Recently there has been a lot said about President Obama's chances in 2012 to win re-election if unemployment remains high. There was an article in the NY Times which breathlessly states in the first paragraph that
No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.
Nate Silver followed that up with some analysis in his article in the NY Times.
Friday all day the loons at CNBC picked up on that meme and kept repeating it throughout the day.
Finally very recently a troll posted an article on Dkos titled Obamas loses if unemployment rate 8%.
I'm going to examine and debunk some of this BS hopefully once and for all by looking at not only the last 100 years (as opposed to conveniently leaving out FDR who won re-election TWICE with unemployment in double digits) but by looking at each case where a sitting president went up for re-election with unemployment at or above 7.2%.
First of all, if you look at the second column in the chart above you will notice that there is ONLY ONE CASE in the last 75 years where ANY president went up for election or re-election with an unemployment above 8% and HE WON!!! BY 10%!!!
In fact, if you go back 100 years there has only been 3 cases of an election with an unemployment above 8% and FDR won all 3 including 2 when he won re-election. Herbert Hoover is the only president who has lost an election and/or re-election with an unemployment above 8% in the last 100 years. So for someone to proclaim that no president has won re-election with an unemployment above 8% in the last 75 years conveniently omits the fact that FDR did it AND WON and also conveniently omits the fact that there hasn't been ANY OTHER SINGLE CASE where there has been an election with 8% unemployment at the time of election. You might as well say Obama loses if unemployment rate 88%. It's as meaningless as saying the Yankees never won a world series when they played a team in the playoffs who won 117 regular season games. Of course they didn't. No team ever won 117 regular season games in all the history of MLB.
As for the premise of the NY Times article which breathlessly stated that
No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.
well let's examine how many there have actually been...
1) In 1976, Gerald Ford went up for re-election with an unemployment of 7.8% and he lost to Carter.
Unemployment was alot lower when Ford took office for starters. Inflation grew out of control during his 2 years. Oh there was that thing called Watergate which was directly responsible for Ford to have that opportunity to go up for re-election in the first place oh and then there was that little thing called a presidential pardon. It was also Gerald Ford that finally got us out of Vietnam, much to the chagrin of the right wing of his party who ran Ronald Reagan in the GOP primary against him in 1976 and forced him to drop moderate republican Nelson Rockefeller for a more conservative Bob Dole as VP, much to the chagrin of the more moderate wing of the GOP.
At one point Ford was down by 33% to Carter and it had less to do with the unemployment as it did with the resentment the people had with the GOP over Vietnam and Watergate (in the 74 midterms the Dems gained 49 seats and had a total of 291 seats in the US House). Ford lost the presidential election to Carter by 2.1% and I suspect that him pardoning Nixon had as much if not more to do with why he lost than the 7.8% unemployment at the time of election. On the day of election he was in a statistical tie with Carter and he ultimately would have won had 25,000 shifted his way in Ohio and Wisconsin. Had unemployment been a big issue, Ford would probably not have lost by as close a margin as he did.
2) In 1980, James "Jimmy" Carter went up for re-election with an unemployment of 7.5% and he lost by a significant 9.7% to Ronald Reagan.
In the 4 years of Carter unemployment barely budged. He was elected with it at 7.8% and he lost 4 years later with it at 7.5%. Inflation had turned to stagflation. Energy became a serious issue and turned into a crisis with Carter opting for sweaters and solar panels on the White House. During his 4 years Carter started to deregulate the airline industry and reinstated the draft which alienated his college aged liberal base. His primary battle with Teddy Kennedy was difficult and cost him with that liberal base as well. Carter cut pay raises to military vets which angered vets and their families. Oh and Carter had to deal with the Iranian hostage crisis. He also ordered the failed mission to save them in April 1980 which resulted in soldiers dying. The crisis is one of the things most cite (along with the economy) as the reason why he lost. President Obama even cite the failed mission Operation Eagle Claw as one of the concerns he had when ordering the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. Carter was portrayed as weak and ineffectual throughout his presidency (as well as the presidential campaign against Reagan) and the crisis capped that. The campaign was also one of the most hard fought. He was challenged from the left (Teddy Kennedy), he was challenged from the hard right by a popular governor and ex actor (Ronald Reagan) and he was challenged from the center by a moderate Rockefeller republican (John Anderson). By the time of election Carter had a 31% approval rating and he left office with a 34% approval rating.
3) In 1992, George H. W. Bush went up for re-election with an unemployment rate of 7.4% and he lost by 5.5% to William Jefferson Clinton.
In the 4 years Bush was president unemployment went up from 5.4% to 7.4%. Despite telling everyone to red his lips Bush raised taxes not once but THREE TIMES, including raising the highest marginal rates and eliminating many exemptions at the end of 1990. This last increase angered many in the republican party caused his popularity to nosedive among conservatives and earned him a primary challenge by Pat Buchanan. Bush also started negotiations on NAFTA which angered many union people and was an issue with Ross Perot's famous independent campaign which culminated with his quote of the sucking sound heard round the world. Bush was also hurt by the fact that the Clinton campaign portrayed him as being out of touch with the common person when it was reported that he didn't know how a scanner at a grocery store worked. The economy played a role in the election as Clinton made it a central issue. Bush ended up losing by 370 EV to 168 EV. One of the issues aside from jobs that is often cited as being why he lost was his broken pledge of 'No New Taxes'. Of the voters who said him breaking his pledge was very important to them, 2/3rds voted for Clinton.
And finally...
4) In 1984, Ronald Reagan went up for re-election with an unemployment rate of 7.2% and he won in a landslide by 18.2%.
Unfortunately the NY Times article conveniently cut off at 7.2% unemployment. So when they state that
No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.
it is technically accurate but only because they artificially set the bar at 7.2%. Had they set it at 7.0% they would have been wrong. This also completely ignores the fact that Reagan won by 18.2% and won in a near total electoral landslide (Mondale only won his home state of Minnesota). It is very likely that Reagan would have still won had unemployment been at 7.3%. It is also likely Reagan would have won had unemployment been at 8.0% (being that he won by such a huge margin with it at 7.2%). Considering the margin of his win, it is even somewhat probably he would have STILL won had unemployment been at 10%. Unfortunately this is a common RW tactic when they try to skew stats or facts to suit their talking point. They conveniently cut off a stat at the point where it proves them wrong or overlook a fact when it doesn't suit their talking point. By stating that "no president since FDR...", the NY Times completely ignores the fact that FDR won re-elections TWICE with unemployment rates above 7.2% in the last 100 years. By setting the bar above 7.2% they conveniently set it at a point where had it been .1% lower Reagan would have proved them wrong.
So even if you fall for the false premise being pushed and simply look at the three presidents other than FDR (who is conveniently overlooked) who did go for re-election when unemployment was above (not at but above because if it was at 7.2% then the premise would be false) 7.2% in the last 75 years, one thing that is very clear is that unemployment was not the sole cause of those presidents losing. The economy was an issue in at least 2 of the three (with Ford being the only likely exception) and yes in 92 it was clearly an issue (It's the economy stupid!). However, there were alot of other things at play which cast doubt and may have had a hand in the defeat of those three presidents. In Ford's case it was the stench of Watergate and the presidential pardon of Nixon. In Carter's case it was the Iranian Hostage Crisis. In G. H. W. Bush's case it was the breaking of his "No New Taxes' pledge. In all three cases, there was a challenge within the party of the president which caused some animosity within the party and opened up a rift with people in the party either opting to sit out or vote for someone else. In 2 of the 3 cases there was a third party challenger who won 7% (Anderson) or 19% (Perot) and may have muddied up the situation, although this can be disputed. In all three cases, the president who lost had less than 50% approval ratings on election day. Both Bush and Carter had approval ratings under 40%. Finally, in all 3 cases the challenger who won was either seen as credible, charismatic, an outsider or a combination of the three.
Looking forward, there does not appear to be any credible challenger from the left of President Obama. While he has angered many in his base (myself included), his base remains relatively intact. None of the viable candidates on the GOP side have effectively portrayed themselves as charismatic, credible or as an outsider let alone a combination of the three. If anything the challengers are all seen as radical, boring, not in the least bit credible and certainly not as outsiders (other than Cain who is NOT credible). In addition, due to the extreme rightward shift in the party, the candidates are all being forced to take extreme positions which have essentially made this class of challengers appear as one of the weakest and least serious in decades. If there is to be a third party challenger who may muddy the outcome, it is far more likely to come from the extreme tea bagging right than the left or center. So far there has not been any serious crisis that could potentially derail his presidency (although there is still plenty of time) and the few cases where a potential crisis has brewed, President Obama has handled them cautiously and well enough. And while it is still far away from November 2012, Obama's approval ratings are above 50% and have remained relatively stable for the better part of his presidency so far, with only a few minor blips (Post OBL spike for example).
It is very likely that the unemployment rate will be well above 7.2% come election time. However, in no time SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION has there been as deep and serious a recession/depression as the one Obama inherited in 2009 and lest we forget, the president during the Great Depression, FDR, won re-election TWICE with unemployment rates in the teens. Like FDR, Obama has had many missteps but also a few successes along the way. Unlike FDR, Obama has not as effectively come across as a populist and change has been slow at best which may be a cause for concern come election time if the voters perceive Obama as not having done enough to help. However, the GOP has set himself up to become a populist defacto by simply opposing them. Their policies are so radical and extreme that any alternative will be seen as populist. While that alternative may not be the most truly populist or best policy wise (especially if the alternative is GOPlite), politically it's a winner.
So when next you hear the obvious right wing BS talking point
No American president since Franklin Delano Roosevelt has won a second term in office when the unemployment rate on Election Day topped 7.2 percent.
try throwing some facts their way. Hopefully this diary helps.