AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (37 comments)

  1. Ted Gambogi

    Ergo the personal attacks to divert focus on the economy. since BHO has abandoned the undecided the question is can he an holder stall the efforts of the states to remove illegal aliens from the voter rolls long enough to “create” votes from his base and new found base?

    1. fredCPA

      they think its going to be 04, a base election. its all they’ve got. they HOPE thats what it is. instead of what it really is but 80, and a wave. its going to be very bloody for dems. generatinally bloody. but the coming entitlement crisis and reform will effectively end the party anyway as a major pol party in this country. the island of misfit toys is about to break apart, from the cobbled together mess its been since 72.

      1. I hope you are right, and what is happening in Europe ought to put the final nail in that parties coffin… at least for a generation.

        But they managed to blame the Great Recession, triggered if not caused by the bursting of the housing bubble that was driven by Democrat policies on the Republicans, so who knows…

  2. Derrick

    “Clifton suggests that ‘there seems to be a relationship between consumer confidence and whether a president gets reelected. The current levels of confidence are consistent with Carter and George H. W. Bush when they lost reelection.'”

    No idea why he would suggest that. The sample size is 8 and the margin of consumer confidence deviation isn’t particularly large, not to mention two of the presidents on the graph have bucked the supposed “trend”

    “Small firms are becoming increasingly more concerned about taxes and regulation and less about sales in recent months. And these are the firms that create the bulk of net new jobs in America.”

    Not seeing that trend either. Taxes is effectively staying the same while Regulation is trend up slightly but that’s bound to happen when concern about sales is finally crashing which, to me, signifies good things to come.

    “The Economic Policy Uncertainty Index has been sharply increasing in recent months, and that has been leading consumer sentiment.”

    The EPUI is all over the place and its wild fluctuations are clearly cyclical based on the last graph. The EPUI just crashed recently and CS shot up right with it. What’s happening now seems like a pretty natural fluctuation to me and I wouldn’t be surprised at all to see it spike and crash again before November.

    1. Zee-Man

      Which two, exactly, bucked this trend?

  3. The U.S. Consumer Confidence Index (CCI) also should worry the Chicago team. This June it dropped to 62.

    The election year October CCI for 3 previous incumbents who lost were

    1992: 57.3
    1980: 80.3
    1976: 87.1

    June 2012: 62
    October 2012: probably under 50

    The lowest CCI under which incumbent has won was 96.7 for GWB.

    Considering that June 62 CCI, might turn to under 50 CCI by October like after two previous summers of recovery, no wonder Obama campaign is getting desperate.

    The two previous summer of recoveries have brought consumer confidence down from the early summer compared to October.

    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/consumer-confidence

    2010: June 62.7 -> October 48.6
    2011: June 61.7 -> October 46.4

    So if after this summer of recovery, the June 62 turns into 45-49 in October

    1. Cosifantutti

      Teemu

      The numbers also show where the dinosaur media really switched over to a full-fledged arm of the DNC. Bush 41 was destroyed by the MSM over an economy which would be regarded by it today as an absolute boom time for Obama. Things were astonishingly wretched in 1980, yet Americans were still fundamentally positive that things could change for the better; witness an 80.3 when there were gasoline lines and a “good’ home mortgage was 12%. After 12 years of Reagan and GHWB, they pulled out all the stops for the unknown talker from Arkansas. Sound familiar?

  4. Anne Bright

    It will not matter, as the mainframe computer that will COUNT the electronic votes is in Spain and the company that has the contract for this service is involved with GEORGE SOROS. The fix is in – unless that computer goes DOWN before election day, BHO will win and America will finally die!

    1. I agree

    2. Thomas Sullivan

      I disagree. Votes are counted by each county, totaled by each state. Electoral votes are derived from that. Dems can however fabricate votes during recounts as in Washington state governor race and recent Senate race in Minnesota. They tried to bias recounts in Florida 2000 Bush v. Gore, but the US Supreme Court found 7-2 that recounting only Gore-selected counties was illegal.

      1. Stu_in_VA

        I dont think it was the selection of counties to recount, but that the FL Supreme Court would not set a standard for what counted as a vote or not (dimpled, 1 corner, swinging, hanging). The chief justice of the FSC said in the second case (which was not unanamous) that not setting a standard would invite the FEDS in.

      2. Also, if libs give you any guff over 2000, just point them here: http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/recount/
        Even in the recount done by a consortium of lefty mouthpieces and propaganda outlet, the New York Times, Washington Post, and others, George W. Bush won.

        1. But if you look at the Florida recounts it appears as though with every recount the margin tightened. I expect the Democrats feel the election was stolen because there weren’t enough recounts to push Gore over the top.

          Or to put it another way they didn’t have enough time to “find” enough extra votes.

  5. “No idea why he would suggest that. The sample size is 8 and the margin of consumer confidence deviation isn’t particularly large, not to mention two of the presidents on the graph have bucked the supposed “trend”

    Kind of hard to have a larger sample size when we are only talking about presidents seeking reelection so we make good with the data we have. Other factors come into play, such as terrorism in 2004, but this election will be decided on economic issues and Obama is in trouble on those

  6. Richard

    To the libs whose comments dismiss these charts, I guess you have nothing to worry about.

    1. Cosifantutti

      Right you are, Richard. “It’s not about the money! It’s the principle!” I am going to enjoy November 7 even more than all the moonbats did on their big day in ’08. Then we only suspected the Narcissist would be a fiasco. Now we have the satisfaction of being proven right and being rid of him at the same time. It says here the Dems will run from this guy faster than Dukakis sunk beneath the surface, never to be heard from again.

    2. fredCPA

      which is why there will a grwta dela of cognitive dissonance come Nov. however, soon, probably sept/early Oct, the dems are going to have to make a choice: seriously tank in 12, go down with the obama ship, lose potus, house and senate (54-55 GOP senators possible in that scenario), OR “carter-ize” the obama wound; i.e. he goes down by himslef, they save themselves and the “ideology, in theory. may be too late. but i imagine theres going to be some turning on obama in the dem establishment before Nov. about when they switch to proper D/R/I’s (not 39/29/32 for example, but more likely 36/34/30 something) and LV’s in the polling you’ll see obama sink (to about his likely PV % of about 43-44%) and romney be conistsently over 50%.

  7. levi from queens

    Why is Gerald Ford omitted?

    1. Probably because he had no original election numbers, or had no full term leading to re-election on which to base accurate data.

    2. Most likely because the article deals with *re-election* and Gerald Ford never was elected.

    3. levi from queens

      I looked back and couldn’t quite come up with the numbers, but Ford got about 49% of the vote, and consumer confidence was at a low. He would definitely fit inside the loser circle if included.

  8. Barack-Oh’s ultimate economic plan is to raise taxes on everyone in one year and one day. For those > $250,000 it will happen on 1/1/12 and for those < $250,000 it will occur on 1/1/13. This is the best plan that the incumbent can come up with, a plan that Senator Reid will not call to the floor for debate or a vote because it will be soundly defeated, a plan that will deep six business leader confidence, a plan that sacrifices the needs of the poorest among us, and those who cannot find a job, those who are young and just entering the work force, those who are laid off and waiting to be called back to work, and all for his own political future. The U.S. electorate must send this failure back to Chicago.

  9. bpbatista

    Isn’t the re-elect percentage for Clinton wrong? As I recall he only received 49% in 1996.

    1. Percentage of the “two party” vote. In other words, exclude Perot and other also-rans from the raw vote total, and calculate Clinton’s share of the Clinton-Dole votes.

      1. Clinton received 49% of the total vote, including 3rd parties.

        Carter did not have any serious 3rd party opposition in his first election and won an outright majority of votes.

    2. crosspatch

      I believe you are correct. Clinton never received more than 50% of the vote. Ross Perot split the Republican vote allowing Clinton to win with less than 50% in both elections.

    3. fredCPA

      he is using “2-party vote” (see axis identification), meaning facotring our perot voters in 96. then of those that are left % for clinton vs dole. of THOSE that DIDNT vote perot, clinton got 55%

      1. bpbatista

        Got it. That makes sense.

      2. Nor would I assume that all those Perot votes, particularly in 1992, would have gone to Bush. There were studies done then that indicated more Perot votes were taken from Clinton than from Bush.

        1. Who did that study? The DNC?

          1. Perot dropped out of the race for a couple of months, but that did not help Bush in any of the polls. Sleepy is right.

  10. stas peterson

    The removal of third party candidacies warps the reality.

    The only Democrat Presidents since LBJ ,i.e. Carter, Clinton and Oabama were elected the same way Woodrow Wilson the vicious racist KKKer, was early in the 20th Century. That is by spliting the Republican votes and aqueezing into Office.

    The only legitimately elected Democrats of the past 120 years were FDR Truman and LBJ. Even Jack Kennedy’s election was largely a Chicago machine invention.

    1. Mitchell Segek

      Who did McCain split the GOP vote with? You aren’t making any sense. And Obama won by a healthy margin.

      1. The key word in this article is “re-election”

  11. Minorkle

    I concur

  12. Jimmy Carter had an 8% advantage in the “polls” just a week or two before the 1980 election. Reagan won in an historic landslide. Carter wasn’t nearly as hated by the opposition Party’s voters, either, btw……

  13. You can gin up any historical data you want, but the reality is that tracking state by state polling is the best way to predict the outcome. If state by state polling is showling an issue of consumer confidence in competitive states, not just nationally, then ultimately it is possible those states will swing to Romney. The national data doesn’t determine that, since there is great variation in the economic outlook state to state. This isn’t analysis. It is wishful thinking.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content