The 2012 Election

[_EAllusion]

I think that the main reason why a lot of people are going to vote for Romney is because they believe that he has a lot of business executive experience and knows how to create jobs.

How does being a venture capitalist translate into knowing how to use the federal government purse to manipulate the US economy on a macroeconomic scale in order to increase the employment rate? Because, as best I can tell, the answer is it really doesn't and shouldn't.

On a related note, I would hope we wouldn't be relying on Mitt Romney for economic policy, but rather some team of economic advisers who inform him on the subject and he has delegated responsibility to. Really, what you are looking for in the candidate is a philosophical direction that will guide who those people are and the capacity to apply their advice. Of course, you continue to have a bizarre cross between socialist and shamanistic idea about how employment rates and government executives are related, so I'm not sure this all matters much to you.

[_Brackite]

How does being a venture capitalist translate into knowing how to use the federal government purse to manipulate the US economy on a macroeconomic scale in order to increase the employment rate? Because, as best I can tell, the answer is it really doesn't and shouldn't.

On a related note, I would hope we wouldn't be relying on Mitt Romney for economic policy, but rather some team of economic advisers who inform him on the subject and he has delegated responsibility to. Really, what you are looking for in the candidate is a philosophical direction that will guide who those people are and the capacity to apply their advice. Of course, you continue to have a bizarre cross between socialist and shamanistic idea about how employment rates and government executives are related, so I'm not sure this all matters much to you.

The Following is From Rasmussen:

Trust on Issues: Obama v. Romney

50% Trust Romney More Than Obama To Handle Economy

Thursday, June 14, 2012

Voters continue to trust likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney more than President Obama when it comes to the economy and taxes but are more narrowly divided on three other key issues.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 50% trust Romney more to handle the economy, while 42% trust the president more. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Link: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... a_v_romney



Wisconsin is now basically a swing State, and I give Mitt Romney about a 40% chance of winning that State.

[_Brackite]

The Country of Mexico had its election for President yesterday.

Enrique Peña Nieto wins Mexico's presidency, early results show:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 3371.story

Mexico's former ruling party wins presidential election:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... sults.html


There is 127 more days to the Presidential election for the United States of America.

http://www.electioncountdown.us/


Here are the two official web sites for the two major Presidential candidates.

Barack Obama:
http://www.barackobama.com/

Mitt Romney:
http://www.mittromney.com/

[_EAllusion]

Obama crushed Romney in exit polls of the Walker recall, which itself was a significantly more conservative voter turnout than the people who show up for presidential elections. Rasmussen is notorious for a Republican lean in most of its polls and provides commentary that functions as PR copy for the Republican party. Marquette university tends to put out fairly accurate polls, and it has Obama at +6. That seems about right, if not undershooting it a bit. If Obama loses WI, he loses other states first that already cost him the election. In that sense, it is not a swing state.

[_Brackite]

Election 2012 Trial Heat: Obama vs. Romney:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150743/Obama-Romney.aspx


Swing-State Voters' Enthusiasm Matches Voters' Nationally:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155573/Swing ... nally.aspx

[_Brackite]

President Obama, Mitt Romney deadlocked in race, poll finds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... cking_poll

[_Brackite]

Obama crushed Romney in exit polls of the Walker recall, which itself was a significantly more conservative voter turnout than the people who show up for presidential elections. Rasmussen is notorious for a Republican lean in most of its polls and provides commentary that functions as PR copy for the Republican party. Marquette university tends to put out fairly accurate polls, and it has Obama at +6. That seems about right, if not undershooting it a bit. If Obama loses WI, he loses other states first that already cost him the election. In that sense, it is not a swing state.

You are probably right about Barack Obama going to win the State of Wisconsin, however this Web Site is listing Wisconsin as a swing State now. I believe now that this Presidential election is going to be very, very close. Barack Obama doesn't have that much of an economy record to run on now.
During these first six months of Barack Obama’s fourth year in office, the average unemployment rate is at 8.2%. Now let us compare that with Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s first six months of their fourth year in office.
During the first six months of Ronald Reagan’s fourth year in office, the average unemployment rate was at 7.66%. Ronald Reagan ended up winning in a landslide in his re-election bid.
During the first six months of Bill Clinton’s fourth year in office, the average unemployment rate was at 5.52%. Bill Clinton ended up easily winning his re-election bid.

[_Kevin Graham]

During these first six months of Barack Obama’s fourth year in office, the average unemployment rate is at 8.2%. Now let us compare that with Ronald Reagan’s and Bill Clinton’s first six months of their fourth year in office.

As a Republican you better pray no one takes you up on that offer, because Obama comes out ahead of Reagan any way you look at it. The unemployment rate for Reagan's first three years averaged higher than Obama's first three years, and the recession Reagan inherited was mild compared to what Obama inherited. In fact, unemployment was improving during Reagan's first few months in office, whereas unemployment was skyrocketing during Obama's. Unemployment was well over 10% for nearly an entire year under Reagan. So if you want to compare nothing more than unemployment figures, Obama comes out on top every time.

In July 1980 unemployment was at a thirty year high at 7.8% but went down gradually until Reagan took office January 1981.

Blaming the Carter recession won't work because the rates were improving until Reagan took over. Comparing this to the recession Obama inherited, which is the worst since the great Depression, is just ridiculous. Unemployment rate had been going up at a sharp incline the previous twenty four months prior to Obama, whereas unemployment had leveled off and then dropped before Reagan took over in 1981. Obama jumped in the cockpit of a crashing plane and saved it from destruction. Reagan jumped in and screwed things up in less than six months.

Here are the monthly unemployment rates for Reagan's first term:

1981
January - 7.5
Feb - 7.4
Mar - 7.4
Apr - 7.2
May- 7.5
Jun - 7.5
Jul - 7.2
Aug - 7.4
Sep - 7.6
Oct - 7.9
Nov - 8.3
Dec - 8.5

1982
Jan - 8.6
Feb - 8.9
Mar - 9.0
Apr - 9.3
May - 9.4
Jun - 9.6
Jul - 9.8
Aug - 9.8
Sep - 10.1
Oct - 10.4
Nov - 10.8
Dec - 10.8

1983
Jan - 10.4
Feb - 10.4
Mar - 10.3
Apr - 10.2
May - 10.1
Jun - 10.1
Jul - 9.4
Aug - 9.5
Sep - 9.2
Oct - 8.8
Nov - 8.5
Dec - 8.3 9.52 average three years

1984
Jan - 8.0
Feb - 7.8
Mar - 7.8
Apr - 7.7
May - 7.4
Jun - 7.2
Jul - 7.5
Aug - 7.5
Sep - 7.3
Oct - 7.4
Nov - 7.2
Dec - 7.3

As you can see Reagan's unemployment rate averaged 9.52% over his first three years.

Now compare this to Obama's first three years which has an 8.7% monthly average. In his fourth year the unemployment rate has been going down gradually every month.

[_EAllusion]

If you are interested in what the employment rate has to say about predicting presidential races, then the absolute rate isn't what matters. It's where the trend is going. That's because a sizeable % of swing voters are predominately controlled not by reflecting on issues and comparing them against a coherent ideology but by gauging their vague sense of how things are going. The trend in the employment rate - or rather people's loose grasp of its effects in their daily life - helps decide that. What Obama needs to worry about is the direction of the employment rate, not its absolute number. That it basically is stagnant isn't a death knell for him, but it isn't great news either.

Regarding Reagan, that economic conditions started rapidly improving right around the time people were settling their voting decisions was a huge coincidental wind in his campaign's sails. It couldn't have come at a better time. Again, it's not the absolute number, but the trend.

[_EAllusion]

I looked up 538 to see if Nate Silver had anything to say about what I wrote above. He did and it falls in line with what I wrote. It's a solid article.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... per-month/