2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread-Part 10.

[Utoo]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

Can I make a formal request that Diamond stop posting

Couldn't resist.

[U2Fanatic4ever]

^


i second that.

i think he posts in huge letters cuz he's old fart who can't see for shit..

[yolland]

^ That was unnecessary.

While I would hardly say diamond posts "all" his articles in that format, I agree that posting articles in giant font sizes is too obnoxious to let continue. It doesn't help when multiple people then proceed to quote the entire post, though, either.

[diamond]

ok, i will stop w the bill board posting, except to accenuate a word or phrase here and there on rare occassions.



fair enough?

<>

[yolland]

Yup.

[phillyfan26]

Yeah, I didn't mean all the articles, just the few he's posted in the past two or three days.

Thanks.

[diamond]

Forgive me.

It's not always easy being one of the token conservatives here.

<>

[ImOuttaControl]

Originally Posted by cydewaze

For being meaningless, it sure is consistent.

You'd think that if it were coincidence, the numbers would be all over the place, rather than the consistent stats shown.

Btw, you can bet that if those numbers were reversed, the repubs would be rubbing our noses in that graphic morning, noon, and night.

Maybe, but then Democrats would just point fingers and say "we fix their mistakes, then they get elected and take credit!"

There are so many things wrong with a graphic like that...Economic policies of the parties have changed in the last 79 years, historical events such as the Vietnam War, WWII, energy costs, the internet bubble are not taken into account, and as I've pointed out, the negative return according the that graphic for GWB can just as easily be attributed to Reagen, GHWB, or Clinton because they all had policies as well as GWB that led to the "perfect storm" we've been seeing on Wall Street.

My point is that no presidency or economy occurs in a bubble. It doesn't just restart every time a new president is elected--events that are happening now are a result of many previous administrations, just like they did for Nixon, or Kennedy or anybody on that list.

[Utoo]

^ I think you just deflated all of STING's GWBush GDP posts.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by yolland

It doesn't help when multiple people then proceed to quote the entire post, though, either.

Thank you! It's one of my biggest internet pet peeves.

Once you hit "quote," you can go into the quote and chop out the extra stuff you don't need. Or if you just want to make a general comment, just snip everything after the first sentence or two.

[phillyfan26]

Is there anyone out there wondering about the potential Bradley Effect in this election?

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

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

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by Utoo

^ 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!

[toscano]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

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

[Strongbow]

Originally Posted by toscano

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.

[A_Wanderer]

I just got the video

YouTube - Batman vs. The Penguin: The Debate

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by phillyfan26

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.

[toscano]

Originally Posted by Strongbow

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.

[yolland]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

I just got the video

I remember that episode...

[VintagePunk]

Originally Posted by A_Wanderer

I just got the video

He even uses a "my friends" in there.