Inlet, you are wrong. Carter's economy was much worse than the economy is now. High unemployment, crippling inflation, and high interest rates dealt pain to everyone. Many people are feeling the pain now, but it's not as bad as 1980.
Here's a good write-up on this if you're interested:
That said, the economy is still middling to bad and definitely presents a challenge to Obama. If the R's had put a good candidate out there then Barack would be in trouble. Unfortunately the R party has chased out any decent moderates (like me).
No, you are wrong.
This was the worst recession since the Great Depression - that was my point. It was worse than the Carter downturn. That's been documented - look at the GDP numbers. And although we're out of the technicality of the text book definition of recession, we're still struggling. In fact, our growth is slowing dramatically and unemployment is rising again.
Further - unemployment is much HIGHER NOW than it was before Reagan beat Carter in the November 1980 election. There are more homes foreclosed than ever. Stock prices are lower than they were five years ago. The EU is currently in recession and our growth in the 2nd quarter was 1.5% and trending down. Our debt is at 100% of our GDP. All of this occurred with the most dramatic printing of money, ever. Interest rates are forced to be at record lows.
So, then there's inflation. Let's look at now - if we measure inflation the way it was measured UNDER CARTER (1980), inflation is currently 8%, not 2% like the CPI says. Why? Hmmm... well, they NOW exclude energy and food prices. They didn't back then. Let's look at the future. The Fed printed boats, and boats of money. What's that mean? It means your dollar in your pocket is worth less. Whether that's properly realized now, or not, just wait. Rising interest rates - IS NOT NECESSARILY BAD.
There's much more, but of all these stats, why the article doesn't discuss unemployment at all is beyond me. They simply try to deal with high frequency indicators and their trends over 6 months leading into the election, but leave a number of important indicators out.
The objective of that article was to paint the picture that "6 MONTH TRENDS" for Obama aren't as bad as they were for Carter going into the election. What I'll say back is the "LEVELS" are worse now AND LONGER TERM TRENDS were worse as well. Moreover, we have no clue what will happen over the next two-three months. Right now, bottom line - the economy sucks and the economic trends are "WORSENING".
Anyways, good luck with the whole Obama is greater than Carter argument. The fact that it can even be debated shows why Obama has little chance.
Romney is no Regan in terms of appeal. That's a big variable in the ole hypothesis, there.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
I'd say it's pretty negligible. I'd say you're right that killing Bin Laden gave him some points, for sure. Other than that, I don't think he really gets anywhere. In my opinion, people won't vote on the following:
Social issues
Foreign policy
They will vote on...
The economy.
I'm quite aware that this wasn't always the case because we weren't in (what I call a depression) in those cases. And I'm quite aware that this scenario, which is not all his fault, may give Obama a bad hand in this upcoming election. But, it's a reality. I could have told you this in 2008. The dude was set to be a one term Pres.
Moreover, I've said it before. There's very little chance (given history) that the US will have 3 two-term presidents in a row. Statistics are saying it hasn't happened in the past, and the current economic data is saying it won't happen. I'm simply saying to you, despite all your desire that Obama is re-elected, it's not looking good bro, sorry.
And this is why I say you wave the Ron Paul pom poms. You keep pushing that middle road voters have the same view and priorities that you do. You're the one with the blind spots. I'm not waving pom poms, I'm looking at historical trends and how they apply to this election. You look at how excited you Libertarian online buddies get about Ron Paul and then over generalize that to others. Carter pretty much was (and is) solely blamed for a lot that happend in his four years and the state of the economy at that time. The blame on the current state of the economy has been successfully spread around, enough so to give Obama an out. You stated earlier I left Carter out of polling reference, but I didn't. I said Carter was "close" to Reagan in the polls.
It seems like you do care who wins the election, because you're struggling to look at this objectively. You've announced that Obama is the worst president ever, and you also post a fairly meaningless factoid about 3 two term presidents in a row. You were sure earlier in the year that the unemployment rate would take a big jump after all these people who dropped out of the job market would then re-enter it. A lot of your claims reflect bias. Maybe you could pull back some at look at things from a different angle.
How does a "surprising" rise in gas prices 3 months before election day get factored into your objective thinking?
You would want to wait and see first if the polls change. Again, the people pissing and moaning about gas prices and blaming Obama for it are already voting for Romney or just staying home. Before the recent drop in gas prices, Obama was in the lead in the polls, so nothing suggests that the recent uptick in price would change anything.
anyone who votes for mitt must have a screw loose; something similar to voting for george w.
you can see the phoniness a mile away yet million will probably wait in line all day just to vote for mitt. these people are strung along sheep who basically haven't a mind of their own and are easily deceived. one can tell that mitt romney is definetely not for the working man by any stretch of the imagination. mitt is for the wealthy and for his own pockets. am i wrong here?
No. But you're talking about people who go to church every week, listen to a phony, manipulative man talk for an hour and then they pass around a plate and give him money.
You would want to wait and see first if the polls change. Again, the people pissing and moaning about gas prices and blaming Obama for it are already voting for Romney or just staying home. Before the recent drop in gas prices, Obama was in the lead in the polls, so nothing suggests that the recent uptick in price would change anything.
I'm not pissing OR moaning or blaming anyone.
Just proving a point which you willingly helped with. Thank you.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
You would want to wait and see first if the polls change. Again, the people pissing and moaning about gas prices and blaming Obama for it are already voting for Romney or just staying home. Before the recent drop in gas prices, Obama was in the lead in the polls, so nothing suggests that the recent uptick in price would change anything.
I hate the gas prices and yet I'm going out to vote... and not for Mitt Romney.
No. But you're talking about people who go to church every week, listen to a phony, manipulative man talk for an hour and then they pass around a plate and give him money.
is that all ?..the best you can come up with ? why is the first thing gay people fire back with is the Church this or Christains that, you can kid anybody you wan't to but you can't kid yourself.
Comments
Romney is no Regan in terms of appeal. That's a big variable in the ole hypothesis, there.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
How does a "surprising" rise in gas prices 3 months before election day get factored into your objective thinking?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48614277
You would want to wait and see first if the polls change. Again, the people pissing and moaning about gas prices and blaming Obama for it are already voting for Romney or just staying home. Before the recent drop in gas prices, Obama was in the lead in the polls, so nothing suggests that the recent uptick in price would change anything.
you can see the phoniness a mile away yet million will probably wait in line all day just to vote for mitt. these people are strung along sheep who basically haven't a mind of their own and are easily deceived. one can tell that mitt romney is definetely not for the working man by any stretch of the imagination. mitt is for the wealthy and for his own pockets. am i wrong here?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
No. But you're talking about people who go to church every week, listen to a phony, manipulative man talk for an hour and then they pass around a plate and give him money.
I'm not pissing OR moaning or blaming anyone.
Just proving a point which you willingly helped with. Thank you.
I hate the gas prices and yet I'm going out to vote... and not for Mitt Romney.
Godfather.