Yeah, I gotta throw a flag on that one, adaher. That’s certainly a common perception but do you have any evidence to back that up?
The economy improved a lot under FDR and Truman; and the Dems controlled both houses throughout that period except for the 80th Congress, 1947-49.
The economy was just humming along under JFK and LBJ, and the Dems controlled both houses that whole period.
Heck, have their been any periods of single-party Dem control where the economy wasn’t so good?
The Clinton administration was a great time for the economy: especially when government was divided.
That’s sort of begging the question, adaher. You’re providing an answer that doesn’t actually, well, answer.
Well, what evidence would you like? Average unemployment rate under full Democratic control? GDP growth? Stock market growth?
The Democrats pass anti-business regulations and hike taxes, and then expect hiring to ensue.
Your statement, pal. *You *tell *us *what you base it on, 'kay? :dubious:
The rest of us aren’t hear to make your arguments for you. You gotta support them your own damn self, or think harder before even presenting them. At least a minimal amount of research, a few minutes really, would help prevent some of the laughter you hear.
I’m basing it on something rather simple: Democrats had complete control in my lifetime from 1976-1980(sucked), 1993-1994(sucked less, but not awesome by any means), and 2009-2010(sucked horribly).
The good times were 1995-2000, and before that 1983-1990. Some of the longest economic expansions we’ve ever seen. And both under divided government.
The Carter Admin.
Yet, Carter presided over a 3.06% increase in jobs in his single term, a better rate than any Republican from Harding to the present, Saint Ronald included.
You have some basis for defining “sucking”, then. How about sharing that with us? :rolleyes:
To remind you: Your statement, your job to back it up. Not anybody else’s. The presumption of good faith is not valid for everyone.
The Carter years, for starters, saw him take office with unemployment at 7.5% and leave office with unemployment at… 7.5%:
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
We already know about the Obama years. I assume no one has forgotten.
As for Clinton, 1993-94, we were coming out of the recession nicely, but the best was yet to come once Republicans stopped Clinton from making the biggest mistake of his career(Clintoncare), and then took Congress off the Democrats’ hands.
If Democrats keep Congress throughout Clinton’s two terms, I believe the story ends very differently for Clinton.
You were asked for your definition of “sucking”, since those are the facts you base your “conclusion” on that we do best when we have “gridlock”. You have provided none. What is the only reasonable inference from that absence, hmm? :dubious:
I would say you can do better, but there’s no evidence of that, either.
Well, considering you referred to the budget surplus and irrational exuberance period as one of Democratic control…
So that’s a No, then. You could have saved some keystrokes and just said so.
Pathetic.
I’m not here to meet your standards. You aren’t even up to mine, and your excuse that you didn’t make the argument doesn’t hold water, since you actually did make an argument, and a silly one at that.
We’re not asking you to meet our standards. Meeting your own personal standards is just fine. We just want to know what those standards are.
Hey, guess what? We might get to see Steyer and the Kochs go head-to-head! In a climate-change debate! Steyer has thrown down, let’s see what the Kochs do!
Are you here to try to convince anyone of the correctness of your views, or are you using this board as your personal echo chamber?
If you’re actually trying to convince anyone else, there are some basics of honest argument that have to be used, the most fundamental of which is to start with the facts and let them lead you to a conclusion. The approach of starting with a conclusion, such as your trademark “Democrats suck” for instance, and then looking for something to cherry-pick to try to support that position, even inventing it when sufficiently desperate, gives you, well, the results you’ve been having pretty much exclusively here.
That’s a damn good thing, too. Thanks.
Some interesting data from the new NBC/WSJ poll (pdf, but summarized here). Net approval ratings:
The Democrats have only a 13% “very positive”, sure - but that’s over twice the Republicans’ 6%. Yes, a single digit; apparently it’s possible. Adding the “somewhats” gets the Dems to 36% but the Reps only to 25%. A pretty sad showing all around, but it provides some guidance about which way to bet. The Dems have traditionally had the “enthusiasm gap” and turnout problem in midterms, but the Reps look to have a worse one.