2012 Election really about...

[Stardreamer]

I was reading a commentary the other day that struck a nerve with me and made me think what the 2012 election will really be about. Its going to be about who rightly or WRONGLY will get the credit for fixing the economy.

A lot of folks forget that the economy is a market place and like any market adjusts and eventually corrects for most of the issues that cause an economic downturn. That is the business cycle. Government has little power to stimulate the economy overall and lots of power to cause disruptions. Most government actions in response to economic downturns are more in the category of damage control than fixes while the actual economic factors that are the real problem are absorbed and corrected by the market.

Quite frankly Presidents get credit for the economic conditions that occur on their watch even though they really have little effect on them. Which brings us to the 2012 election. The economy is slowly starting to recover from the 'great recession' and while still shaky is likely to continue to improve over the next four years. Which means that the President that wins the 2012 election can position himself to claim to be the savior of the economy without really having to do much more. Obama can claim it was his policies and a GOP president can claim it was his stopping Obama's policies (even if he doesn't really do more than a few token gestures).

Thoughts?

[Jack Springer]

First thought -- is the economy actually improving or are people started to accept a new normal.

[Stardreamer]

Markets are for the most part self correcting, how long it takes them to adjust/correct is a matter of how long it takes to 'digest' the debt or other factors that caused the downturn and what external factors assist or delay that process.

[GiancarloC]

Yes, I do think the economy is showing substantive and solid growth. The republicans will question any improvement because they want to downplay it. The economy is showing solid, and in certain cases, strong growth figures.

[Stardreamer]

The point of the thread is not what the economy itself is doing but the likelihood that the winner of this election will get the credit for it.

[Kulindahr]

Yes, whoever gets elected will get the credit for whatever happens. He might even get the credit if he was in a coma, our voters are so brilliant.


Meanwhile, Wayne LaPierre says this election is really about Obama's secret plan to take away the Second Amendment.

[evanrick]

you make good points, we do make our presidents out to be more than they really are.

republicans dislike government, they see it as unfair that a group of elected politicians can dictate rules and seek office to disenfranchise the idea of government to the point it becomes like it is today and that is anti-american, anti-worker, anti-family. congress has historically low approval ratings but Americans are just so selfish and politicians prey on that to pander to peoples fears. presidents do have a lot of authority over the court system, the justice system and the military of course. they have no real legislative power. i would say presidents have become almost powerless to influence congress in the ways that previous presidents like LBJ and FDR did.

Americans have sort of lost sight of what it means to be a country, we have become divided by the special interests to the point of paralysis.

[EastMed]

The election may well pivot on the state of the economy, but the debate could just as easily get derailed by some culture war issue.
As for markets being 'self correcting', this just is more neoliberal/libertarian/conservative tosh. As if they are like an ecology, a natural system that will self correct provided it is left alone.

In one sense, the assumption that there will eventually move towards equilibrium is typical of the kind of circular arguments of which economists are so fond. Balance is implied in the transactional structures. Balance sheets have to, well, balance; assets must match liabilities. Prices must reflect some sort of balance between supply and demand. That is what a price is. Debts must be repaid from income. And so on. In the artificial rules of finance, equilibrium is implicit.

But of course that is not what happens, especially when you allow markets to be “free”, and especially when you allow financial markets to be “free” to make up their own rules. They are not self organising systems that incline towards balance. They become out of control exercises in chaos that move towards anything but equilibrium. I cite the GFC, the Great Depression, the Latin American debt crisis, Japan’s asset bubble, the Asian financial crisis and ever so much more, even back to Tulipmania.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/...f-markets.html

[Kulindahr]

The election may well pivot on the state of the economy, but the debate could just as easily get derailed by some culture war issue.
As for markets being 'self correcting', this just is more neoliberal/libertarian/conservative tosh. As if they are like an ecology, a natural system that will self correct provided it is left alone.

Markets are self-correcting.

But what most advocates of leaving the market alone won't tell you is that the process of correction can be extremely costly in terms of human lives, the environment, and more.

[MystikWizard]

I was reading a commentary the other day that struck a nerve with me and made me think what the 2012 election will really be about. Its going to be about who rightly or WRONGLY will get the credit for fixing the economy.

A lot of folks forget that the economy is a market place and like any market adjusts and eventually corrects for most of the issues that cause an economic downturn. That is the business cycle. Government has little power to stimulate the economy overall and lots of power to cause disruptions. Most government actions in response to economic downturns are more in the category of damage control than fixes while the actual economic factors that are the real problem are absorbed and corrected by the market.

Quite frankly Presidents get credit for the economic conditions that occur on their watch even though they really have little effect on them. Which brings us to the 2012 election. The economy is slowly starting to recover from the 'great recession' and while still shaky is likely to continue to improve over the next four years. Which means that the President that wins the 2012 election can position himself to claim to be the savior of the economy without really having to do much more. Obama can claim it was his policies and a GOP president can claim it was his stopping Obama's policies (even if he doesn't really do more than a few token gestures).

Thoughts?

This is because of the lie that is perpetuated by the Media that the President is responsible for the Economy. Look anywhere in the Constitution where it says that the President is responsible for such.

The President's primary function is being Commander in the Chief of the Armed Forces. He has a checks and balances power to sign or veto legislation sent to his desk from the Legislative Branch.

The President can "share the blame" with the Economy for passing Legislation that harms it, but to blame the President for the Economy of the country is ludicrous.

Bush will take blame for the Economy since the Republicans had complete control of Congress as well as the Executive Branch. Did he deserve the amount of blame he received? I would say yes only because he bankrupted the country with his overseas agenda in Iraq and Afghanistan. He tried to push the country into a third war with Iran.

His spending was out of control which led to a strong devaluation of the dollar.

However, the subprime mortgage crisis should be blamed on both Parties.

Between the out of control spending, the mortgage crisis, the wars overseas, high gas prices ... it was just too much at once for our economy to take.

[Benvolio]

I think it is more accurate that Presidents get the blame for bad economies but not credit for the good. When the economy is good the voters look at the issues. A good economy is not an issue.
The big question is whether Obama's enemies--those corporations and employers the President hates so much--will save save him by hiring enough people. And it is only a matter of time before the currency collapses from the infinite borrowing. Will it happen before the election?
The economy will most likely look like 2010. The Republicans are the party of the assimilated majority. The Dems are the anti-majority, a patchwork of minorities .

[JayQueer]

The Republicans are the party of the assimilated majority. The Dems are the anti-majority, a patchwork of minorities .

That sums it up perfectly.

That's why Republicans are so cohesive, and they support each other, even when some Republicans disagree on certain issues like LGBT issues, for example. Because they agree on their core principles when it comes to government and taxation. Republicans follow Reagan's 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

On the other hand, Democrats are a "patchwork of minorities" with different interests, often in opposition to each other.

You have Latinos, who vote Democrat because they want the U.S. to ignore illegal immigration, or grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. At the same time, Latinos are very Catholic and have traditional views when it comes to the family, and have mixed feelings about LGBT people.

You have Blacks, who vote Democrat because they want the U.S. to expand welfare funding & affirmative action & more recently because a fellow African-American is in the Oval Office. Like Latinos, Blacks are very religious (Christian), regularly attend church, have traditional views with it comes to the family, and generally don't support LGBT issues. But at the same time, Blacks aren't supportive of amnesty for illegal immigrants (as Latinos are).

You have feminists, who vote Democrat because they are convinced that there is a "war on women" and they staunchly support abortion rights for women. They are generally agnostic or atheists (compared to deeply religious Black & Latino Democrats). Feminists support gay marriage (as opposed to Black & Latino Democrats, who don't). Many feminists also secretly (or openly) hate men, and don't care about the issues that men face. It's no coincidence that funding & awareness for breast cancer (a "woman's disease") is much, much higher than for prostate cancer (a "man's disease").

You have White liberals, who vote Democrat because of their support of anti-war & liberal issues. White liberals are generally college-educated, and sympathize with feminists & gay liberals. White liberals strongly support gay marriage, in contrast to Black & Latino Democrats, who don't. But White liberals are not as religious or Christian as Black & Latino Democrats. Further in contrast to Blacks & Latinos, many of whom do serve in the U.S. military, many white liberals are not fans of the U.S. military and consider themselves to be "anti-war".

Lastly, gay liberals vote Democrat because of LGBT issues like gay marriage. As most politically active gay liberals are White, they may share many views with feminists & White liberals. Gay liberals' views are the most in contrast to Black & Latino Democrats, because most gay liberals don't share their traditional values when it comes to the family, sex & relationships.

[maxpowr9]

^ Yet look at how much the GOP hates the non-Christian Romney. So much for coalescing around one candidate.

[GiancarloC]

Yeah, it's quite an interesting observation... I see more infighting in the republican party then the democrats. The republican party is one that is like musical chairs, and they speak out against each other all the time. There really aren't a set of "core principles" in the GOP... and little cohesion. It's why they are such a mess right now. The democrats, while not perfect, seem more cohesive. And most democrats are indeed in favor LGBT rights.

[Kulindahr]

Benvolio and JayQueer, you're in outer space. Republicans are hardly unified. Libertarian Republicans are despised by the fanatic religious right, peace-loving Republicans are despised by war hawk Republicans, non-Christian Republicans are despised by the core 'evangelical' Republicans . . .

The only issue that keeps most of the poor with the GOP is gun rights. If Democrats would wake up and return to their historic position (which still wouldn't quite agree with Wayne LaPierre of the NRA), Republicans would be in serious trouble.

And as a libertarian, I wish they would, because the current Republican party is anti-liberty.

[GiancarloC]

I think it is more accurate that Presidents get the blame for bad economies but not credit for the good. When the economy is good the voters look at the issues. A good economy is not an issue.
The big question is whether Obama's enemies--those corporations and employers the President hates so much--will save save him by hiring enough people. And it is only a matter of time before the currency collapses from the infinite borrowing. Will it happen before the election?
The economy will most likely look like 2010. The Republicans are the party of the assimilated majority. The Dems are the anti-majority, a patchwork of minorities .

This couldn't be further from the truth. The Prseident hates corporations and employers? Really? I didn't realize that. It is a matter of time before the currency collapses? I don't see that claim backed up.

The economy will most likely look like 2010? Only but it's not. And in fact its improvement and gaining financial stability. The unemployment rate has also declined steadily.

The assimilated majority? Republicans? Doesn't seem like it. The republican party seems hijacked by the religious right.

Obama doesn't need saving.

[Kulindahr]

This couldn't be further from the truth. The Prseident hates corporations and employers? Really? I didn't realize that. It is a matter of time before the currency collapses? I don't see that claim backed up.

The economy will most likely look like 2010? Only but it's not. And in fact its improvement and gaining financial stability. The unemployment rate has also declined steadily.

There's a good point in there: the U.S. owes so bloody much no one wants our currency to collapse -- it just isn't going to happen. Debt-holders would bend over backwards to make terms more favorable to keep it from happening.

Oh -- I also doubt the President hates corporations; they donate too much to him. He just hates greed, and there he's in good company, with such as Jesus, Marx, Thomas Jefferson . . . .

[MystikWizard]

That sums it up perfectly.

That's why Republicans are so cohesive, and they support each other, even when some Republicans disagree on certain issues like LGBT issues, for example. Because they agree on their core principles when it comes to government and taxation. Republicans follow Reagan's 11th commandment -- "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

On the other hand, Democrats are a "patchwork of minorities" with different interests, often in opposition to each other.

You have Latinos, who vote Democrat because they want the U.S. to ignore illegal immigration, or grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. At the same time, Latinos are very Catholic and have traditional views when it comes to the family, and have mixed feelings about LGBT people.

You have Blacks, who vote Democrat because they want the U.S. to expand welfare funding & affirmative action & more recently because a fellow African-American is in the Oval Office. Like Latinos, Blacks are very religious (Christian), regularly attend church, have traditional views with it comes to the family, and generally don't support LGBT issues. But at the same time, Blacks aren't supportive of amnesty for illegal immigrants (as Latinos are).

You have feminists, who vote Democrat because they are convinced that there is a "war on women" and they staunchly support abortion rights for women. They are generally agnostic or atheists (compared to deeply religious Black & Latino Democrats). Feminists support gay marriage (as opposed to Black & Latino Democrats, who don't). Many feminists also secretly (or openly) hate men, and don't care about the issues that men face. It's no coincidence that funding & awareness for breast cancer (a "woman's disease") is much, much higher than for prostate cancer (a "man's disease").

You have White liberals, who vote Democrat because of their support of anti-war & liberal issues. White liberals are generally college-educated, and sympathize with feminists & gay liberals. White liberals strongly support gay marriage, in contrast to Black & Latino Democrats, who don't. But White liberals are not as religious or Christian as Black & Latino Democrats. Further in contrast to Blacks & Latinos, many of whom do serve in the U.S. military, many white liberals are not fans of the U.S. military and consider themselves to be "anti-war".

Lastly, gay liberals vote Democrat because of LGBT issues like gay marriage. As most politically active gay liberals are White, they may share many views with feminists & White liberals. Gay liberals' views are the most in contrast to Black & Latino Democrats, because most gay liberals don't share their traditional values when it comes to the family, sex & relationships.

An excellent summary of how I see the buildup of the Democratic Party.

Now, I would love to see one of these done with the buildup of the GOP.

Evangelicals
Fiscal Conservatives
Senior Citizens
Libertarians
Corporate Executives
Wall Street

[frankfrank]

Benvolio and JayQueer, you're in outer space. Republicans are hardly unified.

Perhaps so, at least in the campaigns. But, often, the Republicans are an absolutely unified voting bloc in both chambers of Congress. I often see things getting passed or defeated with UNANIMOUS Republican yea or nay votes in the House, and the minority Republicans being unanimous in the Senate with a handful of "predictable" Democrats who almost always caucus with the Republicans (Sen. Ben Nelson comes quickly to mind).

I don't think I've seen an unanimous Democrat conscensus on anything in the House or Senate in years, unless it was something that passed 431-0 or 99-0. (The full membership is rarely attending and all voting yea or nay, there are often some who vote "Present.")

[evanrick]

I think it is more accurate that Presidents get the blame for bad economies but not credit for the good. When the economy is good the voters look at the issues. A good economy is not an issue.
The big question is whether Obama's enemies--those corporations and employers the President hates so much--will save save him by hiring enough people. And it is only a matter of time before the currency collapses from the infinite borrowing. Will it happen before the election?
The economy will most likely look like 2010. The Republicans are the party of the assimilated majority. The Dems are the anti-majority, a patchwork of minorities .

ookaaaaaayyy..........


doom is always on the horizon from a conservatives eyes. how else could they scare people into voting against their own best interests or making them believe falsehoods? carry on i want to hear more of your prophecies.

Most Americans with any sense know what the real danger to the economy is republicans in the house.

Consumer confidence plunged as did the stock market shortly after republicans tried running our economy into the wall in the debt debate. But who cares about Americans as long as Obama suffers. tea partiers are sawing off their own plank.

Only 1 word for that.......




Pathetic.

[CoolBlue71]

2012 Election[s are] really about...

1. Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling impact this election and, if this year's presidential isn't enough, future ones on the schedule?

2. Will the job-approval percentages (President and Congress), reported by well-recognized polling outlets, be the key determining factor for election outcomes? (Polling firms have been around since the 1940s. But this year will be the 57th presidential election in United States history; George Washington's first election was in 1789.)

3. Will the media, this far in advance, turn out to be correct: that the presidential contest will be c-c-close?


(My prediction is yes for the first item; no for the other two.)

[Kulindahr]

2012 Election[s are] really about...

1. Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling impact this election and, if this year's presidential isn't enough, future ones on the schedule?

Of course they will. Citizens' groups won't have to worry about being slapped down for exercising their free speech rights this year, and corporations will throw away millions of shareholders' dollars on issues and candidates no shareholders voted on (except perhaps the filthy rich).

2. Will the job-approval percentages (President and Congress), reported by well-recognized polling outlets, be the key determining factor for election outcomes? (Polling firms have been around since the 1940s. But this year will be the 57th presidential election in United States history; George Washington's first election was in 1789.)

Key factor? No. But important? yes, but how much will depend on how the figures do. If the quarter before the election has a gain of half a million jobs, Obama's in; if it has a loss, he's in serious trouble.

3. Will the media, this far in advance, turn out to be correct: that the presidential contest will be c-c-close?

Popular, within five points; electoral . . . hard to say at this point, but I'll go with not quite as wide as last time (unless we get that half million job quarter).