Does High Unemployment Really Hurt Obama? (In fact, states with high unemployment WILL vote Obama)

American Thinker ^ | 08/10/2012 | Jonathan David Carson

[SeekAndFind]

We've heard thousands of times that a high unemployment rate helps the candidacy of Governor Romney and a low unemployment rate favors President Obama. Maybe so. That certainly makes sense. On the other hand, it flies in the face of obvious and incontrovertible facts. For instance, states with high unemployment rates are likely to vote for President Obama, and states with low rates are likely to vote for Governor Romney. What is going on?

First, the facts. The average unemployment rate of states solid for Obama is 9.1% compared to an unemployment rate of 6.8% for solid Romney states. For likely Obama states the rate is 8.7%; likely Romney states have a 6.8% rate. Combining solid and likely states, we get an unemployment rate of 9.0% for solid or likely Obama states compared to 6.8% for solid or likely Romney.

[SeekAndFind]

Table 1 Solid Obama

State	Electoral Votes	% Unemployed
California	55	10.7
Delaware	3	6.7
DC	3	9.1
Hawaii	4	6.4
Illinois	20	8.7
Maryland	10	6.9
Massachusetts	11	6.0
New York	29	8.9
Rhode Island	4	10.9
Vermont	3	4.7
All States	142	9.1

Table 2 Likely Obama

State	Electoral Votes	% Unemployed
Connecticut	7	8.1
Maine	4	7.5
New Jersey	14	9.6
Washington	12	8.3
All States	37	8.7

Table 3 Solid and Likely Obama

State	Electoral Votes	% Unemployed
California	55	10.7
Delaware	3	6.7
DC	3	9.1
Hawaii	4	6.4
Illinois	20	8.7
Maryland	10	6.9
Massachusetts	11	6.0
New York	29	8.9
Rhode Island	4	10.9
Vermont	3	4.7
Connecticutt	7	8.1
Maine	4	7.5
New Jersey	14	9.6
Washington	12	8.3
All States	179	9.0

Table 4 Solid Romney

State	Electoral Votes	% Unemployed
Alabama	9	7.8
Alaska	3	7.3
Arkansas	6	7.2
Idaho	4	7.7
Kansas	6	6.1
Kentucky	8	8.2
Louisiana	8	7.5
Mississippi	6	8.8
Nebraska	5	3.8
Oklahoma	7	4.7
Utah	6	6.0
West Virginia	5	7.0
Wyoming	3	5.4
All States	76	6.8

Table 5 Likely Romney

State	Electoral Votes	% Unemployed
North Dakota	3	2.9
South Dakota	3	4.3
Tennessee	11	8.1
Texas	38	7.0
All States	55	6.8

Table 6 Solid and Likely Romney

State	Electoral Votes	% Unemployed
Alabama	9	7.8
Alaska	3	7.3
Arkansas	6	7.2
Idaho	4	7.7
Kansas	6	6.1
Kentucky	8	8.2
Louisiana	8	7.5
Mississippi	6	8.8
Nebraska	5	3.8
Oklahoma	7	4.7
Utah	6	6.0
West Virginia	5	7.0
Wyoming	3	5.4
North Dakota	3	2.9
South Dakota	3	4.3
Tennessee	11	8.1
Texas	38	7.0
All States	131	6.8

[going hot]

Dem controlled states are dem controlled because there are more dem voters there. Is it a coincidence that these states also have the highest unemployment rates, highest failure of policies, and also, the higher amount of obama voters?

[DuncanWaring]

Many of his voter base have had 100% unemployment in their families for generations.

[albie]

This was the intent all along. Get enough people on food stamps and you’ve got voters for life. Game over.

[coconut47]

they are brain dead freeloaders and beyond reasoning with

[griswold3]

I think the Left has done the electoral college math and believes that the 2012 election will be a solid victory for obama.
God help us. Prepare accordingly.

There’s just something about the Leftist brain that cannot be explained. My German aunt, God bless her heart, still supports Hitler, saying he did alot of good for the German people. The evil was committed by the likes of Eichman and Himmler. You can never get her to say otherwise.

[Entrepreneur]

We have a completely dishonest government, dishonest media, and ignorant public. It does not bode well.

[ScottinVA]

With 100M -— one full third of this country’s entire population — now suckling on the government welfare teat, high unemployment isn’t nearly as impactful as in previous years.

Unlike the America of the past, there seems to be a government solution for every real and perceived challenge. The rugged individualism that typified the American spirit has given way to submissive collectivism.

[DannyTN]

This is because the GOP is the stupid party.

The GOP solution to high unemployment outlays is to cut unemployment and other entitlements instead of fix the economy.

Neither party is espousing much of an economic plan.

Romney says culture matters, which is true, but easy to say when you are contrasting with Palestinians and not speaking about what you intend to change.

Obama’s solution is to do the same thing to all industries that he did to GM. Yeah, well he said it himself.

If you’re unemployed and dependent on the government through no fault of your own. You’d think twice before voting GOP. And that’s even if you recognize that the GOP represents a longer term solution than Obama control.

[napscoordinator]

Romney gets all the states with hardly any electorals except for Texas. Most are single digit. Obama gets all the states with lots of electorals. Something is very unfair about that.

[ScottinVA]

And that’s even if you recognize that the GOP represents a longer term solution than Obama control.

Exactly, because the "American Dream" now constitutes existing in a zone of government-provided "security," rather than an inspired drive toward achieving the fruits of one's own labors.

[AbolishCSEU]

"100% unemployment for generations"

We have a WINNER!!!!

[AbolishCSEU]

This about sums it up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbXhT3uBWRg

[cripplecreek]

Welfare and friends does need to be slashed to near nothing but I think we’re coming at it from the wrong end. We’ve got to start creating jobs through regulation elimination. There are also some easy choices that can be put to the people in regards to spending. Things like “Food stamps or bike paths? Choose 1.”,” Granny or Solyndra? Choose 1”, “Ethanol subsidies or medicare? Choose 1”, EPA or jobs? Choose 1.”

Its not complicated. When faced with a “provider” like Obama, playing the role of pure punisher, won’t win. The carrot and stick approach is fine but don’t forget the carrot.

The mobs who show up for Obama money couldn’t care less about bike paths, funding the arts, or the EPA. We should use it.

[Road Glide]

“Does High Unemployment Really Hurt Obama? (In fact, states with high unemployment WILL vote Obama)”

Ah, someone’s finally figuring it out.

There are “two Americas” now. The “dividing” has been happening for decades (perhaps since the beginning of “The Great Society”), but the two sides are now coalescing into “opposing spheres”. Imagine, if you will, the filmed image of a single cell dividing into two cells. That’s what’s going on in the country right now.

On one side are the “old-fashioned”, “traditional” Americans. These folks still believe in such things as traditional marriage, work, independence, freedom — a “life ethic” that is pretty much derived from the old “Scots-Irish” tradition. They are inherently distrustful of others who “tell them how to live”, and increasingly, that means “government” - a government that seems intent on taking away much of what they have worked for. Perhaps it’s impolite to say so, but the overwhelming majority of the traditional Americans are of “Euro” heritage. These are the “Don’t Tread On Me” people.

On the OTHER side is a growing cohort of people who harbor beliefs that are diametrically opposed from the above group. These people see government as “the giver”. Consequently, they view conservatives who oppose government largesse and power as a threat to their needs, and brand them as intolerant and “racist”.

Call this “the new slavery”, if you will. Only now, it’s government that has become “the new Massa”, and corrupt politicians and their ever expanding cadre of bureaucrats, administrators, and regulators who take on the role of “the new overseers”.

On the one side are those who cherish freedom and mistrust government. On the other, those who crave entitlements and government and its “gifts”, and who don’t seem to care much about their own “freedom”, so long as they get handouts.

And it happens that a high number of the latter group reside in states that have high rates of unemployment, but — why should they care? They have a “baseline of benefits” to which they’re entitled, and of the two candidates and parties, which is the one that promises to -increase- said benefits?

Peering across America’s “Great Divide” is an “Alice Through The Looking Glass” experience. From the right, traditionalists view the other side, and can’t fathom how they have arrived at their “life ethics”. On the left, there seems to be little interest amongst “the new slaves” in trying to understand why they should be anything other than who they are. And the divide between the two sides continues to deepen. There seems to be no way to bridge the chasm, for either side has come to loathe what the “other side” believes in.

Thus, high unemployment rates no longer matter to these folks, because the higher the rates of unemployment rise, the more “the new Massa” will strive to increase benefits and punish those who produce the tax revenues...

Cynicism aside, for whom should we EXPECT them to vote?

[DannyTN]

"Exactly, because the "American Dream" now constitutes existing in a zone of government-provided "security," rather than an inspired drive toward achieving the fruits of one's own labors. "

I don't think the American dream has changed. But when faced with survival, and one group is offering you assistance, and the other group is wanting to cut your assistance, and neither is promoting a plan to change the scenario so you no longer need assistance, who are you going to vote for?

The GOP is stupid for going after entitlements before fixing the economy, and if Romney names Ryan as VP, then Romney may well lose this election.

[Road Glide]

“Romney gets all the states with hardly any electorals except for Texas. Most are single digit. Obama gets all the states with lots of electorals. Something is very unfair about that.”

What this indicates to me is that any time you concentrate people, two things happen:
1. More “control over them” is needed to maintain order, and
2. The need for, and desire for “independence” decreases.

Throw “diversity” into the mix, and the need for government to hold down the top of the pressure cooker grows by leaps and bounds.

Urban societies — by some kind of natural process — transmogrify into liberal (and controllable) societies.

[Iron Munro]

[Fee]

Ditto. Freepers are not paying attention to the EC count. Obama can lose the popular vote but win by the EC count. Right now Obama has 247 out of 270 needed. 85 is the toss up and he needs to win only 23 more. Ever since VA became purple, the EC balance had changed for the GOP.