General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"No President has won under these economic conditions" Just how many EV's will Obama get?
"No President has won under these economic conditions" Really? I was sick of hearing the meme earlier on this year. Of course the MSM have all been pretty silent on this false talking point in the last 4 weeks.
Come November, and 335+ Electoral votes later they can all kiss my ----------
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)OhZone
(3,212 posts)in 1937? There were ups and down economically in his presidency but he still got re-elected.
DeschutesRiver
(2,354 posts)People are just stinking ignorant these days.
He was first elected in 1932, so served during the shitstorm of the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl which killed god knows how many people and destroyed our midwest, through World Wars, and much, much more bad news, including catching POLIO, nearly dying from it and remaining horribly crippled from it for the remainder of his life.
There were no minor ups/down; rather the entire economy was completely in the shitter back then, way worse than today and for a sustained duration that is much longer than anything we have yet suffered. Tent cities. Souplines. Men walking back roads to find work, stopping to get a dip of cream if they had a penny from farmers along the way while they hoofed it to seek work (an elderly woman in WalMart out here in the middle of nowhere told me of her mother putting out a milk tin of cream for this purpose as we chatted while getting canning supplies).
And yet, he was re-elected to serve THREE more terms after his first. So yes, presidents absolutely have been re-elected during horrifically bad times. They'd have elected him for a damned FIFTH term, had he lived and had term limits not been put into place.
ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)madashelltoo
(1,696 posts)Okay. They are playing Mittens' alternate universe game. Everything is opposite of what they say it is. Right?
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)The major difference is that these economic conditions started months before Obama took office while it started over a year after Reagan took office. The recession officially lasted much longer under Reagan. And unemployment was considerably worse.
"For ten of the 16 months in the Reagan recession, the unemployment rate exceeded 10%, reaching a high of 10.8% for two months in late fall of 1982. The highest unemployment rate under Obama was one month of 10% in late 2009."
http://hypervocal.com/politics/2012/reagan-vs-obama-economy-market-numbers/
And Reagan won in a landslide.
Of course, Reagan did not have thousands of media outlets propagandizing against him.
wilt the stilt
(4,528 posts)his was induced by Volcker to tame inflation. Obama had an institutional bank failure and a deflation of real estate values. It is similar to the great depression.
scheming daemons
(25,487 posts)Actually.... conditions for Obama's re-election are very similar to Reagan's.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)In 2008 people were saying no minority had ever been elected president, in 2004 people were saying no non-sapient creature was ever reelected president, in 1980 people were saying no divorcee could be elected, in 1952 people were saying no president could be elected if his party lost both houses of Congress, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised if in the 1780s there were people simply saying "no president has ever been elected, therefore..."
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)ProudProgressiveNow
(6,129 posts)Bucky
(53,986 posts)I'm saying Obama 298 (Romney gets Florida).