2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJob gains in an election year...
No election is the same, but job growth is generally a huge issue when people go to the polls. If the economy is doing well, the sitting president will probably be reelected. If it's not going well, things are a bit more muddled - and if things are awful? Well, he's probably going to be tossed out.
So, where does Obama fit in with the past few incumbents who either won or lost reelection?
Well, looking at the overall numbers between January-August of the election year, you'll get a better picture of where Obama stands.
In 2012, the economy has gained 1,338,000 new jobs. It sounds good enough - but is it?
In 2004, the economy gained 1,348,000 new jobs between January & August.
In 1996, the economy gained 1,803,000 new jobs between January & August.
In 1992, the economy gained 472,000 new jobs between January & August.
In 1984, the economy gained 2,919,000 new jobs between January & August.
In 1980, the economy lost 742,000 jobs between January & August.
So, if you rate 'em by growth in an election year:
1. Ronald Reagan - 2,919,000
2. Bill Clinton - 1,803,000
3. George W. Bush - 1,348,000
4. Barack Obama - 1,338,000
5. George H.W. Bush - 472,000
6. Jimmy Carter - -742,000
Obama is essentially right in the middle - almost identical to the numbers that got Bush reelected in 2004. In fact, there is only a difference of 10,000 jobs between the two. More importantly, Obama is far outpacing the two losers - H.W Bush, who couldn't clear 500,000 new jobs between that time and Carter, who actually lost nearly 750,000 jobs.
It's not a surprise Carter lost the way he did in '80 and, looking at Reagan's numbers, it's not a surprise he won the way he did four years later.
So, what does this mean? In the end, Obama is still seeing enough growth to keep up with the incumbents who won. It also shows that, outside '84, it's important to not get too caught up on monthly numbers. While August was disappointing ... the overall trend really isn't.
I should note that these numbers don't account for population growth over the years. Of course, 1,348,000 in '12 is far less impressive than 1,348,000 in '84. However, the trend is clear - in '92 and '80, when the incumbents lost, there were months where we actually lost jobs - May, June, July & August of Carter's final year & March of H.W. Bush's final year.
We'll see how the final two reports play out ... but right now, while this one was disappointing, it's not at the level of panic as other reports indicated for losing incumbents. Our economy is stronger today than it was in 1992 and 1980 - though, obviously, not as strong as it was in '84 and '96.
umadoped
(8 posts)Why do the numbers not include Americans who have stopped looking for work or who are underemployed at positions that they cannot sustain their lifestyles in? I don't like when my government lies to me. I don't want them to feed me manipulated numbers to make it look like they are doing a good job. I want to see the truth and to know they're working hard even if they're failing.
S_E_Fudd
(1,295 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I'm not going to do that. Still, even if you adjust for population, it doesn't change the numbers dramatically - at least compared to the losing candidates. Adjusting the numbers won't put us well under water in job growth like Jimmy Carter & they don't put us anywhere near where H.W. Bush was in '92. The best comparison is '04 and '12.