Posted on 07/31/2011 1:00:37 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
A gauge that links the economy and votes in presidential elections suggests President Barack Obama's chances of winning a second term will be at risk if the recovery proceeds as forecasters expect.
Plugging the latest forecasts into a model developed by Yale University economist Ray Fair yields the projection that President Obama will receive 48.6 % of the two-party vote next year.
"It is close," Mr. Fair said. "It could go either way
In The Wall Street Journal's most recent survey, economists said they expect the U.S. to grow at a moderate 3% pace through the third quarter of 2012...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Good track record, eh?
Now, here are the three factors:
1. The "per capita" GDP growth in the three quarters before the election.
2. Inflation over the course of the entire presidential term.
3. The number of quarters in the entire presidential term wherein the GDP exceeds 3.2%.
Funniest line in the entire article:
If.... a frog had wings... he would not bust his butt everytime he jumps.
Don’t see many rabbits left in nobama’s magical hat. Maybe even juan mc insane could win next time.
I still say the dem candidate will be hitlery.
[economists said they expect the U.S. to grow at a moderate 3% pace through the third quarter of 2012]
bwahahahaha.
hahaha
ha
" If the economy leaves the rough patch it has been in this year and starts growing quickly, Mr. Obama could be a shoo-in."
So basically, if the economy is absolutely nothing like it is now and has managed to miraculously boom with a massive spate of growth in the next 16 months then Obama is a shoe in!
Yeah, right.
He has the entire MSM shilling for him, that is why he even has a chance
Don't ya see the green shoots everywhere man! This is recovery summer isn't it? Oh wait...
Just like in every election, right? One guy or the other wins?
I would hasten to add that the percentage of votes cast is meaningless - where the votes are cast matters.
I noticed the line if a normal two party election. ...
-——Don’t see many rabbits left in nobama’s magical hat.——
The rabbit is hidden in a cracker box. When pulled out it says war with Iran. Made in the Arabian Gulf by Israelis and the GCC
I noticed that too. Obama’s good buddy and fellow socialist Deval Patrick got reelected in Massachusetts in 2010 with barely 49%, thanks to an “independent” who was a “former” democrat.
Between half and two thirds of the percentage growth in 2012 will be the result of inflation.
Short of him nuking Iran totally to a glass parking lot, it won’t save him.
“The computer missed the 1960 election and the 1992.”
Well, in 1960 they probably didn’t know how to write an algorithm for Mafia vote tampering in Chicago ;-)
More seriously, though, good article. I actually agree with the premise that 2012 is likely to be a close election. Not necessarily because Obama has done anything to deserve re-election (he hasn’t, IMHO). But because of the demographic realities in a lot of states.
Folks hoping for a Reagan-esque 1980 blowout of Obama in 2012 are going to be sorely disappointed, I think. Reagan took the entire Pacific coast (California, Washington State, Oregon) Illinois, and eastern states such as New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts. etc. No GOP candidate is likely to take any of those in 2012. That gives Obama a pretty good starting block of safely blue states.
Now, I’m not saying he’s unbeatable. Far from it. I would lay money right now that Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia all go deep Red in 2012. I also think Obama is going to have to fight for every vote in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. I also think there could be a nasty surprise for the Democrats come 2012 in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan.
Obama can be defeated, I just think it’s going to be a long, hard slog to get there.
November 2006 .....8.5 Trillion Democrats win over Congress
January 2007 ........8.7 Trillion Democrats in charge of Congress
November 2007 .....9 Trillion
January 2008 .........9.2 Trillion
November 2008 ....10.5 Trillion Democrats & Obama in Control
January 2009 .........10.6 Trillion
January 2010 .........12.3 Trillion
November 2010 .....13.7 Trillion Republicans win over US House
January 2011 .........14 Trillion Republicans control US House
July 2011 ...............14.3 Trillion
Only problem as we saw Friday the GDP numbers being fed into the calculator are crap. The numbers reported are no place near reality.
The situation is even better for Obama.
I doubt the algorithm includes a term to account for voters who are dependent on the government and will be more likely to vote FOR a president whom times have gotten worse under.
-Because he’s a free-spender (which is why times have gotten worse, but never mind that) and will give them more.
Times change... that’s a large and fast-growing block of voters now.
You're right, very funny.
With 0banomics we can't even get the economy growing at a 2% pace and it is getting worse. A 3% pace is fairy tale land as long as this idiot president is in office.
uninformed economists.
I also noticed it.
When I when the article, my first thought was, “Throw an independent into the mix (Trump, etc) that ends up splitting the traditional Republican vote, and Obama wins.”
All it’s going to take is a credible third-party run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.