The 3 Charts That 'Prove' Obama Will Be Crushed in the Election

How bad will Obama lose in November? Real bad. And people've got charts to prove it. There's this one, from Jim Pethokoukis, predicting a blood bath for incumbents based on a formula that incorporates both economic growth and military fatalities:

080212obamareelex

... and this one, via Chris Cillizza, comparing jobs gained by presidential term since Harry Truman:

... and, finally, this one, also from AEI Ideas, benchmarking Obama's performance against some statistics that correlate with reelection:

It's all bad news. Obama's record looks like a loser. And yet: In latest polling (90+ days before the election), the president is up 3 percentage points nationally, 1% in Florida, 3% in Virginia, 5% in Ohio, and 6%+ in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

What's going on here?

It's important to be clear about what these charts tell us and what they don't tell us. They do tell us that Obama's total jobs record is pathetic compared to much of the 20th century. They do tell us that real personal income growth under this president, the most prescient statistic for incumbents, has tracked much closer to past losers than past winners.

But they don't tell us anything about the mind of today's voter, and they don't give us much insight into how voters make decisions. This will sound awfully glib, but one problem with extrapolating trends from the 1960s, '70s, and '80s to predict a big Obama loss is that it's not the 1960s, '70s, or '80s. Voters don't compare jobs added in September 2012 with September 1962 to make a decision. They're much more likely to compare November's candidates on a bunch of proximate tangible factors (e.g.: their tax plans) and intuitive, intangible ones (e.g.: the you-really-get-me particle). To the extent that they're judging the economy, it's more reasonable to expect voters who don't have time or energy to read about the last half century of economic growth to judge the economy by benchmarking it against their recent expectations. It did not help the country that President George W. Bush's economic record was miserable, but from the standpoint of low-balling expectations, it's not crazy to say it might be helping Obama.

This will surely look like I'm making excuses for the president's record. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to make sense of voters, who are stiff-arming statistical analysis by (so far) sticking with the beleaguered incumbent. The only reasonable conclusion is that, unlike AEI, they aren't looking at this election as a choice between Reagan's jobs record and Obama's.

Presented by

Derek Thompson is a senior editor at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the entertainment business.

Why Is Google Making Human Skin?

Hidden away on Google’s campus, doctors at a world-class life sciences lab are trying to change the way people think about their health.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Videos

Why Is Google Making Skin?

Hidden away on Google’s campus, doctors are changing the way people think about health.

Video

How to Build a Tornado

A Canadian inventor believes his tornado machine could solve the world's energy crisis.

Video

A New York City Minute, Frozen in Time

This short film takes you on a whirling tour of the Big Apple

Video

What Happened to the Milky Way?

Light pollution has taken away our ability to see the stars. Can we save the night sky?

Video

The Pentagon's $1.5 Trillion Mistake

The F-35 fighter jet was supposed to do everything. Instead, it can barely do anything.

More in Business

Just In