In a post below I mentioned that some argue that presidential campaigns do not matter and that votes for or against sitting presidents are driven purely by the economy. If they believe it is improving, they vote for re-election, if it is not, they don't Charlie Cook builds off this in light of some numbers which suggest the rebound might be impacting the unemployment rate:
Although the presidential race is dominating the media this week, other events are worth watching: the recent spate of brighter economic news and lower unemployment numbers. These trends could change the trajectory of the general election. The latest Blue Chip Economic Indicators survey of 56 top economists forecasts an 8.7 percent unemployment rate for calendar year 2012 and an 8.5 rate for the fourth quarter, when Election Day occurs.
My rule of thumb has been that if unemployment is near 9 percent on Election Day, President Obama would very likely lose. If it’s near 8 percent, he would likely win. But if it’s around 8.5 percent, the race would be a toss-up. Worthy of note, the Blue Chip survey was conducted on January 4-5, before the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the December unemployment numbers that dropped to 8.5 percent from an upwardly revised 8.7 percent in November. This means that the jobless rate has inched downward four months in a row, from 9.1 percent in August to 8.5 percent in December.
While we talk about the unemployment rate, the number that researchers have stated most closely predicts voting decisions is real disposable income, more specifically, which direction the number is heading. Roughly this means whether you feel that you have more to spend, or less to spend. It seems to be the most tangible way for individuals to feel whether the state of the economy is affecting them positively or negatively.
