• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Analyzing The Most Illogical Election EVER. Part 2 (1 Viewer)

Continued from part 1

As for Obama, in the 2 years leading up to the election unemployment was lowered from 9.8% to 7.9% (higher than when he took office), real unemployment during those 2 years didn't go down at all, and instead remained virtually unchanged at 11.6%, There were 3.7 million jobs created during that period, but unfortunately 3 million of those only covered population growth and the GDP only managed a 2.4% average growth rate during the previous year. Other economic factors include Family incomes which have significantly declined, insurance, food and gas prices which have gone up, and the record number of people on welfare and government assistance, has continued to climb. On top of that, after promising to cut deficits in half, they doubled during his first term, and the nations debt increased by a record $6 trillion. That's significantly more than was accumulated during the previous 8 years under George Bush.

Because of the 7% unemployment,Reagan's economy on paper, looked more similar to that of Obama. The big difference being, the incredible level of recovery that took place for Reagan prior to the election. The average GDP growth rate (5.7%) was more than double that of Obama's (2.4%), and he saw nearly 7 million jobs created in the 2 years of recovery prior to the election, which was a full 3 million more jobs than Obama saw.

The conclusion I come to, is that Obama's policies didn't result in any kind of significant economic recovery, the debt was increasing twice as fast as before, there wasn't any substantial GDP or job growth, and this in spite of the $800 billion spent on the stimulus package. In my estimation, Obama's policies can be judged as unsuccessful at best. They've resulted in slow growth and only managed to keep the economy from getting worse. His policies simply didn't deliver the economic recovery that was both promised and expected from them.

Based on the comparisons It's clear that the state of the economy played a significant role in incumbents winning reelection in 1984. 1996 and 2004. When the economy is good, Americans are content with who's in the Oval Office and explains why those men were reelected. It's also clear that President Obama does not fit into that category, as his economic performance clearly demonstrates.

There was only one other incumbent election that was worth taking a look at, and that's because it provided the closest economic comparison to Obama, of any of the other incumbents in the previous 8 elections... It was Jimmy Carter.

Like today, the publics mood back in 1980 wasn't pleasant. The country was suffering from high unemployment and economic stagnation. Carter had lines at the gas pumps, while we saw gas prices skyrocket for Obama since taking office. Carter had the continuing Iran hostage crisis (including a failed rescue mission) that became a big campaign issue, while Obama had the attack on the Bengazi consulate that killed 4 Americans, which wasn't given a lot of attention by the main stream press and didn't play a big factor in the election.

When it comes to the economic numbers, Carter went into the election with unemployment at 7.5%, and Obama at 7.8%. In the 2 years leading up the the election, Carter saw 2.5 million jobs created, while Obama had 3.7 million. But when you exclude population growth and the difference in the sizes of the workforce, they are about the same. As for the GDP, while it was low for Obama during 3 years of the recovery, the economy hadn't yet recovered from the recession of 1980 where the GDP was negative, the growth rate prior to that was 1% lower than what Obama experienced.

There were also several negative economic factors that came into play that differed for each of them. Carter was just coming out of a recession, while Obama was approaching 3 years of economic recovery. Carter had higher inflation and interest rates than Obama, but the real unemployment rate (includes people stuck with part time employment and those who gave up looking for work) was not only 1% higher for Obama at 11.6%, but it hadn't significantly lowered in the previous 2 years of the supposed economic recovery.

After comparing them, seeing the similarities between the two, I've come to the following conclusions. Both incumbents went into their elections with bad economies and neither demonstrated an ability in their first terms in office to effectively deal with the problems. Both also faced opponents that the public felt were qualified to be president, and were seen by them as capable of addressing the economic problems. Of course when it comes to their election results, that's where the similarities end...

Understandably, Jimmy Carter lost in an electoral landslide, with Ronald Reagan earning 440 more electoral votes, and 7.5 million more popular votes than Carter. The publics message from that election was abundantly clear. Low performance and No results = Low support and No reelection.

Barack Obama on the other hand, in spite of his ineffective economic policy that resulted in a 3 year "low growth" recovery, failure to lower the real unemployment rate in 2 years, doubling of budget deficits and nearly doubling the national debt by adding over $6 trillion to it, he still managed to soundly defeat Mitt Romney and earn a second term in Oval Office. Taking into account the negative effects on the economy and the increased cost to consumers that will soon result from the various EPA regulations about to take effect, the expiration of the current tax rates, and all the new taxes being implemented as a result of Obamacare, it makes the Obama victory over Romney even more counterintuitive.

So what have we learned?

1. It was clear based on the polls, that the economy far and away THE most important issue of the campaign. No other issue even came close.

2. The polls also showed clearly that the public felt Romney was a legitimate candidate, a formidable opponent, seen as better qualified to deal with the nations economy than Obama, and he didn't blow the election and hand the election to Obama.

3. Obama's performance on the economy most closely mirrors that of the Carter economy in `1980, who lost in a landslide as a result... while Bush, Clinton and Reagan all won based on their positive results, with solid economic situations moving strongly in the right direction... Results Obama's did not have, and what Obama's economy was not doing.


Never has an American president been rewarded so generously, for failing so miserably... God help us all.


Prior to submitting a registration to vote, a person be required to successfully spell their own name, count backward from 10 to 0, and correctly answer the question: "What state is New York in?"

Prevention is the best medicine you know.
Try to look at it from a silver lining point of veiw. Collapsing the economy is the only chance this country has to return the governmnet to the people through bloodshed and revolution. Obama is making that reality come true. Lets just make sure next time we keep the corruption of wealth out of our government.
It's more clear than ever now that politics is about personal benefit ( 47% ), pop culture, and the mad desires of a rabid left wing media that no longer practices journalism.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom