House Prices & the Election: Why Obama will win

[August1991]

Sen. Obama enjoys a lead in all but two of the states that have seen a decline in house prices according to Ofheo index, including four states that went to President Bush in the 2004 election. The two states in which Sen. McCain leads in polling? His home state of Arizona and Alaska, the home state of his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin.

WSJ

The following states have all seen average house prices fall in Q2 2008:

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Hawaii

Illinois

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

NH

NJ

NY

Ohio

Oregon

RI

Va

Check tomorrow night. Almost all of these states will go Democrat.

The fall in housing prices made it difficult but not impossible for McCain to win. The collapse of equity markets and many voters' 401K accounts (our RRSPs) more or less sealed the election.

The table in the link more or less lays plain the states that Obama will win tomorrow. Obama's victory is accidental and he shouldn't interpret it as mandate for radical change. If he does, he will be a one-term president.

[jdobbin]

Obama's victory is accidental and he shouldn't interpret it as mandate for radical change. If he does, he will be a one-term president.

Nothing accidental about it. After eight years of Republican rule ending in a collapse where they embrace Keynes and Galbraith, Americans are looking to oust the bums.

As for predicting how many terms, it is a little early for that, don't you think?

[August1991]

Nothing accidental about it. After eight years of Republican rule ending in a collapse where they embrace Keynes and Galbraith, Americans are looking to oust the bums.

As for predicting how many terms, it is a little early for that, don't you think?

My great fear is that the US (and the world) is about to throw out basic market economics and believe we need a "New World Order".

Dobbin, some foreign idiots flew big airplanes into big US buildings in 2001 and killed thousands of people, mostly American. The entire Bush presidency was coloured by these events. One can criticize how Bush handled the response but the attacks occurred. Their planning predated Bush.

Too many people forget all this.

----

I view Obama's victory in the same way as I saw Bob Rae's election to PM in Ontario. It's an accident of politics and economics. Someone who would never normally win manages somehow to win.

The decline in house prices set the stage but the collapse of 401k accounts sealed McCain's fate. The bailout was icing on the cake. In January 2008, I predicted that McCain would be president. Under normal circumstances, he would be. Even under exceptional circumstances, we'd have President John McCain.

Well, these are exceptionally rare circumstances. A large part of the US electorate are boomers, thinking of retirement, who have just seen their house values and 401k accounts collapse by 25% or so.

Too many of these boomers have had it. If a few million change their mind, Obama wins. This is what the polls reflect. (Of course, Obama has to get all the other points right too. He needs money, ads, GOTV and so on.)

----

IOW, I don't see this like Levesque's election in 1976 or Lesage's election in 1960. Levesque and Lesage arrived under different circumstances.

Edited November 4, 2008 by August1991

[jdobbin]

My great fear is that the US (and the world) is about to throw out basic market economics and believe we need a "New World Order".

Dobbin, some foreign idiots flew big airplanes into big US buildings in 2001 and killed thousands of people, mostly American. The entire Bush presidency was coloured by these events. One can criticize how Bush handled the response but the attacks occurred. Their planning predated Bush.

Too many people forget all this.

Oh, they haven't forgotten. Bush reminded the public over and over again and the fear, the worry coloured the decision making thereafter. The certainty of action thereafter, the self confidence is what people admired in Bush. The ability to go after the perpetrators in Iraq was what people respected even if that is now where the attackers came from.

I know why Bush did it. He did it because he had faith. Faith that if her actually believed something, it would be true. Faith that Freidman was right and Keynes was wrong. Faith that weapons were in Iraq and that he and 150,000 troops would find them.

The economic planning predated Bush but he carried it on.

IOW, I don't see this like Levesque's election in 1976 or Lesage's election in 1960. Levesque and Lesage arrived under different circumstances.

If the Republicans had really wanted to win this election, they would have actually looked to nominate a leader who wasn't so linked to all that was wrong in terms of where the U.S. is now.

Edited November 4, 2008 by jdobbin

[Shady]

California

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Hawaii

Illinois

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Nevada

NH

NJ

NY

Ohio

Oregon

RI

Va

Check tomorrow night. Almost all of these states will go Democrat.

Well, most of those states are Democrat states. I count 4 red states from the list you provided. So yes, almost all of those states will go for Obama. Just like most of those states went for Kerry in '04 and Gore in 2000.

Nothing accidental about it. After eight years of Republican rule ending in a collapse where they embrace Keynes and Galbraith, Americans are looking to oust the bums.

As for predicting how many terms, it is a little early for that, don't you think?

After 2 years of Democrat rule in Congress, many bums deserve to be ousted. However, I think it's very ironic that Barack Obama is getting a political benefit, from an economic/housing situation, in which is directly related to policy in which he, and his fellow Democrats embraced and implimented through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, under the "outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines" to quote Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

[jdobbin]

After 2 years of Democrat rule in Congress, many bums deserve to be ousted. However, I think it's very ironic that Barack Obama is getting a political benefit, from an economic/housing situation, in which is directly related to policy in which he, and his fellow Democrats embraced and implimented through Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, under the "outstanding leadership of Franklin Raines" to quote Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters.

Republicans would like people to think that it was all the last two years that led to this problem but it wasn't. It was a philosophy so deeply ingrained, supported, nurtured and left to run rampant that has brought the U.S. and the rest of the world to this situation. It was the complete conviction that they were right and everyone else was wrong. It was the demagoguery, the dirty tricks, the fear and the excess.

There were certainly Democrats who can be blamed, many who should be held responsible but the faith based decision making on economics, foreign policy, justice and social programs has come home to roost. The red faced embarrassment of embracing Keynsian policies to bail out the country from some of the worst turmoil in many decades lays primarily at the hands of the Republicans.

This wasn't a media created event. It was something that people felt down, that people felt directly. The Republicans wanted people to fear, to vote for them for security. Well...that fear is now about the economy now. That fear has turned on them because people can see the foreclosures, the business shutdowns, the crashing stock market, the continued spending and deficit creation.

When people look at McCain, they see a continuation of those policies. Enough people seem to want to change that dynamic and all though he can point to his being a maverick, he is also the man that said he voted for Bush policies 90% of the time.

The whirlwind of changes is sweeping the U.S. in much the same way as the Reagan revolution ushered in conservatism. It is unclear what change Obama will bring but he had one thing that McCain didn't seem to offer which was hope for something different.

[BubberMiley]

In January 2008, I predicted that McCain would be president.

Actually, having recently reread the US presidential election thread, I believe back then you were saying it was going to be either Thompson or Romney. But that was before you were predicting Giuliani was a shoo-in.

Your ability to make accurate predictions made me think this thread title was a latch-ditch effort to jinx Obama.

[White Doors]

Well it took a Jimmy Carter to give us Reagan - that's the way I am looking at it.

[jdobbin]

Actually, having recently reread the US presidential election thread, I believe back then you were saying it was going to be either Thompson or Romney. But that was before you were predicting Giuliani was a shoo-in.

Your ability to make accurate predictions made me think this thread title was a latch-ditch effort to jinx Obama.

For myself, I had Obama right. I didn't predict McCain. I thought Romney made the most sense. While I thought his religion might be an issue, I didn't realize he would be so hampered by it.

[msj]

Well it took a Jimmy Carter to give us Reagan - that's the way I am looking at it.

And others are looking at it as "well it took a Dubya Bush to give us Obama."

[White Doors]

And others are looking at it as "well it took a Dubya Bush to give us Obama."

perhaps, but I get 8 years each cycle and 'they' get only 4 so I will take it.

[Shady]

Well it took a Jimmy Carter to give us Reagan - that's the way I am looking at it.

Exactly. It makes for a nice rhyme too. It took Jimmy Carter to give us Reagan, it'll take Barack Obama to give us Palin.

[Mortui]

Exactly. It makes for a nice rhyme too. It took Jimmy Carter to give us Reagan, it'll take Barack Obama to give us Palin.

I hope to God you don't actually want Palin

[August1991]

Actually, having recently reread the US presidential election thread, I believe back then you were saying it was going to be either Thompson or Romney. But that was before you were predicting Giuliani was a shoo-in.

Your ability to make accurate predictions made me think this thread title was a latch-ditch effort to jinx Obama.

Bubbler, if you read through that thread, you're either a hopeless political junkie in need of rehab or else you have too much time on your hands. OTOH, I must admit to having read through old threads too - when life is otherwise too boring.

FTR, in case anyone cares, I first thought Romney/Thompson were good candidates on paper - until I saw one of the earlt primary debates. Romney is an automaton and Thompson, otherwise a good candidate, is simply too lazy. (After all, Thompson is an actor.) In my mind, that defaulted to McCain and I recall starting a thread with the title: President John McCain.

At the time, I thought Hillary would be chosen but I also thought that both she and Obama were unelectable. Hillary had too much baggage and Obama was too left wing. (I still think Obama is too left wing but now I'm willing to understand that he's a wily chameleon. Unlike Trudeau - also of mixed parentage - Obama does not seem to have given much thought to what that means.) Anyway.

What I didn't count on was a meltdown of the stock market. Combined with the loss in house values, this made any Republican unelectable.

-----

Ronald Reagan famously asked twice: "Are you better off now than four years ago?" McCain couldn't ask that question because the key demographic, baby boomers, have seen their primary investment (a house) decline in value and they've subsequently seen their pension savings drop some 40% or more.

A pig wearing lipstick could have won an election in 2008 as long as it wasn't a Republican pig. If there is a surprise, it's that despite all this, Obama only received about 52% of the vote - that's less than Bush Snr in 1988.

There is no doubt in my mind that excepting the stock market fall, Obama would not be president. This election does not reflect a major shift in the American electorate or anything of the sort. It merely shows that if many Americans see their house value fall by 20% and their investmenst fall by 30%, the incumbent party won't get re-elected.

The truly frustrated person right now is Hillary Rodham Clinton. She knows perfectly well that save for the grace of God, and a few Democratic primaries, she would be sitting in the Oval Office next January.

So, excuse me if I don't see Obama as the great saviour or the great strategist. Rather, I see him as a lucky guy standing in the right place at the right time. By all accounts, Barack Obama has been a lucky guy in life. He's had some good breaks.

We're all about to find out whether his good luck holds, or even whether his apparent good luck is based on something shrewder.

Well, most of those states are Democrat states. I count 4 red states from the list you provided. So yes, almost all of those states will go for Obama. Just like most of those states went for Kerry in '04 and Gore in 2000.

If you go back to the OP and its link, you'll note that Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Nevada are on that list and critically, they all went for Obama.

Shady, I'm no Marxist but when it comes to US presidential politics, I'm one of many to argue that Americans vote with their wallets. If Obama won this election, it wasn't the sparkle in his bright brown eyes.

Edited November 7, 2008 by August1991