An amazing fact. No incumbent has ever won reelection when unemployment was 7.2% or higher so we know with 100% certainty why Sarah Palin is on the bus across the country, because she will try to be 45th U.S. President.
Printable View
An amazing fact. No incumbent has ever won reelection when unemployment was 7.2% or higher so we know with 100% certainty why Sarah Palin is on the bus across the country, because she will try to be 45th U.S. President.
FDR won reelection when unemployment was between 14% and 9%. In fact it remained about that amount until 1941.Your statistic is invalid.
My statistics were since the great depression (since we are going through something similar) so your data agrees with my data. It is usually assumed since the great depression when talking about the economy like when mentioning the increase in GDP is year over year rather than month over month without stating specifically.
My data does not agree with your data, it falls outside of your data. It in fact directly contradicts your data. I am not sure why it matters in this discussion whether or not the data is year over year rather than month over month. Plus, the fact remains that your data does not take into account the massive amount of press that Republican obstructionism is getting. The people can see that Obama is trying to fix the economy, but the Republicans refuse to compromise on any issues.
I gave an analogy with GDP data where it is not cited specifically whether it is year over year or month over month, but assumed to be year over year just like since the great depression is the comparison to today, not going back to the 19th century or 18th century. Your data does agree, so you are arguing with the wind as you just overlooked the fact that the data was since the depression. What does the press or parties have to do with this? The data are hard facts in the historical record.
Again, my data does not agree. My data says the opposite of what your data says. Your data just excludes my data, meaning that the only reason your data is correct is because it cuts off before my data. The press and parties have to do with Obama's reelection chances. As long as the national narrative tends towards the idea that the Republicans are stopping Obama from doing his job, he has a chance.
Your data agrees with my data that there was no unemployment rate above 7.2% where the incumbent president was reelected since the depression. Why shut your mind down to this? You include my data and I include your data. There is always politics so party plotting is nothing new.
My data is not included in your data set. Yes, it does not contradict your statistic, but what it does contradict is your CONCLUSION. My data indicates that there have been presidents elected in similar circumstances in the past, and your statistic, which you are using to back up the claim that Obama will lose the election, does not include the data I am using to refute your conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Churchwork
Your data set is the same as my data set and the conclusion is the same that since the depression there have been no incumbent presidents who were reelected when the unemployment rate was 7.2% or higher. This doesn't assure Obama won't get elected. My conclusion is Obama would not get elected based on conditions since the depression, but I believe the events transpiring are more like the depression so he could get reelected.
I suppose we answered that one. Past performance is no guarantee of future results! :)