Not really.
First, we need to look at who has lost re-election since FDR. We have Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George HW Bush. I think we can all agree that all three of these men had problems beyond jobs.
Second, people like President Obama personally even if they plan on not voting for him. Right now he's running a few points ahead of Mitt Romney (48-46 or something around there). Yet some of those 46 percent approve of him personally as he consistently polls in the mid 50s in polls on him as a person. Some polls have even had him as high as 75 percent! Doggone it, people like him:) And that's despite the right's continued pummeling of him as a person which, honestly, gives me a great deal of hope about America.
More important than both of these (and VASTLY under reported by the media) is the rate of unemployment in the swing states. You see, folks, it really doesn't matter that unemployment is at 11 percent in Rhode Island or nearly 11 percent in California. Those states are going to go for the president. Heck, they may not even approve of the job he is doing but they are still going to vote for him over Mitt Romney because they know that the latter is going to make things worse. To put it simply, the Democrats have done their job in those states.
Take a look at the unemployment rates by state. And now look at the swing states. Iowa has a 5.1 percent unemployment rate. That's well below the national average and jobs may not be on the minds of folks in that state. I know this because most of my in-laws are from there. Any president would kill for this rate in joblessness so look for the president to focus on other issues here. New Hampshire is right around here as well (5 percent) as is Virginia at 5.6 percent. Wisconsin and New Mexico are at 6.7 and 6.8 percent respectively. Again, well below the national average. Even Ohio and Pennsylvania are at 7.3 and 7.4 percent Most political wonks agree that if unemployment dips to around 7.5 percent, the election is over. Colorado is the final state that is below the national average at 8.1 percent.
So, if you add all these states to the president's base of a solid 196, you get 281 electoral votes and enough to win. That's assuming, of course, that because the unemployment rate is so low, that these states will think the president is doing a good job on the economy. If you look at Andy's map over at Electoral-Vote.com, this jibes with what I am saying here with the exception of Iowa. The conservative, evangelical base has grown very strong there over the years so I wouldn't be surprised if Romney won that state. But that only takes away 6 votes which leaves the president with 275.
We are left with Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Michigan. North Carolina is barely Republican and will probably go to Romney after the whole gay marriage flap.Andy's map shows us that the rest of those will go to the president's column with Nevada being likely Democratic with Florida and Michigan at barely Democratic. Nevada and Florida have such heavy Latino populations that Romney is going to have real problems in both of these states. Michigan is likely a go for the president for obvious reasons which brings us to 326-212.
At this point, this is my prediction for the election. Obviously, a lot could change between now and then but I honestly don't think that the unemployment rate is going to matter because the battle is really down to 12 states or less. South Carolina could have an employment rate of 0 percent and they would never vote for the president.
Conservatives keep pushing the economy as the main issue but are they paying attention to the unemployment rate in the swing states? Certainly, the media is not.
15 comments:
Yep...look at those states...they did thier job alright. Funny...there's finally a case I might suggest that people are voting against thier best interests.
Interesting polls... Perhaps people say Obama's likable personally because anything else would produce cries of racism. Perhaps...
they did thier job alright. Funny...there's finally a case I might suggest that people are voting against thier best interests.
It's in their best interests to vote against the people that caused the main problems with the economy in the first place. So, the Democrats did do their jobs in the sense that: a) they have educated the public enough so that most people understand what sorts of policies are really awful and b) they have stymied the panic mongering machine.
Oh, wait...dave, do you think that the president's policies have caused the high unemployment in these states?
Lots of the states doing well elected republican governors.
No, didn't say that...
Do you think Obama flew in and rescued them?
As you said, these are true blue, Democrat run states...and look where that has gotten them.
Oh wait...do you still believe that all the ills of the world can be laid at GW's feet? (No reply necessay, we already know...)
Do you think Obama flew in and rescued them?
He can't take all the credit but the numbers speak for themselves. I can put up the jobs and GDP graphs again if you like.
As you said, these are true blue, Democrat run states...and look where that has gotten them.
Well, California was run by a Republican governor for most of the last decade. The current governor of Rhode Island is Linc Chafee, now Independent but formerly Republican. Before that it was Donald Carcieri (2003-2011) and Lincoln Almond(1995-2003)-both Republican. So, they aren't "true blue, Democrat run states." Federal elections are obviously a different stories but your comment has raised an interesting issue. Perhaps the unemployment in that state is as high as it is due to Republican governance for the last 17 years.
do you still believe that all the ills of the world can be laid at GW's feet?
In order of blame....
1. The financial sector of this country.
2. Republicans in Congress (1990s to present)
3. George W. Bush
>In order of blame....
1. The financial sector of this country.
2. Republicans in Congress (1990s to present)
3. George W. Bush
Out of curiosity - are you ever going to have an accountability moment for you and your team? After all, D's have had power for the last 6 years, 2 of which they had all 3 lawmaking pieces of the federal govt. You assured us that Obama was trying to save capitalism. You assured us that all you needed to do was throw money into the economy and it would recover. You were certain that you understood how to run the economy so well that your team could fix it. And yet you've been a miserable failure. The rate of job growth isn't even enough to keep up with population growth. At what point do you start to wonder if your team is as capable as you seem to think it is?
(In order to help you, I should note that this isn't an endorsement of the R's.)
Of course you just endorsed the R's Hap - any time you aren't drinking the D kool-aid you are by M's definition carrying water for the R's. There are only two parties and you are either with us or agin' us.
Ain't that right M?
And speaking of our fan boy's number one guy...
Some folks actually believe that killing people is as bad if not worse than torturing them.
Out of curiosity - are you ever going to have an accountability moment for you and your team?
Certainly, the Democrats in the late 90s should bear some of the responsibility of the CDO debacle. I've spoken of this many times before.
You assured us that all you needed to do was throw money into the economy and it would recover.
There are many that argue that the stimulus wasn't enough because we didn't know how big the problem was at the time. Obviously, you don't agree given your feelings about government spending. Me? I'm not so sure.
And yet you've been a miserable failure.
I'd say stopping the bleeding and returning our country to both job and GDP growth (given the disaster that was left for the president) is a miracle in and of itself. The numbers don't lie, Hap, and that's why you have to create a reality that doesn't exist. Thankfully, most people aren't buying it.
The numbers don't lie,
Oh but you do lie about the numbers!
>I'd say stopping the bleeding and returning our country to both job and GDP growth (given the disaster that was left for the president) is a miracle in and of itself.
Uh huh. And the fact that that can happen post recession without any intervention at all does not, in any way, cast doubt on that "miracle" coming courtesy of the Democrats, right? Anyway, I'll take that as a no - no accountability. Not that one would expect different from a partisan.
We've also increased the Growth of people on permanent SS disability. Has the workplace really become that much more dangerous in the last 4 years?
Anyway, I'll take that as a no - no accountability.
In terms of President Obama, none of this is his fault. Some guy breaks into your house and busts up the joint to total disaster. You hire me to come and clean it up. While I'm cleaning it up, you yell at me and say it's taking too long. After several weeks, you begin to blame me even though I have worked hard to get it back to livable. That's essentially what's going on right now with the president.
Shorter version of Dem Apologetics here
In terms of President Obama, none of this is his fault
Post a Comment