Summer Of 2012: Will Up To 50% Of Americans Choose Between Air-Conditioning And Food?

[skookerasbil]

Ominous Numbers for Obama

By GENE EPSTEIN | MORE ARTICLES BY AUTHOR

An index based on joblessness and consumer spending isn't saying good things about the president's chances of re-election.



Will the economy (stupid) again determine the outcome of a presidential election? Based on two important economic measures that I've examined and their relationship to the presidential races since 1956, Obama supporters have cause to worry.

All but the most recent of those races featured an incumbent, whether it was a sitting president (nine races out of 13) or a vice president seeking to move into the Oval Office (four out of 13). Based on consumer spending and unemployment—the two variables I tracked—Obama probably would have lost had he run for re-election this past November.

The numbers have improved since then, but not enough to tip the odds in the president's favor. (See summary data in the table below.)



Is It the Economy, Stupid?



Year

Incumbent/VP

VEWB*

Result



1956

Dwight D. Eisenhower

-0.6

Won



1960

Richard Nixon

-2.2

Lost



1964

Lyndon B. Johnson

3.6

Won



1968

Hubert Humphrey

5

Lost



1972

Richard Nixon

4.3

Won



1976

Gerald Ford

1

Lost



1980

Jimmy Carter

-4

Lost



1984

Ronald Reagan

0

Won



1988

George H. W. Bush

0.8

Won



1992

George H. W. Bush

-1.3

Lost



1996

Bill Clinton

0.5

Won



2000

Al Gore

2.6

Lost



2004

George W. Bush

0

Won



2011

Barack Obama

-3.9



*Voters' Economic Well-Being = Consumer spending growth minus the jobless rate

Ominous Numbers for Obama - Barrons.com



Ooooooooooooooooooops!!

 

[WillowTree]

If the predictions are on track and we go into the summer of 2012 with an average gas price of $4.50 (ish) a gallon, then what happens to our electricity bills? If the average household pays about $100.00 a month now, what will it be when it's 85 to 100 degrees out?
This issue hasn't been brought up yet on the news, but let's all just wait and see what Obama and the White House has to say and tell the nation come June/July when the average American is already suffering as it is with gas&food prices.
Will The Left Keep Blaming Bush ?

$100 a month?

Shooooot... we here in snowAmerica should be so lucky as to only have to worry about a measily $100 a month energy bills.


I expect the last thirty days I went through over 100 gallons of # 2 fuel keeping my house heated up to 62 degrees, folks.

Do the math and understand that I buy that much fuel every month for about six months a year.

And my house is well insulated and fairly small, too.

And this was not a particularly cold winter, either.

I can use twice that amount if its an especially cold winter.

Why didn't you buy you some solar panels from Solyndra?

 

[Mac1958]

Ominous Numbers for Obama

I'm not sure if I really need to point this out (well, who knows, perhaps I do), but just in case:

1. There are many people who don't blame Obama for the wide, deep, and incredibly complicated mess he took over. Yes, the steps he has taken to mitigate that mess have been debatable, but no one but the hardcore conservative partisans would actually say that he is responsible for where we are, so the "VEWB" factor is probably not terribly relevant to someone whose eyes are open. And, while some (including some here) are now trying to spin this historic, worldwide economic disaster as just another recession, very few people buy that notion.

2. Despite the economic precipice on which we find ourselves standing, (a) Obama's approval ratings are improving and (b) the public sees the embarrassing mess the GOP nominating process is, and knows that many in the party are pining for a decent and electable candidate to appear. And while conservative partisans are (predictably) falling over themselves to deny and spin this, the Democrats are doing the happy dance right now as they gaze upon Santorum and Romney as potential November opponents.

I don't, for a moment, expect you to suddenly change your mind based on my little post here. I thought I'd just address what appears to be a very, very simplistic assumption about November. I had a couple of minutes, what the hell.

.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ominous Numbers for Obama

I'm not sure if I really need to point this out (well, who knows, perhaps I do), but just in case:

1. There are many people who don't blame Obama for the wide, deep, and incredibly complicated mess he took over. Yes, the steps he has taken to mitigate that mess have been debatable, but no one but the hardcore conservative partisans would actually say that he is responsible for where we are, so the "VEWB" factor is probably not terribly relevant to someone whose eyes are open. And, while some (including some here) are now trying to spin this historic, worldwide economic disaster as just another recession, very few people buy that notion.

2. Despite the economic precipice on which we find ourselves standing, (a) Obama's approval ratings are improving and (b) the public sees the embarrassing mess the GOP nominating process is, and knows that many in the party are pining for a decent and electable candidate to appear. And while conservative partisans are (predictably) falling over themselves to deny and spin this, the Democrats are doing the happy dance right now as they gaze upon Santorum and Romney as potential November opponents.

I don't, for a moment, expect you to suddenly change your mind based on my little post here. I thought I'd just address what appears to be a very, very simplistic assumption about November. I had a couple of minutes, what the hell.

.

You make broad generlaizations based on nothing but your own imagination. People always blame the incumbent for problems, regardless of whether he caused them or not.
Most people still perceive we are in a recession. The changes in polling can easily be atributed to sampling and other random issues. Nor is approval rating really very instructive, especially 8 months ahead of the election.