"It Ain't Over Till It's Over": Empirical Observations On Who The Next Occupant Of The White House May Be And Why

Tyler Durden's picture

It is appropriate that as a post-mortem to tonight's GOP primary, which according to initial reports has Romney as winning both Michigan and Arizona, we have ConvergEx' Nick Colas providing an extensive summary of the factors in favor and against both the presidential incumbent, and the challenger, and in doing so handicap the possibility of election victory for either Obama or the Republican candidate, whoever he may end up being. As Colas says, 'it ain't over till it's over' - "As the battle for the 2012 Presidential election begins to pick up speed, we read a flood of reports that President Obama is a lock for reelection.  And just as many that he is destined to be a one-termer. Those who believe that the winner of the 2012 election will be Republican claim that the keys to Obama’s downfall will be unemployment, skyrocketing oil prices, and increased federal spending. However, according to historical data and some political science theory, it looks like Obama has a pretty good chance of staying in the White House. Incumbents hold a substantial advantage over opponents in elections: only 4 out of the 14 elections involving incumbents since the 20th century have gone to the challenger. Various studies showing historical stock market correlation to presidential election results favor an Obama victory in 2012. Conversely, rising oil prices and unemployment rates seemingly have no correlation to either re-election or incumbent ousting. Finally, and most importantly, swing states are more likely to vote for an incumbent candidate than not – as it stands, 10/12 of the identified battleground states for 2012 are going blue. The GOP isn’t out of the race yet, but it’s up against some strong historical opposition."

And while we would agree that all else equal Obama likely is a shoo-in, never before will there have been a full blown debt ceiling crisis in a repeat of August 2011 in the weeks and months leading into the election - that factor alone, in our humble opinion, could end up being the swing variable that pulls the otherwise ironclad victory away from Obama's clutch, and explains why the GOP caved so quickly on the payroll tax extension which will add $100 billion in debt, and force a debt ceiling breach ahead of November, as was first predicted on Zero Hedge. That, of course, and runaway oil: should crude continue its relentless surge, which it will if QE3 occurs, or an invasion or Iran becomes reality, Obama can kiss another 4 years goodbye.

More from Colas:

What a difference a year DOESN’T make. 

Exactly one year ago, a Gallup poll among registered US voters asked “If Barack Obama runs for re-election in 2012, are you more likely to vote for Obama or for the Republican Party’s candidate for President?” Less than half of those polled (45%) said they would re-elect the Democrat, but an equal 45% said they were more likely to vote for a yet-unnamed GOP candidate. In a Bloomberg poll conducted 4 months later in late June of 2011, only 30% of respondents said they are certain to vote for the current president while 36% said they definitely won’t. Now, in February of 2012, it’s still not obvious with way the country is going to swing in November: there’s no overwhelmingly clear GOP candidate, and Obama’s approval rating is still at a below-average 45% according to Gallop (49% average).

There are gaggles of studies and surveys flying around with a wide array of arguments and data showing that President Obama is unlikely to be re-elected due to a variety of economic and social factors.   A brief summary of a few of these points here:

  • Since Obama took office in January of 2009, the unemployment rate surged from 7.4% to 10% in October of the same year. In the 2 ½ years since the peak, the rate has only come down to 8.3% (as of January); many argue that the decline has not been nearly fast enough.  Further, some of this decline is due to reduced labor force participation, rather than incremental employment trends. 
  • Similarly, under the Obama administration less than half of the jobs lost during the recession have been recovered. Employment peaked in January of 2008 at 138,023,000, and troughed in February of 2010 at 129,244,000 for a total of 8,779,000 jobs lost. Since that low, only 3,894,000 have been regained – a 44% recovery rate.
  • Federal spending has ballooned during Obama’s tenure in office, with the deficit more than 145% what it was when Obama took office on January 20, 2009 ($15.4 trillion vs. $10.6 trillion), and debt as a % of GDP has passed 100% for the first time in history – and continues to rise. The American people have become increasingly frustrated with the country’s inability to manage the deficit and debt, as reflected in Congress’s approval rating in August of last year during the debt limit debate. Some of the blame for this situation also falls on the President’s shoulders. 
  • Crude oil prices have climbed more than 180% since their lows in December of 2008, while retail gasoline prices have risen almost 90%. US consumers are being hit heavily by these increases, and some no doubt blame the Obama administration for the price hikes.  And even if they don’t, they certainly know they are less well-off then when oil prices were lower. 
  • For many on the Far Right and some on the left, Obama’s corporate bailouts alone should preclude him from re-election. From the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street, a wide variety of voters have become fed up with the current government’s involvement in financial markets, and see the ousting of Obama as one of the solutions to the problem.  Yes, we know these started in the last days of the Bush Administration, so in truth neither party’s hands are entirely clean on this point. 

But while these factors are undoubtedly going to push some 2008 Obama supporters over to the right in 2012 or keep them from voting this time around, historical trends point to an Obama victory in the next election.  Here is a sampling of economic and capital market indicators that have a proven level of predictive power: 


  • Incumbent advantage. Political science theory and historical trends show that a Presidential incumbent has a significant advantage over any challenger. In the 14 elections of the 20th and 21st centuries in which an incumbent was running for re-election, only 5 were won by the challenger – and that’s if you include Ford’s loss to Jimmy Carter, as technically Ford wasn’t elected. Excluding this anomaly, challengers have had only a 29% chance of being elected over the incumbent in the past 100 years or so. Obama also has no clear challenger, as the GOP has yet to definitively choose a candidate for the election. Lastly, he has not faced a primary challenge, in the way Jimmy Carter did, for example, with Ted Kennedy in 1980. 
  • Stock market performance. According to an analysis conducted by the Socioeconomics Institute in Gainesville, GA, there is a positive, significant relationship between incumbent re-election and net percentage change in the stock market (the DJIA, specifically). The results of the study show that the incumbent has an 82% chance (or better) of being re-elected when the stock market has gained 20% or more in the three years preceding the election, and that the gain typically leads to a landslide victory for the incumbent – defined as an electoral vote margin of 40% or greater. Furthermore, data that we’ve seen widely quoted but originally from the Stock Trader’s Almanac suggests an up market in the three months preceding an election indicates an incumbent victory, while a down market favors the challenger. Similarly, an up market in the first half of the election year points to incumbent re-election and vice-versa. Finally, a third study by political science professors David Leblang and Bumba Mukherjee argues that decreased market volatility signals a Democratic victory, while increased volatility favors Republicans. Should these results hold true in 2012, Obama seems to be a shoe-in: the Dow has gained 30.4% since November of 2009, while the S&P 500 has risen 32.4% and the Nasdaq has added 38.6%. The first two months of 2012 have been decent for the broad U.S. indices and volatility is at very low levels.
  • Unemployment. While much of the discourse surrounding the 2012 election focuses on stubbornly high unemployment, historically this indicator has no visible impact on an incumbent’s re-election chances. Since the BLS began keeping records of the unemployment rate in 1948, three of the six presidential elections went to incumbents who had actually increased the unemployment rate during their terms: Eisenhower saw the rate increase 59% during his first four years in office, Nixon saw a 56% increase during his first term, and under GW Bush (2000-2004) the rate rose 26%. Equally counterintuitive is the fact that President Carter actually got the rate down between 1976 and 1980, and yet he was not re-elected. Under Obama, the unemployment rate has “Only” risen 14%, substantially less than increases seen in the first terms of many other re-elected incumbents. Judging by historical precedent, such a moderate increase does not automatically oust him from office in the next election.
  • Oil prices. Oil and gasoline prices tell a similar story: despite the concerns over rising oil prices and their impact on Obama’s chances in November, there is no apparent correlation between either crude oil or retail gasoline prices and incumbent re-election. For example, it makes sense that Reagan was re-elected after prices for both oil and gas dropped more than 30% from their peaks during his first term. Beyond these two elections, however (which were also heavily influenced by Iranian politics), the intuitive relationship between crude/gasoline prices and re-election is negated. GHW Bush lost to Clinton in 1992, despite the fact that prices for both crude and gas had dropped significantly from their peaks by the time he was up for re-election. Crude oil climbed more than 66% from its trough in Clinton’s first term, and yet he was re-elected in 1996. Under GW Bush, gas prices surged 69.1% and crude oil soared 132% from their lows in December of 2001, and yet he was still re-elected. As for Obama, gas has risen 87.4% and crude has soared 183.2% since their troughs in December of 2008. While these numbers are certainly higher than other candidates that have been up for re-election, if the pattern of the past few elections continues, it’s not likely to have a significant impact on Obama’s chances.
  • Swing states. Swing states are the battlefields of any and every presidential election. Unfortunately for the GOP, voting history among the twelve key swing states for 2012 (CO, FL, IA, MI, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, WI) point to an Obama victory in November. In the 14 incumbent elections since the 20th century, these states have voted for the incumbent 60% of the time: the majority only voted against the incumbent in 1912, 1932, 1980, and 1992. These were also the only elections in which the elected incumbent was voted out (excluding Carter). Additionally, and possibly more importantly, swing states only voted unanimously against the incumbent in 1912 and 1980; in 1932, only two voted for the incumbent, and in 1996 only 3 voted in favor of GHW Bush’s re-election. Looking back to the stock market performance study, each of these elections was lost by a landslide. It’s a safe assumption that these swing states are partially to thank for this phenomenon. This history tells us that at a minimum, the GOP would have to win the votes of at least ¾ of the swing states (or 9 states) in order to guarantee victory to the Republican candidate. Given the power of incumbency, this is clearly a tall order.  

Historically, then, the GOP faces a real uphill battle for the 2012 Presidency. That does not mean, however, that the task is impossible. While Republicans lack the incumbent advantage and may not be able to take much comfort from the current bullish tone of the stock market, their playbook still has some useful lessons. 

  • Reagan. Ronald Reagan’s first term in office was similar Obama’s current tenure in many ways: staggeringly high unemployment, heightened geopolitical risk before entering office (think Iran hostages, Iraq/Osama bin Laden), and obvious domestic economic impasses. Unlike Obama, however, Reagan (the Republican) was able to bring unemployment down from 10.8% to 7.2% in only two years. Finally, and most importantly, when Reagan took office in January of 1981, the economic situation was palpably worse: unemployment, the CPI, interest rates, and the poverty rate were both significantly higher than those seen in 2009, and the stock market and real median family income had fallen substantially. And yet by the end of his first term, following the implementation of “Reaganomics”, each of these variables had been brought back to healthy, sustainable levels.  Bottom line – the GOP might still have a “Brand” with voters when it comes to economic issues. 
  • Iran. The renewed geopolitical risk out of the Middle East may also work to Republicans’ advantage. The threat from Iran echoes a situation not long past: Iraq in 2003. Though perhaps later developments in the country were not popular among American voters, during the mid-2000s the majority appeared to support the President’s decision to invade: George Bush’s first-term approval rating was 62.2%. It is also worth noting that Reagan had immediate success in Iran – another Republican President. The argument here could be that a firm hand is needed to deal with the rising political threat, and Obama is incapable of filling that role.
  • Obama’s failure in the swing states. Though it may seem obvious that the GOP should rehash Obama’s shortcomings as often as possible to win over his prior supporters, this effort should be more heavily concentrated in and directed towards the swing states. Beth has been working through the specific topics important in these states, and while incumbency certainly helps President Obama, it doesn’t preordain success. 

In truth, the election could go either way. Historical precedent favors Obama, but the GOP has a variety of tools at its disposal, should it choose to use them. Though they cannot directly change the direction of the stock market or oil prices, emphasizing Republican success in similar circumstances and winning over swing states will be imperative to the GOP candidate’s election chances. In other words, it ain’t over till it’s over…

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Hugo Chavez's picture

I rather like the uncensored version of zero hedge.

No thanks.

JPM Hater001's picture

This creates a moral hazard.  I could avoid MDB's stuff but then I would miss perspective...and a good laugh.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

MBD is a drag. A well known drag. We turn the sound down on him and say rude things.

JPM Hater001's picture

"MBD is a drag Queen. A well known drag Queen."

There.  Fixed.

JPM Hater001's picture

+1 even if it's me...that shit was clever.

A Lunatic's picture

I've learned far more from fools than I ever could from a wise man.

A Lunatic's picture

This old anvil laughs at many a broken hammer    -Carl Sandburg-

Atomizer's picture

Who is Jesse Andrews?


Domain ID:D106035801-LROR
Created On:06-Apr-2005 20:41:05 UTC
Last Updated On:26-Dec-2011 20:22:19 UTC
Expiration Date:06-Apr-2013 20:41:05 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, Inc. (R91-LROR)
Registrant ID:CR35953466
Registrant Name:Jesse Andrews
Registrant Street1:1136 Guerrero St #c
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:San Francisco
Registrant State/Province:California
Registrant Postal Code:94110
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.4048279225
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:anotherjesse@gmail.com
Admin ID:CR35953468
Admin Name:Jesse Andrews
Admin Street1:1136 Guerrero St #c
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City:San Francisco
Admin State/Province:California
Admin Postal Code:94110
Admin Country:US
Admin Phone:+1.4048278225
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email:anotherjesse@gmail.com
Tech ID:CR35953467
Tech Name:Jesse Andrews
Tech Street1:1136 Guerrero St #c
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City:San Francisco
Tech State/Province:California
Tech Postal Code:94110
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.4048278225
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:anotherjesse@gmail.com

Ima anal sphincter's picture

That wasn't really called for.

BoNeSxxx's picture

I don't think a lot of folks know what just happened.

While perhaps uncalled for, let's face it,... kinda impressive.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

What's so impressive about using whois?

Ima anal sphincter's picture


No it's not impressive. To purposely "out" someone when it should be kept quite is a mark of a jerk. The guy is trying to help out with a simple script.

A neighbor does you a favor and you go crap in his yard.

BoNeSxxx's picture

What am i missing?

I thought whois only got you the domain owner -- not individual contributors/users.

No dispute on the 'outing' issue. 

Hansel's picture

I wasn't "outed."  Userscripts.org isn't my site; it just hosts a bunch of user-contributed scripts.  The script I made isn't for everybody; some people requested the user blocking feature.

Ima anal sphincter's picture

I guess the point was missed. He attempted to disclose the name of a user on an anonymous blog. Even if it failed, it was a low blow. Our "governmental" types have us down, but to purposely attempt exposing a contributor to the masses is pretty piss-poor.  

Rincewind's picture

If your name is in the public domain and associated with an internet domain, there is no such thing as "outing".

Atomizer's picture

Your software has been downloaded and decompressed. The only crap in your yard is this kiddie script program. Really not being a jerk, just don't bring your censorship bullshit to this site. When you start peddling this type of bullshit, I will become your worst nightmare. Understood?

323's picture

he's not cernsoring anything, you moron. Hope you didn't slip a disk "decompressing" a simple script.


Atomizer's picture

323: 21 weeks, 6 days

Update 2/28/2012: I've added the ability to block users. You will need to edit the first line of the script to add users you would like to block. The code is commented so editing should be easy. By default RobotTrader and MillionDollarBonus_ are blocked.

Do you want me to copy/paste the code on ZH forum moron?

323's picture

Couldn't care less if you did. You don't understand what censorship is or isn't. Censorship isn't someone who gives you instructions on how to change the channel on your tv. The fact that he blocked two of the less funny trolls by default is hardly a violation of your constitutional rights.

Now go embarass yourself somewhere else

Ima anal sphincter's picture

Age and wisdom play a larger role than registration time on ZH. He's got you beat on the wisdom part.

SilverRhino's picture

Lighten up Francis. 

He was offering someone the ability to self-censor.  If you are too stupid to understand what real censorship is, just shut up and let the grown ups decide.

PS:  You're not anyone's nightmare.   

Atomizer's picture



Sorry Mr. Kissinger, now tell me how you really feel /// LOL. Did you leave something on the stove? Something smells like its burning. 

BTW, I pick on Robo. At the end of the day.. he can post whatever the fuck he desires.

memyselfiu's picture

aka 'stick your head in the sand'

And we wonder why society gets sideswiped by ne'ar-do-wells

booboo's picture

We may not know who is going to win but we sure the hell know who is going to lose. Brace for impact.

Hugo Chavez's picture

Yep. The taxpayers in the private sector will be the losers.

I just need a few more years then i can go galt.

Fuck you obama.

Rincewind's picture

"I just need a few more years then i can go galt."

What's your point?

You want to suck a little bit longer on the FED's tits, so you can make a buck and others loose?

If you want to check out of the system, do it now. Buy a farm or whatever, and be done with it.

This "I need a little longer" crap drives me nuts, because it supports the fucking system.



memyselfiu's picture

Fuck you pal,

Some of us took a little longer than others to get it; we didn't want to be like those guys in the 70's who threw everything away and moved to a cabin in the woods, later to find out that armageddon didn't come.

Also some of us were busy in school learning how to spell.

Crab Cake's picture

You just gave yourself the answer, don't pay taxes; then you wont be on the losing side... errr.... herd?

Seriously, the only thing that these assholes, much like bullies, are scared of is a person or peoples that will stand up to them. Sick of government, dont support it by paying taxes. Sick of Wall St, take your money out. Sick of banksters, use cash and take your money out. It's the only way to actually change anything. Prefer a total collapse? I thought not, so lets grow a pair and tell dc and wall st where they can shove it.

Robslob's picture

If this is true I will gladly pay $8 per gallon of gasoline today to have Ron Paul as President tomorrow ....

Rincewind's picture

Yes, if that would only work. Instead the $8 will only feed the profit margin of people that do not really need it.

Wakanda's picture

Barry is scripted as a one termer.  Watch him throw the election in the Fall 2012 just like McCain did in 2008.

Actors get their kicks from following the script.

kridkrid's picture

Nobody ever threw an election better than GHWB.

Wakanda's picture

They do what they are told.  Some are smoother than others.

brettd's picture

His sole job was to ram healthcare into law.

SeverinSlade's picture

I've gotta say war with Iran could actually lead to Obumas reelection...think about it. If a false flag occurs on US soil similar to 9/11 the idiot sheeple will rally behind comrade totus. It will also provide the perfect cover for the debt ceiling breach as raising the debt ceiling will be spun as patriotic and in the name of national defense. Soaring oil prices due to the conflict can then be blamed for the economic downturn (which loyal zhers know has been ongoing for months/years)

RiverRoad's picture

And, of course, the sheeple are always afraid to change horses in mid-stream.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

When I want to cross a stream I use either a bridge or a boat so I don't have that prejudice.

JPM Hater001's picture

Worked for Bush 43...Cost Bush 41...

Clowns on Acid's picture

Obama is the false flag, and most sheeple know it. They are just scared of getting attacked by MSM or occupy protestors to verbalize it.

Well for the moment anyway. Once they steel their spines....we will have it out in the streets. Gun sales have not spiked for nothing.

The facsists can only push the avreage  American so far. That point is very near.

dolly madison's picture

Obama is the false flag, and most sheeple know it. They are just scared of getting attacked by MSM or occupy protestors to verbalize it.

Really sick of the insinuations that all OWS protesters are Obamabots.  There's a huge section of OWS that realizes it's not right v left, and have no plans to vote at all.

BLOTTO's picture

How about - Romney/Rand Paul?

Now what the fuck would everyone think?


OldPhart's picture

Romney would be too terrified to ever come outside.  He'd know there would be thousands of very calm, intense, sane and deadly accurate individuals out there hoping for Dr. Paul's chance to step up a notch.

Hugo Chavez's picture

Sadly it looks like the extended republican primary and excessive debates has given the election to obama.

He also recommended federal workers get a raise and has quit prosecuting illegals. He has now locked up the government workers vote and most of the latinos.