2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10. - Page 43 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-16-2008, 06:56 PM   #631
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Is there anyone out there wondering about the potential Bradley Effect in this election?
__________________

__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:00 PM   #632
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Is there anyone out there wondering about the potential Bradley Effect in this election?
I've read a couple of good articles about it on the fivethirtyeight.com, and they essentially say that the Bradley Effect has been discounted. It also says that statistically, there was a reverse-Bradley Effect taking place in some of the primary states.

Here's a link to entries that talk about it: FiveThirtyEight.com: Electoral Projections Done Right: bradley effect
__________________

__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:22 PM   #633
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utoo View Post
^ I think you just deflated all of STING's GWBush GDP posts.
Those post were simply economic facts from the years they were in office. You can argue all you want about what produced a certain unemployment level, or poverty level during a given administration or a given year, but thats what the average American was dealing with in that year or administration regardless if you think the current President was responsible for that, or some President from decades earlier.

More importantly, numbers on unemployment, GDP growth, Debt as a percentage of GDP, inflation rate, and the poverty rate are the statistics that are usually used determine how well the economy is doing or if the economy is in a recession or a depression. The Stockmarket can impact these statistics, but is not generally used to determine the true economic performance of the country.


Here are the Bush years VS. The Clinton years on the important economic statistics of average annual GDP growth per year, debt as a percentage of GDP per year, inflation rate per year, poverty rate per year, and the unemployment rate per year:

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%




Average GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years 5.4%

Bush Years 4.8%





Average Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years 13.3%

Bush Years 12.3%





Average Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years 2.60%

Bush Years 2.69%





Average Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years 5.21%

Bush Years 5.20%







The average annual poverty rate under W. is the 3rd lowest of any Presidential administration in US history!
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:25 PM   #634
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Those post were simply economic facts from the years they were in office. You can argue all you want about what produced a certain unemployment level, or poverty level during a given administration or a given year, but thats what the average American was dealing with in that year or administration regardless if you think the current President was responsible for that, or some President from decades earlier.

More importantly, numbers on unemployment, GDP growth, Debt as a percentage of GDP, inflation rate, and the poverty rate are the statistics that are usually used determine how well the economy is doing or if the economy is in a recession or a depression. The Stockmarket can impact these statistics, but is not generally used to determine the true economic performance of the country.


Here are the Bush years VS. The Clinton years on the important economic statistics of average annual GDP growth per year, debt as a percentage of GDP per year, inflation rate per year, poverty rate per year, and the unemployment rate per year:

The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 61.9%




Average GDP growth rate:

Clinton Years 5.4%

Bush Years 4.8%





Average Annual Poverty Rate:

Clinton Years 13.3%

Bush Years 12.3%





Average Annual Inflation Rate:

Clinton Years 2.60%

Bush Years 2.69%





Average Annual Unemployment Rate:

Clinton Years 5.21%

Bush Years 5.20%







The average annual poverty rate under W. is the 3rd lowest of any Presidential administration in US history!

Rather than averages which can be terribly misleading, I'd like to see the numbers shown:

What Clinton inherited
What Clinton left/Bush inherited
Where are we now

May be more meaningful
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:30 PM   #635
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toscano View Post
Rather than averages which can be terribly misleading, I'd like to see the numbers shown:

What Clinton inherited
What Clinton left/Bush inherited
Where are we now

May be more meaningful
Thats just two points in time 8 years apart. It tells you next to nothing about what on average it was like to live in the United States during those 8 years. The numbers can go up and down do to various crises's and economic booms in just one year.

If your going to accurately look at the economic performance of any President or the condition of the economy while they were President, you have to look at the ENTIRE time they were in office, not just the month they came in and the month they left.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:31 PM   #636
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:37 PM
I just got the video

YouTube - Batman vs. The Penguin: The Debate

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:38 PM   #637
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,494
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
Is there anyone out there wondering about the potential Bradley Effect in this election?

i think Obama is going to underperform in Appalachia -- so i'm not convinced that he'll necessarily win OH, and i don't think he'll get WV, and i think PA will be closer than we think.

but i think he may overperform in VA, NC, and GA.

and i think he's actually got FL in the bag -- Charlie Crist has pretty much told McCain to fuck off.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:38 PM   #638
Refugee
 
toscano's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,032
Local Time: 05:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Thats just two points in time 8 years apart. It tells you next to nothing about what on average it was like to live in the United States during those 8 years. The numbers can go up and down do to various crises's and economic booms in just one year.

If your going to accurately look at the economic performance of any President or the condition of the economy while they were President, you have to look at the ENTIRE time they were in office, not just the month they came in and the month they left.
An average doesn't tell me squat, for example if Bush inerited say a 30% debt to GDP ratio and it's in the 90's when he leaves, that could be an average of 60-ish making it seem similar to what Clinton had, but the reality would be that he let it go to hell in a handbasket.

As you correctly point out, there are "other factors" at play in all of this, which kinda makes the task of showing performance just based on these metrics almost impossible, whether using averages or the way I mentioned.

Maybe show a graph of the trend on a monthly basis with extenuating factors/majorly stupid decisions highlighted (9/11, invasion of Iraq, Asian Currency crisis of the mid-90's, etc) in the timeline.
__________________
toscano is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:39 PM   #639
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post


I remember that episode...
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 07:49 PM   #640
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 07:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
He even uses a "my friends" in there.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 10-16-2008, 11:47 PM   #641
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by toscano View Post
An average doesn't tell me squat, for example if Bush inerited say a 30% debt to GDP ratio and it's in the 90's when he leaves, that could be an average of 60-ish making it seem similar to what Clinton had, but the reality would be that he let it go to hell in a handbasket.

As you correctly point out, there are "other factors" at play in all of this, which kinda makes the task of showing performance just based on these metrics almost impossible, whether using averages or the way I mentioned.

Maybe show a graph of the trend on a monthly basis with extenuating factors/majorly stupid decisions highlighted (9/11, invasion of Iraq, Asian Currency crisis of the mid-90's, etc) in the timeline.
1. Unemployment Rate - If you just take the first month unemployment rate of an 8 year administration and the last month unemployment rate of an 8 year administration, your not going to know SQUAT about what the job market was really like for most of the 8 years of that particular Presidential administration. By just taking the first month and the last month, you can hide multiple recessions or multiple economic booms that would have major impacts on the unemployment rate and job climate. If you really want to know what the unemployment rate or job market was like THROUGH OUT the entire 8 years of a particular administration, you have to look at all the data and take the average.

2. Inflation rate - Again, if you just take the first month of an 8 year administration and take the last month of an 8 year administration, its going to tell you VERY little about the difficulties people experienced from rising prices if there were some years with very high inflation. You could potentially hide the worst inflation rates from the late 1970s within an 8 years period.If Carter had won re-election in 1980 and then you took the inflation rate from the first month in 1977 and compared it to the last month in 1984, you would have NO clue that the country suffered its worst inflation crises during that period of time!


3. GDP Growth Rate - Again, this can go up and down over the course of 8 years. If you were just to take the first month of an 8 year administration and the last month of an 8 year administrations GDP growth rate, your missing several years of info that could involve economic booms or multiple economic recessions.

4. Poverty Rate - Like the 3 above, just taking the first month and the last month of an administration tells you nothing about the hardship many people experienced in the 7 years and 10 months in between those time periods. In order to know what it was like the whole 8 years, you must take the average.

5. National Debt as a Percentage of GDP - While its true that because debt can build up over time, this can be one area where it might make sense to compare the starting point with the end point, but again, the starting point and end points could be influenced by dramatic events at that particular time. To get a real feel for this area's impact on the country and the administrations performance in this area, you need to look at all the years and take the average.

But since you asked for the individual years for the national debt as a percentage of GDP, here they are:

National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years:

1993 66.2%
1994 66.7%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.5%
1999 61.4%
2000 57.8%

Bush Years:

2001 57.4%
2002 59.7%
2003 62.4%
2004 63.7%
2005 63.8%
2006 64.5%
2007 65.2%


The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 62.4%


The 2008 figures are not in yet. Even when we go into the individual years, we discover that Bush's highest year so far in 2007 of 65.2% is still lower than Clintons first 5 years in office. National Debt as a percentage of GDP went up every year of Clintons first term despite the fact that the country was at peace, there were major cuts in defense spending, and gas prices were relatively low compared to where they are today. Gas prices dropped to their lowest level in history in 1999 in the 2nd to the last year of the Clinton administration helping to fuel the economic boom in the United States which in turn helped to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP.

By contrast, Bush experienced a recession and 9/11 in his first year in office. The country has then been engaged in two of the longest wars in its history, plus having to deal with rising global oil prices, some of the highest in history. Despite all that on Bush's plate, most of his years in office have involved a national debt as a percentage of GDP that was lower than the Clinton years.

Nearly all extended wars in the USA's history have led to an increase of national debt as a percentage of GDP. In 1940, national debt as a percentage of GDP was just 42.4%. By 1946, it was 122% of GDP.
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 10-17-2008, 04:40 AM   #642
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 01:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
5. National Debt as a Percentage of GDP - While its true that because debt can build up over time, this can be one area where it might make sense to compare the starting point with the end point, but again, the starting point and end points could be influenced by dramatic events at that particular time. To get a real feel for this area's impact on the country and the administrations performance in this area, you need to look at all the years and take the average.

But since you asked for the individual years for the national debt as a percentage of GDP, here they are:

National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years:

1993 66.2%
1994 66.7%
1995 67.2%
1996 67.3%
1997 65.6%
1998 63.5%
1999 61.4%
2000 57.8%

Bush Years:

2001 57.4%
2002 59.7%
2003 62.4%
2004 63.7%
2005 63.8%
2006 64.5%
2007 65.2%


The Average National Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP:

Clinton Years 64.5%

Bush Years 62.4%


The 2008 figures are not in yet. Even when we go into the individual years, we discover that Bush's highest year so far in 2007 of 65.2% is still lower than Clintons first 5 years in office. National Debt as a percentage of GDP went up every year of Clintons first term despite the fact that the country was at peace, there were major cuts in defense spending, and gas prices were relatively low compared to where they are today. Gas prices dropped to their lowest level in history in 1999 in the 2nd to the last year of the Clinton administration helping to fuel the economic boom in the United States which in turn helped to reduce debt as a percentage of GDP.

By contrast, Bush experienced a recession and 9/11 in his first year in office. The country has then been engaged in two of the longest wars in its history, plus having to deal with rising global oil prices, some of the highest in history. Despite all that on Bush's plate, most of his years in office have involved a national debt as a percentage of GDP that was lower than the Clinton years.

Nearly all extended wars in the USA's history have led to an increase of national debt as a percentage of GDP. In 1940, national debt as a percentage of GDP was just 42.4%. By 1946, it was 122% of GDP.
These figures are more interesting. But rather than saying that the average is so important, I place more value on the trend of the debt curve. Yes, Clinton had a higher average debt of GDP %, but he started with a higher debt than Bush ever had and he managed to bring it down. In fact, he managed to bring it down with 8.4 %points during his presidency (comparing the beginning to the end).
Under the Bush presidency, however, the trend of the curve reversed, going up. In fact, the debt went up every year. In those 8 years, Bush managed to undo all the debt reduction that Clinton had achieved. So Bush might have a lower average, but the curve is now going in the opposite direction.
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-17-2008, 05:46 AM   #643
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 06:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
These figures are more interesting. But rather than saying that the average is so important, I place more value on the trend of the debt curve. Yes, Clinton had a higher average debt of GDP %, but he started with a higher debt than Bush ever had and he managed to bring it down. In fact, he managed to bring it down with 8.4 %points during his presidency (comparing the beginning to the end).
Under the Bush presidency, however, the trend of the curve reversed, going up. In fact, the debt went up every year. In those 8 years, Bush managed to undo all the debt reduction that Clinton had achieved. So Bush might have a lower average, but the curve is now going in the opposite direction.
Although I admire both of your knowledge's (is that even a word?) on the subject I feel that I have to intervine and suggest that you both may be on the wrong track here... you keep thowing numbers back and forth instead of comparing "era's" ...there is no doubt in my mind that the Clinton "era" was much better than the Bush "era"... these numbers are too close to constitute a real argument. Again, look at the "era's" in question, the Clinton years were generally better than the Bush years were they not??? And this coming from a not-so-rabid fan of Billary!!!!!!!
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 10-17-2008, 08:08 AM   #644
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 08:37 AM
What did I do??!?!?
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 10-17-2008, 12:50 PM   #645
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
These figures are more interesting. But rather than saying that the average is so important, I place more value on the trend of the debt curve. Yes, Clinton had a higher average debt of GDP %, but he started with a higher debt than Bush ever had and he managed to bring it down. In fact, he managed to bring it down with 8.4 %points during his presidency (comparing the beginning to the end).
Under the Bush presidency, however, the trend of the curve reversed, going up. In fact, the debt went up every year. In those 8 years, Bush managed to undo all the debt reduction that Clinton had achieved. So Bush might have a lower average, but the curve is now going in the opposite direction.
1. The national debt as a percentage of GDP went up every year during Clinton's first term in office.

2. The national debt as a percentage of GDP in 1996 was the highest it had ever been since the 1960s. The national debt as a percentage of GDP was has not been that high in any year under Bush.

3. The issue of debt is the only area where you could argue that looking at the starting point and the end point or the trend might be important. If you want to know what it was like during the each era in terms of unemployment, poverty, inflation, GDP growth, you have to take the average of all the months and years. Just taking the first month and the last month for these economic statistics will tell you very little.

4. During the Clinton Presidency, the country was not involved in any extended wars. The biggest cuts in defense spending took place during this time with the Cold War over and the Soviet Union gone. These are events that Clinton had very little or nothing to do with that allowed for there to finally be a reduction in national debt as a percentage of GDP in his last 4 years in office. A good portion of the economic boom in his last 4 years in office was fueled by the lowest gas prices worldwide in history.

5. By contrast, the Bush administration had to deal with a recession and the 9/11 terrorist attacks in its first year in office. Then there was two of the longest wars in US history to deal with, plus global oil prices rising to their highest level in history. There were multiple crises and issues that Bush had to deal with while in office that Clinton did not. These crises and issues required greater spending. In terms of economic growth, Bush did not have the low oil prices of the late 1990s to help out like Clinton did. In fact, he had the reverse to deal with. Yet, Bush still has the lower average debt as a percentage of GDP than Clinton which is impressive given all that he has had to deal with in his administration.

6. Look at the unemployment, inflation, poverty rate, and GDP growth figures. They are either roughly equal to Clintons average or better.
__________________

__________________
Strongbow is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com