In his report to the House Financial Services Committee, Ben Bernanke delivered bad news for Obama’s reelection bid. Christian Science Monitor says:
The Fed chairman noted that US economic growth in the first half of 2011 was “modest.” The central bank predicts growth in inflation-adjusted economic output of 2.7 to 2.9 percent for 2011, and 3.3 to 3.7 percent in 2012. The latest forecast, completed in late June, is less optimistic than the Fed’s April projection. Bernanke explained that some of his Fed colleagues “saw at least some part of the first-half slowdown as persisting for a while.”
Given the expectation of modest economic growth, the Fed is projecting that the nation’s jobless rate will return to normal levels “albeit only slowly,” Bernanke said. The unemployment rate hit 9.2 percent in June, and the Fed expects it will end 2012 in the range of 7.8 percent to 8.2 percent.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that President Obama is fucked. I think it’s time to stow away James Carville’s hackneyed old “It’s the economy, stupid” saw. It’s not always about the economy. When they created the Tea Party rebranding effort, Republicans made a terrible mistake that could very well hurt them in 2012: They turned the economy into a moral issue. Now, when they talk about the economy in terms of Constitutional values, they may as well be talking about abortion to some voters; their polarizing stance made the economy a dog-whistle issue. If President Obama can convince voters that we need to take care of our unemployed neighbors, even as we slowly put the economy back together, he can make the Republicans look like extremists who’ll just make everything worse. He can run as the conservative candidate in red states and siphon off some support from the Republicans, who all look like fringe crazies who want to take away the fundamental American belief in helping your neighbors.
When it’s your guy in trouble is feels good to say that it’s not the economy but if it was President McCain everyone would be shitting themselves saying he’d be screwed.
The only thing that will save Obama is that the GOP is run by a bunch of mental cases.
Ditto @2. My sentiments exactly.
…he can make the Republicans look like extremists who’ll just make everything worse….
That’s what they friken are! That’s what they do! That’s what they did when they were last in office!
Why are people so stupid?
Okay, rant over. Thank you.
How does one suggest that Obama and Democrats believe in anything remotely like “helping your neighbors,” when they’re actively destroying so many innocent lives?
It’s no less absurd when conservatives claim that Republicans are for limited government.
Someone (I can’t remember, alas; it wasn’t 538) recently showed convincingly that it isn’t the RATE of unemployment that matters, it’s the RATE OF CHANGE. If unemployment is going down, even from a high level, the incumbent will win; if it’s going up, even from a low level, he will lose. Calculus 101, baby. It is always about the economy.
It’s ALWAYS about the economy, stupid. The question facing voters is going to be, “Who’s at fault?”
There is something to that. There is a lot of talk about spending cuts, which everyone thinks is a great idea. But, I keep wondering exactly what the effect of $4 trillion worth of cuts means to jobs. Are all of the people who will get riffed due to those cuts going to be competing for jobs with the high number of people already out there looking for jobs in the private sector? The GOP spending cut push all seems orchastrated to make sure that unemployment stays high.
Obviously the GOP thinks they will benefit from a political standpoint if unemployment remains high at election time and the economy is perceived to be in the toilet (even though the markets have fully recovered, which was supposed to be the only indictator that mattered during Obama’s 1st month on job, but you don’t hear much about from the likes of Beck and Cramer anymore). It also helps employers because it obliterates any leverage that employees might have when it comes time to negotiate as even lower pay is better than no pay when you are competing against so many people who no longer have unemployment are willing to take just about anything to get to work. Keeping the cost of labor down is great because it increases profits (which are at record levels) which means that CEO’s can justify even bigger bonuses for themselves which continue to be taxed at lower levels.
A rising tide lifting all boats sounds good to the populace, but economic disparity is really where it is at to the string-pullers at the top of the pyramid because they can buy even more people and stuff for the same amount of $.
@4 thank you. progressive america is just as insane as the republicans. they keep voting for democrats believing that the party shares their values. there is no longer ANY evidence of this.
@7, the GOP is desperately trying to keep unemployment as high as possible right now. Notice that for all their “jobsjobsjobs” rhetoric they’re paying no attention at all to job creation and in fact are demanding a debt reduction scheme that they KNOW will kill jobs.
There isn’t an economist in the world who’s confused about this, right or left, and I refuse to believe there’s a Republican candidate who is either (though you never know with some of these idiots).
@9 I don’t believe it is possible to “act” as thoroughly confused as Bachman. She f’real.
@10, but Bachmann is being operated by people who do know the difference.
@5 beat me to the punch. The trend matters more than the level.
Unemployment is actually closer to 17%, when you count people who have given up looking for a job and no longer draw unemployment, and when you count people who are working parttime at a job that’s not really a job, like McDonald’s. Those people are actually counted, but that real figure isn’t often used because it’s just too scary.
The only reason the unemployment rate is even considered an issue is because of the punditocracy’s constant repeating of the mantra:
Of course, the problem with of such “wisdom” lies in its applicability. The fact is our current economic downturn has it’s only modern precedent in the 1930’s, so any comparisons with the world of post-WWII and its elections are misguided, not to mention a complete and total waste of time!
But if you look to a comparable historic period to this one — like in the 1930’s, after the Great Depression, for instance — all of that “over 8%” bullshit completely flies out the window.
In fact, if history were to REALLY repeat itself, Obama would be looking at re-election to at least three more terms!