Jobless Rate Is Key to Fate of Democrats in 2010

[WriteDown]

Source: WSJ

WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats and the Obama White House have plenty to fret about as they eye the 2010 elections: rising deficits, the Afghan war, public fears over expanding government, the fate of the health-care brawl.

But one item may prove key: the national unemployment rate, which hit a 26-year high last month at 9.8%. On that front, economists and political pundits say, the majority party looks increasingly wobbly.

"Unemployment is the leading economic indicator when it comes to politics," said Democratic pollster Peter Hart. "Anytime unemployment hits double digits, it's hard to see the party in control having a good election year."

Economists generally predict that the number of people out of work will continue to inch up next year, even if the economy begins to rebound. Most see the jobless rate peaking at around 10.5% in the summer. Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan said Sunday that his own hunch was that the economy would turn around over coming months, but that unemployment would "penetrate the 10% barrier and stay there for a while before we start down."

Voters generally turn against a newly elected president and his party in the midterm elections. Even with a booming economy, President Bill Clinton and the Democrats lost 52 House seats in 1994. The Republicans under President Ronald Reagan in 1982 are the only party since World War II to have gone into a midterm election with unemployment over 10%. They lost 26 House seats......

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125487096440369163.html?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1&

---

Is this a surprise to anyone?

[Romulox]

1. Is anyone surprised that giving trillions to the banksters hasn't helped main street?

George H.W. Bush called Obama's economic ideology "voodoo economics"; it's frightening to think that H.W. Bush may have had a more progressive view of economics than the current administration. :wow:

[kenny blankenship]

11. Another couple trillion to Goldman Sachs, J P Morgan, Citi and BOA ought to fix things

Surely?

[bc3000]

2. No surprise - the media has already begun to hype this.

Chris Matthews keeps telling me that I don't care about health care - and that I care about jobs.

What these idiots somehow fail to realize is that with an employer based health care system the two issues are unalterably linked.

The republicans will want to hype jobs because the weak stimulus guarantees that unemplyment will remain high. The Mainstream media will take thier 'issues' from republican talking point as they always do so this will become issue #1.

[Romulox]

4. Yeah, just so you know, nobody is proposing an end to employer based healthcare.

Certainly not the Obama admin, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Max Baucus...

[DJ13]

3. Oh boy, were f*cked

No one in DC (on either side) is doing much to really increase jobs.

Sure theres the stimulus, and yes it was (deliberately) timed to have the largest percentage of the money spent in 2010, but those are not as many jobs as are needed, nor are they long term jobs that will increase people's confidence in their future.

This year should have been a time for a reexamination of our national priorities and devising a long term plan to re-industrialize in an effort to develop a new base of manufacturing, resulting in a renewed effort to increase our labor markets.

Instead we get a piecemeal stopgap stimulus thats too small in scope and has spending spread out over too long a period to be much more than a band aid.

[Auggie]

6. +1000

[leftstreet]

5. Millions of jobs are coming! Medical Claims Denial Specialists! n/t

[LaPera]

7. And what will the republicans be offering, tax cuts for the rich & corporations - Fuck the WSJ!

As long as the republican believe this bullshit and base their whole existence & hopes around it ...Fantastic....This isn't 1994 - most voters have seen what six years of completely republican rule (2001 to 2007) and eight years of Bush (2001 to 2009) is all about.... tax cuts for the rich & corporations out sourcing and high unemployment....Most also know it would take Obama and the democrats at least two years to get out from under Bush and the republicans complete fuck ups of everything from the economy to wars to bankrupting our country

[Zywiec]

8. Who cares what the Republicans offer, the Democrats control everything.

That will be the TV soundbite.

People don't always vote what's in their best interest.

[LaPera]

12. And the Dems will simply say, the republicans are only offering the same bullshit that put us in

this mess....over and over and over again...all the dems need to do is drill it in....republicans will offer only the same old tax cuts for the rich and the corporations....Dems will make it clear republicans don't give a shit about this country and when health care with a public option passes the republicans will be toast and will only pick up a few seats in each house in 2010 at best.

No fucking way do the republicans win either house in 2010 they are do-nothing losers who are basing everything as being the same as 1994. The Murdoch Wall Street Journal is so full of shit....But stories like this always sell....

[rucky]

9. I'm thinking it'll affect voter turnout more than anything.

Which may give incumbents (D&R) a run for their money. The only voters I see turning out would be for change - not for status quo.

[LaPera]

13. Absolutely, it was democratic voter apathy in 1994 - NOT the bullshit "Contract with America"

(and not a single item on the "contract" was ever fulfilled) like the republicans & media believed, the republicans trashed Clinton his first two years, (just as they are doing with Obama) blaming Clinton for everything that was wrong, as they do nothing (even after 12 years of Reagan & Bush - the Dems back then were lazy and apathetic so sure they would always control both houses forever (and they already had the presidency back so they relaxed) ....If the Dems are apathetic again it could be a problem....That's what the republicans are hoping again for.

[WCGreen]

10. The upheavals that occurred in 1994 and 1982 had more to do with

for one, redistricting and, in 1994, the simple fact that Clinton victory was pluralistic and not by majority.