With a new round of weak job numbers, some are beginning to wonder about President Obama's re-election chances. At ABC News, Matthew Jaffe and Sunlen Miller warn that no president since Franklin Roosevelt has been re-elected with unemployment over 8 percent, and in a post, Matt McDonald goes further to note that in the four postwar elections with unemployment above 7 percent -- 1976, 1980, 1984, and 1992 -- the incumbent lost in all but one: 1984.
This is all true, but the situation isn't as ominous as it sounds (provided you look forward to an Obama second term). As an incumbent, it's possible to overcome high unemployment as long as the economy is growing at a (relatively) healthy clip. The graph above is instructive. Ronald Reagan's re-election was preceded by two years of healthy GDP growth. From the end of 1982 to third quarter 1984, GDP grew by an average of 6.28 percent. Yes, fewer people had jobs, but those that did felt better off than they had in the years preceding. By contrast, incumbents lose when GDP growth isn't high enough to compensate for lackluster unemployment. For example, both Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush presided over two years of dreadfully slow growth: a quarterly average of .4 percent for Carter, and 1.7 percent for Bush.
Unemployment is important, but for Obama, the key question is GDP growth. If -- from now to October of next year -- growth is (relatively) high, then his re-election is virtually assured. He might still win if growth is sluggish, but to be safe, we should begin to prepare for our new Republican overlords. As it stands, the Congressional Budget Office projects 3.7 percent growth for 2011, and 4.4 percent growth for 2012.
-- Jamelle Bouie
