noahp: Permanent rage

Love this phrase.

Also, don’t count out ACORN, or the Old Gods Obama has been sacrificing to!

I could go on.

Zero chance of reelection.

orca: Yep…bought a wad of Microsoft when it was down at $15/share

MSFT hit a low of $14.87 on March 6, 2009 after opening and closed at $15.28. If you bought at $15 you must have purchased between March 3 and March 10. That means you had almost perfect timing, which is virtually impossible to do except by pure luck.

orca: Maybe, but presidents are going to get blamed when the economy is bad so they may as well take credit when the American economy is booming, as it is now

I don’t know how you define “booming,” and I don’t think we are in one under any reasonable definition. If the economy were really “booming” people would be getting jobs and new businesses would be opening up.

yankee: Hopefully unemployment will go down faster than most analysts expect, but if unemployment is still at 10% despite a roaring GDP, voters will not be happy (and rightly so!)

Employment has always been a trailing statistic in economic recoveries…and the party that’s out of power always tries to make political hay with it.

orca: Maybe, but presidents are going to get blamed when the economy is bad so they may as well take credit when the American economy is booming, as it is now.

The 10% of Americans who are unemployed are likely to disagree with that assessment. The rate of growth of GDP is increasing but that isn’t the only standard to measure the economy by.

People’s reactions to the state of the economy aren’t determined by statistics and abstractions. They’re determined by the direct effects the economy is having on their lives and their community.

Hopefully unemployment will go down faster than most analysts expect, but if unemployment is still at 10% despite a roaring GDP, voters will not be happy (and rightly so!)

A. Zarkov: Does that include you? Did you personally buy stocks because you thought Obama was going to improve the economy?

Yep…bought a wad of Microsoft when it was down at $15/share

A. Zarkov: I’m not a fan of the idea that any president let alone this one can improve an economy on anything but a temporary basis.

Maybe, but presidents are going to get blamed when the economy is bad so they may as well take credit when the American economy is booming, as it is now.

orca: Those of us who had faith in Obama’s economic policies have already ‚made over 50% in the stock market.

Does that include you? Did you personally buy stocks because you thought Obama was going to improve the economy?

I’m not a fan of the idea that any president let alone this one can improve an economy on anything but a temporary basis. Remove all the deficit spending and the economy sags again. That’s what happened to Japan. It also happened to the U.S. in the 1930s. This is not an offbeat idea. Most economists think FDR spending did little to improve the economy. They think going off the full gold standard to a partial gold standard along with a currency devaluation was more helpful.

ilbob: The trillions of dollars wasted on bail outs was bound to have some collateral effect.

And the trillions of dollars wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan?

I suspect the misery index days of the Carter administration are not too far off.

Guy: Wasn’t that what it was supposed to do? The government having an effect on the economy doesn’t count unless it was done by accident? You could argue the spike was transient, or not worthwhile, but that it doesn’t count because they were trying to fix the economy on purpose when they did it?

I never said the government couldn’t have an effect on the economy. I just think it remains to be seen whether or not it’s “fixing” the economy and I’m nowhere near convinced a sharp spike in one quarter’s GDP is adequate evidence. Asserting so is about as compelling as concluding that Obama’s economic policies are responsible for the returns in the stock market. (Not saying you’re the one making that argument of course.)

Second, I agree with those who suggest it is far to early to be assessing Mr Obama’s chances for relection. Far too much can happen in the next two years and many of those possibilities are relative immune from the ability of the administration to influence.

I will become more attentive in the summer of 2011 and see what is happening them.

These kind of polls are simply navel gazing.

A. Zarkov: If you really believe that then you should be buying stocks

Those of us who had faith in Obama’s economic policies have already ,made over 50% in the stock market.

The Chicken Little’s will have had to settle for what, the 1% a year their bank is paying?

G. May: The spike we saw last quarter was also heavily influenced by the auto industry which was clearly manipulated by the federal government with that silly Cash for Clunkers program.

Wasn’t that what it was supposed to do? The government having an effect on the economy doesn’t count unless it was done by accident? You could argue the spike was transient, or not worthwhile, but that it doesn’t count because they were trying to fix the economy on purpose when they did it?

orca: Faith-based policies hasn’t worked out so well for the Republicans these past couple of elections…but by all means keep believing economy isn’t recovering.

I had hoped for a bit more of a substantive explanation, but that’s clearly expecting a bit much from one of VC’s resident trolls.

Echoing A. Zarkov’s response, we’ll have to wait and see before making such bold predictions as “all” indicators showing a “booming” economy. Adding to his comment, The spike we saw last quarter was also heavily influenced by the auto industry which was clearly manipulated by the federal government with that silly Cash for Clunkers program. Other indicators such as unemployment, real unemployment (you remember, that statistic the media used to hammer Bush about when it was much lower than what it is now?), federal receipts, the new and existing homes markets, real estate in general, and the surprisingly underreported, yet titanically significant fact that all those toxic assets which helped get us in the mess we’re in right now are still festering out there.

So, all indicators? Really? Care to stop trolling for one moment on this blog and back that up? Because I’d like to see something positive for once. I genuinely hope the economy rebounds, but not for the sake of Obama’s Presidency (I’m apparently one of the few that doesn’t buy into the silly notion that the President is responsible for the economy). If things have rebounded by the time the election rolls around, I’m sure his chances will improve dramatically, though your estimate of >90% I believe is simple fantasy. Unless of course you can back that up too.

Either way, this post seems to rely on a perverse hypothesis.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by VolokhC: Bloggers: Both side critical of party chairs. Disagree somewhat, but not entirely, on health care chances, and Oba… http://bit.ly/cFbScb...

orca: All signs point to a booming economy during the 2012 campaign. I’d put Obama’s chances of a second term somewhere north of 90%.

If you really believe that then you should be buying stocks, and perhaps even real estate. The last quarter growth in 2009 was mostly inventory restoration, which is not a strong signal. For most people it’s too soon to really tell about the future prospects for the American economy. You could be right, but you could be wrong too. We have wait for at least 3 quarters of non-inventory driven growth.

Let’s also remember that unemployment is the big driver for Obama’s re-election. Even a general recovery in employment might not help him if it’s uneven in the wrong way. His base consists of mainly of blacks, Hispanics, Jews, young unmarried women, school teachers, academics and the media people. It doesn’t much matter if the economy and employment in California recovers because he has that state almost no matter what. He’s got to keep most the block consisting of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado and South Carolina to win. So employment must be pretty good in these states 2012 for that to happen.

Predicting 2012 is a lot more complicated than looking at growth in a single or even two quarters.

Second, the gun ban did nothing to help improve the long term position of the Democrats. The health care bill, by strengthening the hand of government, probably does strengthen the Democratic party; As their center of power is in the government, anything that boosts the government relative to the private sector improves their position.

It might cost them seats for a couple of elections, but they’re planing on trading that loss for an essentially permanent shift in the ‘house odds’ their way. That’s not a mistake, that’s an investment.

Congratulations, Borris. You earned it dude!

Unemployment rate in November 1992, when GHWB was ousted due to a poor economy: 7.1%

vic5: kool aid kid

Says the guy who’ll have to pretend to be excited as corporate manikin Mitt Romney dances his way through the 2012 Republican primaries.

Watch out, Obama!

Why does this sound like it was written for the People’s Daily?

Bruce Hayden says:
I think that health care “reform” could be the issue that defeats him in 2012.

Especially if they campaign on also refunding all those “fines”, fees, charges, and taxes being assessed between passage and 2012 to make this magically look “deficit-neutral” in the first decade.

Today, health care reform is about to happen, taxes are not going up, and corruption is bipartisan.

orca: All signs point to a booming economy during the 2012 campaign. I’d put Obama’s chances of a second term somewhere north of 90%.

kool aid kid

Cornellian: He’s far from doomed, but not looking particularly solid right now either. I guessed the one-term would be the more likely result: “He will have plenty of opportunities in 2011–2012 to change his current self-destructive course. But it seems more likely that he will double down on his failures and his policies, which alienate the majority of the American people.”

I think you’re suffering from the usual pundit myopia about these issues.If the economy in 2012 is significantly better than it is now, Obama will be unbeatable, as incumbent presidents usually are in those circumstances.If the economy is as bad as it is today, or worse, he will be vulnerable.Either way, the public isn’t going to care about arcane process issues like “deem and pass.”

2004 was a Gilded Age (so was thought) compared to anything that can be supposed to happen in 2012, and Bush was 50k Ohio votes away from losing to two guys their own party didn’t even care for.

You are sorely underestimating the anger Barack is engendering amongst independent voters. Look at any poll, it’ll tell you. Or just ask some people you know who aren’t into this stuff as much as we are.

Bruce Hayden: I think that health care “reform” could be the issue that defeats him in 2012. The problem is that the pain will kick in immediately, but the gain (if there is one) won’t until after the 2012 election.

Of course, we know that there will be no “gain”. There is no practical way to manufacture one and the deadweight loss from all of the coming taxes won’t help the economy either.

I encourage everyone to put pressure on the Democrats to vote “no”. He’s losing support among even the most liberal in his party over this (which was a pretty big surprise to me – they were building shrines to him 8 months ago). They’re going to get slaughtered in November if they don’t vote this down. Personally, I don’t care how many terms he has as long as he doesn’t have a congress willing to go along with whatever his imperial highness desires.

Call, fax, email, show up in D.C. and show them the American people are still the boss. You have so much more to lose by not making the time to counter Obama’s and Pelosi’s pressure.

G. May: Personally, I think Early Bird is correct — in other news: Water Is Wet.

Faith-based policies hasn’t worked out so well for the Republicans these past couple of elections…but by all means keep believing economy isn’t recovering.