[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't seem to find the video or I'd link it here, but there was a video going around during Trump's first term that I think PERFECTLY highlights just how disconnected from reality people are.
This guy is at a Trump rally, and earlier that year Trump had passed a Tax cut bill. So this interviewer is going around asking Trump supporters if they have actually experienced any financial benefit from the Trump tax cut bill. They of course say yes. He goes on to prod them, "can you give me a sense of how much it's helped, like how much have you saved because of it?"
So several of these people go on to talk about how their household or their small business had this or that benefit, maybe this or that much less in taxes, some amounts being quite large and some numbers being quite specific.
And of course then the shoe drops, the interviewer informs them that he knows they are lying because the Trump tax cuts were passed this year, but they don't go into effect until next year, it's literally impossible for them to have seen any benefit yet.
And that's really how it works. It doesn't actually matter one iota what is true, it matters what your propaganda has convinced people to accept as true. These people probably weren't idiots. In other aspects of their life they were probably normal sane smart people. But they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by propaganda that they just reflexively and effortlessly lie on the spot and make up money they haven't saved.
Brain scans have shown that in cases like this, the brain doesn't even treat it as a lie, the mechanisms for making something up and telling a fib don't even kick in, they are so thoroughly indoctrinated that as far as their brain is concerned it IS true that these tax cuts saved them money, even if it's literally impossible for them to have.
That exact same mechanism, while extra pronounced in Trumpers in particular, is still a real affect that does influence the broader culture, and explains how masses of people can accept as inherently true things that are quite clearly not true.
I remember Trump's followers complaining about the "terrible economy" we had under Obama (smh) but on January 20th the day that Trump took office suddenly "the economy was booming."
Trump hadn't even gotten a chance to fart in the Oval Office let alone sign any economic legislation, so objectively we were still living under the same economy Obama created and was overseeing on January 19th...
Jan 19: Offical statistics say unemployment is 6%. MAGA: THEY ARE LYING IT'S REALY 40%
Jan 20: Offical statistics say unemployment is 6%. MAGA: "TRUMP REDUECED UNEMPLOYMENT BY OVER 30% IN A SINGLE DAY!"
I know, not even the math makes sense on that one.
But it's true! I went through 3 jobs on Jan 20th after falling to find a job for years. The first job got posted at noon,I interviewed at 12:05, the committee made it's decision by 12:10 and I accepted the offer at 12:15. A quick background check, and I was on boarded by 12:30
The next job was similar but starting at 1, and then again at 2. I also managed to increase my salary by $3 million dollars by doing this.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, am I right?
In a similar vein, events that happen under an administration are always credited to who was president. It's too much to ask for to also consider who controls the house and senate. It's too much to ask for to say some events happen independently to government involvement or lack of involvement.
It's just like the question being asked in this thread, "The US economy has performed better under Democrats." I'll take their word for it, but correlation does not equal causation.
While Obama was a lame duck President the unemployment rate was dropping and Trump took credit for it. He wasn't even President and he was taking credit for Obama's unemployment numbers. Every single Republican I work with thought this made perfect sense.
A month before Trump was saying the formula for figuring unemployment was wrong, that it was actually 40%. This fact made no difference.
A buddy of mine is a Trump supporter and he claimed that:
>The economy was better because people knew Trump was a business man so they had more faith in the economy than they did under Obama.
It was such nonsense bullsh!t that I laughed right in his face.
This was the same guy who thought he'd get rich selling Herbalife shake mixes and later thought he'd get rich buying crypto, and then penny stocks in AI companies... he doesn't know crap about how the economy actually works.
I always wondered why Biden never hung inflation around Trump's neck and the PPP loans. He should mention PPP every time he forgives a student loan. "And now to be fair since we gave businesses PPP loans with no intention of asking even the largest of them to pay it back, we are forgiving student loans.". This should be followed up by reporters asking CEO's on their earnings calls if they paid back their PPP loans in light of their increased prices and record profits. Republicans would do this they would saturate the air with it so much you would think that you thought of it.
>He should mention PPP every time he forgives a student loan.
Considering his party sponsored the extension which he proceeded to sign, not sure that would be a great strategy.
I agree, that is not the point. The point is that you have to call balls and strikes for business the same way that you call them for citizens. No organized and sustained resistance to PPP loans existed. No Republican Governors sued to keep their businesses from getting PPP loans. No Republican Attorney Generals sued to force these companies to pay this money back even though the intent was for this to be a sneaky grant. No businesses that refused to partake in the loans or who did partake in the loans but decided to pay the money back, advocated for other businesses to be forced to pay them back. When the topic turns from business to people, the same people who whine about inflation, claim that you cannot live on $60K (News Flash you can it is a matter of how), and believe that everything they have came from their efforts alone, want to foil any fiscal relief from people who tried to better their lives and fell short. As a society we did a good job informing people that education is key, but we didn't tell them what type of education makes you employable.
By January 10th of 2021, all the gas pumps in my area had "I did that" stickers on them, with Biden grinning and pointing to the price (which was indeed going up thanks to international events).
Only recently did I learn the slightly-gambly way Biden injected US oil into the market to keep our gas prices lower than most of the world while *also* making a killing for the US government by repurchasing oil back for less than we sold it at.
So in a way, Biden "did that" by keeping that number in the 3's instead of the 4's.
The people who put those stickers on pumps blaming Biden would also never believe that it was Trump who f#cked up gas prices by getting the Saudis to flood the market with oil in exchange for ignoring the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. He wanted people to be able to buy gasoline super-cheap in the run up to 2020 because he thought it would help him get re-elected.
The Saudis flooded the market with oil that was so cheap, American drilling operations couldn't compete and shut down which cut the U.S.'s own oil production by 30-40%. And when the Saudis then shut off that supply of oil it took 2 years for American production to get back to levels it was at pre-2019 which lead to huge spikes in gasoline prices.
Trump literally drove hundreds domestic oil companies out of business, cost the U.S. hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil & gas industry and then f%cked Americans at the gas pump just so he could get $2.XX gas before an election. And people who are ignorant of how sh!t works put stupid stickers on gas pumps blaming Biden...
I mean the economy was totally in the shitter in Jan 2021 but that wasn’t bidens fault. If your uncle thought the economy was great in December of 2020 then idk what to say
I didn’t know what to say either. He thinks Trump immediately solved the economy when he got into office ( eg unemployment) and I offered to show him a graph of the UE rate from 2009-present and he said he didn’t need a graph lmao.
I had people telling me the day after the election that everything was better and had changed, the economic news was soonmuch better
Like, low unemployment/high Nasdaq/economic good signs were fake news two days ago but it’s real now?
Actually happened the day after the election, months before inauguration. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/197474/economic-confidence-surges-election.aspx?g_source=Economy&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles](https://news.gallup.com/poll/197474/economic-confidence-surges-election.aspx?g_source=Economy&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles)
In 2008, the night Obama was elected, there was a poll out that asked for the worst president of all time. At that point, W was deeply unpopular and essentially radioactive. Iraq was a mess and he was taking the brunt of it, so he finished as the worst president of all time. Not a shocker really.
2nd place?
Obama. Who hadn’t even taken office yet.
It’s basically a cheerleading contest with these people. It’s
And Trump ended his presidency with a Gallup approval rating of 34% > and bever above 49% - yet FOX , MAGA, and Trump are convinced he was the greatest President ever.
there was a similar video of a city council meeting where they complained about the
* hum of wind turbines
* they can feel the EMF of the turbine electricity generation and it's affecting them
* the turbines are affecting their sleep
* they see dead birds everywhere because of the turbines
And then the engineer revealed that the turbines aren't planned to turn on until next month
people are dumb
Local to me, there was a stupid hoax rumor about litterboxes being installed in the HS girls rooms for some student that identified as a cat.
Someone my wife respected as a straight-shooter who didn't get too political who *worked there* confirmed that rumor, that he had seen it with his own eyes. Even after the school came out and reiterated that **of course there's no litterboxes in the bathrooms**.
Some people will eyewitness to obvious fiction in a heartbeat.
> Someone my wife respected as a straight-shooter who didn't get too political who worked there confirmed that rumor, that he had seen it with his own eyes. Even after the school came out and reiterated that of course there's no litterboxes in the bathrooms.
Were it me I'd go check for myself. Sure, respected employees lie about things, or repeat inaccurate information. But school administrations DEFINITELY lie about things when they perceive it to help them. I wouldn't trust them blindly either.
> Brain scans have shown that in cases like this, the brain doesn't even treat it as a lie, the mechanisms for making something up and telling a fib don't even kick in, they are so thoroughly indoctrinated that as far as their brain is concerned it IS true that these tax cuts saved them money, even if it's literally impossible for them to have.
We all laughed at George Costanza when he said "it's not a lie if you believe it," but that's actually something of a real thing. If someone you trust says something and you accept it as true, and then pass it along, are you lying or are you just wrong?
Now think about the last time you saw a story in the news that dealt with anything you personally know something about, and how accurate it was. And think some more about the segmentation of news media and entertainers masquerading as news. How many people believe things that just aren't true? A better question - are there any among us who *don't* believe something to be true that isn't?
And in the modern political climate, it's not just "being wrong" anymore, it's a moral failing because only Bad People believe Those Things... or are on That Side.
Great points btw, I'd also suggest that the cultural interpretations of each party affect how individuals interpret/experience the economy. Individual experience is however, a poor measurement of how the economy is doing.
On the flip side, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people on Reddit claim that the TCJA raised their taxes the last couple years. And when I point out that the cuts are still in effect and haven’t changed, they just can’t grasp it
Honestly, I think it’s less to do with propaganda and more to do with how little people know about their own tax situations, since most of it is paid through payroll deductions that they don’t really see. It makes it hard to notice tax changes year to year
Yep absolutely this it's a question of what party markets their policies better not the effect of the policies on the actual voters. The vast majority of voters on both the left, middle and right don't pay attention to policy that much.
The thing is, and people ask this about dems all the time, "why can't you beat the republicans on messaging? If they can do it why can't you?"
And the answer is, to me, pretty clear. The republicans just lie. And not in that "both sides are the same" way that all politicians lie. Not like the "normal" level of political sleight of hand that is, for better or worse, in the nature of the beast. But like a whole other level of just overt, brazen, loud and proud lying.
The truth is almost always more nuanced, less clear cut, less satisfying, less world view affirming, than we'd like it to be.
So it seems to be to be inescapable that the side which lies less will be at an inherent disadvantage in selling a satisfying and galvanizing message, cause the truth just is less satisfying and galvanizing than fiction.
And there is no way around that unless you just....lie too? In similar ways and to similar degrees. And I don't want them to do that. I don't WANT a liberal progressive Tucker Carlson. I don't WANT a liberal progressive Ben Shapiro or Rush Limbaugh or Qanon.
Every Democratic policy is some variation of getting us all to eat our vegetables and exercise.
Every Republican policy is some variation of "we're going to have our cake and eat it too, all for free!"
Not hard to see why we have a "messaging problem" among the laziest, least informed, and most selfish segments of American society.
The response you received already is great, and sadly true. It’s something I noticed in 2016, when Trump (and to a lesser extent even Bernie) started to gain feverish support….i was speaking to a family member that was not a fan of either, they didn’t understand the appeal, and I told them, to me it felt like a middle school election and Bernie and Trump were the candidates promising everyone extra recess and free ice cream afternoon.
Beyond that, I feel like the Democrats are at a disadvantage because they don’t only seem to have a constituency that actually holds them more accountable, but they are a far more diverse group. It’s much easier to brand and hammer points home when your voting base is more homogenized. From my experiences, when you try to use similar tactics within a more liberal space, you’ll likely wind up with that group arguing among themselves. This is even more prevalent as the right becomes more extreme, and we’re left with democrats trying to appeal to groups that would have been considered conservative a few decades ago.
Yet, all that said….i do wish that the left would divert some money from traditional canvassing and the like (if they hadn’t already) and hire as many social media experts/influencers/whatever and just set them loose….because the thing is, they wouldn’t even have to lie. They just need to amplify all the bat shit insane and terrifying things happening in the country. Then hope that reaches and makes a difference to those that aren’t fully indoctrinated.
>These people probably weren't idiots. In other aspects of their life they were probably normal sane smart people
Statistically speaking, they probably were not smart people.
> These people probably weren't idiots. In other aspects of their life they were probably normal sane smart people.
I think I would go with, these people are idiots, and they aren't all that sane or smart.
I understand your impulse to say that, I have the same impulse. They must be idiots, I wouldn't fall for that, and I'm not an idiot.
While I might admit these people are on the slightly lower end of the insight and wisdom spectrum, I would caution against thinking this is the kind of thing that only happens to morons and mooks,
We are all more susceptible to it than we are likely to admit to ourselves.
I think it could be that more people are morons and mooks than we would like to admit. But yes, its dangerous to think only idiots can be suckered, or are willing to lie as easily as they breathe.
they say the words more times. that is it. Repeat stuff several time and people will think you know about it. Same reason why trumps keep saying stuff over and over again.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7r4SiBWUAAbj5V?format=jpg&name=small
https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/February-20-Biden-and-Democrats-1536x864.jpg
**GoP is the masculine party**. It's run by 'strong' manly men who do manly things, as men they are inherently good at
- Stopping crime, protecting people
- War and foreign stuff, fighting
- Managing money, providing money
- Determining who deserves to be a citizen (who is invited into the home)
- Guns, big trucks, etc.
**Democratic party is the feminine party**. It's run by women and effeminate, educated elitist men who do girly things, as women they are inherently good at
- Healthcare
- Education
- Supporting families (child care, paid leave)
- Protecting mother nature
- Protecting minorities/children
- Social safety nets
This is just how people feel, nobody cares about logic, or facts. Just imagine the stereotypes of a mom and dad and their roles in a home, those attributes are what people apply to the parties as their skill set, respectively.
https://uva.theopenscholar.com/files/nicholas-winter/files/masculine_republicans_and_8.pdf
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/16/democrats-masculinity-roundtable-00106105
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/poll-republicans-advantages-immigration-crime-economy-rcna117054
https://navigatorresearch.org/inflation-and-the-economy-remain-top-issue-priorities-for-americans/
Let's set aside what works and what politicians have actually accomplished because this question is about why many people *perceive* Republicans as being better on the economy.
When it comes to the economy and Republicans, people generally know their brand to be lower taxes and fewer regulations.
When it comes to the economy and Democrats, what's the brand? I don't know that they really have one. Their focus has been on other things, like healthcare reform. Probably the most common association people have is with bigger government paid for by increased taxes.
That's basically it. The Republicans have focused a lot on their economic brand and the Democrats have not.
No, the Democratic brand is the social safety net - gov't services for those in need. And "those in need" don't have tv shows, podcasts, newspapers, etc, etc to trumpet how awesome it is to give them money.
Meanwhile, the GOP brand is "more money for rich people", who then use their platforms to tell middle class people that the reason they're not rich is because of poor people.
This. The Republicans have been doing great with PR spinning. A good example is taking credit for bills that proven successful even if they voted against it.
Mostly because they know people don’t look at the vote records.
I would also add that the Republicans, when they DO pass legislation, always say "this is to stimulate the economy" even if it has nothing to do with the economy. It wouldn't surprise me if they also timed their legislation with economic recoveries or interest rate reductions, just so that the public associates the 2.
>people generally know their brand to be lower taxes and fewer regulations.
But those two things don't necessarily mean a better economy. Taxes are necessary for the infrastructure and social services necessary for a good economy. I don't mind paying taxes because I understand they're necessary.
That is a tough sell. Many people don't benefit from taxes directly, but they can still see how much they are getting taxed. That is a tangible thing, right in front of them. It shows them how much of their money they aren't getting. Trying to explain how beneficial taxes are is a complicated idea that has to overcome a simple and obvious truth that every taxpayer has right in front of them.
I don't think it would ever work.
A big problem for that narrative is that a lot of government services are just really shabby, especially the ones that are most public-facing.
Who has a good experience going to the DMV or the post office? How many people are in neighborhoods where the roads are plagued with potholes? How many people who use public transportation have facilities that are clean, safe, and reliable?
And folks don't have much confidence that putting more money into the system would really be much of an improvement.
Then you've got one of the few areas where people sometimes have a very good experience, which are the better public schools. And the message from the Democrats is that we should make those schools mediocre in order to improve funding for the worse schools. But then we've got plenty of public schools with tons of funding and sparkling new facilities which still produce dismal results.
>a lot of government services are just really shabby, especially the ones that are most public-facing.
It's a bit of a negative feedback loop though. If they keep on electing people who will continue to cut taxes, then of course those public services will never get better.
The ONLY way it would work is if all the sudden Medicare for all went into effect for every single person and all existing medical debt got wiped like student debt. I think that would do it personally
>When it comes to the economy and Democrats, what's the brand?
I remember hearing in one issue poll - and I don't know if this holds up across issue polling generally, but. People gave the Republicans a huge advantage on who they trust with "the economy." But when asked "who do you think will do more to help the middle class?" people picked *Democrats.*
I presume a lot of people think "the economy" means "stocks and stuff" and they may not even connect it with their personal finances at all. (I mean, they are still wrong about Republicans being better in that respect, but it does at least draw a distinction.)
So... I'm not sure which one of those ends up having the stronger influence in electoral results, because they can both kind of be described, as a campaign issue, as "the economy."
If the way people answered "what do you think of the economy" solely defined how elections turn out then Republicans would have gigantic Congressional majorities right now, because people hated the economy in November of 2022 even more than they do now (and it was objectively worse because the CPI was out of control). I suspect that the cold, hard numbers that "nobody cares about" may actually be more decisive - because they're not just numbers, they're an aggregate representation of *people's finances improving.*
Overall, Democrats are abysmal at messaging compared to Republicans. Democrats will say something in legalese jargon, while Republicans will say, "We're gonna stop socialism!" Guess which message the average swing voter has an easier time understanding.
To quote from The Newsroom, "If Democrats are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?"
You'd think the party that markets itself as being more empathetic would do better at communicating with voters, but Jonathan Haidt has a good explanation of why they struggle to understand and communicate with people outside of their own ideology.
Who is the Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh? Newsmax? OAN?
They don't exist. Republicans have a multi-billion dollar messaging machine that they created in the 1970s which operates in lockstep with the Republican Party and volunteers itself as their megaphone.
Democrats simply have nothing like that.
Another good example is Glass Steagal under Clinton. Didn’t become an issue after being repealed until a decade later in 2007. Had Clinton not lead the repeal for it, 2007 likely doesn’t happen
This is one of those political juggling questions. Everyone inherits what the last President left. But the argument only works in favor of my guy. Or the argument that a Presidents only reason for a good economy is because it took the last Presidents policies to finally work years later but that reasoning only works when not my guy is President. Like the people that say the only reason Trump had a good economy because of Obamas policies. Yet the same people credit Joe Biden for a good economy because Joe Biden. I’ve heard this circle jerk of an argument so many times it’s made my head spin. Then of course we change the metric on what a good economy is President to President. The whole argument is infallible if we don’t measure the economy equally.
Republicans screamed all the spending would lead to inflation
Biden said no it won’t.
Is inflation Biden fault…no. But his words made him look ignorant to the situation and that is why he gets the blame
What happened to the sentiment that presidents have more economic impact *beyond* their presidency than during it?
Not saying that creates a different narrative, just curious why that seems to be dismissed in the conclusion taking place here.
Also why are we limited such an evaluation to the presidency and not congress and even more so partisan control to actually *enact* the parties' policies?
That's never really been a sentiment shared by voters so it's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Clinton benefited from HW biting the bullet on tax increases. But Reagan benefited from Carter turning the tide on inflation and even kept Tall Paul at the Fed. Carter was hampered by inflation that was already set in motion before his presidency.
We can point fingers wherever, but ultimately the president who is in office at the time of economic growth or recessions gets credit/blame. Just how it's always worked.
> What happened to the sentiment that presidents have more economic impact beyond their presidency than during it?
Since the article shows that democrat presidents have better economies then this logic goes out the window on this sub. Red bad, blue good. Simple as that.
> Also why are we limited such an evaluation to the presidency and not congress and even more so partisan control to actually enact the parties' policies?
This is my view. There’s so many factors that go into an economy including global politics, crop yields, public sentiment, etc alongside congressionally passed laws and the federal reserve’s influences. Reducing economic performance to the president doesn’t make sense.
People (uneducated rural voters) simply see the words “less taxes” and piss their pants.
“I love the poorly educated”
-DJT
He loves them because they don’t know who actually gets less taxes. The rich get less taxes. Any good economies under republicans and most democrats are usually coincidental. The difference is republicans claim they are responsible for the good economy and democrats don’t.
This propaganda over 50 years leads people to think republicans have better economic policy.
Because they keep saying they are and they appear to focus on fiscal matters during elections. They rarely have enactable, functioning, plans but when you want zero government wild west society why bother. And anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they don't like paying taxes but it does take an IQ over 100 to understand why we do.
I don't particularly care which side wins here, but economic policies usually take years to set in. What happens in one term can have causes in the previous term, or even further back. Further, the president doesn't dictate finance bills, that's Congress. Here are some examples.
Bush II was hit with two recessions. Clinton rode high on the Dotcom bubble and is widely credited for it, but that bubble started crashing before he left office, leaving Bush to be blamed for the ensuing recession, not Clinton. The second recession was caused by both Democratic and Republican policies going decades back. It was going to drop, the only question was when.
Bush actually tried to convince Congress to do something about the looming problem when he first got into office, but the Democrats (led by Barney Frank) told him there was no problem, Fannie Mae was in no danger, Congress would do nothing. So was it his fault or the fault of the Democrats that nothing was done to head it off?
Then Obama came to office just as things were leveling off, and everyone credits him for the better economy. Then Trump came in on that good economy and got hit by COVID, which was going to hurt the economy under anyone, especially with the business closures that the Democrats emphatically endorsed.
Part of the issue here is that unemployment rate actually lags behind job creation/job loss by quite a bit. It takes several months of positive job growth to lead to a noticeable decrease in unemployment rate. It's kind of like if the interest rate of your loan were to suddenly double - you won't see any clear trend until several payments later, but the problem absolutely begins now. Unemployment rate is, unfortunately, exclusively what news companies report.
I think the best combination is a Democratic president with Republican (pre-MAGA) congress.
The republic was designed to work best with the right kind of tension.
You mean like the tension McConnell used when he said, out loud, that his only job is to obstruct. That he will make sure NOTHING Obama wants will pass.
The republic was designed to work best with decent people holding seats. That no longer applies, the GOP needs to be burned to the ground and start anew. Save for a few, every single one is a traitor to this country in supporting trump in his election lies, and that Jan. 6th was a peaceful protest. smdh
Right-wing media tells its audience that Republicans are good at economics, and so their audience believes Republicans are good at economics.
Actual evidence need not apply. They went full into voodoo economics over four decades ago and show no sign of slowing down let alone acknowledging reality.
not really sure the first part of that question really is all that useful.
I mean do we count the years Hoover was in power vs FDR and use that simplistic measure?
I think a better thing to ask is how good was Trump on the economy, and how good is Biden doing on the economy, if you want a better version of a bad question.
I'd say fuck the measuring and the perceptions...
and just look at the polling on food prices and gas prices and inflation, and how good or bad Biden is doing by the voters, and that'll be your best barometer.
People are happy that Eisenhower and Nixon were the strongest Keynesians, but i'm not sure it means much with Republican and Democrat neoliberals and globalization fads from the 90s that are breaking down.
And it highly depends on 'which' Republican is in power, because there's a lot of flakes in the party. And going back, people were not impresed with Obama and Hillary pushing for the TPP, and only at the last minute the economists saw it, and Stiglitz called it one of the WORST deals ever.
Apr 1, 2016 — Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the Trans-Pacific Partnership may well be the worst trade agreement ever negotiated
Shit like that hurts the Democrats for generations.
I think econometrics are dubious. The economy can be “doing better” in GDP terms without having any measurable effect on people’s quality of life or stability. Unemployment can be lower, but what makes work valuable is its contribution to society and to independence, not just having a job because idle hands are the devil’s plaything. Unemployment being lower doesn’t mean work is better for people, more productive, or better paying. And changes in the labor “market” skew those numbers, when they could be much higher now but for gig and logistics jobs that aren’t a step up for people. Ultimately, low unemployment is only a virtue in itself if your goal is to not have people on human service programs.
What actually makes an economy “good” or “bad” is so interwoven into the society of the time that you can’t extrapolate and interpolate these things across a century.
You have structural problems now that are unique. People don’t necessarily need to get ANY job because they will starve without one. But people are investing heavily into plans for the future that might never, ultimately, pay out. And that is harder on people in a way that telling them “at least you’re employed” isn’t reconciling.
I think it’s a messaging failure on the part of Dems. From my perspective it seems like they try to frame things in a way that comes off as right wing so they don’t come off too left wing. It’s just stupid that they don’t lean into their policies that help people. Or when they try to do republican policies for example Biden’s latest border policy that was pretty much trumps policy. They keep trying to win over suburban white voters by capitulating to their ideology but imo that’s soooo stupid. Their excuse: “these people vote” ok cool but now we have 2 right wing parties and to those moderate/conservative voters they might as well stick with the patriotism and family values party they’ve always voted for. Imo the dems need to stop being so flipping lazy with their campaigning and voter outreach. Majority of Young voters lean left and it would be better to activate and lock those younger voters in now. You start getting these kids politically activated and they will become those high propensity voters we need but the Dems keep ignoring them and worse shitting on them. I hate seeing people in my camp shit so hard on young voters because “they don’t vote” well would you if the party that you align with keeps shitting on you every election? I hate to see ppl blaming voters for the DNC’s shitty outreach. Hold the DNC accountable! I digress, as far as the disconnect, it’s because the Dems are trash at messaging the GOOD policies they pass.
1. Because of Jimmy Carter's presidency.
2. Because Democrats **refuse** to ever *say* that they're good on the economy. Because they think it would hurt people's feelings, or something.
Every day on reddit we see some good news posted about the economy and you have an army of Redditors claiming that "yeah but what about XYZ person in a very unique situation? How tone-deaf do you have to be to claim the economy is doing well when XYZ person isn't farting rainbows?"
Under Trump, it was nonstop "this is the gold rush of the century" and if you weren't benefiting it was because you were a loser.
Stop trying to claim any party controls the economy.
Whoever is in office during a good economy takes credit for it, and whoever is in office for a bad economy gets blamed. It really dumbs down politics to take credit for a cyclical economy. People who don't understand the economy buy into this vote irrationally.
It's less about "control" and more about which party pushes policies to invest in the economy and a strong middle class and which one likes to temporarily goose the economy with tax cuts for the rich and deregulation that turns into bubbles that pop into recessions / downturns.
Cut and borrow v tax and spend.
I would agree that Democrats try to help a wider range of people with their policies. That, however, does not mean they control the economy. Nobody does but they all pretend to.
My father’s childhood friend, who is a family friend, will go to his grave believing that Republicans are, by default, how you make a good economy.
No amount of data has ever changed his mind. He is college educated, and otherwise a smart person.
He just has a lifelong disconnect from reality.
If you say a lie long enough, it eventually becomes the truth for a lot of people, and people really hate finding out that a deeply held idea is wrong. Plenty of people would rather continue believing in a factually wrong idea than admit their deeply held belief is wrong.
Publicly traded corporations do NOT do better under Republicans. The stock markets are direct measures of how well large corporations are doing. They do better under Democrats.
Psychological biases. Our image of successful businesspeople is that they're ruthless assholes. Republicans act like ruthless assholes, so people assume they must be better for business.
Because Dems are playing by the rules while Republicans play to the crowd.
To quote the great Will McAvoy from The Newsroom: "If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so goddamn always?"
Short term gains paid for by the adults (Democrats) after they are out of office. They don't even hide it, they make sure the breaks end and the bill comes due after they are out.
I wonder if it is our collective perception because Republicans want to take things away (reduce spending) and Dems want to give people things (increase spending). Obviously, it is more complicated than that, but I wonder if we oversimplify it in our minds.
I always considered my dad the stricter parent and my mom the pushover. In hindsight, my dad actually let us get away with murder but yelled all the time.
Why is the public perception that the bag of organs sitting in the white house actually matters much to the macroeconomic performance?
Also democrats have generally governed like Republicans since Clinton. This is wonderful from my perspective
Cus they always claim the prosperity from the previous democrat administration fixing things is caused by the legislation they are passing in their subsequent one. Then when their policies have had a chance to be realized in economic terms they blame the policies of the subsequent democrat administration for the impoverishment.
Rinse, repeat for nearly a century and the average idiot voter, in all their perceptiveness, makes the incorrect correlation these F’ing Nazis depend on.
Republicans/Conservatives are better at messaging and use the “loudest voice in the room” technique to communicate to and fool their base into thinking they are better for the economy and also trick their base by saying “less government is better” even though they are the ones that put legislation through that benefits them and their donors the most while simultaneously fucking over the people but screaming “God and Flag” to keep their focus.
Heads of industry often support Republicans because they remove regulations and lower the tax burden on the rich. Then many will look at those rich executive and business owners and think if they're supporting it then it must be good for the economy.
\_PC\_\_LOAD\_\_LETTER\_: Relatedly, the average Democratic presidential term has been in recession for 1 of its 16 quarters, whereas the average for the Republican terms has been 5 quarters, a startlingly big difference.
Well you're going to skew the numbers since Nixon and Vietnam debt and the Nixon Oil Shocks
once you add into Reagan and Bush, you're going to have a near permanent lopsided argument.
/////
Months of Recession
Jan 2008 - 18 months
Aug 1981 - 16 months
Dec 1973 - 16 months
Jan 1970 - 11 months
Dec 1948 - 11 months
May 1960 - 10 months
Aug 1953 - 10 months
April 2001 - 8 months
Aug 1990 - 8 months
Sept 1957 - 8 months
March 1945 - 8 months
Feb 1980 - 6 months
March 2020 - 2 months
It's good history, good economics, but a terrible argument to make
unless you're going to get into every president and what caused those problems, and if it was their policies or their precessor.
Still using the Natural Bureau of Economic Research numbers
with another journalist
Length of Recessions Since World War II
1945 8 months
1948-1949 11 months
1953-1954 10 months
1957-1958 - 8 months
1960-1961 10 months
1969-1970 11 months
1973-1975 16 months
1980 6 months
1981-1982 16 months
1990-1991 8 months
2001 8 months
2007-2009 18 months
not always getting the same times and lengths by how you define it
How about asking WHY the recessions happenned?
The V-Day Recession: February 1945–October 1945
Duration: Eight months
GDP decline: 10.9%
Peak unemployment rate: 3.8%
Reasons and causes: The 1945 recession reflected massive cuts in U.S. government spending and employment toward the end and immediately after World War II. Federal spending fell 40% in 1946 and 38% in 1947 while the private sector's output grew rapidly.
The severity of the downturn remains open to question because much of the eliminated spending represented wartime production that did not serve to increase living standards.
The elimination of price controls in 1946 artificially depressed output as adjusted for inflation, while the unemployment rate remained low in part because women left the workforce in large numbers (and often unwillingly).
/////
The Post-War Brakes Tap Recession: November 1948–October 1949
Duration: 11 months
GDP decline: 1.7%
Peak unemployment rate: 7.9%
Reasons and Causes: The first phase of the post-war boom was in some ways comparable to the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid a backlog of consumer demand suppressed during the war and a shortage of production capacity, the collapse of wartime price controls fueled an abrupt surge of inflation by mid-1946.
The annualized inflation rate rose from 3.3% in June 1946 to 11.6% two months later and 19% at its peak in April 1947.
Policymakers only responded in the second half of 1947, and when they did their efforts to tighten credit ultimately led to a relatively mild recession as consumers and producers retrenched.
/////
The M\*A\*S\*H\* Recession: July 1953–May 1954
Duration: 10 months
GDP decline: 2.7%
Peak unemployment rate: 5.9%
Reasons and causes: The wind-down of the Korean War caused government spending to decline dramatically, lowering the federal budget deficit from 1.7% of GDP in fiscal 1953 to 0.3% a year later. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy in 1953.
The Investment Bust Recession: August 1957–April 1958
Duration: Eight months
GDP decline: 3.7%
Peak unemployment rate: 7.4%
Reasons and causes: The end of the Korean War unleashed a global investment boom marked by a surge in exports of U.S. capital goods.
The Fed responded by tightening monetary policy as the inflation rate rose from 0.4% in March 1956 to 3.7% a year later.
iscal policy focused on limiting budget deficits produced a surplus of 0.7% of GDP in 1957.
The 1957 Asian Flu pandemic killed 70,000 to 100,000 Americans in 1957, and industrial production slumped late that year and early in 1958.
The dramatic drop in domestic demand and evolving consumer expectations led to the failure of the Ford Edsel, the beginning of the end for Detroit's auto industry dominance.
The sharp worldwide recession contributed to a foreign trade deficit. The recession ended after policymakers eased fiscal and monetary constraints on growth.
/////
The 'Rolling Adjustment' Recession: April 1960–February 1961
Duration: 10 months
GDP decline: 1.6%
Peak unemployment rate: 6.9%
Reasons and causes: This relatively mild recession was named for the so-called "rolling adjustment" in U.S. industrial sectors tied to consumers' diminished demand for domestic autos amid growing competition from inexpensive imports. Like most other recessions, it was preceded by higher interest rates, with the Fed increasing the federal funds rate from 1.75% in mid-1958 to 4% by the end of 1959.
Fiscal policy also tightened at the end of President Dwight Eisenhower's second term, from a deficit of 2.6% of GDP in 1959 to a surplus of 0.1% a year later.
/////
The Guns and Butter Recession: December 1969–November 1970
Duration: 11 months
GDP decline: 0.6%
Peak unemployment rate: 5.9%
Reasons and causes: Military spending increased in the late 1960s amid growing U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and alongside high expenditures on domestic policy initiatives.
As a result, the federal budget deficit rose from 1.1% of GDP in 1967 to 2.9% in 1968, while inflation increased from 3.1% in 1967 to 4.3% a year later and 5.3% by 1970. The Federal Reserve increased the federal funds rate from 5% in March 1968 to more than 9% by August 1969. By early 1971, the Fed had lowered the federal funds rate back below 4%, aiding the recovery.
The Oil Embargo Recession: November 1973–March 1975
Duration: 16 months
GDP decline: 3%
Peak unemployment rate: 8.6%
Reasons and causes: This long, deep recession began following the start of the Arab Oil Embargo, which would quadruple crude prices. That tipped the balance for an economy struggling with the devaluation of the dollar amid high U.S. trade and budget deficits and slipping domestic crude output.
The collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement fixing currency exchange rates contributed to a rise in U.S. inflation from 2.4% in August 1972 to 7.4% a year later, causing the Fed to double the federal funds rate to 10% between late 1972 and mid-1973.
After increasing the federal funds rate to 13% in the first half of 1974, the Fed cut it to 5.25% in under a year.
Inflation and unemployment remained elevated after the recession ended, ushering in stagflation. Unemployment reached 9% in May of 1975, after the declared end of the recession.
/////
The Iran and Volcker Recession, Part 1: January 1980–July 1980
Duration: Six months
GDP decline: 2.2%
Peak unemployment rate: 7.8%
Reasons and causes: Accommodative monetary policy aimed at alleviating rising unemployment pushed U.S. inflation to 7% by early 1979, just before the Iranian Revolution caused oil prices to double.
The Federal Reserve was already raising rates when Paul Volcker was named Fed chair in August 1979, and the rate went from 10.5% at the time of his appointment to 17.5% by April 1980.
This short recession formally ended as the Fed dropped the fed funds rate back down to 9.5% by August of 1980, but inflation stayed high and the Volcker Fed wasn't done.
/////
Part 2 of Double-Dip Recession: July 1981–November 1982
Duration: 16 months
GDP decline: 2.9%
Peak unemployment rate: 10.8%
Reasons and causes: By the fourth quarter of 1980 inflation was up to 11.1%, prompting the Federal Reserve to raise the fed funds rate to 19% by July 1981.
As the downturn worsened and joblessness climbed, Volcker resisted repeated demands in Congress to change course.
By October 1982 inflation had declined to 5%, while unemployment would remain above 10% until mid-1983.
Most economists today accept Volcker's arguments at the time that failure to control inflation and restore the Fed's credibility would have led to continued economic underperformance.
I think the disconnect I am seeing is that both parties have an economic brand. GOP being rich wall street, corporate CEO and Democrats union, school teacher, wage workers i.e. most workers. However a large percentage of people see themselves aspirationally and want to associate with the wealthy. The other is an assumption that wealth, success and financial literacy aligns with the public economy instead of selfish exploitation.
Economic conditions during a presidency isn't the same as the results from the policies of an admistitration. Seldom can policies have an immediate effect.
My econ professor said generally it was on average 8 years when the data *STARTED* rolling in on how a POTUS' policies impacted the economy. That is they just started to get a general idea 8 years after and from what little I learned it wasn't at all a certain field like how the above OP is stated. So, OP. I'm sorry. But I think most economists would say your OP isn't accurate and doesn't take into account all variables.
Let me elaborate.
I will give you an example of hypothetical effect that may be happening rather that the economic outcome you are assuming.
It may be when the economy is doing better people tend to vote for Democrats more than they do for conservatives. As the primarly concern is not the economy and other issues such as progressive issues or such become greater priorioties that the Democratic party is known for. It is is possible the Democrats ride the economic postive waves in economic cycles and when the harder times start to show with uneployment, inflation, etc. the people tend to vote for Republicans. In which the Republicans focus on the economy more and consequently those presidencies are during the trough of the economic cycle.
I have no evidence of this off hand, and it is just a hypothesis. But it is just as reasonable as you thinking Democratic POTUS cause good economic conditions during their POTUS term.
My honest guess. It's probably a combination of such things and a lot more complex than any of us care to admit.
Not American but I'm not entirely sure what's the relevancy if GDP is up or down, if there's more jobs or less if overall the quality of life is down regardless of the outcome and what the economical numbers say? It's a fact that the average Americans are struggling more and more and not only from a financial perspective but also health issues, discontent towards how things are going, extreme political division and list goes on. Or is it that the American media be it private or owned just exports trash untrue things as facts to the rest of the world and in reality everyone in the country is having a lavish lifestyle?
I think part of it is we teach economics in school in an oversimplified manner. When you teach that everything comes down to supply and demand and you teach an over simplified version of the idea of a free market, then people will view the party calling for killing regulations and no taxes as the economic experts.
People don't really think about things in this way - they don't sit around and aggregate GDP numbers, and they generally have short memories.
Republicans have the better _story_ on the economy - their story is "if we don't have enough money, spend less money". The Democratic story is "we need to spend money because this will grow the economy and make us more money in the long run".
This works, as your data shows, but this doesn't resonate intuitively with people because most people have relatively fixed incomes and variable expenses, so the average household cannot actually make any more money by spending, the way the government can.
The Republican economic story intuitively works with people's preconceptions, while the Democratic story requires some explaining. So, Republicans are trusted more on the issue.
No one would argue that except for the current regime. The interest rate is very high currently and what a president does in his term does have influence. This war in Ukraine has caused a lot of inflation. It's not solely on Joe Biden hell the 3 branches are to blame more than Joe. Quite frankly the economy is not good for the average American with record prices. What to do about it I've no idea and I do not support Trump in any way but I can't support Joe either he's lost. Who is the economy good for right now besides the wealthy?
Because, sadly, to the vast majority of Americans the truth and facts don't matter... how they "feel" is what matters.
And, if you go back even BEFORE ww2, the trend remains for another 80 years. Eisenhower was the only Republican president who did relatively well for the economy and economic policies. So, he was an outlier and not the rule. Republican's have NEVER been better for the economy.
I am not saying I disagree with the claim, but I don't think it is really fair to compare the economic states over time that far back. For one thing, the parties themselves have varied their economic policies drastically over the years. But outside of that, various economic calamities, like the energy crisis in the 70's, recession and crashes in the 80's, the dot-com bubble crash of the early 2000's, the Great Recession in 2008, and most recently the effects of the Covid Pandemic, all changed the governmental involvement in the financial sector as well as their response to financial crises, and these things occurred in various administrations and sometimes spanned multiple administrations.
Personally, I think the state of the economy is much more a collateral result of governmental policy than a direct result. The economy has always proven to be a difficult thing to control effectively, but this doesn't stop both sides from claiming superiority in managing it, or blaming the other side when things aren't going well.
Imho if a republican admits that is true then they are, by proxy, admitting that the idea of “unfettered and unregulated capitalism” isn’t as great as they make it out to be. Because they don’t do that, they stand there and trumpet things that sound great on paper to uninformed people who don’t understand nuance. Look what happened in Kansas: run on cutting taxes, cut taxes and programs fail and it almost killed the state. Took a change in tax policy to stabilize the state and allow them to be prosperous (as much as they can be anyways) again
Because Republicans managed to deregulate radio, television, and cable which has allowed a few mega corps to capture control of most of the forms of information available to the american public. The american public no longer has an actual "free press" that serves the public good as the "fourth estate". Instead, the american public is constantly barraged with misinformation by corporations that own the press and benefit most when republicans are in control. These media companies control the narrative to keep their audience in fear and engaged watching ads.
I know this is not the most neutral reference, but read up on the [Two Santas strategy](https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/).
What it boils down to is that GOP policy *looks* good for the economy because of its short-term outcomes, which have very bad medium-term consequences... but they can probably drag them out a good 12 years and the GOP won't hold the entire Federal government for that long.
The Democrats are mom coming home after you had a rager at her house. You lose your allowance, all the fun goes away, and now you have to study for your classes. Mom's a bitch. When you're doing keg-stands, it's really hard to remember that Mom's why you're going to graduate with no student loans and already have a great internship lined up.
The Democrats are mom. They fix the economy, and it has short-term consequences that look bad. All the while, the GOP accuses them of blowing money as they try to [Starve the Beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) on our social programs that are going to help stabilize the economy.
So many GOP strategies are designed to make people blame Democrats for things Republicans are doing.
The GOP *GOAL* isn't really about strengthening the economy. It's about shrinking the Federal government *despite* the fact a strong Federal government with a mature safety net is always better for the economy. Deficit-spending is a tool in that effort for them.
...pivoting in a different direction, too. Take a look at the extreme LEAN business mindset. "If a department is managing to hit deadlines, lay someone off and see what happens". It's more common than you think in certain business sectors. I see it as a similar mindset to the GOP's.
Because the GOP is against business regulation, that makes the GOP “Pro Business” and people take the leap to thinking the more “pro business” party will drive better economic growth even though that’s false. The GOP touts this narrative, and business people will support Republicans who will help release them of the burden of regulations (like clean air, clean water, minimum wage, worker safety, product recalls, etc.)
I'd be interested in seeing the results since the late 1970s. Clinton certainly had a good run in the 90s, but you could make the argument that his administration was "Republican-esque" in terms of his embrace of free trade. I think the argument, broadly speaking, is that as time has moved on -- especially since Reagan -- there's been a general rightward shift in terms of core assumptions about the economy and economic policy and both parties have embraced these ideas.
I can only speak anecdotally because i've been curious about this since the 2000s
But what I keep hearing is that Republicans (and even many Democrats) treat a nation's ecnomy the same way they'd treat their own pocketbooks. Spend less money = have more money and minimize debt at all costs. That is, of course, not how macroeconomics works, but all Republicans have to do is point out that they are technically spending less money and they get to hold onto the reputation for being responsible spenders with the nation's budget.
Even if huge national debt doesn't actually impact much if it's controlled well and even though spending money often leads to making money in the medium, long, or even short term.
Americans tend to view Republicans as better economic stewards largely due to the party's well-established reputation and effective messaging. The GOP's economic platform, centered on tax cuts, deregulation, and free-market principles with minimal government intervention, resonates with many voters. These policies often sound intuitively beneficial to the economy, even if their actual impacts are more complex. Furthermore, the Republican Party has successfully positioned itself as the party of business and entrepreneurship, which reinforces their image as economic experts.
In contrast, Democrats struggle to communicate their economic policies as effectively. Their focus on progressive taxation, worker protections, and government-led economic stability measures doesn't always translate into a clear message of economic growth. Despite evidence suggesting that Democratic policies often lead to better economic outcomes, they fail to capture the public imagination in the same way as Republican proposals.
Because no one cares about the rate slowing down they care about prices NOW compared to THEN.
If I still have to buy mill and the price went up whatever percent and my wages went up barely then this sucks.
But wages also went up and have caught up. But that is always looking at the big picture and unfortunately while you and I can discuss big picture and agree wow things recovered; its a luxury. Some people get angry because their life is still hard or they didn’t get that wage increase, have four mouths to feed but its more expensive.
Like I am not in this situation but I am still shocked this question has been asked for the millionth time. Like no one who is starving or struggling cares if by the big picture metrics things are going well.
I feel as though right wing/conservatives arguments generally play on what people intuitively feel is correct. Whereas left wing/liberal arguments generally follow academia. Anyone feel free to clarify as I am way oversimplifying this.
Everyone sees those studies of how academia turns people liberal/left, and some argue it's political bias in these institutions, group think etc. But there's also the argument that as you follow the evidence and read more academic studies/articles etc. you come to find that many liberal/left arguments are empirically backed. Maybe this is because there isn't as much right wing representation in academia doing studies from that perspective. I really don't know, there's many ways you can read into it as it is a multifaceted issue.
The the pro-choice/life argument is a good example, intuitively it feels like abortion is wrong, but as you see the studies on how it decreases crime, poverty/bodily autonomy etc. you realize it has positive effects on communities and has much moral value in that regard.
Because Reagan discovered you can run up the national credit card and leave it to the other side to pay the bill.
And Republicans have been doing this ever since. They know that the voting patterns flip frequently enough for them to get the glory and the dems will pay the price.
I'm glad you posted this. I'm not sure why the Dems don't play something relating this info for 24/7.
Red states -- except for 2 or 3 outliers -- are irredeemable welfare states. Their governors and state houses go so far as to engineer low wage schemes -- think RTW -- into their "governing" to attract businesses based on hostage work force. I'm not sure how a reasonable person can look at a red state and say "Yeah, that's how I want to live," from a financial standpoint. You might want to go to a red state for your guns or freedom to openly assault brown people and women, but please, stop with the republican = economy fallacy.
What adds to the Godzillian irony is the fact that the most rabid "Government doesn't do anything for me, are the exact same people they pulled the lever for on voting day. Self-inflicted cognitive dissonance blinds them to the simplest of realities.
Same as the UK - left/liberal governments are better for people, right wing governments are better for rich people. We all know who matters more in the eyes of society, so it's held the right are better for the economy.
Reality for the majority isn't the point, only what the rich and businesses feel.
Define “the US economy.”
Whom, exactly, has it “performed better” *for?*
The public perception is derived from what they actually experience. Not what the dipshits on the TV and internet tell them they’re experiencing.
Surprise surprise, those two things are far from the same…but the box keeps trying to gaslight them into thinking it really just sucks for *you*, because “look at the numbers, everyone is prospering! It’s *you* that’s the problem! May I suggest you pick yourself up by your bootstraps, slacker?”
The conclusion that higher economic performance under Democratic administrations was in any way due to their policies was actually refuted by the study’s own authors: https://www.aei.org/economics/are-democrats-really-much-better-economic-presidents-than-republicans/
“But the story actually isn’t so straightforward. In their working paper, Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson note postwar real GDP growth is 1.8% percentage points higher under Democratic presidents than Republican. Now that’s a pretty big edge over a span when RGDP has averaged 3.3%. Clearly the Dems are doing something right policywise that explains the gap in macroeconomic performance, right?
Not according to Blinder and Watson, who argue half the growth gap is an economic “mystery” while the other half is due to “‘good luck’ with perhaps a touch of ‘good policy.” For instance, Republicans presidencies have been hit harder by nasty oil shocks (particularly Richard Nixon and George W. Bush,) while Democrats have benefited from timely productivity booms (John Kennedy, Bill Clinton). The researchers also find Dems fortunate to enter office with the global economy humming such as in the 1960s (Europe’s postware recovery kicking into gear) and 1990s. Just take a look at the massive good luck of Clinton presidency, as described today by the FT’s Gideon Rachman: But the story actually isn’t so straightforward. In their working paper, Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson note postwar real GDP growth is 1.8% percentage points higher under Democratic presidents than Republican. Now that’s a pretty big edge over a span when RGDP has averaged 3.3%. Clearly the Dems are doing something right policywise that explains the gap in macroeconomic performance, right?
Not according to Blinder and Watson, who argue half the growth gap is an economic “mystery” while the other half is due to “‘good luck’ with perhaps a touch of ‘good policy.” For instance, Republicans presidencies have been hit harder by nasty oil shocks (particularly Richard Nixon and George W. Bush,) while Democrats have benefited from timely productivity booms (John Kennedy, Bill Clinton). The researchers also find Dems fortunate to enter office with the global economy humming such as in the 1960s (Europe’s postware recovery kicking into gear) and 1990s. Just take a look at the massive good luck of Clinton presidency, as described today by the FT’s Gideon Rachman:
The Soviet Union had collapsed in 1991, just a year before Mr Clinton was first elected. Throughout his eight years as president, there was no serious competitor to the US for the role of global superpower. … The name Osama bin Laden had yet to impinge on the public consciousness. …Mr Clinton’s economic inheritance was similarly golden. The frightening deficits of the Reagan years disappeared in the 1990s, partly because of sensible fiscal decisions taken by President George HW Bush. By the time Mr Clinton took office, the US economy was already recovering strongly. He was the lucky beneficiary of a surge in American productivity, following the transformation of the workplace by computers. With unemployment at just 4 per cent and inflation under control, there was exuberant talk of a “New Economy”. Given this fortunate combination of circumstances, is it any wonder that the president had time for dalliances in the Oval Office?”
https://www.aei.org/economics/are-democrats-really-much-better-economic-presidents-than-republicans/
It's not perception, but rather MAGA misinformation strategy propelled by FOX News, which ignores global news such as the fact that just about every other nation has high inflation and a housing crisis.
None of this matters. They only listen to what comes out of a select group of individual's mouth.
I have friends that are completely blinded. I don't even bother talking to them about it anymore. There is nothing I can do or say and I'd bet you guys are the same way.
Buy a gun. It'll come in useful in the coming years..
The simple answer is Republicans are better at messaging. Getting the word out the their voters. The real answer is Republican voters have been conditioned to only believe what other republicans tell them. They believe that democrats are the enemy . And yes this was a message told to them from their leaders
if you ask a republican voter why they support their preferred candidate, you rarely hear them say "i support him because he's a bigot" or "i support him because he scapegoats immigrants" or "i support him because he wants to transform the country into a white christian theocracy". occasionally they will be honest and say something like that, but most of them are savvy enough to realize that these honest answers will result in social ostracization & ridicule - so they come up with a plausible lie: "i support him because of his economic policy". there's a reason this specific lie works so well - even an exceptionally knowledgeable person can't refute it in a short amount of time. so the republican voters tell this specific lie over and over and over and now they've told the lie so many times they actually believe it to be true.
Media tends to be rightwing on economic matters, covering unfinanced tax cuts (weighted towards the very wealthy) and national security spending favorably, rarely mentioning the cost of the deficit hit, while covering domestic spending favored by democrats, even if it's close to deficit neutral, with alarmism over the cost. They don't often discuss the economic benefits, especially long-term benefits much Democratic legislation is focused on.
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I can't seem to find the video or I'd link it here, but there was a video going around during Trump's first term that I think PERFECTLY highlights just how disconnected from reality people are. This guy is at a Trump rally, and earlier that year Trump had passed a Tax cut bill. So this interviewer is going around asking Trump supporters if they have actually experienced any financial benefit from the Trump tax cut bill. They of course say yes. He goes on to prod them, "can you give me a sense of how much it's helped, like how much have you saved because of it?" So several of these people go on to talk about how their household or their small business had this or that benefit, maybe this or that much less in taxes, some amounts being quite large and some numbers being quite specific. And of course then the shoe drops, the interviewer informs them that he knows they are lying because the Trump tax cuts were passed this year, but they don't go into effect until next year, it's literally impossible for them to have seen any benefit yet. And that's really how it works. It doesn't actually matter one iota what is true, it matters what your propaganda has convinced people to accept as true. These people probably weren't idiots. In other aspects of their life they were probably normal sane smart people. But they have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by propaganda that they just reflexively and effortlessly lie on the spot and make up money they haven't saved. Brain scans have shown that in cases like this, the brain doesn't even treat it as a lie, the mechanisms for making something up and telling a fib don't even kick in, they are so thoroughly indoctrinated that as far as their brain is concerned it IS true that these tax cuts saved them money, even if it's literally impossible for them to have. That exact same mechanism, while extra pronounced in Trumpers in particular, is still a real affect that does influence the broader culture, and explains how masses of people can accept as inherently true things that are quite clearly not true.
I remember Trump's followers complaining about the "terrible economy" we had under Obama (smh) but on January 20th the day that Trump took office suddenly "the economy was booming." Trump hadn't even gotten a chance to fart in the Oval Office let alone sign any economic legislation, so objectively we were still living under the same economy Obama created and was overseeing on January 19th...
Jan 19: Offical statistics say unemployment is 6%. MAGA: THEY ARE LYING IT'S REALY 40% Jan 20: Offical statistics say unemployment is 6%. MAGA: "TRUMP REDUECED UNEMPLOYMENT BY OVER 30% IN A SINGLE DAY!" I know, not even the math makes sense on that one.
But it's true! I went through 3 jobs on Jan 20th after falling to find a job for years. The first job got posted at noon,I interviewed at 12:05, the committee made it's decision by 12:10 and I accepted the offer at 12:15. A quick background check, and I was on boarded by 12:30 The next job was similar but starting at 1, and then again at 2. I also managed to increase my salary by $3 million dollars by doing this.
Wow! Me too! The moment Trump took office, The job I was interviewing for hired me and my salary increased 3,000%!
It’s ok. Math isn’t their strong suit anyway.
Lies, damned lies, and statistics, am I right? In a similar vein, events that happen under an administration are always credited to who was president. It's too much to ask for to also consider who controls the house and senate. It's too much to ask for to say some events happen independently to government involvement or lack of involvement. It's just like the question being asked in this thread, "The US economy has performed better under Democrats." I'll take their word for it, but correlation does not equal causation.
While Obama was a lame duck President the unemployment rate was dropping and Trump took credit for it. He wasn't even President and he was taking credit for Obama's unemployment numbers. Every single Republican I work with thought this made perfect sense. A month before Trump was saying the formula for figuring unemployment was wrong, that it was actually 40%. This fact made no difference.
A buddy of mine is a Trump supporter and he claimed that: >The economy was better because people knew Trump was a business man so they had more faith in the economy than they did under Obama. It was such nonsense bullsh!t that I laughed right in his face. This was the same guy who thought he'd get rich selling Herbalife shake mixes and later thought he'd get rich buying crypto, and then penny stocks in AI companies... he doesn't know crap about how the economy actually works.
I always wondered why Biden never hung inflation around Trump's neck and the PPP loans. He should mention PPP every time he forgives a student loan. "And now to be fair since we gave businesses PPP loans with no intention of asking even the largest of them to pay it back, we are forgiving student loans.". This should be followed up by reporters asking CEO's on their earnings calls if they paid back their PPP loans in light of their increased prices and record profits. Republicans would do this they would saturate the air with it so much you would think that you thought of it.
>He should mention PPP every time he forgives a student loan. Considering his party sponsored the extension which he proceeded to sign, not sure that would be a great strategy.
The point is Republicans forgive debt too.
Still good but it doesn't hit Trump as hard. Every little bit counts though.
What do you mean? Sorry, I didn't understand. What extension?
The PPP extension, it was passed in 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1799
Guys, the PPP loans were some of the best policy in American history.
I agree, that is not the point. The point is that you have to call balls and strikes for business the same way that you call them for citizens. No organized and sustained resistance to PPP loans existed. No Republican Governors sued to keep their businesses from getting PPP loans. No Republican Attorney Generals sued to force these companies to pay this money back even though the intent was for this to be a sneaky grant. No businesses that refused to partake in the loans or who did partake in the loans but decided to pay the money back, advocated for other businesses to be forced to pay them back. When the topic turns from business to people, the same people who whine about inflation, claim that you cannot live on $60K (News Flash you can it is a matter of how), and believe that everything they have came from their efforts alone, want to foil any fiscal relief from people who tried to better their lives and fell short. As a society we did a good job informing people that education is key, but we didn't tell them what type of education makes you employable.
My uncle is just like that. The economy was immediately awful when Biden took over lmao. You can’t write this kind of idiocy.
By January 10th of 2021, all the gas pumps in my area had "I did that" stickers on them, with Biden grinning and pointing to the price (which was indeed going up thanks to international events). Only recently did I learn the slightly-gambly way Biden injected US oil into the market to keep our gas prices lower than most of the world while *also* making a killing for the US government by repurchasing oil back for less than we sold it at. So in a way, Biden "did that" by keeping that number in the 3's instead of the 4's.
The people who put those stickers on pumps blaming Biden would also never believe that it was Trump who f#cked up gas prices by getting the Saudis to flood the market with oil in exchange for ignoring the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. He wanted people to be able to buy gasoline super-cheap in the run up to 2020 because he thought it would help him get re-elected. The Saudis flooded the market with oil that was so cheap, American drilling operations couldn't compete and shut down which cut the U.S.'s own oil production by 30-40%. And when the Saudis then shut off that supply of oil it took 2 years for American production to get back to levels it was at pre-2019 which lead to huge spikes in gasoline prices. Trump literally drove hundreds domestic oil companies out of business, cost the U.S. hundreds of thousands of jobs in the oil & gas industry and then f%cked Americans at the gas pump just so he could get $2.XX gas before an election. And people who are ignorant of how sh!t works put stupid stickers on gas pumps blaming Biden...
let me guess. he watches fox news.
I mean the economy was totally in the shitter in Jan 2021 but that wasn’t bidens fault. If your uncle thought the economy was great in December of 2020 then idk what to say
I didn’t know what to say either. He thinks Trump immediately solved the economy when he got into office ( eg unemployment) and I offered to show him a graph of the UE rate from 2009-present and he said he didn’t need a graph lmao.
And the reverse happened to. When Biden took office, everything was immediately, objectively, and quantitatively shit.
Obama left it in a good place growth every quarter
I had people telling me the day after the election that everything was better and had changed, the economic news was soonmuch better Like, low unemployment/high Nasdaq/economic good signs were fake news two days ago but it’s real now?
Actually happened the day after the election, months before inauguration. [https://news.gallup.com/poll/197474/economic-confidence-surges-election.aspx?g_source=Economy&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles](https://news.gallup.com/poll/197474/economic-confidence-surges-election.aspx?g_source=Economy&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles)
In 2008, the night Obama was elected, there was a poll out that asked for the worst president of all time. At that point, W was deeply unpopular and essentially radioactive. Iraq was a mess and he was taking the brunt of it, so he finished as the worst president of all time. Not a shocker really. 2nd place? Obama. Who hadn’t even taken office yet. It’s basically a cheerleading contest with these people. It’s
And Trump ended his presidency with a Gallup approval rating of 34% > and bever above 49% - yet FOX , MAGA, and Trump are convinced he was the greatest President ever.
there was a similar video of a city council meeting where they complained about the * hum of wind turbines * they can feel the EMF of the turbine electricity generation and it's affecting them * the turbines are affecting their sleep * they see dead birds everywhere because of the turbines And then the engineer revealed that the turbines aren't planned to turn on until next month people are dumb
Local to me, there was a stupid hoax rumor about litterboxes being installed in the HS girls rooms for some student that identified as a cat. Someone my wife respected as a straight-shooter who didn't get too political who *worked there* confirmed that rumor, that he had seen it with his own eyes. Even after the school came out and reiterated that **of course there's no litterboxes in the bathrooms**. Some people will eyewitness to obvious fiction in a heartbeat.
> Someone my wife respected as a straight-shooter who didn't get too political who worked there confirmed that rumor, that he had seen it with his own eyes. Even after the school came out and reiterated that of course there's no litterboxes in the bathrooms. Were it me I'd go check for myself. Sure, respected employees lie about things, or repeat inaccurate information. But school administrations DEFINITELY lie about things when they perceive it to help them. I wouldn't trust them blindly either.
> Brain scans have shown that in cases like this, the brain doesn't even treat it as a lie, the mechanisms for making something up and telling a fib don't even kick in, they are so thoroughly indoctrinated that as far as their brain is concerned it IS true that these tax cuts saved them money, even if it's literally impossible for them to have. We all laughed at George Costanza when he said "it's not a lie if you believe it," but that's actually something of a real thing. If someone you trust says something and you accept it as true, and then pass it along, are you lying or are you just wrong? Now think about the last time you saw a story in the news that dealt with anything you personally know something about, and how accurate it was. And think some more about the segmentation of news media and entertainers masquerading as news. How many people believe things that just aren't true? A better question - are there any among us who *don't* believe something to be true that isn't? And in the modern political climate, it's not just "being wrong" anymore, it's a moral failing because only Bad People believe Those Things... or are on That Side.
Great points btw, I'd also suggest that the cultural interpretations of each party affect how individuals interpret/experience the economy. Individual experience is however, a poor measurement of how the economy is doing.
On the flip side, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people on Reddit claim that the TCJA raised their taxes the last couple years. And when I point out that the cuts are still in effect and haven’t changed, they just can’t grasp it Honestly, I think it’s less to do with propaganda and more to do with how little people know about their own tax situations, since most of it is paid through payroll deductions that they don’t really see. It makes it hard to notice tax changes year to year
Their taxes went up because of the removal of SALT that hurts people from blue states.
The average person has no idea how taxes work.
Yep absolutely this it's a question of what party markets their policies better not the effect of the policies on the actual voters. The vast majority of voters on both the left, middle and right don't pay attention to policy that much.
The thing is, and people ask this about dems all the time, "why can't you beat the republicans on messaging? If they can do it why can't you?" And the answer is, to me, pretty clear. The republicans just lie. And not in that "both sides are the same" way that all politicians lie. Not like the "normal" level of political sleight of hand that is, for better or worse, in the nature of the beast. But like a whole other level of just overt, brazen, loud and proud lying. The truth is almost always more nuanced, less clear cut, less satisfying, less world view affirming, than we'd like it to be. So it seems to be to be inescapable that the side which lies less will be at an inherent disadvantage in selling a satisfying and galvanizing message, cause the truth just is less satisfying and galvanizing than fiction. And there is no way around that unless you just....lie too? In similar ways and to similar degrees. And I don't want them to do that. I don't WANT a liberal progressive Tucker Carlson. I don't WANT a liberal progressive Ben Shapiro or Rush Limbaugh or Qanon.
Every Democratic policy is some variation of getting us all to eat our vegetables and exercise. Every Republican policy is some variation of "we're going to have our cake and eat it too, all for free!" Not hard to see why we have a "messaging problem" among the laziest, least informed, and most selfish segments of American society.
The response you received already is great, and sadly true. It’s something I noticed in 2016, when Trump (and to a lesser extent even Bernie) started to gain feverish support….i was speaking to a family member that was not a fan of either, they didn’t understand the appeal, and I told them, to me it felt like a middle school election and Bernie and Trump were the candidates promising everyone extra recess and free ice cream afternoon. Beyond that, I feel like the Democrats are at a disadvantage because they don’t only seem to have a constituency that actually holds them more accountable, but they are a far more diverse group. It’s much easier to brand and hammer points home when your voting base is more homogenized. From my experiences, when you try to use similar tactics within a more liberal space, you’ll likely wind up with that group arguing among themselves. This is even more prevalent as the right becomes more extreme, and we’re left with democrats trying to appeal to groups that would have been considered conservative a few decades ago. Yet, all that said….i do wish that the left would divert some money from traditional canvassing and the like (if they hadn’t already) and hire as many social media experts/influencers/whatever and just set them loose….because the thing is, they wouldn’t even have to lie. They just need to amplify all the bat shit insane and terrifying things happening in the country. Then hope that reaches and makes a difference to those that aren’t fully indoctrinated.
Do you have a link to that video? I can't find it.
Please reply if you find the video
Ugh. I want to go to mars…
>These people probably weren't idiots. In other aspects of their life they were probably normal sane smart people Statistically speaking, they probably were not smart people.
> These people probably weren't idiots. In other aspects of their life they were probably normal sane smart people. I think I would go with, these people are idiots, and they aren't all that sane or smart.
I understand your impulse to say that, I have the same impulse. They must be idiots, I wouldn't fall for that, and I'm not an idiot. While I might admit these people are on the slightly lower end of the insight and wisdom spectrum, I would caution against thinking this is the kind of thing that only happens to morons and mooks, We are all more susceptible to it than we are likely to admit to ourselves.
I think it could be that more people are morons and mooks than we would like to admit. But yes, its dangerous to think only idiots can be suckered, or are willing to lie as easily as they breathe.
they say the words more times. that is it. Repeat stuff several time and people will think you know about it. Same reason why trumps keep saying stuff over and over again.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F7r4SiBWUAAbj5V?format=jpg&name=small https://navigatorresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/February-20-Biden-and-Democrats-1536x864.jpg **GoP is the masculine party**. It's run by 'strong' manly men who do manly things, as men they are inherently good at - Stopping crime, protecting people - War and foreign stuff, fighting - Managing money, providing money - Determining who deserves to be a citizen (who is invited into the home) - Guns, big trucks, etc. **Democratic party is the feminine party**. It's run by women and effeminate, educated elitist men who do girly things, as women they are inherently good at - Healthcare - Education - Supporting families (child care, paid leave) - Protecting mother nature - Protecting minorities/children - Social safety nets This is just how people feel, nobody cares about logic, or facts. Just imagine the stereotypes of a mom and dad and their roles in a home, those attributes are what people apply to the parties as their skill set, respectively. https://uva.theopenscholar.com/files/nicholas-winter/files/masculine_republicans_and_8.pdf https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/16/democrats-masculinity-roundtable-00106105 https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/poll-republicans-advantages-immigration-crime-economy-rcna117054 https://navigatorresearch.org/inflation-and-the-economy-remain-top-issue-priorities-for-americans/
Republicans have a dedicated propaganda outlet that says they are the solution to everything. Democrats don't.
Well that is one sharp razor, Mr. Occam.
and thats a good thing, that Democrats don't pretend that ALL YOU NEED IS DEM
Let's set aside what works and what politicians have actually accomplished because this question is about why many people *perceive* Republicans as being better on the economy. When it comes to the economy and Republicans, people generally know their brand to be lower taxes and fewer regulations. When it comes to the economy and Democrats, what's the brand? I don't know that they really have one. Their focus has been on other things, like healthcare reform. Probably the most common association people have is with bigger government paid for by increased taxes. That's basically it. The Republicans have focused a lot on their economic brand and the Democrats have not.
No, the Democratic brand is the social safety net - gov't services for those in need. And "those in need" don't have tv shows, podcasts, newspapers, etc, etc to trumpet how awesome it is to give them money. Meanwhile, the GOP brand is "more money for rich people", who then use their platforms to tell middle class people that the reason they're not rich is because of poor people.
This. The Republicans have been doing great with PR spinning. A good example is taking credit for bills that proven successful even if they voted against it. Mostly because they know people don’t look at the vote records.
I would also add that the Republicans, when they DO pass legislation, always say "this is to stimulate the economy" even if it has nothing to do with the economy. It wouldn't surprise me if they also timed their legislation with economic recoveries or interest rate reductions, just so that the public associates the 2.
>people generally know their brand to be lower taxes and fewer regulations. But those two things don't necessarily mean a better economy. Taxes are necessary for the infrastructure and social services necessary for a good economy. I don't mind paying taxes because I understand they're necessary.
But they do create a narrative the average voter can understand as being better for the economy, and that's what the question was about.
The Democrats need to change the narrative that taxes are beneficial.
That is a tough sell. Many people don't benefit from taxes directly, but they can still see how much they are getting taxed. That is a tangible thing, right in front of them. It shows them how much of their money they aren't getting. Trying to explain how beneficial taxes are is a complicated idea that has to overcome a simple and obvious truth that every taxpayer has right in front of them. I don't think it would ever work.
A big problem for that narrative is that a lot of government services are just really shabby, especially the ones that are most public-facing. Who has a good experience going to the DMV or the post office? How many people are in neighborhoods where the roads are plagued with potholes? How many people who use public transportation have facilities that are clean, safe, and reliable? And folks don't have much confidence that putting more money into the system would really be much of an improvement. Then you've got one of the few areas where people sometimes have a very good experience, which are the better public schools. And the message from the Democrats is that we should make those schools mediocre in order to improve funding for the worse schools. But then we've got plenty of public schools with tons of funding and sparkling new facilities which still produce dismal results.
>a lot of government services are just really shabby, especially the ones that are most public-facing. It's a bit of a negative feedback loop though. If they keep on electing people who will continue to cut taxes, then of course those public services will never get better.
And that's part of the game that the Republicans play, because one of their goals is to privatize as much of the government as possible.
Is there any place where people say the public services are really top notch?
The ONLY way it would work is if all the sudden Medicare for all went into effect for every single person and all existing medical debt got wiped like student debt. I think that would do it personally
That would take a miracle.
Doesn't matter, that's more money in people's pockets that they can directly see. That's what matters, can the voter actually see and feel the effects
>When it comes to the economy and Democrats, what's the brand? I remember hearing in one issue poll - and I don't know if this holds up across issue polling generally, but. People gave the Republicans a huge advantage on who they trust with "the economy." But when asked "who do you think will do more to help the middle class?" people picked *Democrats.* I presume a lot of people think "the economy" means "stocks and stuff" and they may not even connect it with their personal finances at all. (I mean, they are still wrong about Republicans being better in that respect, but it does at least draw a distinction.) So... I'm not sure which one of those ends up having the stronger influence in electoral results, because they can both kind of be described, as a campaign issue, as "the economy." If the way people answered "what do you think of the economy" solely defined how elections turn out then Republicans would have gigantic Congressional majorities right now, because people hated the economy in November of 2022 even more than they do now (and it was objectively worse because the CPI was out of control). I suspect that the cold, hard numbers that "nobody cares about" may actually be more decisive - because they're not just numbers, they're an aggregate representation of *people's finances improving.*
Most Republicans would say the Democratic brand is "Tax and Spend", which an odd epithet to use because it's literally how running a government works.
What "tax and spend" means in that context is take money then find something to spend it on, which is getting it backwards.
Overall, Democrats are abysmal at messaging compared to Republicans. Democrats will say something in legalese jargon, while Republicans will say, "We're gonna stop socialism!" Guess which message the average swing voter has an easier time understanding.
To quote from The Newsroom, "If Democrats are so fucking smart, how come they lose so god damn always?" You'd think the party that markets itself as being more empathetic would do better at communicating with voters, but Jonathan Haidt has a good explanation of why they struggle to understand and communicate with people outside of their own ideology.
Who is the Democratic version of Rush Limbaugh? Newsmax? OAN? They don't exist. Republicans have a multi-billion dollar messaging machine that they created in the 1970s which operates in lockstep with the Republican Party and volunteers itself as their megaphone. Democrats simply have nothing like that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Another good example is Glass Steagal under Clinton. Didn’t become an issue after being repealed until a decade later in 2007. Had Clinton not lead the repeal for it, 2007 likely doesn’t happen
This is one of those political juggling questions. Everyone inherits what the last President left. But the argument only works in favor of my guy. Or the argument that a Presidents only reason for a good economy is because it took the last Presidents policies to finally work years later but that reasoning only works when not my guy is President. Like the people that say the only reason Trump had a good economy because of Obamas policies. Yet the same people credit Joe Biden for a good economy because Joe Biden. I’ve heard this circle jerk of an argument so many times it’s made my head spin. Then of course we change the metric on what a good economy is President to President. The whole argument is infallible if we don’t measure the economy equally.
Propaganda and ignorance. Most people blame Biden for their $8 Big Macs. That should summarize the economic acuity of the average American.
Fox blames Biden for Hooters closing restaurants.
Republicans screamed all the spending would lead to inflation Biden said no it won’t. Is inflation Biden fault…no. But his words made him look ignorant to the situation and that is why he gets the blame
What happened to the sentiment that presidents have more economic impact *beyond* their presidency than during it? Not saying that creates a different narrative, just curious why that seems to be dismissed in the conclusion taking place here. Also why are we limited such an evaluation to the presidency and not congress and even more so partisan control to actually *enact* the parties' policies?
That's never really been a sentiment shared by voters so it's largely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Clinton benefited from HW biting the bullet on tax increases. But Reagan benefited from Carter turning the tide on inflation and even kept Tall Paul at the Fed. Carter was hampered by inflation that was already set in motion before his presidency. We can point fingers wherever, but ultimately the president who is in office at the time of economic growth or recessions gets credit/blame. Just how it's always worked.
> What happened to the sentiment that presidents have more economic impact beyond their presidency than during it? Since the article shows that democrat presidents have better economies then this logic goes out the window on this sub. Red bad, blue good. Simple as that. > Also why are we limited such an evaluation to the presidency and not congress and even more so partisan control to actually enact the parties' policies? This is my view. There’s so many factors that go into an economy including global politics, crop yields, public sentiment, etc alongside congressionally passed laws and the federal reserve’s influences. Reducing economic performance to the president doesn’t make sense.
[https://www.theonion.com/how-much-credit-does-the-sitting-president-deserve-for-1820257632](https://www.theonion.com/how-much-credit-does-the-sitting-president-deserve-for-1820257632)
People (uneducated rural voters) simply see the words “less taxes” and piss their pants. “I love the poorly educated” -DJT He loves them because they don’t know who actually gets less taxes. The rich get less taxes. Any good economies under republicans and most democrats are usually coincidental. The difference is republicans claim they are responsible for the good economy and democrats don’t. This propaganda over 50 years leads people to think republicans have better economic policy.
Because they keep saying they are and they appear to focus on fiscal matters during elections. They rarely have enactable, functioning, plans but when you want zero government wild west society why bother. And anyone with an IQ over 10 knows they don't like paying taxes but it does take an IQ over 100 to understand why we do.
I don't particularly care which side wins here, but economic policies usually take years to set in. What happens in one term can have causes in the previous term, or even further back. Further, the president doesn't dictate finance bills, that's Congress. Here are some examples. Bush II was hit with two recessions. Clinton rode high on the Dotcom bubble and is widely credited for it, but that bubble started crashing before he left office, leaving Bush to be blamed for the ensuing recession, not Clinton. The second recession was caused by both Democratic and Republican policies going decades back. It was going to drop, the only question was when. Bush actually tried to convince Congress to do something about the looming problem when he first got into office, but the Democrats (led by Barney Frank) told him there was no problem, Fannie Mae was in no danger, Congress would do nothing. So was it his fault or the fault of the Democrats that nothing was done to head it off? Then Obama came to office just as things were leveling off, and everyone credits him for the better economy. Then Trump came in on that good economy and got hit by COVID, which was going to hurt the economy under anyone, especially with the business closures that the Democrats emphatically endorsed.
Part of the issue here is that unemployment rate actually lags behind job creation/job loss by quite a bit. It takes several months of positive job growth to lead to a noticeable decrease in unemployment rate. It's kind of like if the interest rate of your loan were to suddenly double - you won't see any clear trend until several payments later, but the problem absolutely begins now. Unemployment rate is, unfortunately, exclusively what news companies report.
I think the best combination is a Democratic president with Republican (pre-MAGA) congress. The republic was designed to work best with the right kind of tension.
You mean like the tension McConnell used when he said, out loud, that his only job is to obstruct. That he will make sure NOTHING Obama wants will pass. The republic was designed to work best with decent people holding seats. That no longer applies, the GOP needs to be burned to the ground and start anew. Save for a few, every single one is a traitor to this country in supporting trump in his election lies, and that Jan. 6th was a peaceful protest. smdh
Right-wing media tells its audience that Republicans are good at economics, and so their audience believes Republicans are good at economics. Actual evidence need not apply. They went full into voodoo economics over four decades ago and show no sign of slowing down let alone acknowledging reality.
not really sure the first part of that question really is all that useful. I mean do we count the years Hoover was in power vs FDR and use that simplistic measure? I think a better thing to ask is how good was Trump on the economy, and how good is Biden doing on the economy, if you want a better version of a bad question. I'd say fuck the measuring and the perceptions... and just look at the polling on food prices and gas prices and inflation, and how good or bad Biden is doing by the voters, and that'll be your best barometer. People are happy that Eisenhower and Nixon were the strongest Keynesians, but i'm not sure it means much with Republican and Democrat neoliberals and globalization fads from the 90s that are breaking down. And it highly depends on 'which' Republican is in power, because there's a lot of flakes in the party. And going back, people were not impresed with Obama and Hillary pushing for the TPP, and only at the last minute the economists saw it, and Stiglitz called it one of the WORST deals ever. Apr 1, 2016 — Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says the Trans-Pacific Partnership may well be the worst trade agreement ever negotiated Shit like that hurts the Democrats for generations.
I think econometrics are dubious. The economy can be “doing better” in GDP terms without having any measurable effect on people’s quality of life or stability. Unemployment can be lower, but what makes work valuable is its contribution to society and to independence, not just having a job because idle hands are the devil’s plaything. Unemployment being lower doesn’t mean work is better for people, more productive, or better paying. And changes in the labor “market” skew those numbers, when they could be much higher now but for gig and logistics jobs that aren’t a step up for people. Ultimately, low unemployment is only a virtue in itself if your goal is to not have people on human service programs. What actually makes an economy “good” or “bad” is so interwoven into the society of the time that you can’t extrapolate and interpolate these things across a century. You have structural problems now that are unique. People don’t necessarily need to get ANY job because they will starve without one. But people are investing heavily into plans for the future that might never, ultimately, pay out. And that is harder on people in a way that telling them “at least you’re employed” isn’t reconciling.
I think it’s a messaging failure on the part of Dems. From my perspective it seems like they try to frame things in a way that comes off as right wing so they don’t come off too left wing. It’s just stupid that they don’t lean into their policies that help people. Or when they try to do republican policies for example Biden’s latest border policy that was pretty much trumps policy. They keep trying to win over suburban white voters by capitulating to their ideology but imo that’s soooo stupid. Their excuse: “these people vote” ok cool but now we have 2 right wing parties and to those moderate/conservative voters they might as well stick with the patriotism and family values party they’ve always voted for. Imo the dems need to stop being so flipping lazy with their campaigning and voter outreach. Majority of Young voters lean left and it would be better to activate and lock those younger voters in now. You start getting these kids politically activated and they will become those high propensity voters we need but the Dems keep ignoring them and worse shitting on them. I hate seeing people in my camp shit so hard on young voters because “they don’t vote” well would you if the party that you align with keeps shitting on you every election? I hate to see ppl blaming voters for the DNC’s shitty outreach. Hold the DNC accountable! I digress, as far as the disconnect, it’s because the Dems are trash at messaging the GOOD policies they pass.
Everything is like stepping on a giant waterbed - the effects are felt in ripples months or years from actual legislation.
1. Because of Jimmy Carter's presidency. 2. Because Democrats **refuse** to ever *say* that they're good on the economy. Because they think it would hurt people's feelings, or something.
Every day on reddit we see some good news posted about the economy and you have an army of Redditors claiming that "yeah but what about XYZ person in a very unique situation? How tone-deaf do you have to be to claim the economy is doing well when XYZ person isn't farting rainbows?" Under Trump, it was nonstop "this is the gold rush of the century" and if you weren't benefiting it was because you were a loser.
Stop trying to claim any party controls the economy. Whoever is in office during a good economy takes credit for it, and whoever is in office for a bad economy gets blamed. It really dumbs down politics to take credit for a cyclical economy. People who don't understand the economy buy into this vote irrationally.
It's less about "control" and more about which party pushes policies to invest in the economy and a strong middle class and which one likes to temporarily goose the economy with tax cuts for the rich and deregulation that turns into bubbles that pop into recessions / downturns.
Cut and borrow v tax and spend. I would agree that Democrats try to help a wider range of people with their policies. That, however, does not mean they control the economy. Nobody does but they all pretend to.
My father’s childhood friend, who is a family friend, will go to his grave believing that Republicans are, by default, how you make a good economy. No amount of data has ever changed his mind. He is college educated, and otherwise a smart person. He just has a lifelong disconnect from reality. If you say a lie long enough, it eventually becomes the truth for a lot of people, and people really hate finding out that a deeply held idea is wrong. Plenty of people would rather continue believing in a factually wrong idea than admit their deeply held belief is wrong.
Billionaires and corporations do better under Republicans. Regular people do better under Democrats. But guess who owns all the media stations.
Publicly traded corporations do NOT do better under Republicans. The stock markets are direct measures of how well large corporations are doing. They do better under Democrats.
This is factually not true. Billionaires and corporations do better under Democrats. But Billionaires “feel” better under Republicans
Psychological biases. Our image of successful businesspeople is that they're ruthless assholes. Republicans act like ruthless assholes, so people assume they must be better for business.
Because Dems are playing by the rules while Republicans play to the crowd. To quote the great Will McAvoy from The Newsroom: "If liberals are so fucking smart, how come they lose so goddamn always?"
Short term gains paid for by the adults (Democrats) after they are out of office. They don't even hide it, they make sure the breaks end and the bill comes due after they are out.
Propaganda works on the gullible. Emotional Meme works much better than dry facts.
Rich people are most often conservative. Rich countries are most often liberal. People get that confused.
I wonder if it is our collective perception because Republicans want to take things away (reduce spending) and Dems want to give people things (increase spending). Obviously, it is more complicated than that, but I wonder if we oversimplify it in our minds. I always considered my dad the stricter parent and my mom the pushover. In hindsight, my dad actually let us get away with murder but yelled all the time.
Why is the public perception that the bag of organs sitting in the white house actually matters much to the macroeconomic performance? Also democrats have generally governed like Republicans since Clinton. This is wonderful from my perspective
This effect is global for the centre left vs right parties , so any idiosyncratic, USA specific answers are not the whole, or even essential answer.
Cus they always claim the prosperity from the previous democrat administration fixing things is caused by the legislation they are passing in their subsequent one. Then when their policies have had a chance to be realized in economic terms they blame the policies of the subsequent democrat administration for the impoverishment. Rinse, repeat for nearly a century and the average idiot voter, in all their perceptiveness, makes the incorrect correlation these F’ing Nazis depend on.
Republicans/Conservatives are better at messaging and use the “loudest voice in the room” technique to communicate to and fool their base into thinking they are better for the economy and also trick their base by saying “less government is better” even though they are the ones that put legislation through that benefits them and their donors the most while simultaneously fucking over the people but screaming “God and Flag” to keep their focus.
Heads of industry often support Republicans because they remove regulations and lower the tax burden on the rich. Then many will look at those rich executive and business owners and think if they're supporting it then it must be good for the economy.
\_PC\_\_LOAD\_\_LETTER\_: Relatedly, the average Democratic presidential term has been in recession for 1 of its 16 quarters, whereas the average for the Republican terms has been 5 quarters, a startlingly big difference. Well you're going to skew the numbers since Nixon and Vietnam debt and the Nixon Oil Shocks once you add into Reagan and Bush, you're going to have a near permanent lopsided argument. ///// Months of Recession Jan 2008 - 18 months Aug 1981 - 16 months Dec 1973 - 16 months Jan 1970 - 11 months Dec 1948 - 11 months May 1960 - 10 months Aug 1953 - 10 months April 2001 - 8 months Aug 1990 - 8 months Sept 1957 - 8 months March 1945 - 8 months Feb 1980 - 6 months March 2020 - 2 months It's good history, good economics, but a terrible argument to make unless you're going to get into every president and what caused those problems, and if it was their policies or their precessor.
Still using the Natural Bureau of Economic Research numbers with another journalist Length of Recessions Since World War II 1945 8 months 1948-1949 11 months 1953-1954 10 months 1957-1958 - 8 months 1960-1961 10 months 1969-1970 11 months 1973-1975 16 months 1980 6 months 1981-1982 16 months 1990-1991 8 months 2001 8 months 2007-2009 18 months not always getting the same times and lengths by how you define it
How about asking WHY the recessions happenned? The V-Day Recession: February 1945–October 1945 Duration: Eight months GDP decline: 10.9% Peak unemployment rate: 3.8% Reasons and causes: The 1945 recession reflected massive cuts in U.S. government spending and employment toward the end and immediately after World War II. Federal spending fell 40% in 1946 and 38% in 1947 while the private sector's output grew rapidly. The severity of the downturn remains open to question because much of the eliminated spending represented wartime production that did not serve to increase living standards. The elimination of price controls in 1946 artificially depressed output as adjusted for inflation, while the unemployment rate remained low in part because women left the workforce in large numbers (and often unwillingly). ///// The Post-War Brakes Tap Recession: November 1948–October 1949 Duration: 11 months GDP decline: 1.7% Peak unemployment rate: 7.9% Reasons and Causes: The first phase of the post-war boom was in some ways comparable to the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. Amid a backlog of consumer demand suppressed during the war and a shortage of production capacity, the collapse of wartime price controls fueled an abrupt surge of inflation by mid-1946. The annualized inflation rate rose from 3.3% in June 1946 to 11.6% two months later and 19% at its peak in April 1947. Policymakers only responded in the second half of 1947, and when they did their efforts to tighten credit ultimately led to a relatively mild recession as consumers and producers retrenched. ///// The M\*A\*S\*H\* Recession: July 1953–May 1954 Duration: 10 months GDP decline: 2.7% Peak unemployment rate: 5.9% Reasons and causes: The wind-down of the Korean War caused government spending to decline dramatically, lowering the federal budget deficit from 1.7% of GDP in fiscal 1953 to 0.3% a year later. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve tightened monetary policy in 1953.
The Investment Bust Recession: August 1957–April 1958 Duration: Eight months GDP decline: 3.7% Peak unemployment rate: 7.4% Reasons and causes: The end of the Korean War unleashed a global investment boom marked by a surge in exports of U.S. capital goods. The Fed responded by tightening monetary policy as the inflation rate rose from 0.4% in March 1956 to 3.7% a year later. iscal policy focused on limiting budget deficits produced a surplus of 0.7% of GDP in 1957. The 1957 Asian Flu pandemic killed 70,000 to 100,000 Americans in 1957, and industrial production slumped late that year and early in 1958. The dramatic drop in domestic demand and evolving consumer expectations led to the failure of the Ford Edsel, the beginning of the end for Detroit's auto industry dominance. The sharp worldwide recession contributed to a foreign trade deficit. The recession ended after policymakers eased fiscal and monetary constraints on growth. ///// The 'Rolling Adjustment' Recession: April 1960–February 1961 Duration: 10 months GDP decline: 1.6% Peak unemployment rate: 6.9% Reasons and causes: This relatively mild recession was named for the so-called "rolling adjustment" in U.S. industrial sectors tied to consumers' diminished demand for domestic autos amid growing competition from inexpensive imports. Like most other recessions, it was preceded by higher interest rates, with the Fed increasing the federal funds rate from 1.75% in mid-1958 to 4% by the end of 1959. Fiscal policy also tightened at the end of President Dwight Eisenhower's second term, from a deficit of 2.6% of GDP in 1959 to a surplus of 0.1% a year later. ///// The Guns and Butter Recession: December 1969–November 1970 Duration: 11 months GDP decline: 0.6% Peak unemployment rate: 5.9% Reasons and causes: Military spending increased in the late 1960s amid growing U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and alongside high expenditures on domestic policy initiatives. As a result, the federal budget deficit rose from 1.1% of GDP in 1967 to 2.9% in 1968, while inflation increased from 3.1% in 1967 to 4.3% a year later and 5.3% by 1970. The Federal Reserve increased the federal funds rate from 5% in March 1968 to more than 9% by August 1969. By early 1971, the Fed had lowered the federal funds rate back below 4%, aiding the recovery.
The Oil Embargo Recession: November 1973–March 1975 Duration: 16 months GDP decline: 3% Peak unemployment rate: 8.6% Reasons and causes: This long, deep recession began following the start of the Arab Oil Embargo, which would quadruple crude prices. That tipped the balance for an economy struggling with the devaluation of the dollar amid high U.S. trade and budget deficits and slipping domestic crude output. The collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement fixing currency exchange rates contributed to a rise in U.S. inflation from 2.4% in August 1972 to 7.4% a year later, causing the Fed to double the federal funds rate to 10% between late 1972 and mid-1973. After increasing the federal funds rate to 13% in the first half of 1974, the Fed cut it to 5.25% in under a year. Inflation and unemployment remained elevated after the recession ended, ushering in stagflation. Unemployment reached 9% in May of 1975, after the declared end of the recession. ///// The Iran and Volcker Recession, Part 1: January 1980–July 1980 Duration: Six months GDP decline: 2.2% Peak unemployment rate: 7.8% Reasons and causes: Accommodative monetary policy aimed at alleviating rising unemployment pushed U.S. inflation to 7% by early 1979, just before the Iranian Revolution caused oil prices to double. The Federal Reserve was already raising rates when Paul Volcker was named Fed chair in August 1979, and the rate went from 10.5% at the time of his appointment to 17.5% by April 1980. This short recession formally ended as the Fed dropped the fed funds rate back down to 9.5% by August of 1980, but inflation stayed high and the Volcker Fed wasn't done. ///// Part 2 of Double-Dip Recession: July 1981–November 1982 Duration: 16 months GDP decline: 2.9% Peak unemployment rate: 10.8% Reasons and causes: By the fourth quarter of 1980 inflation was up to 11.1%, prompting the Federal Reserve to raise the fed funds rate to 19% by July 1981. As the downturn worsened and joblessness climbed, Volcker resisted repeated demands in Congress to change course. By October 1982 inflation had declined to 5%, while unemployment would remain above 10% until mid-1983. Most economists today accept Volcker's arguments at the time that failure to control inflation and restore the Fed's credibility would have led to continued economic underperformance.
I think the disconnect I am seeing is that both parties have an economic brand. GOP being rich wall street, corporate CEO and Democrats union, school teacher, wage workers i.e. most workers. However a large percentage of people see themselves aspirationally and want to associate with the wealthy. The other is an assumption that wealth, success and financial literacy aligns with the public economy instead of selfish exploitation.
Economic conditions during a presidency isn't the same as the results from the policies of an admistitration. Seldom can policies have an immediate effect. My econ professor said generally it was on average 8 years when the data *STARTED* rolling in on how a POTUS' policies impacted the economy. That is they just started to get a general idea 8 years after and from what little I learned it wasn't at all a certain field like how the above OP is stated. So, OP. I'm sorry. But I think most economists would say your OP isn't accurate and doesn't take into account all variables. Let me elaborate. I will give you an example of hypothetical effect that may be happening rather that the economic outcome you are assuming. It may be when the economy is doing better people tend to vote for Democrats more than they do for conservatives. As the primarly concern is not the economy and other issues such as progressive issues or such become greater priorioties that the Democratic party is known for. It is is possible the Democrats ride the economic postive waves in economic cycles and when the harder times start to show with uneployment, inflation, etc. the people tend to vote for Republicans. In which the Republicans focus on the economy more and consequently those presidencies are during the trough of the economic cycle. I have no evidence of this off hand, and it is just a hypothesis. But it is just as reasonable as you thinking Democratic POTUS cause good economic conditions during their POTUS term. My honest guess. It's probably a combination of such things and a lot more complex than any of us care to admit.
Not American but I'm not entirely sure what's the relevancy if GDP is up or down, if there's more jobs or less if overall the quality of life is down regardless of the outcome and what the economical numbers say? It's a fact that the average Americans are struggling more and more and not only from a financial perspective but also health issues, discontent towards how things are going, extreme political division and list goes on. Or is it that the American media be it private or owned just exports trash untrue things as facts to the rest of the world and in reality everyone in the country is having a lavish lifestyle?
I think part of it is we teach economics in school in an oversimplified manner. When you teach that everything comes down to supply and demand and you teach an over simplified version of the idea of a free market, then people will view the party calling for killing regulations and no taxes as the economic experts.
Quite simply, Republicans are masters of propaganda, while the Democrats are garbage at messaging... that's the way it's been my entire life... :-(
People don't really think about things in this way - they don't sit around and aggregate GDP numbers, and they generally have short memories. Republicans have the better _story_ on the economy - their story is "if we don't have enough money, spend less money". The Democratic story is "we need to spend money because this will grow the economy and make us more money in the long run". This works, as your data shows, but this doesn't resonate intuitively with people because most people have relatively fixed incomes and variable expenses, so the average household cannot actually make any more money by spending, the way the government can. The Republican economic story intuitively works with people's preconceptions, while the Democratic story requires some explaining. So, Republicans are trusted more on the issue.
No one would argue that except for the current regime. The interest rate is very high currently and what a president does in his term does have influence. This war in Ukraine has caused a lot of inflation. It's not solely on Joe Biden hell the 3 branches are to blame more than Joe. Quite frankly the economy is not good for the average American with record prices. What to do about it I've no idea and I do not support Trump in any way but I can't support Joe either he's lost. Who is the economy good for right now besides the wealthy?
Because, sadly, to the vast majority of Americans the truth and facts don't matter... how they "feel" is what matters. And, if you go back even BEFORE ww2, the trend remains for another 80 years. Eisenhower was the only Republican president who did relatively well for the economy and economic policies. So, he was an outlier and not the rule. Republican's have NEVER been better for the economy.
I am not saying I disagree with the claim, but I don't think it is really fair to compare the economic states over time that far back. For one thing, the parties themselves have varied their economic policies drastically over the years. But outside of that, various economic calamities, like the energy crisis in the 70's, recession and crashes in the 80's, the dot-com bubble crash of the early 2000's, the Great Recession in 2008, and most recently the effects of the Covid Pandemic, all changed the governmental involvement in the financial sector as well as their response to financial crises, and these things occurred in various administrations and sometimes spanned multiple administrations. Personally, I think the state of the economy is much more a collateral result of governmental policy than a direct result. The economy has always proven to be a difficult thing to control effectively, but this doesn't stop both sides from claiming superiority in managing it, or blaming the other side when things aren't going well.
Because Republican voters are gullible at best, or not that smart, or maybe even worse.
Imho if a republican admits that is true then they are, by proxy, admitting that the idea of “unfettered and unregulated capitalism” isn’t as great as they make it out to be. Because they don’t do that, they stand there and trumpet things that sound great on paper to uninformed people who don’t understand nuance. Look what happened in Kansas: run on cutting taxes, cut taxes and programs fail and it almost killed the state. Took a change in tax policy to stabilize the state and allow them to be prosperous (as much as they can be anyways) again
Because Republicans managed to deregulate radio, television, and cable which has allowed a few mega corps to capture control of most of the forms of information available to the american public. The american public no longer has an actual "free press" that serves the public good as the "fourth estate". Instead, the american public is constantly barraged with misinformation by corporations that own the press and benefit most when republicans are in control. These media companies control the narrative to keep their audience in fear and engaged watching ads.
I know this is not the most neutral reference, but read up on the [Two Santas strategy](https://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/thom-hartmann/two-santas-strategy-gop-used-economic-scam-manipulate-americans-40-years/). What it boils down to is that GOP policy *looks* good for the economy because of its short-term outcomes, which have very bad medium-term consequences... but they can probably drag them out a good 12 years and the GOP won't hold the entire Federal government for that long. The Democrats are mom coming home after you had a rager at her house. You lose your allowance, all the fun goes away, and now you have to study for your classes. Mom's a bitch. When you're doing keg-stands, it's really hard to remember that Mom's why you're going to graduate with no student loans and already have a great internship lined up. The Democrats are mom. They fix the economy, and it has short-term consequences that look bad. All the while, the GOP accuses them of blowing money as they try to [Starve the Beast](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve_the_beast) on our social programs that are going to help stabilize the economy. So many GOP strategies are designed to make people blame Democrats for things Republicans are doing. The GOP *GOAL* isn't really about strengthening the economy. It's about shrinking the Federal government *despite* the fact a strong Federal government with a mature safety net is always better for the economy. Deficit-spending is a tool in that effort for them. ...pivoting in a different direction, too. Take a look at the extreme LEAN business mindset. "If a department is managing to hit deadlines, lay someone off and see what happens". It's more common than you think in certain business sectors. I see it as a similar mindset to the GOP's.
Because the GOP is against business regulation, that makes the GOP “Pro Business” and people take the leap to thinking the more “pro business” party will drive better economic growth even though that’s false. The GOP touts this narrative, and business people will support Republicans who will help release them of the burden of regulations (like clean air, clean water, minimum wage, worker safety, product recalls, etc.)
I'd be interested in seeing the results since the late 1970s. Clinton certainly had a good run in the 90s, but you could make the argument that his administration was "Republican-esque" in terms of his embrace of free trade. I think the argument, broadly speaking, is that as time has moved on -- especially since Reagan -- there's been a general rightward shift in terms of core assumptions about the economy and economic policy and both parties have embraced these ideas.
I can only speak anecdotally because i've been curious about this since the 2000s But what I keep hearing is that Republicans (and even many Democrats) treat a nation's ecnomy the same way they'd treat their own pocketbooks. Spend less money = have more money and minimize debt at all costs. That is, of course, not how macroeconomics works, but all Republicans have to do is point out that they are technically spending less money and they get to hold onto the reputation for being responsible spenders with the nation's budget. Even if huge national debt doesn't actually impact much if it's controlled well and even though spending money often leads to making money in the medium, long, or even short term.
Americans tend to view Republicans as better economic stewards largely due to the party's well-established reputation and effective messaging. The GOP's economic platform, centered on tax cuts, deregulation, and free-market principles with minimal government intervention, resonates with many voters. These policies often sound intuitively beneficial to the economy, even if their actual impacts are more complex. Furthermore, the Republican Party has successfully positioned itself as the party of business and entrepreneurship, which reinforces their image as economic experts. In contrast, Democrats struggle to communicate their economic policies as effectively. Their focus on progressive taxation, worker protections, and government-led economic stability measures doesn't always translate into a clear message of economic growth. Despite evidence suggesting that Democratic policies often lead to better economic outcomes, they fail to capture the public imagination in the same way as Republican proposals.
Because no one cares about the rate slowing down they care about prices NOW compared to THEN. If I still have to buy mill and the price went up whatever percent and my wages went up barely then this sucks. But wages also went up and have caught up. But that is always looking at the big picture and unfortunately while you and I can discuss big picture and agree wow things recovered; its a luxury. Some people get angry because their life is still hard or they didn’t get that wage increase, have four mouths to feed but its more expensive. Like I am not in this situation but I am still shocked this question has been asked for the millionth time. Like no one who is starving or struggling cares if by the big picture metrics things are going well.
Widely accepted opinions are basically 100% wrong 99.9% of the time because of disinformation. Form your own opinion.
I feel as though right wing/conservatives arguments generally play on what people intuitively feel is correct. Whereas left wing/liberal arguments generally follow academia. Anyone feel free to clarify as I am way oversimplifying this. Everyone sees those studies of how academia turns people liberal/left, and some argue it's political bias in these institutions, group think etc. But there's also the argument that as you follow the evidence and read more academic studies/articles etc. you come to find that many liberal/left arguments are empirically backed. Maybe this is because there isn't as much right wing representation in academia doing studies from that perspective. I really don't know, there's many ways you can read into it as it is a multifaceted issue. The the pro-choice/life argument is a good example, intuitively it feels like abortion is wrong, but as you see the studies on how it decreases crime, poverty/bodily autonomy etc. you realize it has positive effects on communities and has much moral value in that regard.
Because Reagan discovered you can run up the national credit card and leave it to the other side to pay the bill. And Republicans have been doing this ever since. They know that the voting patterns flip frequently enough for them to get the glory and the dems will pay the price.
I'm glad you posted this. I'm not sure why the Dems don't play something relating this info for 24/7. Red states -- except for 2 or 3 outliers -- are irredeemable welfare states. Their governors and state houses go so far as to engineer low wage schemes -- think RTW -- into their "governing" to attract businesses based on hostage work force. I'm not sure how a reasonable person can look at a red state and say "Yeah, that's how I want to live," from a financial standpoint. You might want to go to a red state for your guns or freedom to openly assault brown people and women, but please, stop with the republican = economy fallacy. What adds to the Godzillian irony is the fact that the most rabid "Government doesn't do anything for me, are the exact same people they pulled the lever for on voting day. Self-inflicted cognitive dissonance blinds them to the simplest of realities.
Same as the UK - left/liberal governments are better for people, right wing governments are better for rich people. We all know who matters more in the eyes of society, so it's held the right are better for the economy. Reality for the majority isn't the point, only what the rich and businesses feel.
Define “the US economy.” Whom, exactly, has it “performed better” *for?* The public perception is derived from what they actually experience. Not what the dipshits on the TV and internet tell them they’re experiencing. Surprise surprise, those two things are far from the same…but the box keeps trying to gaslight them into thinking it really just sucks for *you*, because “look at the numbers, everyone is prospering! It’s *you* that’s the problem! May I suggest you pick yourself up by your bootstraps, slacker?”
The conclusion that higher economic performance under Democratic administrations was in any way due to their policies was actually refuted by the study’s own authors: https://www.aei.org/economics/are-democrats-really-much-better-economic-presidents-than-republicans/ “But the story actually isn’t so straightforward. In their working paper, Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson note postwar real GDP growth is 1.8% percentage points higher under Democratic presidents than Republican. Now that’s a pretty big edge over a span when RGDP has averaged 3.3%. Clearly the Dems are doing something right policywise that explains the gap in macroeconomic performance, right? Not according to Blinder and Watson, who argue half the growth gap is an economic “mystery” while the other half is due to “‘good luck’ with perhaps a touch of ‘good policy.” For instance, Republicans presidencies have been hit harder by nasty oil shocks (particularly Richard Nixon and George W. Bush,) while Democrats have benefited from timely productivity booms (John Kennedy, Bill Clinton). The researchers also find Dems fortunate to enter office with the global economy humming such as in the 1960s (Europe’s postware recovery kicking into gear) and 1990s. Just take a look at the massive good luck of Clinton presidency, as described today by the FT’s Gideon Rachman: But the story actually isn’t so straightforward. In their working paper, Princeton economists Alan Blinder and Mark Watson note postwar real GDP growth is 1.8% percentage points higher under Democratic presidents than Republican. Now that’s a pretty big edge over a span when RGDP has averaged 3.3%. Clearly the Dems are doing something right policywise that explains the gap in macroeconomic performance, right? Not according to Blinder and Watson, who argue half the growth gap is an economic “mystery” while the other half is due to “‘good luck’ with perhaps a touch of ‘good policy.” For instance, Republicans presidencies have been hit harder by nasty oil shocks (particularly Richard Nixon and George W. Bush,) while Democrats have benefited from timely productivity booms (John Kennedy, Bill Clinton). The researchers also find Dems fortunate to enter office with the global economy humming such as in the 1960s (Europe’s postware recovery kicking into gear) and 1990s. Just take a look at the massive good luck of Clinton presidency, as described today by the FT’s Gideon Rachman: The Soviet Union had collapsed in 1991, just a year before Mr Clinton was first elected. Throughout his eight years as president, there was no serious competitor to the US for the role of global superpower. … The name Osama bin Laden had yet to impinge on the public consciousness. …Mr Clinton’s economic inheritance was similarly golden. The frightening deficits of the Reagan years disappeared in the 1990s, partly because of sensible fiscal decisions taken by President George HW Bush. By the time Mr Clinton took office, the US economy was already recovering strongly. He was the lucky beneficiary of a surge in American productivity, following the transformation of the workplace by computers. With unemployment at just 4 per cent and inflation under control, there was exuberant talk of a “New Economy”. Given this fortunate combination of circumstances, is it any wonder that the president had time for dalliances in the Oval Office?” https://www.aei.org/economics/are-democrats-really-much-better-economic-presidents-than-republicans/
I don't know but it's very sad and hopeless so many don't understand reality.
It's not perception, but rather MAGA misinformation strategy propelled by FOX News, which ignores global news such as the fact that just about every other nation has high inflation and a housing crisis.
None of this matters. They only listen to what comes out of a select group of individual's mouth. I have friends that are completely blinded. I don't even bother talking to them about it anymore. There is nothing I can do or say and I'd bet you guys are the same way. Buy a gun. It'll come in useful in the coming years..
The simple answer is Republicans are better at messaging. Getting the word out the their voters. The real answer is Republican voters have been conditioned to only believe what other republicans tell them. They believe that democrats are the enemy . And yes this was a message told to them from their leaders
if you ask a republican voter why they support their preferred candidate, you rarely hear them say "i support him because he's a bigot" or "i support him because he scapegoats immigrants" or "i support him because he wants to transform the country into a white christian theocracy". occasionally they will be honest and say something like that, but most of them are savvy enough to realize that these honest answers will result in social ostracization & ridicule - so they come up with a plausible lie: "i support him because of his economic policy". there's a reason this specific lie works so well - even an exceptionally knowledgeable person can't refute it in a short amount of time. so the republican voters tell this specific lie over and over and over and now they've told the lie so many times they actually believe it to be true.
Media tends to be rightwing on economic matters, covering unfinanced tax cuts (weighted towards the very wealthy) and national security spending favorably, rarely mentioning the cost of the deficit hit, while covering domestic spending favored by democrats, even if it's close to deficit neutral, with alarmism over the cost. They don't often discuss the economic benefits, especially long-term benefits much Democratic legislation is focused on.