Reason(s) why Dems won't win in November
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
One could give you specifics all day long, but you would just dismiss them and come back with your snide remarks. That is your M.O. on here.
You have access to the same resources that I do. If you truly wanted or cared to see the specifics, they are readily available for you to see.
You're not a stranger, but you are of a certain "tribe."
So, what do you do for a living Mr. My2Cents? Family? Affiliation with OSU? Living arrangement?
I disagree with your assessment. The economy grew under Obama, but for the most part it sputtered. Unemployment in that time span was unacceptable, but Obama told us to get used to it, that’s the new normal. Business was absolutely strangled with new regulations, more government interference in the economy. Any competent economist will tell you that any - any! - government interference in the economy will have a negative effect on growth and prosperity. The more interference the greater the negative effect.
Taxes were stifling on individuals and businesses alike. Tax reform is totally a Republican achievement. Did a single Democrat vote for tax reform, lowering taxes?
For all his bufoonerishness (is that a word?) Trump (and the Republicans) deserve accolades for improving the economy. The Democrats have looked foolish with their nonstop antiTrump rhetoric.
I recognize some weaknesses in the enactment of the Republican agenda. I also recognize the party of the sitting President usually loses seats in the midterm elections. Trump’s approval ratings are lower than they deserve to be. The Democrats have several things going for them in the elections, you have legitimately pointed them out. Republicans should be concerned.
But if the Democrats attempt to take credit for the incredible expansion of the economy they will be laughed out of the room.
Question to the Dems on the board: What do you consider a 'win' for November? Is it taking back the House and Senate? Taking back just the House while staying relatively balanced in the Senate? Just winning a few more seats in the House? To me, given historical precedent along with the predictions of the "big blue wave", I would state that any result where the Repubs maintain control of both houses is a win for the Repubs. (I fully expect them to lose some seats in the House.) Any result in which the Rs lose the Senate is a loss. Losing the House closely, but maintaining the Senate would be a loss but wouldn't match the 'blue wave' that's been prognosticated.
Flipped house and a 49 senate seats is the minimum. Anything less than that and you gotta start firing people starting with Pelosi and Schumer.
Obama took office during the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. When he took office, the unemployment rate was 7.8%. It would peak at 10.0% nine months after Obama took office. When Obama left office in January 2017, the unemployment rate was 4.8%. This was below the historical norm (dating back to 1949), which is 5.6%.
From January 2009 through January 2017, the jobless rate dropped 3%. Since 1949, the U.S. only saw a rate drop greater than this under Clinton and the Kennedy/Johnson administrations. And again, this was done after inheriting a horrible financial situation. The economy added 11.6 million jobs under Obama.
Do you really want to claim that a 4.8% unemployment rate is unacceptable compared to 7.8% or 10%? Do you really want to claim that the addition of 11.6 million jobs after inheriting a dire financial situation is unacceptable?
There are other numbers that can be pointed to as well. Aveage weekly earnings and incomes increased for Americans under Obama. These numbers must also be seen within the context of what was inherited. For example, when Obama took office, the inflation-adjusted income for Americans had dropped 4.2% in the prior eight years. When Obama left office, there had been a 5.3% gain.
On top of this, after-tax corporate profits inceased under Obama. The S&P 500 index rose 166%. Over 15 million Americans received health care. And so forth.
Since January 2017, this positive trend has continued. For example, four months after Obama had left office, when Trump had done very little in terms of economic policies, the unemployment rate was at 4.3%.
Now, I realize that it is hard for some to give Obama credit for anything. And politics is politics. But the facts are the facts.
I don't disagree that Trump can attempt politically to claim credit for the continued growth, citing to confidence, and his tax/regulatory policies. However, Democrats can also remind Americans that we still have yet to see the long-term impact that these policies are going to have. There is absolutely no reason why the Democrats should or will cede the economic issue to Republicans.
This type of question gets into the area of spin. Technically speaking, if the Democrats gain any seats in the House and the Senate, that is a win for them. Losing seats would be a loss.
In terms of political reality and spin though, you are correct, the Democrats need to win control of one of the houses.
btw, I personally think the Democrats need to back off the "blue-wave" talk. It isn't smart politically.
Obama’s unemployment numbers were poppycock, and everyone knows it. Those books were cooked way past the boiling point. Millions of people had literally given up looking for a job because there were no jobs to be had. Those millions were not counted. Any person out in the real world could see what was going on.
Anecdotally, I run a small business. I belong to several small business associations. Virtually every business person I know was hanging on by his fingernails, praying they could hold out until Obama was out of office.
The sigh of relief from the business community when Trump beat Hillary was loud and palpable.
Obama's so called economic success was pure baloney; his numbers were pure left wing spin, hiding any number that made him look bad.
Your rhetoric will fall on deaf ears. The public recognizes it for what it is. If the Democrats try to claim credit for the vastly improved economy after the previous 8 years of noticeable stagnation the American people will turn them out just like they did Hillary.
I don’t know what position you hold in the Democratic Party. But if you have any influence at all you need to advise them to avoid trying to take credit for the economy. In my opinion that would be the last straw for most independent voters to trust a thing they say.
Pelosi should already be gone. House Democrats need a new face in terms of leadership.
If the Dems do take the House, I think it would be a bad move to elect Pelosi Speaker again. If the Dems don't take the House, Pelosi definately should not remain in leadership.
They are the same numbers that Trump supporters are now using to praise Trump with. One can't have it both ways.
As for people giving up looking for a job, both George W. Bush and Obama were dealing with a changing demographic in terms of employment. The surge of women entering the market place peaked under Clinton and began to decline under W. Bush. Also, the baby boomers began reaching retirement age under Obama. This contributed to the labor force participation numbers. Still, under Obama, that number only slipped from 65.7% to 62.9%.
As for individual small business owners and those in the business community, their assessments are usually mixed depending on their political ideology.
I think Democrats should take credit for what they are responsible for in terms of the economy, talk about the areas that need improvement, and warn Americans about the potential economic harm that Trump's policies may have. Again, the Democrats should not cede the economy to Republicans. That would be foolish politically, in my opinion.
While I disagree with you on this subject (and probably many more!) I want you to know how much I appreciate your calm reasoned approach. It is a joy to have a political conversation with someone of an opposing viewpoint that does not turn into a shouting match of insults. I hope we continue to talk about political subjects in the future.
I wholeheartedly agree and I look forward to future conversations.
Personally, I agree that Obama should get some credit for his role in recovery economy. He could have done more, but the charts are clear that things improved under his tenure from the post 2008 recession. That said, its disingenuous to not give Trump significant credit for the current economy when for the entirety of 2016, every Democratic pundit available told us how terrible Trump would be for the economy, and that nothing he could do would make it better, yet clearly he has. The Dems seem to want to disregard all the prognostications they spouted previously. It must be comfortable to sit in a position and spout that all failings are the result of the new guy (Trump) yet all successes are a continuation of the predecessor (Obama). That said, the longer the economy remains strong and stable, the less that Obama can continue to get the credit.
For the record, I'd love to see one analyst that expected Trump to have the economy in its current position 18 months into his term, but frankly, I haven't seen anything of the sort.
The unemployment numbers are BS and as someone said in one of the previous threads (Ostatedchi or air_xpert), where you see the real uptick in the economy is the raise in wages.
The ex-rodent in chief deserves scorn for a number of things and its hard to pick one thing out, but the thing that always sticks out for me is his "you didn't build that," ironic coming from a guy who never held a private sector job. Close second would be "if you want your doctor you can keep your doctor."
Secondly, you argue that millions more were insured...are you kidding me! They were forced to buy insurance or get penalized. How can that be an improvement, especially given the rates are still rising and the marketplace is imploding.
He inherited the worst economic crisis since the great depression (btw Bush warned congress of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but they did nothing, yes I know shocker, those contributed greatly to the crisis)....oh boy. His first response was a stimulus (and all those shovel ready jobs) which was too small and didn't do nearly what he promised, well except push money back into democratic/liberal candidates coffers for re-election runs. Cash for clunkers = loser move, the list goes on. He was the worst, most inept and divisive president ever and its not close. Can you imagine if a white president had said "he acted stupidly" to describe a black police officers actions in arresting a white friend of the president?
I don't like many, okay very few, politicians and think they by in large are useless pieces of crap. They are the guy telling the loose women (their constituency), "I promise I'll love you in the morning," in perpetuity. They have no incentive to actually solve problems other than maybe losing an election at which time they can become even a bigger scumbag as a lobbyist or go back home and run for office.
Trump has accomplished a lot in 18 months and reading the tea leafs it looks like he will accomplish a lot more, we shall see. I'll take him and his entourage's economic experiences over everyone else's though, including Bush and the ex-rodent in chief.
The ex-rodent in chief deserves scorn for a number of things and its hard to pick one thing out, but the thing that always sticks out for me is his "you didn't build that," ironic coming from a guy who never held a private sector job. Close second would be "if you want your doctor you can keep your doctor."
Secondly, you argue that millions more were insured...are you kidding me! They were forced to buy insurance or get penalized. How can that be an improvement, especially given the rates are still rising and the marketplace is imploding.
He inherited the worst economic crisis since the great depression (btw Bush warned congress of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac but they did nothing, yes I know shocker, those contributed greatly to the crisis)....oh boy. His first response was a stimulus (and all those shovel ready jobs) which was too small and didn't do nearly what he promised, well except push money back into democratic/liberal candidates coffers for re-election runs. Cash for clunkers = loser move, the list goes on. He was the worst, most inept and divisive president ever and its not close. Can you imagine if a white president had said "he acted stupidly" to describe a black police officers actions in arresting a white friend of the president?
I don't like many, okay very few, politicians and think they by in large are useless pieces of crap. They are the guy telling the loose women (their constituency), "I promise I'll love you in the morning," in perpetuity. They have no incentive to actually solve problems other than maybe losing an election at which time they can become even a bigger scumbag as a lobbyist or go back home and run for office.
Trump has accomplished a lot in 18 months and reading the tea leafs it looks like he will accomplish a lot more, we shall see. I'll take him and his entourage's economic experiences over everyone else's though, including Bush and the ex-rodent in chief.
One reason some are hesitant to give Trump a lot of credit is because we have yet to see the full impact of his policies. And because they believe that many of his policies will eventually hurt the economy.
At this point in Obama's first term, the unemployment rate was still over 9% and the economy was struggling. That was because of what Obama had inherited. Some goods signs were appearing, but we didn't realize the full impact of the new economic policies till later. Same will hold true with Trump.
I agree with you though that the longer the economy remains strong and the longer it continues to grow, Trump should get more and more credit (while not forgetting the contribution from Obama and the Democrats).
They are the same numbers Trump and his supporters are now using to brag about the economy.
Again, can't have it both ways.
15 millions Americans with health insurance who didn't have it before is an improvement. Sorry you think otherwise.
You aren't limiting yourself to 2 cents.
Look like big, buffoonish engagements with sentence structure and grammatical patterns very similar to existing posters.
Certainly not 2 cents. What's your boss doing while you type up these small novels?
@long-duc-dong
Look like big, buffoonish engagements with sentence structure and grammatical patterns very similar to existing posters.
Certainly not 2 cents. What's your boss doing while you type up these small novels?
@long-duc-dong
That was definitely the narrative from right wing media. A client and I bet whether he'd still be in business the January after Obamacare passed. He was legitimately convinced he'd have to shut down. Of course he prospered and I haven't called for the bet winnings. He's a republican, he wouldn't remember. I think that it's hard for you to say the numbers were fraudulent under Obama, but make sense now. Which is it? Are they believable or not?
They deserve credit.
Clinton: inherited recession, ended with boom.
Bush: Inherited boom, ended in recession.
Obama: Inherited recession, ended with long, sustained growth.
Trump: Begins with momentum of long, sustained growth..... ?
If we're comparing parties, it's not even close.
I'd love to get a dialogue going with a conservative on that point. It always ends with changing the subject. Who built your school, who paid for it's construction, who paid for the teachers to be there, (if private) who paid for the tuition? Who taught you how to read and work and learn a profession? Did all this just miracle up when you popped out? The stable government, equal application of laws, employment and employee laws, infrastructure, internet? You did it all, huh?
