It's The Economy Stupid

Pocono Joe

Why aren’t the Democrats way ahead in the polls in the US Presidential election? This is a year, with Bush’s approval rating way down, high oil and food prices, housing and credit decline, etc, etc, they should be trouncing the Republicans.

I guess the American people aren’t as stupid as we are made out to be. Obama is proposing massive tax increases to fund his health-care plan and energy proposal. Deep down we know that tax hikes won't help the economy.


A very good read
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122039919493892941.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

How about we try and keep the responses limited to "why the Dems aren’t way ahead of the Repubs" (signed: hopeful but not optimistic :rolleyes:).

FatherTed

It depends on where you see the tax cuts:

According to a new analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are both proposing tax plans that would result in cuts for most American families. Obama's plan gives the biggest cuts to those who make the least, while McCain would give the largest cuts to the very wealthy. For the approximately 147,000 families that make up the top 0.1 percent of the income scale, the difference between the two plans is stark. While McCain offers a $269,364 tax cut, Obama would raise their taxes, on average, by $701,885 - a difference of nearly $1 million.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

jank

Why arent the Dems so far ahead is becuase people are still polarised by the bush presendcies and the 2 extremes of both parties are pulling the traditional voters and politics with them.

irish_bob

the democrats are not trouncing the republicans and they should be considering how unpopular bush has been throughout
if hillary had been the nominee i believe they would be , obama is seen by many as all style and little substance

BenjAii

I suppose no one will know until it is over in November, polls only tell so much and the latest has Obama 8 points ahead, after several dead heats; though it remains to seen will there be a Palin bounce for McCain.

This reminds me a little of Britain's election in 1979. Despite the Labour governments disastrous record (probably not as truly bad as the Republicans incompetence on the economy) Margaret Thatcher was behind in the polls, despite being the "change" candidate.

I feel pity for America if it does vote for McCain.

is_that_so

I don't think it's a question of pity. Look at how we voted ourselves.

Obama is not trusted by some people and others remain unconvinced by him. This has echoes of 2004 all over again. Kerry was about the best they could come up with and he turned out to be inept in the end. If McCain manages to disassociate himself as far as possible from Bush and produce some coherent economic policies that Americans believe will work then he may well win. It may also come down to which set of personalities they like best.
I'd have a beer with McCain/Palin over Obama/Biden any day .

Hobbes

irish_bob wrote: »

the democrats are not trouncing the republicans

True but Obama is now ahead in 3 of the key states.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/states.poll/index.html?iref=topnews

If you go by the futures market then Obama is in the lead by 60%.

alastair

Pocono Joe wrote: »

I guess the American people aren’t as stupid as we are made out to be. Obama is proposing massive tax increases to fund his health-care plan and energy proposal. Deep down we know that tax hikes won't help the economy.

Well - any neutral reading of the tax policies of McCain and Obama shows precious little difference between the figures, and only a tepid attempt at wealth redistribution from Obama. There's also the matter of both platforms relying on implausible revenue projections. So maybe the 'stupid' Americans are the ones who run around crying about 'massive tax increases'?

My theories about the lack of a resounding lead from the Democrats?

1. The Democrats haven't managed any more than 51% wins for a long time now. You'd be surprised if that dynamic changed in one election.

2. He's a black man. Racism isn't a dead issue in the US. Nor indeed would I see a black candidate as an easy sell here or in the Uk or France.

3. There are those who insist on spreading slurs around - he's a muslim, he kills babies, he's a 'hard left' ideologue, he'll introduce 'massive tax increases', etc - you know the type Swiftboat tactics.

4. McCain has a bit of perceived distance between himself and the Bush legacy. And he seems like a nice guy.

alastair

is_that_so wrote: »

Obama is not trusted by some people and others remain unconvinced by him. This has echoes of 2004 all over again. Kerry was about the best they could come up with and he turned out to be inept in the end.

Kerry wasn't inept - he just wasn't particularly likeable.

is_that_so

I think he was both. Any serious candidate would not have allowed the Swift Boats saga to sink him(pun intended). What's more he didn't seem to have a serious policy beyond "I'm not Bush".
Here's a piece on a group that many liberal Dems forget about; the Blue Dogs and a suggestion that they could well be in the ascendancy in the Senate.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/blue_dogs_have_their_day

Manic Moran

Why aren’t the Democrats way ahead in the polls in the US Presidential election?

Because they're idiots. They had a number of extremely viable candidates when the nomination process started including Richardson and Edwards who would have absolutely wiped the floor with any Republican opponent, and the two they ended up with in the finals were either incredibly polarising (Hillary) or the furthest to the left of any (Obama) with little substance behind him. This vs the Republicans who picked the only candidate of their lot who had any chance at all. The Democrats should have been able to surf into the White House on the ride of Anti-GOP sentiment, and have somehow managed to utterly balls it up.

NTM

alastair

Yeah. Edwards would have been a real winner. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't Obama be either without substance, or too far to the left?

bobbyjoe

Obama is always portrayed as being without substance and just using slogans. Yet he has many policies and ideas all laid out.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

It is more to do with how he is portrayed by the media and the soundbites they use than anything.

irish_bob

alastair wrote: »

Yeah. Edwards would have been a real winner. :rolleyes:

Shouldn't Obama be either without substance, or too far to the left?

the story that recently broke concerning edwards extra marital affair would have sunk edwards

alastair

irish_bob wrote: »

the story that recently broke concerning edwards extra marital affair would have sunk edwards

That was my point.

FatherTed

Meanwhile unemployment has gone from 4.7% to 6.1% now. The Dems just need to hammer that for the next 2 months.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/05/news/economy/jobs_august/index.htm?postversion=2008090509

Pocono Joe

FatherTed wrote: »

Meanwhile unemployment has gone from 4.7% to 6.1% now.

And higher taxes on businesses will improve those numbers how exactly?

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And higher taxes on businesses will improve those numbers how exactly?

Reality check.

America is in debt. No wait, America is in serious debt.

When you are in debt do you (a) generate revenue to pay your bills or (b) get more credit cards and spend on those?

This is what I can't fathom with the Republican party. They just seem to like to keep spending and spending without any real money to back it.

Pocono Joe

Hobbes wrote: »

Reality check.

America is in debt. No wait, America is in serious debt.

When you are in debt do you (a) generate revenue to pay your bills or (b) get more credit cards and spend on those?

This is what I can't fathom with the Republican party. They just seem to like to keep spending and spending without any real money to back it.

Lets try and stick to the question here... How exactly will increasing taxes on business help to improve the unemployment figures?

Manic Moran

irish_bob wrote: »

the story that recently broke concerning edwards extra marital affair would have sunk edwards

True, but it was unknown at the time of the nominations and was not a factor during the selection process.

NTM

BenjAii

This race is Obamas to lose.

After 8 years in power under Bush, the Republicans have a record of near 100% failure in every aspect of American life.

The best McCain can do, is try and pretend he belongs to another party, to distance himself from the incompetence and mismanagement of the Republicans; but he doesn't even have any policies.

Palin won't make much difference, McCain is at the utter nadir the right has brought American life to. If my some freak Obama f**** it up, it would only be more of the same & more downhill for America if he did become president.

Hobbes

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Lets try and stick to the question here... How exactly will increasing taxes on business help to improve the unemployment figures?

It's a flawed question. You see because he never actually mentioned tax increases when he was complaining about the unemployment increase. You did. I guess you were trying to imply that Obama was going to raise taxes.*

But you can see so far (from that report) that huge tax cuts for the rich has done nothing to help unemployment either.

You need to increase taxes to pay your debts. Sad fact but true.

* As for Obama and raising taxes, anyone with the ability to read his website will see that the tax increases are targetted at those who have been milking the system and more likely to have the money to pay for it.

Oddly enough that same website link shows how each candidate is planning to change each area (+/- tax, etc). pretty good overview.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0806/gallery.election_issues/index.html

Hobbes

Hobbes wrote: »

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2008/news/0806/gallery.election_issues/index.html

QFT.. I just finished reading this. I think this is probably the best breakdown I have seen so far side by side.

You may still agree to disagree but personally from reading that Obama is actually going to be more use to the common US citizen then those who are rich.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Because they're idiots. They had a number of extremely viable candidates when the nomination process started including Richardson and Edwards who would have absolutely wiped the floor with any Republican opponent

The Edwards scandal? The sequel to Gary Hart?

axer

Pocono Joe wrote: »

Lets try and stick to the question here... How exactly will increasing taxes on business help to improve the unemployment figures?

He is only raising taxes on the rich not on businesses which has worked favourably in the past.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

irish_bob

Pocono Joe wrote: »

And higher taxes on businesses will improve those numbers how exactly?

hes proposing to raise taxes on the top 5% , there are many business owners among the other 95%

the top income tax rate in the usa is 35% , this is extrordinarily low for a country with so many billionaires

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irish_bob

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

you know i like your style in many ways donegal fella , personally i loathe the whole culture that exists in the public service in ireland and i believe that entrepreneuralism should be encouraged at all times but where you and i disagree is on the gop in the usa , i dont believe that the republican party have a monopoly on providing incentives to the private sector etc and personally speaking i am always suspicious of irish americans who support the gop , the republican party were never a party who gave a crap about anything irish , they were the quientestential w.a.s.p party and i honestly think any irish american who votes for them is really a bit of a turn coat , akin to taking the soup or the queens shilling

BenjAii

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I doubt Palin will attract many Hilary voters. They will find it hard to overcome her absolutist stance on abortion. Most Hilary voters weren't evangelical Christians, Palin is largely preaching to the converted.

This election will be decided by moderates and independents in swing states. Its McCain who needs to win them over. So far he is not doing much of a job, having put almost no distance between himself and the colossal failure that is 8 years of Repulican misrule under George Bush.

National polls are misleading, the reality of US voting is that it is decided state by state with their electoral college votes.

For sometime this has all been to Obamas huge strategic advantage and the reality is that on this basis for some time EVERY polling orginisation predicts on current trends he is to be next President, not McCain. Follow this link for a summary of the facts.

is_that_so

Really shocking bias in that piece. What it doesn't point out is that Obama has problems with certain sectors of the electorate, blue collar workers in particular to whom McCain is not unattractive. Disappointingly it also fails to point out that it is the same set of swing states that pop up in every election.
I'd suggest this as a better source as it does the same thing except it is not biased toward any candidate.

BenjAii

is_that_so wrote: »

Really shocking bias in that piece. What it doesn't point out is that Obama has problems with certain sectors of the electorate, blue collar workers in particular to whom McCain is not unattractive. Disappointingly it also fails to point out that it is the same set of swing states that pop up in every election.
I'd suggest this as a better source as it does the same thing except it is not biased toward any candidate.

While he is certainly pro-Democrat; your link comes to the same conclusion. Even with the post-convention bounce, McCain is still behind in electoral college votes.


More importantly, McCain who tries to paint himself as a maverick is offering nothing new. His policies are the same as the failed Bush policies. Even his strategy is exactly the same as Bush with Kerry in 2004. Spread falsehoods ( Obama wants to raise taxes), get the evangelicals out (Palin) and paint Obama as an out of touch elitist.

If this is the best he can come up with, he is going to need to be lucky, he's going to have to fool a lot of people who are looking for something different.