« Howard Wolfson plays the "If only" game | Main | Belated slow blogging alert »

August 12, 2008

Comments

Brendan,

I think the "landslide" everyone was expecting was based on persiting low poll numbers for Bush and Republicans in general (vs generic Democrat candidate), not the models you mention. Given the euphoria surrounding BO earlier this year and the "ho-hum" attitude (and in some cases outright hostility) of many conservatives towards McCain, it appeared to me that the expectations were for BO to track against McCain much higher than has occured. In other words, the popular perception in many cases appears to have been significantly at odds with the models.

Brendan,

I know you want Obama to win and he might; but the Republicans are great at saving their "ammo" for the end. Obama is the most liberal Senator and the Senate has an actual Socialist (Sanders). Remember Dukakis? This will be 1988 repeated.

Also, can I just get you to agree to this: during the 00s, the poor have gotten annually 9% richer in after-tax real incoms and the rich have gotten 1.5% poorer. Again the poor have gotten richer and the rich have gotten poorer. Trickle down continues as it has, well, since forever, but especially since 1982. The data I refer to is commonly accessible and is based on ACTUAL people rather than wage tables which measures different people over time.

Our economy is sluggish, but the main concern, unemployment, is caused by and can be solved easily. Return the minimum wage to where it was. Not only will employment return to the high 4% level, but the earth's greatest job training program, i.e., a job - any job, will again be used by the poorest to start their careers of earning 9% more in after-tax real income annually.

McCain will win all the battleground states because he's going to hand Obama (the lawyer) his head in debates and when the media battle begins in earnest. The MSM is gone in terms of credibility; "Cronkite" has been revealed as a Democratic Pary hack.

TOH

can I just get you to agree to this: during the 00s, the poor have gotten annually 9% richer in after-tax real incoms and the rich have gotten 1.5% poorer.

No I don't think you can get anyone to agree to this.

As for your comparison of ACTUAL people, we expect that most people to earn more after 8 years of working than they did when they started. Aides become supervisors, clerks become managers, lieutenants become captains....

If you're 9% richer than the day you left high school then you're either a trust fund kid or you're in pretty sorry shape.

Jinchi ...

I'll re-word it to focus strictly on year-to-year incomes. The point remains, under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, our economy has sustained full employment with incomes of the rich dropping marginally and the incomes of the poor and middle income skyrocketing. The economy has never been better, especially for poor, crime always being hardest felt by them, both as victims and perpetrators. And before Reagan, the poor were vastly more jobless, criminal, and drug-addicted. LBJ-Carter era socialism ruined this country.

TOH

If you want to attack LBJ on poverty, you should really compare him to the state of the country before he became president, rather than after. The number of Americans below the poverty line fell from 22% to 12% during his term in office and the poverty rate since he left office 40 years ago has remained about the same since.

(www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html)

Articles like this which emphasize the popular vote percentages are demagoguery.

What counts in the end is the electoral collage. That's what determines the winner. Obama is way ahead, by about 289 to 249. To win you need 270.

The race isn't over, but Obama is comfortably ahead.
See for example This report at http://www.electoral-vote.com/

In this "Why isn't Obama Doing Better?" article, Irwin Steltzer lays out the reasons that Obama ought to be doing better:

Pundits...know that President Bush is massively unpopular.

They know that the vast majority of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, engaged in an unpopular war, and headed towards recession.

They know that polls of "generic" preferences show that voters, by a very substantial majority, say they prefer Democrats to the Republicans.

And they know that Barack Obama's opulently funded campaign has been a study in precision and efficiency, while John McCain has scrambled for funds, stumbled on television, and been forced once again to reorganise his staff.

Folks,

Poverty levels did go down; and those who received free welfare took that free money to not-work, buy drugs, promiscuously and irresponsibly have children, and commit crimes. That is why today, poverty levels are the same, but we have full employment, crime is down (the homocide rate of the non-criminal poor is virtually zero), out-of-wedlock births are down, drug-use is down. LBJ bascially paid people to vote Democrat while they used the funds to prey on the rest of the USA, particularly the poor. So when you say poverty levels were reduced, I conceded that; but the 21st century ghetto and the utter destruction of the black family and the economic ruin of the USA was caused by LBJ. While poverty levels were reduced, he rendered the lives of the poor a living hell that it was not before him.

Reagan, et al. have fixed that, hopefully forever.

TOH

Folks,

Thanks for the rope!

www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov6.html

This same data shows that at the end of the Great Society Era, 1981, when the Democrats ran the USA (controlling the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Court), poverty was again at 15-16% but is now 12% after the Reagan Revolution along with all the improved non-quantifiable quality-of-life factors that benefit the poor. [So Reagan, etc. did a better job of fighting poverty than Carter; note that Clinton did not change Reagan's tax structure other than cosmetically/marginally.] Put in the way of an example, great less people were poor due to LBJ, but their chances of getting shot were way up as well as their chances of being a junkie and being an unwed mother and remaining unemployed; "great society." And, it's absured to compare the 1961 numbers to 2006; poor people today have air conditioning (73%), cable TV (70%), indoor plumbing, 2 TV sets, cars, etc. They also enjoy vastly better funded schools (100% better in real terms; the Democrats have assured that is largely wasted on education unions), better national infrastructure, etc. Compared to 1961, all-things-considered, there are fewer poor people today. That is opinion, but I think a common sense one. I will agree with this; LBJ's war on poverty was had only the poor as casualties; but combined with Reagan's reforms and hopefully their continuation we are now making progress on poverty.

TOH

TOH -

The number of incarcerated individuals has grown by 400% from the time of Reagan (1980) - from about a half a million to about two and a half million - while our population has grown by about 33%.

I would think that has had more to do with a reduction in crime than any reforms (you don't even name them) instituted under Reagan or any other President.

Pointing to social or economic trends (even inaccurately) and declaring that positive benefits are attributable to Republicans and that detriments are attributable to Democrats doesn't make it so.


TOH -

By all means, encourage John McCain and the rest of the Republicans running for office to stress just how great the economy is today. Maybe they can get Phil Gramm to lead a "Don't be a whiner" tour.

How about this for a motto:

If you love George Bush's economy, just wait until you see John McCain's!

Jinchi ...

They have their economic theme, i.e., Obama will bring back the Carter-era economy. By the way, the economy tanked when the fiscal decision makers, Congress, went Democrat!

Actually given the major problems, spike in oil, war costs, housing problems (caused by generally Democrats lying on their loan applications), the economy is still at about a 1.5% clip. The fundamentals must be solid.

Any-hoo, I actually hope Obama gets a chance to ruin the economy with LBJ-Nixon-Carter policies (Nixon was an economic socialist); we'll see what happens next.

TOH

housing problems (caused by generally Democrats lying on their loan applications)...

This is where you no longer get taken seriously as anything more than a Republican troll.

Now, the newest meme is McCain Landslide.

The comments to this entry are closed.