AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (11 comments)

  1. the Elite probably already have the election decided through voter fraud (with help of rigged voting machines, including the ones run by Soros) so a “sickly second-quarter GDP” isn’t something that barry will give a second thought to.
    What he Might give a thought to is how the Elite are LETTING the media post info that he (barry) might not be ahead for the purpose of backing barry in a corner (before they throw him under the bus) so he’ll start WWIII.

    1. Ventura Capitalist

      In the tradition of Nixon with Kennedy, and being the more decent bunch, we usually let election theft slide “for the good of the country” giving us, for example, Senator Jackasss from Minnesota.

      This time we’ve got to go to the mat on every fraud — for the good of the country.

    2. manapp99

      If the elite are deciding elections then that means they gave us the Democratic waves in 06 and 08 and the GOP wave in 2010. Either they are schizophrenic or they are not as in control as some would have us believe.

  2. even the reported 1.5% growth in “real” GDP is wildly inflated by statistical gimmicks. http://www.youtube.com/v/zPkTItOXuN0&hl=en_US&fs=1&

  3. Well, there’s still hope for those 2013 and 2014 predictions. After all, he may only be President for only three weeks of those two years.

  4. subrot0

    It really doesn’t matter if the economy is growing or not. Obama has his base and they will vote for him irregardless of the economy or even their personal condition.

    The question is how do you remove the hold he has on people. His words are quite seductive, “the rich folks can be taxed more.” “somebody will always help you” “the food stamps will always be there”. Unless you change that condition he has decent shot at winning the election.

  5. your comparison of average economic growth in the two recoveries makes no sense: are you implying that both the depth and causes of the two recessions are even analogous. not likely.

    1. richard40

      Obamas claim that his recession was somehow completely unique was another Obama lie. The depth of the 2 recessions, Reagans and Obamas, as measured by both the fall in economic output, and the low point in unemployment, was about the same. In addition, Reagan had to contend with huge inflation and interest rates as well. The difference was Reagan freed the market and small business to recover, while Obama destroyed the private economy with regulations and relied on stimulus payments and bailouts to favored cronies.

  6. Bruce W Griffin

    You write: “And when you plug these new numbers into the election forecasting model of Yale University’s Ray Fair — assuming next quarter is no better than the past two — it shows a 4-point Mitt Romney victory over Barack Obama (in the two-party vote totals).”

    But when you plug a 1.5% growth rate for 2012 into the model (along with 2Qs of +3.2% growth since Obama became president), you get: 50.21% of the two-party vote for Obama.

    1. Bruce W Griffin

      I’m not clear as to why 4Q2009 and 4Q2011 don’t count as +3.2% quarters in Fair’s model. But if you assume zero +3.2% quarters (as Fair does in his notes), then you do indeed get 48.2% for the president (two-party vote percentage).

  7. richard40

    Why should it matter if Obamas economy is miserable, and constantly performs below his predictions. After all it is all Bush’s fault anyway. If by some miracle Obama wins again, and we fall into another recession, that will be Bush’s fault too, or perhaps the repub congress, for not spending the extra trillions he wants them to, and not passing his job killing tax hike. Our great leader never makes mistakes, and is never responsible for anything, haven’t you all learned that by now.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content