since there are more registered democrats than republicans, your pole shows people answered under party lines. Especially since the Economy was good under Clinton, that poll really doesnt surprise me much. Show the 70s and 80s while your at it though

regardless, when the economy is bad, the incumb usually loses

that is why carter lost (dem)
that is why Bush Sr lost (rep)

I made the same type of joke a million posts back but I don't think it even got copied into this thread :P

Really? I thought economics was always a good topic for Republicans but then again MC doesn't seem to know anything about economic topics so he may end up looking like a total fool.

I'm also surprised that as poker players any of you subscribet to the "has historically favoured" argument as the sample size of total presidential elections is far below 100. Additionally the individual situations have been so different between elections that I think drawing any statistical conclusions is pretty dumb.

mets, I get your argument that "well we're the USA we do good" but what you proposed is still plain old Fascism.

Wrote lots of words, deleted them. Basically boiled down to:

- Yes, incumbency is probably a bigger factor than party
- "Always" was too strong a word, given that the argument I was making for how voter perceptions applied to this election
- I'd still maintain that there has been a Democratic-lean favoring them on the economy over the last 20 years or so, but I'm not interested in arguing it because I was trying to start a casual conversation on electoral map prediction and quite honestly it's an argument I'm not interested in fighting

If someone wants to PM me with info that contradicts my Democratic-lean statement, I'll be happy to read it and consider I could be wrong. I just don't remotely care enough to fight over it, especially when the original point I was making (Economy = Good for Dems this year) is still supported whether it's due to being the opposition party or due to people leaning Dem on the issue in general.

I agree that economy is good for the Dems this year. I'm just not sure that it's because people think the Democrats are better for the economy, as opposed to people voting for the opposition when things are bad. It's a minor difference, and I started the conversation mostly to clarify your (what I thought was a general) statement, because it contradicts my general experience.

Clarification: By plain old I mean the "many branches are stronger than individual branches" school of thought.

Btw: I'd just use the good old "are we better off than 8 years ago" line and build my campaign around that if I was Obama tbh

Madtown - the Dems have been in control of Congress since 2006 and the economy has gone down the ****ter since then.

With this in mind, do you think:

A) The President has greater control over the economy than Congress
B) Congress has greater control over the economy than the President
C) It all depends on how the Fed Acts and the whole 'its the economy, stupid' thing is just another talking point.

[x] C

Probably none of the answers is a perfect fit. The roots of the present economic crises go back farther than 2006 and I'm sure there is plenty of blame to spread all around both with government and with those making decisions in the financial industry. Caveats aside though, [C] is clearly the most correct answer.

Wait, does it matter if the President actually has any effect on the Economy, if people think he does, and vote based on that?

congress control over economy >>>>>>>>>>> president's

which is part of the reason i'm so scared of obama winning

dem president + dem congress is scary

balance of power ftw

The president can just veto everything IIRC so congress < president

fair point

Bush Sr promised no new taxes. He did not propose tax increases. In fact, he vetoed many. Dem Congress kept passing them, he finally signed one, economy went in the ****ter, and his approval rating went from like 80% to 30% in a matter of months.

I'd argue that your original statement implies that the Dems actually have firm control of Congress, when they don't. Given a Republican President and nowhere-near a veto-proof Democratic Congress, and given that the use of filibusters has skyrocketed since 2006, it's hard to blame the "Democratic Congress," as though they could do whatever they wanted.

Note that I'm not arguing whether the use of the filibuster is legitimate, whether in general or since 2006. I'm not arguing that Dems have never used the filibuster. That's not my point.

My point is that after 6 years of a Republican President and a Republican Congress, it's ridiculous to say "THE DEMS HAD TWO YEAR TO FIX IT WHY DIDN'T THEY HMMMMMM" when you've got gridlock. So I'd reject that opening premise.

Removing the current political context, I'll answer your question thusly: I'd argue that all three have significant control over the economy, because they each control variables that factor into the economy often in unpredictable ways. I'd argue that the Fed probably exerts the most influence, but given that the Fed Chair is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate... well, you see where I'm going here.

I'm also starting to think I should just stay away from this thread.

he can veto and create stalemates ... although congress can override, although that is unlikely with the probable breakdown post election day

but still .. he can veto but cannot create laws ...

so the pres is more powerful than congress at maintaining the status quo, and congress is more powerful than the pres at creating legislation

Doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. Democratic controll of Congress will be the counterargument the Republicans will and should use.
I completely agree with Zurvan that all that matters here is what people perceive to be the cause and effect of things.
So of course the Democrats will go ahead and blame the Republicans for the slumping economy even if they will just look like fools to anyone who can stop and think a little.

Madtown:

we are having a reasonable discussion here. You are obviously very opinionated, as am i and others in this thread. Still, the discussion has been good, there have been no personal attacks, and maybe we are all learning something

why do you wish you stayed away from this thread?

I think we should move the level of debate to this level:



But that's just me.

Madtown: What about Obama do you disagree with? Especially interested in policies and so forth, similar to the nice list you made of what you like about his policies. Presumably it would be much shorter, though.

I wasn't blaming anyone for the current economy. I was pointing out an argument that I was fairly certain you may have already seen.

The point I was trying to make is that everyone can spin the economy debate in some way, when in reality the Fed probably has more power over the economy than the President or Congress.

Economies are also, by and large, very cyclical so even though a President, Congress and Fed can all be doing everything they can to help fix an ailing economy or keep a thriving economy on track, the economy may have other plans.

My read on MT is that he can't participate without taking it very seriously.

[ ] I'd rather see Osama captured
[ ] I'd rather see a return of the gold standard
(only one ldo)

Gold standard would be fantastic, but I'd rather have a suitcase full of Krugerrands than worry about fiat currency.

http://www.newsmax.com/lowell_ponte/.../22/66364.html

lolol I'm scouting the web for good propaganda images about the US elections, best one so far:

Only part I'd disagree with, in that while he obviously cannot create laws, the White House (Dem or Rep) clearly does influence the creation of legislation. But yeah, I'd roughly agree with this.

There's two issues at hand here: what's true, and what the majority of voters think is true.

My original point (and for the love of god, could we go back to electoral college prediction?) was that the majority of voters will favor the Democratic party on the economy. I don't think the Republicans can make an effective political pitch to win that issue; I think their best hope is that either the economy does not end up as the overriding issue, or that they find a political pitch that blunts the Democratic advantage.

Regarding what is actually true, it is more complex. It also boils down to an ideological debate in the end, which is why I don't see the Republicans gaining traction on it politically. Personally, I think the blame lies heavily at the movement to deregulate the financial markets -- something which I'd attribute more heavily to Republicans, but which Clinton and neo-liberal economic policies were certainly involved in as well. It's not something that I think can be reasonably blamed on the current Democratic Congress -- I'm not arguing that they would have fixed it given a veto-proof majority, but that they didn't have any ability to even try given that they lacked that majority.

I imagine that'll rile up some ACers to defend deregulation.

Before I get branded a full-blown socialist Democrat communist, I'd like to briefly talk about something else that came to mind on the economy -- something where I disagree with Democrats on, or at least their rhetoric: free trade. While I agree with them that labor and environmental protections should be stronger, whenever they slip into protectionist mode and demonize free trade as a reason the economy is tanking, I cringe. It's not true. Free trade isn't the problem.