The Last Election Thread

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And what state do you vote in?

At the rate McCain is going, Texas may be a toss-up by next week.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
One that a citizen of the United States is allowed to vote. Keep trying.

Keep trying? Why? I've already demonstrated that your vote for President is worthless.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


At the rate McCain is going, Texas may be a toss-up by next week.

And would STILL not decide the election, even if it was.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


If your compare past Democratic administrations to Republican ones, you'll see who is better for the economy.

That rather seems evidence people tend to vote Democrat after the economy has hit the rocks. Net job gains would be a logical result if the economy already reached its nadir before or does so early in the new president's term. Especially's Roosevelt "good" rating is a little outrageous in this regard (the US hardly could fall any deeper when he got elected). You'd also have to mess up really badly if no employment growth would recorded at all during 3 terms of population growth.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢
That rather seems evidence people tend to vote Democrat after the economy has hit the rocks. Net job gains would be a logical result if the economy already reached its nadir before or does so early in the new president's term. Especially's Roosevelt "good" rating is a little outrageous in this regard (the US hardly could fall any deeper when he got elected). You'd also have to mess up really badly if no employment growth would recorded at all during 3 terms of population growth.

Yes, but the Democrats have been voted in after Republicans made a mess of things. It's a simple lesson: if you don't want a president to completely **** up the economy, make sure he isn't a Republican.

[KrazyHorse]

In fact, I think I may have convinced a Virginian to vote for Obama, so my opinions have had much more of an expected impact on the Presidential election than yours have, Sloww.

[Darius871]

nm

[Jon Miller]

For some reason people bring up Carter as being the worse for the economy ever. Was he really that bad?

JM

[KrazyHorse]

He was dealt a pretty bad hand. But except for really disastrous decisions (strongly inflationary monetary policy, price controls) I don't think the US President has all that much influence over what goes on in the economy.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Yes, but the Democrats have been voted in after Republicans made a mess of things. It's a simple lesson: if you don't want a president to completely **** up the economy, make sure he isn't a Republican.

Economic cycles take place regardless of the hue of colour in power and there really isn't much influence president can have over them. Fiscal stimuli are typically blunt and untimely weapons, typically kicking in after the economy has already started recovering. Monetary policy is more precise, but then that's set independently (and both Clinton and Bush assigned Greenspan).

I loathe Bush, but the ****er has just been unlucky he got elected after the new economy bubble had peaked.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
He was dealt a pretty bad hand. But except for really disastrous decisions (strongly inflationary monetary policy, price controls) I don't think the US President has all that much influence over what goes on in the economy.

He was indecisive and ineffective, but no more than Ford.

He caught a lot of flak for being idealistic because he ran as a born-again Christian.

Here's a little ditty explaining each of America's 43 Presidents :

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


McCain is going to cut taxes.

JM

How do you suppose he does this with a House and Senate that'll swing Dem whether he wins or not? It's a meaningless risk-free promise and he knows it.

[KrazyHorse]

All election promises are meaningless and risk free.

[Zkribbler]

I'm still trying to figure out how McCain is going to veto every bill with an earmark in it. This bill is called the federal budget.

Is he just going to close down the federal government and go home in a huff?? How's he going to support our troops in Iraq if he can't pay them or supply them with food, ammunition and equipment?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
All election promises are meaningless and risk free.

Meaningless, yes. Risk-free, much more rarely. Remember "no new taxes"?