I’m calling it for Obama: Where the Republicans went wrong & where the Dems can (still) go wrong
I’ve been thinking about how the Democrats have to worry about over confidence this election cycle while Republicans have to worry about everything else. How is it that this election can seem so one sided to me?
I meditated up at the DL survival-plex & gas fracking a go-go on that question, and it came to me. The GOP messed up when they FAILED to nominate Rick Perry.
The only way to sell the whacked out “grow the economy by shrinking it” economic orthodoxy of the current Republican Party is to make presidential elections about personalities. By that measure Perry was the best choice and the Republicans screwed up by chickening out on the man from Niggerhead.
Republican policies can’t withstand the slightest scrutiny, so whenever the press is reporting on the “issues” and not on the quirky eccentricities of the GOP’s candidate – they lose. (GHWB, the exception to this rule, was a fluke enabled by Dana Carvey’s ability to turn his core banality and dryness into quirky eccentricities.)
So, based on this rigorous analysis, I think we can all agree that the election is in the bag. The press doesn’t like Romney enough to try and make him likable in the eyes of the voters and Obama is very well liked.
Case closed? Perhaps, but Democrats still have to get out and vote.
chicken little is still worried about voter suprression and Diebold built voting machines in Florida and Ohio. Obama HAS to win in a landslide… remember, the past 4 years 41% is a majority win on the republicans have it.
Your fears are perfectly legitimate. In addition to the two items you mentioned, you can add post election judicial fraud.
“I meditated up at the DL survival-plex & gas fracking a go-go…”
That is perhaps the greatest line ever written on these digital pages.
Where, pray tell is our Survival Plex?
And yes, the election was won by Obama the minute Romney went off the economy script, and the election victory by the Dems was certified when Romney chose Ryan.
And to think that George Soros objected to that name. In your face Supreme Leader!
This post shows that jason330 does not understand the Republicans’ economic agenda.
You should be more afraid of certain Republicans’ nostalgia for the gold standard.
Also, too much wishful thinking. An election win is far from certified, regardless of voter fraud and conspiracy theories.
“grow the economy by shrinking it” sums up the Republican economic agenda perfectly. And credit where credit is due…the shrinking part of the equation has worked like gangbusters. The growing part..not so much.
Are you better off?
This week during the Democratic National Convention (and leading into the election), when you hear words like “invest” or any promised service or lower cost, ask yourself where they plan to get the funds for such “freebies” or subsidies. And remember that Mr. Obama and the Democrat congress currently do not operate from an approved budget, which means much higher deficit spending on top of Obama’s spectacular record deficits since 2009. It is our hope that the following information will serve as a reference guide for you to anchor the DNC words in truth and fact.
[Edited for fair use – Ed]
Thank you, Rusty, for illustrating that facts without context can be used to construct an absolutely incorrect analysis.
You are working on getting banned with this cut and paste bullshit Dils. I happen to be interested in what nutbags like yourself are thinking. What makes a Dils type nutbag tick? What early life experiences put him on a path to whack-a-doodlehood? What are his biggest regrets? How did his parents do such a poor job with him?
I’m not at all interested in what Glen Beck is thinking. http://mittromneycentral.com/
Dils has cut and paste some BS directly from the Rmoney website, which is not fair use of that material. So it is edited and if any DL commenter wants to see it, they can go over there to read it.
I’m not considering this in the bag yet. Mainly because the millions of SuperPAC dollars queued up will be focused like a laser on the lie-creation machine.
That said, Rmoney did NOT get a convention bounce (and if you wander around the wingnut blogosphere, they are busily working on a narrative that says that bounces don’t matter) and I think that Rmoney shares on Intrade actually went down some over the last week. But Democrats need to come out to vote.
@Rusty Dils: I’m not reading that.
@Jason330: You still have not identified what the Republicans want to shrink. The economy? The federal government?
This has nothing to do with liberal vs. conservative vs. whatever. I’m not convinced you understand economics or the Republicans’ position.
Republicans: Decrease government expenditures or taxes to reduce taxes to increase private consumption and investment
Democrats: Increase government expenditures or taxes to provide consumption-based stimulus and build infrastructure, both physical and regulatory
So shrink government to grow the economy? Yes. But you’re implying shrink the economy to grow the economy. This makes sense only if you think taxes don’t discourage (or diminish) private consumption and investment.
You should be pounding some Republicans’ nostalgia for the gold standard and “strong” or “hard” money.
Thanks for proving my point. Any time you want to take 50 words to say what I can in 5, be my guest.
Davy: The Republicans’ “position” does not work here on “Earth.” I’m not convinced you understand the economy, either.
And UK austerity and government shrinking has them in a double dip recession.
Republicans: Decrease government expenditures or taxes to reduce taxes to increase private consumption and investment
Which has been going on since Bush II and the economy went busto.
Not understanding economics indeed.
@Jason330:
When you make statements like “grow the economy by shrinking it,” you sound silly.
Running a budget deficit to increase current GDP growth is not a perfect solution to a recession. The American people will pay future taxes (implicit, like inflation, or explicit) to repay that debt. That is, this plan will decrease future GDP growth. In all, running deficits only smooths GDP growth over time, increasing current GDP growth and decreasing future GDP growth.
This is fine – it soothes immediate pain. But don’t pretend it “grows” the economy.
Every plan has a trade-off. An opportunity cost. In contrast, the Republican plan trades immediate pain for future prosperity.
In fact, neither the Republican plan nor the Democratic plan “grows” the economy.
I can say it in 4 words: Trickle-down doesn’t work.
Republicans have tried tax cuts + austerity twice. Both times it didn’t work, but they never got around to the austerity (and the rich kept their tax cuts).
Now they are promising “Let us try again with even more tax cuts, and this time we’ll really, really deliver the austerity.”
I can hardly wait.
FWIW I agree with Davy that the Republican “position” sounds silly. It is also silly (to the point of counter productive as Cassandra points out) in practice. Common ground!
DL building bridges !!!
I don’t know why I bother.
One day, there will be austerity, either under Republicans or Democrats, either through a smaller budget deficit or increased inflation. It will happen. It will be painful. I am resigned to the (sad) fact that I will live long enough to feel that pain.
And, I don’t understand how ANYONE can accuse Bush II of austerity, LOL.
EDIT: European (and UK) austerity generally involved increasing taxes, while cutting services. The Republicans have no intention of increasing taxes. The Republicans have no intention of pushing real (read German-style) austerity.
Frankly, I don’t know why you bother either. Especially since you are apparently too young to remember the Bill Clinton years.
You sound like someone blind from birth rambling on about your favorite colors.
You shouldn’t bother when it is pretty clear that you haven’t a clue as to what you are talking about. And no one accused Bush II of austerity, so that would be another reason for you to abandon ship here. European austerity increased taxes, cut services in an effort to reduce deficits. And they way they’ve done it makes sense — increase revenues while decreasing expenditures. The way they’ve done it has put their economies at risk as evident by their double dip recession. The austerity that the GOP is proposing is austerity for middle class and poor people while decreasing their own taxes.
Funny how the ’90s upended your economics 101 understanding of Earth. HIgher taxes, booming economy, very nearly balanced budget. I don’t know why you bother either.
@Jason330:
Clinton governed from the middle, right? From Arkansas, right? It’s the economy, stupid, right?
Want to blame our current predicament on Bush II now? Rusty Dil spouts Republican talking points. You spout Democratic talking points. No one’s stuck in the middle with me. You’re cutting my ears off.
Tried to sneak in the Tarantino reference.
The 1990s did not upend my understanding of economics. Higher taxes do not preclude higher growth. Higher taxes discourage higher growth.
President Clinton’s EITC was (and still is) a great program. President Clinton cared about this nation.
This is the difference between you and me. I accept reality. You accept Democratic talking points like Rusty Dil accepts Republican talking points.
Quick Note: Most of the the 1990s’ economic growth was illusory. After all, the housing bubble was preceded by the tech bubble. This takes little away from President Clinton’s accomplishments. He enacted some great legislation, including the EITC mentioned above.
Uh no. You can’t look at the Case Schiller index and see an inflated bubble before 2003, 2004. Real estate was definitely appreciating throughout the Clinton years (as it was through the Bush I years too), but you can’t get to bubble territory until well in the Bush II.
1990’s economic growth produced the illusion of surpluses and the possibility of paying down debt. Said surpluses were made of illusory increased revenues to the government because an illusory increase in employment and illusory increases in taxes which helped reduce the government footprint in the borrowing business.
To answer Rustys question. Yes. Yes, I am better off than I was 4 yrs ago.
Financially, my business is bouncing back. On social issues, DADT was repealled and for the first time a sitting President said he supports gay marriage.
Oh, and Osama Bin Laden is still dead and General Motors is still alive.
Growth did happen during the 90’s with higher taxes. It was the longest sustained economic boom in U.S. history.
Here’s a link to US GDP by quarter since WWII: http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354
Please identify for me the “illusory growth” you claim took place in the 1990s.
Maybe next time Rusty Nails, er Dils wants to quote from something he’d like to quote from this, from his boys over at the Wall Street Journal:
http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor
In a nutshell: Obama’s drunken sailor like spending spree never happened. I didn’t say it…the WSJ did.
Damn. I was really hoping to find that hidden illusory growth, too.
Growth did happen during the 90’s with higher taxes. It was the longest sustained economic boom in U.S. history.
Yes it did. The growth was largely (but certainly not entirely) a result of the tech boom. Cassandra_m describes this growth as “illusory”. I disagree. The growth was real, but the percentage of growth attributable to Clinton’s policies is debatable.
Clinton was a decent POTUS, but he wasn’t the 2nd coming of the Jeebus that many Democrats wish he was. He was the first successful Democratic president in my lifetime. He’s also a steaming pile of self-absorbed shit, much like our current VP.