Obama. 4 years later(lets try this again)

SPEEDY MCCREADY

There are hundreds of thousands more people out of work, since Obama took office. Right?
Unemployment went from to 7.8% the day he went into office to 8.6% today. Right? At one point it was 10%.
The median household income dropped 5% (50K to 45K) since Obama took office...Right?
Americas debt has added another 6 Trillion, since Obama took office. Right?
Gas is $2 or so more a gallon since the day Obama took office. Right?

Change?
Hope?

So what the hell went wrong here?

Lets try this again.

brianlux

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

Change?
Hope?

For this thread? We'll see.

inlet13

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

There are hundreds of thousands more people out of work, since Obama took office. Right?
Unemployment went from to 7.8% the day he went into office to 8.6% today. Right? At one point it was 10%.
The median household income dropped 5% (50K to 45K) since Obama took office...Right?
Americas debt has added another 6 Trillion, since Obama took office. Right?
Gas is $2 or so more a gallon since the day Obama took office. Right?

Change?
Hope?

So what the hell went wrong here?

Lets try this again.

If the unemployment rate comes in below 8% before the election, his odds are better than 50/50 to win IMHO.

Otherwise, he'll lose. If the economy worsens - less than 100,000 jobs added next two months and no funky business with labor force participation, he may lose really, really bad. The EU's debt situation will play a part too.

It all will come down to the economy. Right now, I think he'll lose, but like I said, he's got a great chance if the labor force participation rate keeps falling to new record lows - because it will force the unemployment rate lower.

Ironic how a horrible statistic (falling labor force participation rate) could constrain a headline statistic (unemployment) and make a President look better despite the fact that job growth is completely miserable - I know.

Cliffy6745

Looking at the current economic situation and how the election will play out is incredibly short sighted to me. Every poll taken in the past 48 hours has Obama with the biggest lead he has had to date. Gallup and Rasmussen have him a 5 point lead and Nate Silver has him with an 80% chance of winning. All that means something and is trending in a very positive way for Obama and there hasn't been much movement until recently. While that is certainly a convention bounce, if he can sustain some of that bounce then Romney is in real trouble. Romney also saw almost no convention bounce. Looking at the economy and saying he has a 50-50 chance of winning is pretty much just ignorant in the electoral college system that we live in and I think Romney has all but shown he has a serious up hill battle with less than 2 months to go and more or less giving up on PA and Wisconsin for the time being.

As for 4 years later. My life is better but that is somewhat irrelevant. While no economic expert, I don't believe trickle down is the way to get it done and I think Obama has done a much better job than he is given credit for. People are quick to forget how many jobs were being lost on a monthly basis the day he took office.

I certainly don't agree with everything he has done and I think he could have done a better job with the economy. But I am a very strong supporter of how he has handled the wars, foreign policy in general, domestic social issues and I think he has done what he can with the economy given the economic and political landscape he is dealing with. He should have done more on the economy in the first two years to me. I also don't believe trickle down is the way to get this country back on track.

cincybearcat

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Looking at the current economic situation and how the election will play out is incredibly short sighted to me. Every poll taken in the past 48 hours has Obama with the biggest lead he has had to date. Gallup and Rasmussen have him a 5 point lead and Nate Silver has him with an 80% chance of winning. All that means something and is trending in a very positive way for Obama and there hasn't been much movement until recently. While that is certainly a convention bounce, if he can sustain some of that bounce then Romney is in real trouble. Romney also saw almost no convention bounce. Looking at the economy and saying he has a 50-50 chance of winning is pretty much just ignorant in the electoral college system that we live in and I think Romney has all but shown he has a serious up hill battle with less than 2 months to go and more or less giving up on PA and Wisconsin for the time being.

As for 4 years later. My life is better but that is somewhat irrelevant. While no economic expert, I don't believe trickle down is the way to get it done and I think Obama has done a much better job than he is given credit for. People are quick to forget how many jobs were being lost on a monthly basis the day he took office.

I certainly don't agree with everything he has done and I think he could have done a better job with the economy. But I am a very strong supporter of how he has handled the wars, foreign policy in general, domestic social issues and I think he has done what he can with the economy given the economic and political landscape he is dealing with. He should have done more on the economy in the first two years to me. I also don't believe trickle down is the way to get this country back on track.

I agree with you on one point...I think unless the economy takes an even more terrible turn for the worse that Obama will be re-elected fairly easily.

Johnny Abruzzo

He took office in the middle of an economic catastrophe. The recovery has been mediocre and slow but it's a recovery nonetheless.

The economy obviously is an important influence in the result of the election but there are many variables. It's as simple as "<8% unemployment = Obama win." Voters weigh more than just one or two economic indicators when they cast their ballot, including foreign policy where Obama destroys Romney (unless you're a liberal who doesn't like the drone strikes, etc.).

inlet13

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Looking at the current economic situation and how the election will play out is incredibly short sighted to me. Every poll taken in the past 48 hours has Obama with the biggest lead he has had to date. Gallup and Rasmussen have him a 5 point lead and Nate Silver has him with an 80% chance of winning. All that means something and is trending in a very positive way for Obama and there hasn't been much movement until recently. While that is certainly a convention bounce, if he can sustain some of that bounce then Romney is in real trouble. Romney also saw almost no convention bounce. Looking at the economy and saying he has a 50-50 chance of winning is pretty much just ignorant in the electoral college system that we live in and I think Romney has all but shown he has a serious up hill battle with less than 2 months to go and more or less giving up on PA and Wisconsin for the time being.

As for 4 years later. My life is better but that is somewhat irrelevant. While no economic expert, I don't believe trickle down is the way to get it done and I think Obama has done a much better job than he is given credit for. People are quick to forget how many jobs were being lost on a monthly basis the day he took office.

I certainly don't agree with everything he has done and I think he could have done a better job with the economy. But I am a very strong supporter of how he has handled the wars, foreign policy in general, domestic social issues and I think he has done what he can with the economy given the economic and political landscape he is dealing with. He should have done more on the economy in the first two years to me. I also don't believe trickle down is the way to get this country back on track.

But, how will he maintain or obtain a bounce? The answer comes back to the economy. Polls are starting to matter more, but they are simply a reflection of the economy.

It's not short-sighted at all. If economic news pans out, like it "was" before the DNC, then Obama will be in good shape in the polls. Economic data doesn't live in a vacuum. It can be regional. So, unemployment in swing states and job creation in swing states will and does matter. If this data turns more negative, then polls will reflect that, and most likely the election results down the road will too. The job data is actually more forward looking than polls because one can obtain a good sense of how the economy is affecting the entire population, not just a small sample.

National data will typically sway the regional data in one way or another. The 8.1% unemployment rate is interesting because it was bad, but kinda good too. The headline number (unemployment) fell, but for all the wrong reasons. It would take a really, really noble media to properly report those reasons, which are complicated. But, if they kinda just go with the number it's good for Barry O. Particularly, if it drops below 8%. He can say ''see I got unemployment below 8%."

Polls are being driven and will be increasingly driven by the economy. Just like his favorability will. Denying that is ummm... shortsighted.

Polls are a reflection of the economy, not the other way around. As much as some may want, this election will not be decided on social issues or foreign policy - it will be about the economy.

Cliffy6745

But how are they a reflection of the economy? We just got poor economic news and Obama has the biggest lead he has had yet to date three days later. That is kind of the opposite of what you are saying, no? Even polls that lean right have him with a 5 point lead.

In a campaign where there was almost no change for months, even after the GOP convention, Obama is now trending in a way that neither candidate has seen to date. Some of that is certainly because of the convention, but even if the entire convention bounce is lost, which it won't, he still goes back to a 2 point lead and a 70% or so chance at winning.

Romney is putting all of his eggs in 8 states, it seems. That is not the act of a candidate who sees many paths to victory, right?

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

He took office in the middle of an economic catastrophe. The recovery has been mediocre and slow but it's a recovery nonetheless.

The economy obviously is an important influence in the result of the election but there are many variables. It's as simple as "<8% unemployment = Obama win." Voters weigh more than just one or two economic indicators when they cast their ballot, including foreign policy where Obama destroys Romney (unless you're a liberal who doesn't like the drone strikes, etc.).

I agree that other economic indicators matter. I don't agree that foreign policy or social issues will really matter though. Sure, they may rally a base, but overall, I don't see it. I think it's the economy and I know I'm not alone in thinking that.

I simply think if unemployment goes below 8%, most likely - other indicators are also probably moving in the right direction for Obama. That's why I also mentioned job creation. If it's below 8% (which is a lagging indicator) and jobs come in over 200 next two reports, I think it's a done deal. Why? Well, that will effect stock market for example. That will also effect consumer confidence. You could keep drawing connections - retail sales, manufacturing, x, y, z.

The EU matters. The Fed matters. Jobs matter. These are all areas that could go north or south in coming weeks.

This is also why polls, which normally matter a lot, don't matter as much now - they could change drastically quickly. A good example is financial markets. Typically, financials are driven by fundamentals. How does firm A's financial statements and ratios look? Pristine? Well, most likely their stock is increasing - ---- unless ---- the economy is out of whack. Then macro fundamentals could influence that stock, and stocks across the board. In recessionary periods, macro drivers matter more.

That's basically what I'm saying. Polls right now are kinda not as important because so much could change between now and then. The potential volatility has not always been this severe - atleast in my opinion.

Cliffy6745

But the polls until this week have shown very little movement, which says to me with how polarizing this political season has been, that the majority of people know how they are voting, with a slight majority preferring Obama. I'd argue that they matter more now since there has been no movement until now. The movement in the last week and out of both conventions tells me that Obama is beginning to sway some of the undecided voters. And yes, barring major events like I said, it seems like Romney has a much bigger battle in convincing them to vote for him.

inlet13

Cliffy6745 wrote:

But how are they a reflection of the economy? We just got poor economic news and Obama has the biggest lead he has had yet to date three days later. That is kind of the opposite of what you are saying, no? Even polls that lean right have him with a 5 point lead.

That's kinda my question.... was a .2-%point decline in the unemployment rate poor? Moreover, when were the polls taken? Before that news or after? That news came out Friday. It's Monday. Did they poll over the weekend?

To me - and this is just my opinion - it's a function of the stock market. Look at polls and see if they correlate with the stock market. In my opinion they do. Recently the market has been up. So? Well, stock market is a leading indicator of the overall economy. Stock market is hugely effected by:

1) Jobs reports (and obviously other economic reports)
2) The Fed
3) Recently news from EU

...which is what I think will dictate the election.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

In a campaign where there was almost no change for months, even after the GOP convention, Obama is now trending in a way that neither candidate has seen to date. Some of that is certainly because of the convention, but even if the entire convention bounce is lost, which it won't, he still goes back to a 2 point lead and a 70% or so chance at winning.

Romney is putting all of his eggs in 8 states, it seems. That is not the act of a candidate who sees many paths to victory, right?

I think all this electioneering comes out during political season. But, I continue to say it - the economy is what will decide the election. You don't have to agree.

Cliffy6745

inlet13 wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

But how are they a reflection of the economy? We just got poor economic news and Obama has the biggest lead he has had yet to date three days later. That is kind of the opposite of what you are saying, no? Even polls that lean right have him with a 5 point lead.

That's kinda my question.... was a .2-%point decline in the unemployment rate poor? Moreover, when were the polls taken? Before that news or after? That news came out Friday. It's Monday. Did they poll over the weekend?

To me - and this is just my opinion - it's a function of the stock market. Look at polls and see if they correlate with the stock market. In my opinion they do. Recently the market has been up. So? Well, stock market is a leading indicator of the overall economy. Stock market is hugely effected by:

1) Jobs reports (and obviously other economic reports)
2) The Fed
3) Recently news from EU

...which is what I think will dictate the election.

Cliffy6745 wrote:

In a campaign where there was almost no change for months, even after the GOP convention, Obama is now trending in a way that neither candidate has seen to date. Some of that is certainly because of the convention, but even if the entire convention bounce is lost, which it won't, he still goes back to a 2 point lead and a 70% or so chance at winning.

Romney is putting all of his eggs in 8 states, it seems. That is not the act of a candidate who sees many paths to victory, right?

I think all this electioneering comes out during political season. But, I continue to say it - the economy is what will decide the election. You don't have to agree.

Alright, I don't necessarily disagree with this. These polls are from the weekend. I think it was poor news based on projections and given the leaks, but perhaps you are right. Maybe people are seeing any increase as good increase. I obviously agree that the economy is the major factor in this election, I just think Romney has a very big uphill climb without a major event happening in the next 60 days, especially given the current polling data.

inlet13

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Alright, I don't necessarily disagree with this. These polls are from the weekend. I think it was poor news based on projections and given the leaks, but perhaps you are right. Maybe people are seeing any increase as good increase. I obviously agree that the economy is the major factor in this election, I just think Romney has a very big uphill climb without a major event happening in the next 60 days, especially given the current polling data.

I don't think we disagree much. I think I just side much more on the 50/50 camp. I was on the Romney will def. win camp a month or so ago based on the economy then. But, as the election nears, and the market remains above 13K, the unemployment falls to 8.1%, etc. I think he's got a better shot. Truth is - I know it's not because the economy is really improving - the economy is really really weak, but I don't know for certain if the people will understand that. They see the numbers, which don't tell the whole story.

At the end of the day, I still think without a EU bounce or Fed bounce of some sort, Obama will lose. But, that's just a guess. We'll see.

Johnny Abruzzo

inlet13 wrote:

That's basically what I'm saying. Polls right now are kinda not as important because so much could change between now and then. The potential volatility has not always been this severe - atleast in my opinion.

This has actually been one of the least volatile polling cycles in recent history.

If the stock market is an important leading indicator then what does it say that the S&P is up more than 70% since 1/20/2009? It says that we are better off than we were four years ago.

BinauralJam

So honestly i give a rat's ass about the economy.

My problems with Obama:
1) Sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
2) Drones/Assassination.
3) Not abolishing the Patriot Act, but Expanding it.
4) Guantanamo Bay still Open.
5) HR 347/ making it illegal to protest in front of government building's.

You get the Gist.

inlet13

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This has actually been one of the least volatile polling cycles in recent history.

It's early yet and things haven't improved or fallen apart quickly either, so that would explain that - but honestly I have a hard time believing this. Got any data? If so, is it old?

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

If the stock market is an important leading indicator then what does it say that the S&P is up more than 70% since 1/20/2009? It says that we are better off than we were four years ago.

The stock market absolutely is an important leading indicator for the economy. And I'm arguing the economy is important to the election. According the economic statistics, we're not in a recession right now. But, the economy is still not functioning well at all.

So, let's take your pom-poms down for a moment and do some thinking. The S&P has not reached the peaks of 2007/2008 throughout President Obama's tenure. Does that make Bush a better President? Does that help Obama's chances? Honestly, I don't know. Further, it's been estimated by some that without QE the S&P right now would be only a little north of 700. One can dismiss that or not, but QE without a doubt effected asset prices. So, that also matters.

I know some like to make everything into political football - seems that what you want. But, I'm not trying to have a political football discussion. I was simply calling it like I see it.

I was trying to discuss how the stock market, particularly long term trends in the market lead the economy. And in my personal opinion, the economy will dictate the election. So, if the market is improving from this point to the election - that will matter a lot. That said, if it's because another QE is announced - that will kinda be more interesting because maybe, just maybe the people see through the artificial rise in stock prices.

usamamasan1

Let's not try this again (four years of this disaster President Barack Hussein Obama)

Romney/Ryan

America's Comeback Team.

Woot

ComeToTX

Four years later here's a small sampling of what he's done:

Wall Street reform, Ended the war in Iraq, Drawdown of war in Afghanistan, health care reform, Bin Laden is dead, Turned around US auto industry, Repealed don't ask don't tell, Gaddafi gone, Reversed bush's torture policy, Boosted fuel efficiency standard, Increased support for veterans, Tightened sanctions on Iran, Credit card reform...


And he hasn't started any pointless, expensive, illegal wars.

Cliffy6745

inlet13 wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

This has actually been one of the least volatile polling cycles in recent history.

It's early yet and things haven't improved or fallen apart quickly either, so that would explain that - but honestly I have a hard time believing this. Got any data? If so, is it old?

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

If the stock market is an important leading indicator then what does it say that the S&P is up more than 70% since 1/20/2009? It says that we are better off than we were four years ago.

The stock market absolutely is an important leading indicator for the economy. And I'm arguing the economy is important to the election. According the economic statistics, we're not in a recession right now. But, the economy is still not functioning well at all.

So, let's take your pom-poms down for a moment and do some thinking. The S&P has not reached the peaks of 2007/2008 throughout President Obama's tenure. Does that make Bush a better President? Does that help Obama's chances? Honestly, I don't know. Further, it's been estimated by some that without QE the S&P right now would be only a little north of 700. One can dismiss that or not, but QE without a doubt effected asset prices. So, that also matters.

I know some like to make everything into political football - seems that what you want. But, I'm not trying to have a political football discussion. I was simply calling it like I see it.

I was trying to discuss how the stock market, particularly long term trends in the market lead the economy. And in my personal opinion, the economy will dictate the election. So, if the market is improving from this point to the election - that will matter a lot. That said, if it's because another QE is announced - that will kinda be more interesting because maybe, just maybe the people see through the artificial rise in stock prices.

This is largely what I follow for polling information considering he takes pretty much every poll into consideration and has a very solid track record in these things. There has been little movement for the past two months until last week. And convention bounce or not, both parties just had their convention. Pollster has it a bit closer.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

DS1119

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

There are hundreds of thousands more people out of work, since Obama took office. Right?
Unemployment went from to 7.8% the day he went into office to 8.6% today. Right? At one point it was 10%.
The median household income dropped 5% (50K to 45K) since Obama took office...Right?
Americas debt has added another 6 Trillion, since Obama took office. Right?
Gas is $2 or so more a gallon since the day Obama took office. Right?

Change?
Hope?

So what the hell went wrong here?

Lets try this again.

It's the Republican's fault Speedy. CUt and dried. He inherited too many problems to deal with and the opposing party stoned wall him. SOunds pretty much like the same story that every emcumbant says...except things have only gotten worse since the Big O has been in office...so lets give him another 4 years...makes perfect sense.

Cliffy6745

So we are only allowed to look at what happend during the specific years a president is in office? Their success/failure is judged soely on the 4 or 8 years they are in office and outside factors before, after or during are irrelevant?

Kat

Restarting a topic that has been closed is not ok without discussing it with a moderator.