Annals of GOP Doom

I'd say public opinion findings like this are why America is poised to elect the black guy with a funny name instead of the white war hero: "A majority of Americans say they are worse off financially than a year ago, marking the first time in Gallup's 32-year history of asking the question that more than half of Americans give this pessimistic assessment." Nobody under 40 really remembers it, but the recession around the middle of Reagan's first term was really, really, really bad. It licked inflation, but at the cost of sky-high unemployment and the worst recession since the Great Depression. And even then the public's view of their personal finances was rosier than it is now.

Comments

Nobody under 40 really remembers it, but the recession around the middle of Reagan's first term was really, really, really bad. It licked inflation, but at the cost of sky-high unemployment and the worst recession since the Great Depression. And even then the public's view of their personal finances was rosier than it is now.

That's not entirely right. The question is "are you better off than you were a year ago" which in many minds might be interpreted as are you better of than you were in the recent past.

Reagan's recession followed years of stagflation.
Bush's recession, however, comes after the roaring 90s and soft bounce-back earlier in the decade. It may just be that people have seen a larger, more across the board, drop in personal finances now than at any other time in the last 40 years. Not that economic conditions are actually worse than they've been in that time.

Posted by WillieStyle | June 5, 2008 2:22 PM

The Reagan recession also predated the move from defined benefit plans to 401k plans. That has an effect as we see inflation eating into our future retirements.

Posted by wiredog | June 5, 2008 2:30 PM

I'd say public opinion findings like this are why America is poised to elect the black guy with a funny name instead of the white war hero

I like your confidence, but this is toxic language.

This campaign is not about America turning to some new and foreign identity to find redemption, and Obama hasn't campaigned that way. Rather, Obama's campaign and this election are about reclaiming a fundamental American identity that has slipped away in the Bush years. You can draw a line from the politics of the Kennedies and Truman and Roosevelt to the platform of Obama's campaign. So while times are bad, I don't think Americans are on the verge of some radical apostasy from their founding traditions. Rather, they're on the verge of throwing the impostors who have served their nation so poorly justifiably out on their ass.

Posted by southpaw | June 5, 2008 2:44 PM

The Reagan recession primarily hit blue-collar and unskilled workers as the country transitioned from a manufacturing/supply based economy to a service-consumer/demand based economy (Hey, I'm not an economist so I'm not sure if I used the correct terms). The Rust Belt was devistated. Other areas of the country, particularly service-based cities and defense-industry economies flourished.

My father was a marketing consultant. His best earning years were during the 80's, especially during the Reagan recession. He was able to send three children to expensive private high-schools and college without out resorting to loans. He still voted Democratic, always disliked Reagan.

Posted by Shine | June 5, 2008 2:46 PM

Annals of GOP Doom

Such a succuulent opportunity for a spelling error, and MY wastes it.

I don't even know why I come here anymore.

Posted by PowerGamer | June 5, 2008 2:46 PM

black guy with a funny name

It's nothing but an silly dream of mine, but maybe by the end of this election year, whatever the outcome, we can lose the "one-drop" habit of calling Obama a "black guy".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 5, 2008 3:00 PM

Two comments:

1. I think such a sharp drop off has a lot to do with the media. Just watching the nightly news is enough to make you want to cash in all your stocks and head out to the country before the whole economy collapses.

2. What is the role in the Democratic controlled congress in regard to the economy? Looks to me like the Democrats got both houses and the confidence went to hell.

Posted by danceswithgoats | June 5, 2008 3:03 PM

I think more significant is the point that people were much more positive in 2006, and that was still a wipeout election for the GOP. So, if 2006 was a wave, 2008 is looking more like a perfect storm.

Posted by DTM | June 5, 2008 3:07 PM

You have to wonder why, when looking at the chart, the most recent trend line went south just after the Democrats took over Congress again.

Posted by Neo | June 5, 2008 3:12 PM

"Nobody under 40 really remembers it, but the recession around the middle of Reagan's first term was really, really, really bad."

I'm still 3 years from 40 and I remember how bad it was. It's obvious that those--like you--under 30 just weren't old enough yet, but 10 was certainly old enough.

Posted by zaleriana | June 5, 2008 3:17 PM

You have to wonder why, when looking at the chart, the most recent trend line went south just after the Democrats took over Congress again.

Well, you might, in a very low-rent trollish way.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 5, 2008 3:17 PM

The million dollar question: Do voters still believe in the stale archetypes which pit "big tax, big govt liberals" versus "tax-cutting small government conservatives?" In reality, the last president to balance the budget was a Democrat (Clinton;) GW Bush has *doubled* the deficit creating by far the largest deficit in US history while also creating the biggest federal govt in US history; and McCain's economic plan adds almost $6 trillion to the deficit while Obama's plan adds less than $2 trillion.

The old paradigms don't apply anymore. It's hard to believe that in order to secure fiscal moderation, sensible taxation, and as close as we can get to a balanced budget, one must vote for the Democrat - but given how far off the rails Republicans have gotten with their incessant reckless spending on dumb wars and dumber tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy, this is the new reality. Hopefully voters will do their homework rather than take their cues from know-nothing blowhards like Rush Limbaugh who still seem to think that it's 1974 and that the status quo from 34 years ago still applies....

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | June 5, 2008 3:18 PM

Neo and Danceswithgoats comments are examples of the current wave of Repug email spin that I'm receiving in my inbox from my rightwing acquaintances. I don't think it's getting much traction except among the hard-core Bush-supporting 30 percent. But the strategy is worth taking note of. But I think the best response to this sort of trolling is to make it clear that our bonehead President has vetoed just about anything the Dem Congress has sent to him. And Republicans in the Senate are making sure nothing substantive gets done to aid the economy -- tax rebates were the only item that could avoid a filibuster and a veto. But those Bush tax-rebate checks should fix the economy up real soon now! Yow!

Posted by beowulf888 | June 5, 2008 3:30 PM

Yeah, everything was great and we were living in magic pony leprechaun pot o' gold candyland when Republicans controlled every single branch of government from 2002 - 2006, and then somehow by accident people ended up voting for the Democrats to take back both houses of Congress for the first time in a dozen years although they were trying to express how amazingly happy with how the Republicans had run everything, and then those mean old Democrats came in and traveled back in time to ruin George Bush Jr's economic policies.

Posted by El Cid | June 5, 2008 3:31 PM

"You have to wonder why, when looking at the chart, the most recent trend line went south just after the Democrats took over Congress again."

Well, it could have something to do with the deflation of the housing bubble starting in 2006 (which started, incidentally, well before the 2006 elections), which in turn set off a global financial crisis in 2007 that has continued into 2008.

But that is just me. Oh, and everyone else who is paying the slighest bit of attention to the economy.

Posted by DTM | June 5, 2008 3:39 PM

Republicans and their apologists operate on a higher plane than us mere mortals. Mundane things like responsibility for results do not apply to them. They will let us know when they have done good and they will define what good is at the appropriate time.

Posted by Gerard MacDonell | June 5, 2008 3:41 PM

Two people can take a large share of the credit with American's view of the economy and their subsequent political disposition: Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Beyond any academic discussion of how influential either (or any) President was in determining the macro-and-personal economic outlook for the country, the timing of these things has been great for the Dems (and thus Obama)--your average person really does think Bill Clinton did a great job on the economy, and REALLY thinks W is a major screw-up.

Jimmy Carter killed the Dem brand for a long time until Clinton came along, but you really can't overstate how Bush has poisoned the GOP brand. If one year from now the economy looks precisely the same, as long as Obama is President I bet the numbers in that chart become much more positive.

Posted by Andruw | June 5, 2008 3:42 PM

I usually lurk, and I usually enjoy Matt's point of view, but "nobody under 40?" That's the voice of privilege speaking! I'm 33, and I remember very well, because my family was on welfare, and most of the families around us were, too. One winter day during this recession the school bus got stuck and _all_ the neighborhood men came out to help it get unstuck. All, you ask? Yes, all - because everyone was unemployed. Not that many of the local men were actually employed in the steel mills, which were almost an hour away, but when all the industry shut down, so did everything else, and nobody had work.

Deep into the 80s, probably half of my school got free lunches - there was no stigma, because everyone did it.

This is rust belt, Appalachia and 100% (literally) white, by the way. Solid, irrationally republican territory, too. The county went almost 80% for Clinton in the primary, coincidentally, because people are crazy. Obama may well end up doing nothing for the rust belt, but there's at a chance - it's not Clinton's DLC types would do anything at all.

It's really interesting how even a very sincere liberal like Matt can be so ignorant of the reality of poverty. I knew people who were *hungry*, who lived in shacks, etc. People hunted to *eat* during my childhood.

In short, I remember it well.

Posted by Harvey Lobster | June 5, 2008 3:46 PM

Fixing the blame for an economic downturn is serious business, and it's bound to generate disputation.

In addition to the president and the GOP generally, I'd like to nominate Phil Gramm , John McCain's chief economic adviser, who laid the foundations for the credit crisis, for a large portion of the oppobrium.

Here's why:

"In the early evening of Friday, December 15, 2000, with Christmas break only hours away, the U.S. Senate rushed to pass an essential, 11,000-page government reauthorization bill. In what one legal textbook would later call “a stunning departure from normal legislative practice,” the Senate tacked on a complex, 262-page amendment at the urging of Texas Sen. Phil Gramm.
There was little debate on the floor. According to the Congressional Record, Gramm promised that the amendment—also known as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—along with other landmark legislation he had authored, would usher in a new era for the U.S. financial services industry.
[...]
With the U.S. economy now battered by a tsunami of mortgage foreclosures, the $30-billion Bear Stearns Companies bailout and spiking food and energy prices, many congressional leaders and Wall Street analysts are questioning the wisdom of the radical deregulation launched by Gramm’s legislative package. Financial wizard Warren Buffett has labeled the risky new investment instruments Gramm unleashed “financial weapons of mass destruction.” They have fed the subprime mortgage crisis like an accelerant. While his distracted peers probably finalized their Christmas gift lists, Gramm created what Wall Street analysts now refer to as the “shadow banking system,” an industry that operates outside any government oversight, but, as witnessed by the Bear Stearns debacle, requiring rescue by taxpayers to avert a national economic catastrophe."

Posted by southpaw | June 5, 2008 3:47 PM

DTM, you clearly do not understand the Republican mind. It operates on a higher plane than admits responsibility for actual results. Republican policies are good because they are proposed by Republicans and Republicans put in place only good policies. Dear Leader has explained this many times, and yet you have somehow missed it.

Posted by Gerard MacDonell | June 5, 2008 3:48 PM

edsbowlingshoe,

Looking at the recent farm bill, it does not look like the Democrats in Congress really care about the budget either. What the Bush Administration and the Congressional Republicans failed to realize is that the U.S. does not really want two big government, big spending political parties. As soon as the Republicans became big spenders, they were no longer wanted in politics.

However, I doubt that the Democrats in Congress will really do very much. Senator Obama is promising trillions in new entitlements when the deficit in running at over $400 Billion. Pulling out of Iraq and letting tax cuts expire will not create the funds to pay for the Great Society II. That leaves the Democrats either passing massive tax hikes during a recession or running up a huge deficit.

Remember, The Clinton Administration has a budget surplus the last two years because the Republicans in Congress would not allow the Clinton Administration to start any new programs and the dot.com bubble was generating more taxes. However, since the dot.com bubble was non sustainable, the federal budget was back into deficit before President Clinton left office.

Posted by superdestroyer | June 5, 2008 3:55 PM

Gerard,

It turns out my tinfoil hat protects me from their mindcontrol waves.

Posted by DTM | June 5, 2008 3:57 PM

You have to wonder why, when looking at the chart, the most recent trend line went south just after the Democrats took over Congress again.

That has got to be the STUPIDEST fucking lame-ass attempt at partisan spin I've ever read. I will now try to one-up it.

You have to wonder why 9/11 happened as soon as we elected a Republican president.

Hmm, I almost did it. Not a Republican president per se, maybe, but darnit, you DO kinda have to wonder why it happened on Bush's non-watch.

Posted by Bill | June 5, 2008 4:25 PM

Zaleriana wrote:

I'm still 3 years from 40 and I remember how bad it was. It's obvious that those--like you--under 30 just weren't old enough yet, but 10 was certainly old enough.

Ditto, 10 was old enough and I recall quite well.

My parents were wiped out by it... lost pretty much everything and only barely averted bankruptcy by selling off everything worth a dime. Grandma and grandpa really helped during that time (as I found out later). It was OK by the end of the decade, but essentially the reset button on all gains they'd made during the '70s got pushed. The gas price spike then was bad. Now gas is expensive, but then you were lucky if you could even buy it at the price listed....

Posted by Crimfan | June 5, 2008 4:34 PM

Re: recession around the middle of Reagan's first term was really, really, really bad.

Wasn't that recession early in Reagan's first term? In fact, I think it started before he was elected and featured a "double dip": a bad few months in 1980, followed by an anemic half-recovery then another downturn in '81. Indeed, I've always read (and remember somewhat) that Reagan owed his election in part to how bad the economy was in 1980, hence the clasic "Are you better off than you were four years ago" question. In fact the left side of the graph looks odd: I would have expected a lot more pessimism in the late 70s.

Posted by JonF | June 5, 2008 4:35 PM

SuperD - the Farm Bill was bad, any way you cut it, and I'm certainly not saying that the Dems couldn't or shouldn't offer a better alternative than adding $2 trillion to the budget deficit. Nevertheless, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington finds that McCain's tax and budget plans, if enacted as proposed, would add at least $5.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, while Obama's would add @ $1.7 trillion. That is a huge difference - particularly when you take into consideration that Obama would likely spend a solid portion on domestic priorities while McCain would probably spend a much bigger share galivanting around the world freeing the sh*t out of countries neocon-style.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund writes that McCain's current economic plan would create deficits as deep as 5.7% of GDP by the end of a two term presidency -- the highest federal budget deficit in 25 years!!

Will Obama spend some money unwisely? Yeah. Will he sign bills that are transparent political ploys like the farm bill? Yeah. (So did most republicans....) Will he be WAY more fiscally conservative than McCain? Judging by their economic plans and by all indicators by those who have reviewed those plans, yes he will....

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | June 5, 2008 4:40 PM

really, really, really

This is what I love about MY's writing: when it isn't replete with typos and other mistakes, it is full eloquent phrasing like "really, really, really" and "very, very, very." Maybe Bush wasn't really so out of place at Harvard after all.

Posted by jim | June 5, 2008 5:27 PM

As usual, I buck the trend. I'm making more money this year than last - so far anyway.

And you're lucky the US had that recession. What I remember about the '70's was fears of hyperinflation. People forget how bad that inflation was. Harry Browne, the investment advisor, and many others were seriously figuring either a Depression or a hyperinflation. Browne said in a later book that what surprised him was Reagan's willingness to accept the economic and political damage in order to control inflation.

Presumably that correction set the stage for the boom in the '90's.

Today? Not so good.

A paralyzing rise in money supply
By The Mogambo Guru
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JF04Dj01.html

Money Quotes:

Adam Hamilton of ZealLLC.com reminds us that "Inflation is purely and exclusively a monetary phenomenon", which doesn't mean all that much by itself, but becomes much more horrifying when he adds that Money of Zero Maturity has been zooming. In case you were wondering, Money of Zero Maturity (MZM) is considered to be a reasonable proxy for watching the movement of M3, which is the broadest measure of the money supply, which is important because inflation in the money supply means that inflation in consumer prices is coming.

Now that we have the academic stuff out of the way, the truly horrifying part of it all is when Mr Hamilton says, "Absolute annual MZM growth peaked at a staggering 16.7% in March 2008", and
that "Bernanke's Fed has been ramping money-supply growth so fast that actual MZM is starting to look parabolic even on a short-term chart. In just over two years under him, MZM has ballooned 25.1% unchecked!"

Apparently, he mistook the look of sheer, paralyzing horror on my face at this revelation of such a massive expansion of the money supply (because it will lead directly to inflation in consumer prices), to be mere confusion on my part. Helpfully, he reiterated for my benefit, "You read that right. There were 16.7% more US dollars available for spending this March than last! Sooner or later all this excess money will eventually bid up prices. Some of this inflation will be perceived as good, primarily the part that flows into stocks. But the part bidding up scarce food and energy is not going to make Americans very happy."

He goes on to say that these rates of growth in the money supply "defy the imagination. At 12% growth compounded annually, it only takes six years for something to double. At 16%, this drops to well under five years. If the Fed doesn't stop this madness, there could be twice as many dollars floating around in five or six years as there are today. Even with modest economic growth, this means general price levels would probably almost double."

Prices that are doubled in five years? Yow! "And," he adds, "this inflation is totally above and beyond all the supply-and-demand-driven global commodities bulls' increases!"

Even more bad news is that "the Reuters CRB commodity price index is up 24% since September 18 last year", which means that prices are rising alarmingly, while this is at the same time as incomes are falling, as evidenced by "earnings in the financial sector, representing more than 40% of total US earnings before the crisis hit, have essentially disappeared in the last two quarters." Yikes!

Mr Hutchinson ignores my crying and blubbering about the horror of inflation that is starting to devour us, and callously increases my horror by saying, "In the United States, the producer price index increased 6.9% in the year to March, while that for crude goods increased more than 30%. Like a bowling ball swallowed by a python, that inflation will move through the economic system and eventually be reflected in consumer prices. Indeed, it may already be showing up there; the seasonally unadjusted consumer price index for March was up 0.9% (an annual rate of around 11%) and only a heroic seasonal adjustment of 0.6%, double the next largest seasonal adjustment for any month in the last 10 years, brought the figure down to an acceptable 0.3%."

The biggest "seasonal adjustment" in the last 10 years? And the best it can do is bring March's annualized inflation to almost 4%? We're freaking doomed!

Except, as I will add for the zillionth time, for the people who buy gold and silver ... (hint, hint, hint).

The Mogambo Sez: Each time that gold or silver go down, buy more until you have the stuff stacked all over the house and you are tripping over all the piles of silver and gold, bruising your shins, which hurts like hell.

If you don't, you will spend the rest of your life living in the dirt and wishing you had, begging for money and table scraps from those who did. At least, that is how it has worked out in history! Hahahaha! Hey! This economics stuff is easy!

Richard Daughty is general partner and COO for Smith Consultant Group, serving the financial and medical communities, and the editor of The Mogambo Guru economic newsletter - an avocational exercise to heap disrespect on those who desperately deserve it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 5, 2008 5:43 PM

Boy, the left side of that graph (from '76 to '80) is really interesting for those of us who remember that Ronald Reagan supposedly won the Presidency by looking into the camera and asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" It appears a plurality of Americans thought they were, or at least that they weren't any worse off.

And Walter Mondale's attempt 4 years later to throw that question back in Reagan's face looks like a better play than it turned out to be.

I suspect the politically more relevant measure is consumer confidence -- i.e. Will you be better off in the year(s) to come?

Posted by Michael | June 5, 2008 5:46 PM

Boy, the left side of that graph (from '76 to '80) is really interesting for those of us who remember that Ronald Reagan supposedly won the Presidency by looking into the camera and asking, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" It appears a plurality of Americans thought they were, or at least that they weren't any worse off.

And Walter Mondale's attempt 4 years later to throw that question back in Reagan's face looks like a better play than it turned out to be.

I suspect the politically more relevant measure is consumer confidence -- i.e. Will you be better off in the year(s) to come?

Posted by Michael | June 5, 2008 5:47 PM

I caution against overconfidence on the part of Democrats this year.

Since WWII there have been six elections that took place after two or more terms of the same party in power but where the elected incumbent was not running for re-election. One was won decisively by the party out of power. One was won decisively by the party in power. Of the remaining four, here were the popular vote margins: 0.2% 0.7% 2.06% 0.51%

The party out of power won four of these six, but only won the popular vote half the time.

My point? This is going to be a close election.

Posted by Tim K | June 5, 2008 6:01 PM

funny stuff, matt.
but so true!!!
in times of dire need, americans tend to look beyond the usual suspects.
best laugh i've had today.

Posted by frankie d | June 5, 2008 6:27 PM

funny stuff, matt.
but so true!!!
in times of dire need, americans tend to look beyond the usual suspects.
best laugh i've had today.

Posted by frankie d | June 5, 2008 6:30 PM

Unfortunately I agree with Tim K. Although optimism is certainly warranted, not without the knowledge that this will be dangerously, dangerously close Presidential election. Maybe that's a nearly permanent feature of U.S. Presidential elections for the foreseeable future.

Posted by El Cid | June 5, 2008 7:40 PM

But per Niall Ferguson, if people want the economy fixed why the hell would they vote for a Democrat?

Posted by M | June 5, 2008 7:55 PM

M-

Your post is a bit too terse. Do you believe in the usual conservative points about needing lower taxes, less regulation, etc., to have a bouncy economy? Is that your reasoning? If so, I would agree that sometimes, in some circumstances, you might be right. Bur not now. The reason people might vote for a Democrat to get the economy fixed it that they've noticed Republican measures do make for growth, but haven't delivered anything much to ordinary people and have delivered lots to the rich.

Please note that there's been a massive shift in party identification from Republican to Democrat. Why do think that happened? Surely not because they think Democrats will deliver smaller government, lower taxes, etc.

Posted by Former Republican | June 5, 2008 8:55 PM

The reason people might vote for a Democrat to get the economy fixed it that they've noticed Republican measures do make for growth, but haven't delivered anything much to ordinary people and have delivered lots to the rich.

Well, that's the left's narrative. The problem is that it bears no relation to the truth.

Posted by Mixner | June 5, 2008 9:37 PM

Mixner: I believe you meant "bears a precise and accurate relation to the truth."

The Reps' "return to the Gay Nineties" economic program has dumped huge amounts of cash into the hands of the wealthiest 1% while screwing the common man both in terms of consumer goods prices (check some of the analysts who still actually use CPI-based metrics and you'll see what I mean), real wage growth, employment, and infrastructure: The actual functioning of basic public goods like roads, rails, bridges, hospitals, schools, policing, et cetera. That's not even touching the stuff like healthcare and pension/retirement benefits.

But since you clearly inhabit a different planet from Earth, perhaps things on your world function differently. In which case, enjoy!

Posted by Mayur | June 5, 2008 11:22 PM

Mixner: I believe you meant "bears a precise and accurate relation to the truth."

I didn't. I believe you meant, "You are absolutely correct!"

The Reps' "return to the Gay Nineties" economic program has dumped huge amounts of cash into the hands of the wealthiest 1% while screwing the common man both in terms of consumer goods prices (check some of the analysts who still actually use CPI-based metrics and you'll see what I mean),

The huge amounts of cash accumulated by the wealthy are primarily the result of labor, talent, education, international trade, and the impact of technology. The wealthy also accumulated huge amounts of cash under Clinton and the Democrats, in case you didn't realize. The "common man" has also continued to accumulate wealth, albeit not as much as the rich.

One clear benefit Bush has provided to the "common man" (and the "poor man") is lower taxes. The cuts in federal income tax rates and the expansion of the EITC have been a boon to those groups. As reported by the CBO, the effective federal income tax rate of the poorest (lowest quintile by income) households has fallen under Bush, from -5.6% in 2001 to -6.5% in 2005. And their total effective federal tax rate has also declined, from 5.1% in 2001 to 4.3% in 2005. Their share of total federal tax liabilities has also declined, from 1.0% in 2001 to 0.8% in 2005. Meanwhile, the share of federal taxes paid by the top quintile increased from 65.3% to 68.7%. And the share paid by the top 1% increased from 22.7% to 27.6%.

Posted by Mixner | June 5, 2008 11:55 PM

The Reagan recession also predated the move from defined benefit plans to 401k plans. That has an effect as we see inflation eating into our future retirements.

Actually old defined benefit plans generally provided a fixed-dollar annuity payment for life, so inflation starts eating away at your monthly payments on day one of your retirement. With 401(k)s you at least have a chance to accumulate tax-deferred gains in excess of inflation and possibly leave a balance to your heirs (of course the problem with them is that most people under-contribute and invest too conservatively, so in the end may be worse off...)

Posted by Tom | June 6, 2008 12:35 AM

The move from defined-benefit to defined-contribution plans was inevitable given the changing nature of the labor market: longer lifespans, earlier retirements, later entry into the workforce, and more frequent changes of employer. The old way doesn't work anymore. Just ask General Motors, which is saddled with crushing pension costs.

Posted by Mixner | June 6, 2008 12:53 AM

"1. I think such a sharp drop off has a lot to do with the media. Just watching the nightly news is enough to make you want to cash in all your stocks and head out to the country before the whole economy collapses."

Yes, that's right, you fine American. To paraphrase that young Negro comedian Chris Rock, "don't blame us, it's the media"!

Posted by The GOP | June 6, 2008 12:59 AM

Nobody under 40 really remembers it, but the recession around the middle of Reagan's first term was really, really, really bad.

Wingnuts like Hannity also don't remember it because that goes against their St. Reagan Myth.

Posted by Steve J. | June 6, 2008 2:01 AM

Mixner writes "One clear benefit Bush has provided to the "common man" (and the "poor man") is lower taxes. "

But they lost in terms of real (inflation adjusted) income. That is, they were worse off in 2007 than they were in 2000.

Posted by Steve J. | June 6, 2008 2:06 AM

But they lost in terms of real (inflation adjusted) income.

No they didn't.

Of course, the idea that the President possesses so much power over economic trends that the influence of markets, international trade, the policies of foreign governments, technological advances, the actions of congress and state governments, the cyclical effects in the global economy, and so on, are so small by comparison that income changes can meaningfully be said to have been "delivered" by the U.S. President is nonsense to begin with. But if that's the rhetorical game we're playing, Bill Clinton also "delivered" huge increases in wealth to the very rich, and a huge increase in economic inequality. For some strange reason, Bush's critics never seem to mention this.

It's also a pretty safe bet that--because of the forces like international trade that we're supposed to pretend don't exist--economic inequality will increase further whether our next President is McCain or Obama. So if it is Obama, he'll most likely be "delivering" a huge increase in wealth to the superrich too.

Posted by Mixner | June 6, 2008 3:57 AM

Have we ever had high gasoline prices and sharply declining home prices? 12% unemployment only affects 12% of the voters, but most people drive or own homes. The current problems are not (yet) deep by macroeconomic measures, but are broad. It doesn't help that Americans have been taught over the past 60 years that cheap gas and monotonically increasing home prices are a natural right.

Posted by AT | June 6, 2008 7:31 AM

The sample size of relevant Presidential elections in the past is usually too small to derive reliable conclusions, and Tim K's argument is no exception.

In this case, it might be close, but it might also be a blowout of the likes we haven't seen since 1932. We'll just have to wait and find out.

Posted by DTM | June 6, 2008 11:21 AM

I heartily encourage our Republican colleagues to continue to publicly, loudly argue that life for the common man has really gotten better under Bush Jr., it's just that the liberal media have convinced them otherwise. Please, please keep doing this.

Posted by El Cid | June 6, 2008 11:33 AM

mixner: "One clear benefit Bush has provided to the "common man" (and the "poor man") is lower taxes. . . . And their total effective federal tax rate has also declined, from 5.1% in 2001 to 4.3% in 2005."

WOW--0.8% of $20000 (or less)--that's a whole $160 (or less). Or the same effect as an 8 cent per hour pay raise for a full time hourly job. Astounding!

Posted by zaleriana | June 6, 2008 11:52 AM

mixner: "One clear benefit Bush has provided to the "common man" (and the "poor man") is lower taxes. . . . And their total effective federal tax rate has also declined, from 5.1% in 2001 to 4.3% in 2005."

WOW--0.8% of $20000 (or less)--that's a whole $160 (or less). Or the same effect as an 8 cent per hour pay raise for a full time hourly job. Astounding!

Posted by zaleriana | June 6, 2008 11:52 AM

By the way, I'm going back over those races in my mind, and I think it would be interesting to consider the popularity of the non-running President. For example, I know Reagan and Clinton both had very high outgoing ratings, and those were two cases in which the incumbent party's candidate won the popular vote (and the election in one of those cases). I believe Ike left with reasonably high approval ratings, and JFK barely won.

But in contrast, I know Truman did not have high approval ratings, and that was the blowout by the nonincumbent party candidate (with Ike crushing Stevenson).

Posted by DTM | June 6, 2008 11:54 AM

DTM:

I don't think it's a coincidence that since 1932 every landslide (with only two exceptions) have involved an elected incumbent running for re-election and a challenger. Those were two of the relatively smaller landslides, and they may in fact be the exceptions that prove the rule.

In 1988, it was the incumbent party that won the smallish landslide.

In 1952 - the example DTM cites - the challenger was the 62-year-old former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe who had been courted in the past by both parties. Does that sound more like Barack Obama? Or does it sound a bit more like John McCain? The 71-year-old Viet Nam War hero and former POW, who was courted to be on the 2004 Democratic presidential ticket as Vice President and even came close to joining the Democratic caucus in 2001. Maybe if John McCain were the Democratic nominee this year I'd see the historic parallel.

I take DTM's point that there are far too few cases in our sample to make any confident prediction. But those expecting an FDR-Hoover sized landslide are going to be disappointed. John McCain shouldn't be underestimated. That would be a recipe for failure.

Posted by Tim K | June 6, 2008 12:23 PM

Tim –

I don’t have any idea where you are going with this but you really are simplifying this way too much.

“I don't think it's a coincidence that since 1932 every landslide (with only two exceptions) have involved an elected incumbent running for re-election and a challenger. Those were two of the relatively smaller landslides, and they may in fact be the exceptions that prove the rule.”

“Smaller landslide”? You’re starting to sound like those talking heads on TV who have too much air-time to fill, the same ones that were debating whether ’06 would be a Democratic Tsunami or just a strong wave. Put down your apples and Valencia Oranges. You have to take into account the particular circumstances for each race.

FDR’s races are in an entirely different political universe; due to his unique political skills and the highly perilous times that he served, (the Great Depression and WW2), he was able to run for re-election 3 times. LBJ ran as an incumbent, despite being in office for only a year and was able to benefit from the outpouring of grief from the country over JFK’s death. Then you have cases like 1968. The popular vote was close because of George Wallace’s 3rd-party run, the electoral count…the one that matters, not so much because he could only win five states.

“In 1952 - the example DTM cites - the challenger was the 62-year-old former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe who had been courted in the past by both parties. Does that sound more like Barack Obama? Or does it sound a bit more like John McCain?”

It doesn’t sound like either one. Comparing Ike to McCain, you’re not even in the produce section anymore. Ike had no real political affiliation, he ran as a GOP candidate, (a very moderate GOP candidate at that), because the GOP were still in their weak-on-defense isolationistic ruts, led by Bob Taft. Plus Ike was Mr. America; he was the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe after all, the papers made him out to be Hitler’s conqueror. John McCain is a partisan Republican who, will all due respect to his POW experience, would have not gone down into the history books if not for his presidential runs.

“I take DTM's point that there are far too few cases in our sample to make any confident prediction.”

Exactly, so what is your post about?

Posted by Raindog | June 6, 2008 4:07 PM

Raindog:

My point is those predicting a landslide for Obama are delusional.

Posted by Tim K | June 6, 2008 5:15 PM

I don't think it's a coincidence that since 1932 every landslide (with only two exceptions) have involved an elected incumbent running for re-election and a challenger.

I don't think it's a coincidence that you excluded 1932.

Ever heard of selection bias?

Posted by southpaw | June 6, 2008 5:22 PM

WOW--0.8% of $20000 (or less)--that's a whole $160 (or less).

A gain of $160 is a lot better than a loss of $270, which is what Clinton "delivered" to the incomes of the poorest household quintile during the last two years of his presidency. After also signing into law welfare reform, which ended a 60-year federal guarantee to the poor.

But I know, I know---presidents are responsible for income declines only when they're Republicans.

Posted by Mixner | June 6, 2008 5:49 PM

southpaw:

1932 involved an elected incumbent (Hoover) and a challenger (FDR). Landslides tend to to involve incumbents, while open races tend to be close in presidential elections.

Posted by Tim K | June 6, 2008 5:53 PM

Re: A gain of $160 is a lot better than a loss of $270, which is what Clinton "delivered" to the incomes of the poorest household quintile during the last two years of his presidency.

Please document this. Not only did the EITC increase under Clinton but all income levels bettered themselves during the period. You seem to be making up facts as you go alone.

Posted by JonF | June 6, 2008 8:31 PM

Please document this.

Lowest household income quintile, income limit, 2006 dollars:

1999: $20,735
2001: $20,465

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Clinton also "delivered" a drop in median household income of $1,153 during his last two years in office.

Posted by Mixner | June 7, 2008 1:30 AM

Over the course of his presidency, Clinton also "delivered" a larger share of income to the richest Americans, and a smaller share to the poor and middle class.

Between 1993 and 2001, the income share received by the poorest quintile fell from 3.6 to 3.5. For the second quintile it fell from 9.0 to 8.7, and for the middle quintile it fell from 15.1 to 14.6. All of these groups had lower income shares when Clinton left office than when he took office.

But for the richest quintile, income share increased from 48.9 to 50.1, or about $12,000 per household.

If you like shifting money from poor to rich, if you like increasing the gulf between rich and poor, Bill Clinton's your guy! And Obama will probably follow in his footsteps.

Posted by Mixner | June 7, 2008 1:49 AM

"My point is those predicting a landslide for Obama are delusional."

Tim, what do you do for a living? I have to say, that kind of language does not become any kind of serious academic. I personally think an Obama landslide is very unlikely but calling people delusional is uncalled for. (Unless people are going on about him getting 70% of the vote or something like that.) Not that I'm a Rhodes Scholar or anything, my undergraduate degree was from a state school. But if PhD. Professors can refrain from calling people names, your job title shouldn’t be anything less than Tim K, Chief strategist to the Canadian Prime Minister. Not Harper, the guy before him.

Posted by Raindog | June 7, 2008 3:03 AM

Mixner:

So you'd prefer socialism? Redistribution? Not only is that not what most Americans are looking for, but it doesn't work economically either. We should be concerned with growing the economic pie and making sure everyone is getting a share of that growth that translates in increased living standards. Like it or not, in capitalist society it is the entrepreneurial class that makes the investments in the real economy that create jobs and distribute most income to the population. Are they going to invest if they aren't getting a good return on their investment? No. The reality is that paltry growth for the top 1% means negative growth for the bottom quintiles. We're better off having a favorable investment climate like there was during the Clinton administration, but also reasonable tax-rates on wealthier Americans that allowed for reinvestments in people. That's the balance Americans are looking for and that has been missing the past 8 years.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 3:07 AM

Raindog:

For one thing, this does not qualify as a serious academic setting.

I repeat, it's delusional to expect a landslide victory for Barack Obama. I use that word because I believe his fans (I won't even say supporters when speaking of these people because that implies a degree of rationality) live in an pro-Obama echo-chamber that doesn't allowed them to see the very real obstacles to him winning this election and will have to be overcome. They are not insurmountable obstacles, but pretending they don't exist will not contribute to a victory. It's ironic that Obama has talked about there not being a liberal American and a conservative America, but clearly many people here think there is a liberal America and you all are living in it.

Had it not been for Ross Perot's third party candidacy the last 4 presidential elections would all have been relatively close by historical standards. The 1992 election would have been much closer in popular vote and in the electoral college had it not been for Perot. 1996 would still have been a larger win for Clinton, but we all know how favorable those conditions were for the incumbent. If you actually look at the vote share of the Democratic nominee over the last three elections in states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri, it has been remarkably stable. Why expect this election to be so dramatically different?

Many commentators have remarked how the state of the GOP brand is as bad as its been since Watergate. Well remember the presidential election that happened in the aftermath of Watergate? Gerald Ford almost won that election. It came down to Ohio and Missouri.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 3:22 AM

"For one thing, this does not qualify as a serious academic setting."

Oh, don’t I know it. Ha-ha-ha. That wasn't my point. Nice dodge though.

(I’ve actually already said that I find the likelihood of an Obama landslide…..unlikely. Although I do expect him to win and the Dems to pick up plenty of House and Senate seats.)

Its just you have this manner of presenting your points as if they are great unquestionable truths. I don’t mean to be disrespectful at all, really I don’t. But some of your stuff comes off as rather pretentious. That’s why I asked what you do for a living, education is my life’s work yet I try to avoid hyperbole at all costs. Maybe its because of my life’s work that I do that.

Posted by Raindog | June 7, 2008 4:07 AM

We can neither predict with certainty nor rule out with certainty an Obama landslide on the basis of the history of Presidential elections. The problem is that only Tim K is arguing here for one of those positions.

Posted by DTM | June 7, 2008 6:21 AM

Re: 1999: $20,735
2001: $20,465

Um, who was president for all but three weeks in 2001? Sorry, but that income loss is due to the recession of 2001-02, and Clinton was not president.

Posted by JonF | June 7, 2008 9:46 AM

Its just you have this manner of presenting your points as if they are great unquestionable truths.

If I don't appear to believe what I am saying then what are the chances it could be persuasive to others? Nobody has all the answers or is always right but I'm going to forcefully make the case for what I believe based on my best judgment of the evidence. I'll be sure to point out your "hyperbole" what I notice it.

DTM:

Nobody used the word "certainty." There is a very small chance of an Obama landslide, just there is a very small chance of a McCain landslide. If I heard a McCain supporter here claim that he was going to win a very large victory, I would say the exact same thing.

Posted by Tim K | June 7, 2008 12:01 PM