:dubious: Of course it does. It’s just an invisible factor most of the time.
The situation does sorta remind me of the 70s. Stagflation had been a problem since the Nixon administration (remember Gerald Ford’s laughable Whip Inflation Now buttons?). But Carter had the misfortune of being in office when the Iran time bomb exploded. That jacked up oil prices and turbocharged inflation, and Carter took the blame for the economic mess.
Yet it was Carter who appointed Paul Volcker as fed chief. Volcker’s policies are generally credited with stopping stagflation:
Of course, Reagan took credit. (“Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” was his 1984 campaign tagline.)
So yeah, I do worry that we’re going to elect Obama, and then he’s going to catch the blame for the looming disasters. And then Republicans will “ride to the rescue” in 2010 and 2012.
Exactly. Any homeowners in this thread? I’m one. Most of us who are, we own rather than rent because the government made long-term mortgages a reality. Did a lot of people in recent years get mortgages that shouldn’t have, leading to the Big Shitpile that’s likely going to make this recession much bigger and longer than it would have been otherwise? That’s partly because the current Administration defeated efforts by the fifty state Attorneys General to crack down on predatory lending practices in the early part of the decade. Do we trust in the safety of our food, our cars, our kids’ toys, for the most part? To the extent that we can, thank the government. My father-in-law is having some pretty major health complications - good thing he’s on Medicare, or else my wife and I would have to burn through a chunk of our savings to pay for his operations. Is most of New Orleans still a mess? Yep, because the current Administration fucked up.
Government matters.
Ah…gotcha. I misunderheard you there.
We shall see I guess. I would/will be very surprised if the economy takes until 2011 to start picking back up. My guess is it will start rebounding sometime in 2009.
True. Good point.
The thing is, while we lost a lot of jobs in the manufacturing sector we gained jobs in other sectors. I expect THIS time however to be a bit different. For one thing the dollar has dropped relative to a lot of other currencies on the world market…which SHOULD mean that some of those manufacturing jobs will make a modest comeback in this cycle. Also, there is the potential for whole new sectors of work in this cycle as some technologies are converging to open up new fields in bio-tech, eco- tech and alternative fuels. I think conservation and eco-awareness are going to be the hallmarks of the next 10+ years…which is going to open up a lot of new opportunities for business. There are literally hundreds of billions of dollars of potential in that market as companies attempt to become more eco-friendly in response to customer demand. Just my WAG though.
To be sure. But that wasn’t the point I was making. Why are so many people supporting him? If they are blaming the Republicans for everything (and linking that back to McCain) why does he have such broad support still? He SHOULD be floundering with the real contest between Hillary and Obama deciding who will be president…but from the polls I’ve read (granted it’s still early days) they are all neck and neck when compared to each other at the national level. Why?
And I’d be willing to bet that your own scenario is a lower order of probability in that time frame…though as you say it is possible. Since we’ll both most likely still be here we’ll both find out who is right and who is wrong…or, most likely that both of us are wrong and right depending on how one looks at it.
If he had said that in the 80’s I would have taken it on faith that he was right. These days? IMHO his powers of prognostication have fled. I’d almost be willing to bet on just the opposite of whatever he’s saying these days, just on general principals. YMMV of course.
Yes there was. I’m trying to cut down on the number of smiley’s added per post as it was annoying people. I’m in a 12 step program these days and on the wagon…
You don’t need to dig it up…I’ve seen it before. Thing is, it’s all in what sectors you are looking at, what things you are weighting as important and what you aren’t. This is another point I think it’s best to just agree to disagree as it deserves it’s own debate and will just distract from your thread.
Well, he’s established that he to can make a major foot in mouth gaff…but so have both Clinton and Obama. I really don’t think these kinds of gaffs are as meaningful as political junky types seem to think they are. Again, YMMV…but counting on McCain being ignorant of Iraq or driving the economy into the dirt more than it currently is will probably not work out the way you think if he’s elected. If nothing else Murphy’s Law is bound to bit you in the butt in reverse…whatever you THINK could go wrong will certainly not. 
-XT
One more thing that I think the OP has neglected to consider: Even when the population is pissed off at Congress, in general, it’s very rare for that dissatisfaction to actually be associated with their own representatives in either the House or Senate. The thinking is that it’s the other assholes who are the problem, not the ones from their districts. Even if their representatives are members of the party that’s seen to be the cause of the problem..
The various perks of incumbency, and the power that goes with seniority, often provide for specific counter incentives for people to keep voting for their existing representatives. Now, if age does open a seat without any incumbent running, the dissatisfaction with a specific party may well affect who will be chosen to fill that seat. But, I’d still suggest that it’s at least as likely that it will be solely local issues that decide individual representative races.
So, counting on a McCain Presidency to strengthen a Democratic majority in the Senate and House just doesn’t seem to work for me. And without that strong, and united majority a lot of the OP’s scenario for placing all blame for worsening conditions upon a specific political party starts to go down the drain.
Well, I’m not really interested in taking this thread down the road of debating that point, so I’ll just agree to disagree. It’s not critical to the idea that the country doesn’t need to be saved anyway. I’ve heard people preaching doom and gloom all my life, and not one of them has been right. Bush certainly has been a terrible president, but I don’t see him as typical of Republicans in general and representative of what McCain would do in particular. Our economic problems are not within the control of the US government, and the biggest lever the government does have (monetary policy by the Fed) isn’t going to change either way. You can blame Alan Greenspan all you want, but last I looked he was there through all 8 years of the last Democratic presidency.
There’s another factor to consider. There’s the utterly crapulous Bush administration that we know about, and a whole 'nother level of crapulosity that we don’t. Without the shield supplied by a compliant Justice Dept and Execrable Privilege, there’s nothing to prevent the Dems from turning over all those rocks and surveying the repulsive inhabitants thereinunder. Subpoenas will be served, indictments will be forthcoming, the trajectory of the shit will intersect the locus of the fan. And there shall be great weeping and gnashing of teeth.
If you put it like that, you are correct. But the question isn’t “is the typical incumbent Congresscritter of the Problem Party more likely to lose than win?” but “in a year when voters are upset, will the change in voters’ sentiment add up to a change in the balance of power in one or both houses of Congress?”
It occurs to me that of the twenty Congressional elections I’ve been old enough to be aware of (from 1964 to the present), nine have resulted in such changes: 1964, 1966, 1974, 1980, 1986, 1994, 2000, 2002, and 2006. In each of the last six, actual control of the Senate shifted, and control of the House as well in 1994 and 2006. (2002 was something of an anomaly and can be tossed AFAIAC, since few seats shifted hands, but in a 51-49 Senate, it only took a loss of one seat.)
In 1964 and 1974, the Dems won big, and were able to do things (e.g. Medicare) that they wouldn’t have been able to do with a normal majority, given the conservative Southern bloc in their own party. The GOP gains in 1966 erased most of the Dems’ 1964 gains, effectively ending the window of opportunity during which LBJ pushed through most of his Great Society programs. In 1980, the GOP gained control of the Senate, and (along with conservative Dems) had sufficient strength in the House to pass Reagan’s tax cuts and much of the rest of his agenda.
Anyway, you get the idea: elections that really make a difference in what Congress can do, do happen. They aren’t the norm, but they’re not exactly rare, either. If the economy is still in the toilet in 2010, there’s every reason to believe 2010 could be such an election.
No. But as with anything, if there’s a short-term cost that can result in a substantial long-term payoff, it’s worth considering.
You’re missing the risk/reward analysis here. I’ve pointed to a specific payoff in 2010 and beyond for losing the Presidency in 2008, one that I genuinely believe there’s an excellent chance of. What’s my payoff, and when, for any of the defeats you mention?
Because I don’t care about Republicans getting the blame, as such. What I’m interested in is the possibility of the sort of Democratic win in two years that would enable the Dems to enact major changes that they haven’t been able to, and won’t be able to in 2009-10 even if they win the White House. The GOP getting blamed is the means, but if I could magically accomplish the same end by giving half my savings to a homeless shelter, I’d do that instead.
No, my proposal shows that (a) I realize that getting a 60-40 (or better) Senate majority is extremely difficult in normal circumstances (history bears me out here), and (b) I have little faith in the Dems’ being able to break GOP filibusters without that 60+ majority.
The important thing is to make good things happen. To make them happen requires a Dem majority that can and will break GOP filibusters, whether by internal Senate hardball, or by sheer numbers of votes.
In normal times, I’d trust that McCain’s greater contact with reality might indeed result in better outcomes. The problem is that Bush’s chickens are coming home to roost on Bush’s successor in 2009-10, regardless of party. If the avalanche is already headed down the mountain on January 20, 2009, then whoever owns the mountain on January 21 has to deal with the avalanche and its aftermath. And while the Dems have a toolkit that can help somewhat with the recovery, the GOP’s tools - tax cuts - have already been worn down to a nub. And I don’t think this GOP Congressional caucus will give McCain the freedom to use Dem tools.
Two.
Two. And they’re going to be two years worse anyway, which is a major component of my argument. If I thought Obama or Clinton could enact their global-warming proposals into law in 2009, for instance, preferring to elect either of them over McCain would be a no-brainer.
No. More or less the same hole in two years, but no way to blur the responsibility for it.
No prob.
I’d fully expect the GDP to begin increasing again sometime in 2009, which is how recession’s end is officially defined.
Where we differ is when we expect the employment situation to start bouncing back. After the July 1990-March 1991 recession, the male (women were still increasing their share of the workforce at this time, so including them confuses the issue) employment/population ratio didn’t hit bottom until December 1992, and didn’t get 1/4 of the way back to its previous peak until September 1994. After the March-Nov 2001 recession, the E/P ratio didn’t bottom out until September 2003, and didn’t get 1/4 of the way back until April 2005. IOW, job bottom was nearly 2 years after the end of the recession in both cases, and getting 1/4 of the way back was ~3.5 years after recession’s end.
Even if the recession is technically over before this election, chances are good that things will only be starting to look up for actual people by the time of the 2012 general election campaign.
As far as currencies are concerned, hadn’t a similar thing happened at the time of the Bush I recession? And of course, that recovery was also marked by whole new economic sectors opening up. But it still took time, lots of time, for the job picture to be better for most Americans.
I’ll agree that none of that marked the Shrub recovery: strong dollar, no new economic sectors.
One word: Maverick.
People at most kinda, sorta associate him with the GOP brand, thanks to the effective job our media has done, marketing him as a 'maverick." Hell, even I occasionally confuse him with James Garner. 
Since we’ve both been here quite awhile, the odds are good. 
Except this is less “Alan Greenspan says” than “even Alan Greenspan says,” if you get my drift. I too am less than impressed by Greenspan; I give more weight to those who saw the bubble happening and the Shitpile coming.
Here, have a smiley, surely you can have just one.
I doubt we’ll find out who’s right - I expect the Dem candidate to win this fall, regardless of who it is. But if McCain wins, we can compare notes on or after November 3, 2010. At any rate, I think there are good reasons for Dems to not confuse a McCain win with TEOTWAWKI.
I agree.
The only real difference I see between an Obama Presidency and a McCain one is that under Obama I will have to pay more tax (Return of the marriage penalty plus additional tax increases)
Under McCain, that may still come to pass, but is less likely.
Under both of em, the deficient will grow.
I will be voting for McCain.
Zoe: “Sanguine”. Hopeful. Plus, point of interest- it also means “bloody.”
Mal: Well, that pretty much covers all the options, don’t it?
No, that would be “sanguinary.”
Jayne: “Let’s be bad guys.”
First, the assumption that things are horrible and going to get worse is not not necessarily valid. The economic problem the U.S. faces right now is somewhat transitory - the financial crisis will pass eventually. Structurally, the U.S. economy is in better shape than most. The U.S. has lower taxes and higher productivity than most other countries. The population isn’t as old as it is in Europe and Japan. It’s somewhat isolated from radical Islamic extremism, which I think is going to be a huge problem for Europe in the next decade.
There are a lot of challenges facing the entire world in the next couple of decades, but there are also lots of opportunities. We’re in a golden age for science and engineering. Enough with the gloom and doom.
As for Iraq, I think its currently a good possibility that there will be some form of a soft landing there. The security and economic situation continues to improve. I think it’s entirely possible that conditions will be right for someone like Obama to remove at least half the troops from Iraq in a year or two - about when he says he wants to. That would allow Democrats to dump the failures of Iraq on Bush (as they should), and take credit for the successful termination of the conflict.
And if Iraq spirals into chaos, they can still blame Bush (unless Obama yanks all the soldiers out immediately and chaos follows).
McCain would be a good president. Yes, he’s hawkish on the war, but that die has already been cast. He’s not about to invade Iran or anything foolish like that. His hands are pretty much tied, other than that he could choose to keep Americans in Iraq longer. But on other issues, he’s far more centrist than Bush is. And he has a proven ability to reach across the aisle and work with both parties. He’s not beholden to the religious right, he supports stem cell research, opposes torture, etc. He’s much closer to being a centrist than Obama is.
Here’s the big worry that Democrats should have about Obama: If he wins the Presidency and the Democrats win the house and Senate, they will have no excuses for failures. Clinton could blame his failures on the Republicans in Congress, and take credit for all the successes. If the Democrats control all three, then it’s all on them. Of course, I believe that most of their policies are disastrous, so I think they’ll do a lot of harm. A McCain presidency with Democrats controlling the house and senate would mean gridlock - which is about the bes thing you can hope for from the federal government, as far as I’m concerned.
Agreed.
I think Obama would make a good president, too, and I currently support him. As it looks like the Dems will be making considerable gains in Congress, I could see myself shifting over to McCain. I don’t believe Obama’s populist economic rhetoric right now, and if you listen to him closely, it’s clear he’s not going to to just yank the troops out of Iraq without regard to consequences.
Unlike our OP, I’m not invested in either party, and I’m not all that keen on one-party governance. A McCain WH with a Democratic Congress might very well be a good thing for the country.
I’m starting to lean that way myself, though I still at least nominally am inclined toward Obama. I won’t be to put out if it’s McCain however as that should lock up the government for the next term…which, as Sam said, is the best we can hope for.
-XT
McCain is helping me out with this, though. I hate to make a decision based on a single gaffe, but his latest laps on what al Qaeda is just makes me a bit nervous. Maybe he was tired from all the traveling and campaigning, but how can you make such a big mistake as that, and about something you should be better informed on than 99.999% of the population?
I question the ideological dogma implied by taking comfort in legislative gridlock. This may be all right if there are not important, even urgent, things that need doing. But, gentlemen, there are.
Secondly, McCain would be the inheritor of an effort to raise the Executive Branch to a quasi-imperial status, an effort I regard with shock, horror and dismay. I have not heard anything from him that would suggest that he sees this as I do, that he might repudiate such extra-Constitutional power grabs. I need to hear that. I need it especially from him because I think he is running more to be Commander in Chief than he is running to be President. The role of CnC fits well with a military mindset, the role of President requires far more subtlety.
I need to hear him say that the Congress rules on issues of war and peace. I need to hear that he doesn’t regard the AUMF as *carte blanche * to do whatever he thinks necessary with regard to the ME, and most especially as regards Iran, his statements and positions are far too bellicose.
As for his gaffes and misteps, I don’t think those are due to ignorance, I think he’s simply tired. The job of President is tough enough even for a much younger man, the job of getting to be President is brutal, and the shit hasn’t even gotten hot yet. And it will, as it must.
Put baldly, I doubt that he’ll make it. I think the McCain campaign will self-destruct due to the physical demands of running for office, the gaffes will become more common, the missteps more blatant. Right now, he’s getting something of a pass from the mainstream tedia, it won’t last forever.
Obama. Yes, we can. And yes, we pretty much have to.
Just remember, most of our conservative posters were saying Bush would be a good President a few years ago. Quite loudly.
Now they are saying the same thing about McCain.