Liberal Disenchantment with Obama is Real RJ

[KanhojiAngre]

Link to the raw data? But you're missing the point of the point, so to speak- high unemployment numbers, in and of themselves, do not mean an incumbent will lose. The novelty of the fact is that the lack of causation is so bald-faced- not one incumbent having hit unemployment over 7% has lost, so long as unemployment was not surging under their administration. It's a point to negate a false perception, not one to imply a positive correlation. No one is implying that Obama will win because unemployment is high. But when your admin takes over due to a fiscal disaster during the previous one, you can get around sustained high unemployment.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

You're missing the point of my post, which is that the number is at best useless for lack of relevance and data points, and at worst completely false according to the numbers I posted. The "not one incumbent has lost" statement is clearly false, as Jimmy Carter lost at over 7%.

From what I'm seeing, 3 of 4 incumbents with Nov. unemployment over 7% lost. The only one that did win was Reagan, who by his re-election had put down a recession, and decreased unemployment from nearly 11% in late 1982 to 7.5ish% from mid 1984 until the election.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

I'm wondering who it applies to other than FDR, but I went back and looked at who unemployment rates over time in another thread and the only times the country was over 8% post Depression were not in election years. I believe it was 75, 81-83, and 09-present. The parameters of the stat are obviously chosen so as to create a data set where one just as easily would not exist.

It is a completely useless number.

According to the charts on tradingeconomics.com

Nov 1948 -- 3.8%
Nov 1952 -- 2.8%
Nov 1956 -- 4.4%
Nov 1960 -- 6.2%
Nov 1964 -- 4.8%
Nov 1968 -- 3.4%
Nov 1972 -- 5.3%
Nov 1976 -- 7.8% -- incumbent did not win
Nov 1980 -- 7.5% -- incumbent did not win
Nov 1984 -- 7.2% -- incumbent won
Nov 1988 -- 5.3%
Nov 1992 -- 7.4% -- incumbent did not win
Nov 1996 -- 5.4%
Nov 2000 -- 3.9%
Nov 2004 -- 5.4%
Nov 2008 -- 6.9%

Anyone got anything different?

Thanks for posting this. But that fits Nate's point- you look for jumps, not sustained rates, and that sustained high rates do not equate to losing. 72-76. Loss. 88-92. Loss. But 80-84? Win. And the point was that there's no correlation to winning or losing by having high numbers. You just can't have the number spike.

The 76-80 number doesn't fit what Silver posted, so I'd like to know what he was using there as opposed to what you've posted. But the lack of causation is still readily apparent.

Edited to add: He sidestepped it, which is intellectually dishonest (especially since a single event doesn't disprove the point--that high unemployment doesn't mean you lose):

fivethirtyeight Nate Silver
Over the past 100 years, no incumbent president with an unemployment rate of between 7.6% and 23.5% has failed to win re-election.

 

[jhmd2000]

You've really become almost impossible to talk to. You asked a question, and I supplied the exact answer. You didn't like that fact, so you slipped into massive condescension that had nothing to do with the issue. And with this post, you're just plain trolling.

When you're ready to have civil political debates again let me know, but until then I'm done being antagonized without any intellectual upside.

AD,

I think you're taking this message board a little too seriously.

1) I made a good-natured observation that your characterization of someone else's prediction of a Presidential election as being unduly "hope-laden" was a bit ironic, post-2008. You got sandy panties over it. It was just a joke.

2) I pointed out that your reliance on historical data was misplaced, since people vote in the here and now. I tried to point out that each situation was different by making reference to a variable that was not present in the past situations; apparently you took me literally. I thought the sarcasm was sufficiently conveyed by my characterization of your argument as being akin to something Ron Burgundy would say. I am amazed that you took my reference to the movie ANCHORMAN as anything other than a rhetorical rebuttal of your argument.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

you have to really parse and re-parse the data to try and make a definitive statement either way on this, i think. The unemployment rate actually declined under Jimmy Carter (from 7.8 to 7.5) but he obviously lost to Reagan. so i'm not sure where that fits.

either way, you can tie yourself in knots on this stat and i'm not sure any of it means anything except that a bad economy makes it harder for an incumbent, and so 9% unemployment and a 25% increase during his term is probably not helpful for the current incumbent. obviously, there is no absolute causation here, but in an election about the economy, those are not helpful facts.

Good post. It's certainly not, but the broader point is that if you came in high, staying high isn't a death sentence.

 

[RJKarl]

If you use the increase number, Bush 41 had about a 30% increase over his predecessor. This would mean Obama would have to have a rate of about 10.4% to be the same.

As for Carter beating Ford, Obama's effective rate would have to be 12%.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

AD,

I think you're taking this message board a little too seriously.

1) I made a good-natured observation that your characterization of someone else's prediction of a Presidential election as being unduly "hope-laden" was a bit ironic, post-2008. You got sandy panties over it. It was just a joke.

2) I pointed out that your reliance on historical data was misplaced, since people vote in the here and now. I tried to point out that each situation was different by making reference to a variable that was not present in the past situations; apparently you took me literally. I thought the sarcasm was sufficiently conveyed by my characterization of your argument as being akin to something Ron Burgundy would say. I am amazed that you took my reference to the movie ANCHORMAN as anything other than a rhetorical rebuttal of your argument.

If you want to characterize your posts as light-hearted and good-natured, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. But when a poster starts misquoting, condescending, or using words like, "kneepad" and "unicorn," to mock as less intelligent all those who have a different viewpoint, I tend to lose interest.

IMO, you've been posting like scottconover/benbridgerman lately (minus the overpowering anger). But whatever, it's a message board. I'm just saying that's where I check out.

 

[jhmd2000]

^ Okay, let me make my point another way.

If historical indictators were the driver (rather than economic conditions in effect in the six weeks before the election), George H.W. Bush would have been a two term President.

I think references to history take a back seat to the economy.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

Thanks for posting this. But that fits Nate's point- you look for jumps, not sustained rates, and that sustained high rates do not equate to losing. 72-76. Loss. 88-92. Loss. But 80-84? Win. And the point was that there's no correlation to winning or losing by having high numbers. You just can't have the number spike.

The 76-80 number doesn't fit what Silver posted, so I'd like to know what he was using there as opposed to what you've posted. But the lack of causation is still readily apparent.

Edited to add: He sidestepped it, which is intellectually dishonest (especially since a single event doesn't disprove the point--that high unemployment doesn't mean you lose):

fivethirtyeight Nate Silver
Over the past 100 years, no incumbent president with an unemployment rate of between 7.6% and 23.5% has failed to win re-election.

Still doesn't explain Ford. Unemployment was actually down from 75 to 76. Perhaps using the term "re-election" is more sophistry?

It still looks to me like at best those figures take in no one post WWII, in which case they are useless.

But let's look at the jump theory.

Nov 1948 -- 3.8%
Nov 1952 -- 2.8% -- -1% -- Incumbent did not run for re-election, highly unlikely he would have won though; opposition party won.
Nov 1956 -- 4.4% -- +1.6% -- Incumbent won
Nov 1960 -- 6.2% -- +1.8% -- no incumbent, incumbent party lost.
Nov 1964 -- 4.8% -- -1.4% -- appointed incumbent won
Nov 1968 -- 3.4% -- -1.4% -- incumbent did not run for re-election, highly unlikely he would have won; opposition party won
Nov 1972 -- 5.3% -- +1.9% -- incumbent won
Nov 1976 -- 7.8% -- +2.5% -- appointed incumbent lost
Nov 1980 -- 7.5% -- -0.3% -- incumbent lost
Nov 1984 -- 7.2% -- -0.3% -- incumbent won
Nov 1988 -- 5.3% -- -1.9% -- no incumbent, incumbent party won
Nov 1992 -- 7.4% -- +2.1% -- incumbent lost
Nov 1996 -- 5.4% -- -2.0% -- incumbent won
Nov 2000 -- 3.9% -- -1.5% -- no incumbent, incumbent party lost
Nov 2004 -- 5.4% -- +1.5% -- incumbent won
Nov 2008 -- 6.9% -- +1.5% -- no incumbent, incumbent party lost
May 2011 -- 9.1% -- +2.2%

Incumbent wins -- +1.6, -1.4, +1.9, -0.3, -2.0, +1.5
Incumbent losses -- +2.5, -0.3, +2.1
No incumbent, incumbent party loses -- +1.8, -1.5, +1.5
No incumbent, incumbent party wins -- -1.9
Eligible incumbent does not run, incumbent party loses -- -1, -1.4

About the only thing you can say is that no incumbent has won with more than a 1.9% jump in unemployment from their initial election month to election day. They're 0 for 2 in that scenario, and that's where Obama is right now.

The other thing you might say is that both of GWB's elections might be the most unlikely results in this set. Winning opposing the incumbent party coming off -1.5% unemployment, then winning off +1.5% unemployment without really a major accomplishment (the 1.6% jump was still only to 4.4, and Nixon's re-election came with winding down Vietnam, and establishing relations with China).

But I really don't see a ton to go off here, regardless. Silver's statement is still useless, to say the best about it.

 

[RJKarl]

It's more about HOW big a jump in the rate not the raw number.

As to Silver being "useless", he's considered by most to be the most accurate prognositcator in the biz.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Who was Angre on the old board? Dude is crushing it.

 

[ArlingtonDeac]

It's more about HOW big a jump in the rate not the raw number.

As to Silver being "useless", he's considered by most to be the most accurate prognositcator in the biz.

That doesn't help Silver here. He's presented an empirically true fact that doesn't offer much value, according to the number provided above. I call it somewhat intellectually dishonest. Great post by Kan.

 

[KanhojiAngre]

That doesn't help Silver here. He's presented an empirically true fact that doesn't offer much value, according to the number provided above. I call it somewhat intellectually dishonest. Great post by Kan.

As has been noted, there are a number of possible caveats and excluders (if it's not a word, it should be)...like "re-election", creative percentage choices and timeframes, "sustained unemployment", etc.

If you're going to look for correlations here, here's where I would go.
Unemployment rise 2% or more -- incumbent is 0-2
Unemployment rise less han 2% -- incumbent is 3-0, incumbent party is 3-2
Unemployment fell -- incumbent is 3-1, incumbent party is 4-4
Incumbent should be OK if there's not too big a rise in the U rate, right? 6-1.

OR
When the unemployment rate is above 6% going into an election, regardless of rise or fall, the incumbent party is 1-5, including 3 outright incumbent losses.

When the rate is below 5.5%, the incumbent party is 7-3 and two of those are cases where an eligible president did not run again.

Both factual, with convenient arguments to be made for either side.

Of course, you could feel this is all useless numbers, or not enough info, or a changing electorate makes all previous data useless. All defensible.

But that's obviously not Nate Silver.

I wonder how much time political science schools spend covering the statistically stunning Bush win over Gore? Seems like it should be a lot.