[Your Nightmare]

I guess 5.6% seems a lot better if you start with 7.3% than if you start with 4.2%.

[Political Junkie Too]

I guess 5.6% seems a lot better if you start with 7.3% than if you start with 4.2%.

But what is the theoritical (natural) minimum? Isn't it around 3.5%? Wouldn't that then make 4.2% extremely low and hard to sustain?

-PJ

[BlackRazor]

I guess 5.6% seems a lot better if you start with 7.3% than if you start with 4.2%.

Exactly! That's the context behind the numbers that always seems to get left out for some reason. Clinton had no problem claiming a growing job base because the long-term numbers supported him. Bush will have a tougher job than Clinton did, even though the absolute unemployment number is the same now as it was in '96. Though unemployment has been coming down for the past few months, the Democrats are going to make the comparison to the 2000 numbers, when Bush took office. Whichever side makes the more compelling argument (Dems-long term decline vs. GOP-short term improvement & turning around) probably wins the election.