the economy tanked after 9/11, though not as bad as it did in 2008.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
