Was Clinton wrong?

[Drake Tungsten]

The idea that the most important issue was "the economy, stupid" was one of Clinton's guiding principles during his first presidential campaign. It led him to success and seemed to reflect a basic truth about the electorate, ie. that they valued their economic well-being over most other issues.

Today, however, you have a situation where the Republicans are in danger of being thrown out of power despite presiding over a great economy the last few years. GDP growth is strong, unemployment is low, the Dow is at record levels, the federal deficit is at historically low levels, inflation is low and productivity and family incomes are both up. If this election were really about the economy, the GOP would be in no danger of losing control of Congress.

So, was Clinton wrong? Do voters really care that much about the economy? If you think they do, how do you explain the disconnect between our current economic strength and support for the GOP? And if you think they don't, what issue do you think is the most important to them?

[Nubclear]

It isn't so much that voters care about the national economy as it is that they care about their own economic wellbeing A very large difference, in this case.

I'm sure that various events have also shifted the focus away from economic and perhaps to more matters of security or liberty or somesuch.

Plus, some people have been manipulated and care about stupid things - abortion, gay marriage, etc...

[Drake Tungsten]

The people who have been "manipulated" to care about issues like abortion and (particularly) gay marriage usually trend Republican. Same thing for security voters. The real question is why independents and Democrats (who are supposedly rational and vote in their best interest, unlike the ignorant rural sheep misled by the GOP) are planning to vote against their economic interest in this election.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's only "the economy, stupid" when that is your main campaign plank .

[Nubclear]

I hardly think its against the best interests of most people to vote against the Republicans in this election, considering that per-person income is down IIRC, and regardless the economic conditions in many areas are not exactly improving.

[LordShiva]

Re: Was Clinton wrong?

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
the federal deficit is at historically low levels

[Drake Tungsten]

A deficit at 1.9% of GDP is low. The average over the last 30 years is 2.6%.

[Whoha]

Gore lost on similar "good" economic grounds. perhaps people don't see things as rosy as the picture being painted for them.

[Dinner]

Now be intellectually honest and show national total national debt. Also compare the surpluses we had when Bush took office compared to the real mess he has left while in office.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Whoha
people don't see things as rosy as the picture being painted for them.

There aren't as many jobs being created as need to be, gas prices are up (though coming down), house prices are stagnant or falling (so pending via home equity loans is drying up), they aren't getting raises, bankruptcies are soaring after the inital post-anti-bankruptcy drop, etc.

Sure, things are good for some investors (though the fact that only the DOW is doing well says investors have qualms) and some capitalists, but over all, most people aren't feeling it. Plus, there's a badly handled war which is sending home dozens of dead Americans every week.

In spite of that, there's a good chance the Dems will manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

But they're all capitalist bastards to me, though the GOP is slightly more criminal in my opin.

[Drake Tungsten]

Gore lost on similar "good" economic grounds. perhaps people don't see things as rosy as the picture being painted for them.

Gore intentionally distanced himself from Clinton, though, which helps explain that. A huge mistake, in my opinion...

[Victor Galis]

Economic inequality is reaching historical highs though. A majority of people aren't better off, even if the rich are doing really well.

[Drake Tungsten]

There aren't as many jobs being created as need to be

How can you seriously argue this when unemployment is below 5%?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

There aren't as many jobs being created as need to be

How can you seriously argue this when unemployment is below 5%?

That only measures the number of people seaking work against those who have work. It doesn't take into account people who have never had work or have given up looking for work or who have work but not enough work to make a living. It also doesn't take into account the removal of a siazable portion of the workfroce to be sent oversea and shot at, who had to be replaced.

Only 50,000 new jobs were created in September.

[Q Classic]

Unemployment can be tabulated multiple ways. To be honest, I don't know what the metrics are in this case, so I can't really give an opinion, but really?

Massaging numbers and statistics is easy. Redefining the poverty line to having a household income for a family of 4 to be under $5,000/year would mean that our poverty rate will drop quite dramatically. Good news all around, right?