The economy favors a Democratic win in November

[DCBob]

Angry voters are riled up about stagnant incomes, lost jobs and do-nothing politicians. But there may not be quite enough anger in America to bounce the Democratic party from the White House.

Forecasting firm IHS Global Insight predicts that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will win 50.9% of the popular vote in November, assuming the economy carries on as expected, with no big surprises. That would be a minuscule margin of victory. In 2000, Al Gore won 50.3% of the popular vote but lost in a contested election since George W. Bush won more electoral votes.

For all the angst that has been propelling the insurgent candidacies of Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders, the U.S. economy is doing pretty well. The unemployment rate, at 4.9%, is at the lowest level in 8 years, and could drop as low as 4.7% by election day, IHS predicts. Employers are creating more than 200,000 jobs per month, and wage growth seems to be on the verge of picking up. Plus, gas is cheap, interest rates are low and many people purchasing a home or car can enjoy the cheapest financing in generations.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-economy-favors-a-democratic-win-in-november-171216001.html

This will be an interesting argument during the campaign. Trump will argue that the economy is a disaster and Hillary will argue we have made great gains since the catastrophe Bush left Obama and we need to continue on that path. I think Hillary wins that argument.

[Dawgs]

1. Ask Gore how a good economy helps. n/t

[DCBob]

2. Well he did actually win.

He should have won big except he was a weak candidate and the Bill factor didnt help.

[Dawgs]

3. He was a much better candidate than Hillary and the economy was stronger.

Much stronger. Oh yeah, the "Bill factor" will be a factor for her as well.

[DCBob]

4. He had a style problem... boring, stiff, robotic.

Bill is now an asset.. back then not so much.

[ibegurpard]

33. Bill is no asset

Time has not been kind to his policies

[DCBob]

35. His favorability ratings are quite good.

CNN/ORC Poll. Feb. 24-27, 2016. N=1,001 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
RV = registered voters.

"We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them. Bill Clinton."

Favorable: 56
Unfavorable 38

[AgerolanAmerican]

5. This is a good economy?

pull the other one

Seriously how do people make such assertions with a straight face? This is a debt-crushed economy with the bill now coming due and nobody has the money to pay it.

What happens when we back out of this "good" economy the student loans that we know already won't be paid back, but are being treated as good debt?

What happens when interest rates normalize to a level in which it's actually possible to retire on savings again?

I could ask a hundred questions along these lines.

This economy is not by any stretch of the imagination "good", and anyone who says it is is lying to you.

[DCBob]

6. Who said the economy was "good"?

That word was not used anywhere in the article or by me. Only that the economy is improving since the disaster Bush left us.

[AgerolanAmerican]

7. Right there in the excerpt

"the U.S. economy is doing pretty well"

"Well" and "good" are synonyms, and in this context mean the exact same thing.

[DCBob]

8. Did you read the rest of the article?

From the article..

There are still some very real economic problems, such as a sharp loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs and many pockets of the country that aren’t participating in in the modest recovery. But improvements have been steady and despite wobbly financial markets, there’s no real sign of a looming downturn. “Labor market performance has been solid and will not be a headwind for the incumbent party,” IHS says.

Clearly there are problems but the point the article is making is that we are on the right track.

[AgerolanAmerican]

28. But we aren't on the right track

None of the problems from 2008 have been solved and they're all coming right back again.

Wages suck, the job market sucks, retirees are being crushed by zero interest rates and forced back to work. Young people are being crushed by the lack of jobs and outrageous education costs. The cost of the basics of life - food, utilities, shelter - all continue to rise inexorably in this context. Trade deficits continue to grow, and debt levels across the board - public and private - have never been higher. Capital investment and global shipping are at depression levels. The stock market, the last facade of normalcy, is a teetering disaster waiting to happen.

This is not the right track.

[DCBob]

31. Yes we are.

The first step was to stabilize the economy. That has been accomplished for the most part but we are still in a rather precarious situation. The next steps were to make changes to minimize this ever happening again. That is still a work in progress. Some changes have been made but more are needed. The next steps are make changes to structure of our economy to help with the problems of income inequality and under employment and lack of good jobs. This is the most difficult part and we need to be careful not to make such radical changes which could send us back into a recession.

[uponit7771]

16. The article points out the areas of improvement from Bush, only wingers try to tie Bush's mess to

...Obama

[Armstead]

9. Very,very,very small comfort. In other words "The status quo is fine. No need to change anything."

It's the same frame that's been in place since the 1970's.

The "indicators" which have very little impact on the actual situation of the real-life economy take a small uptick -- while the SYSTEMIC STRUCTURAL ROT and the trend to Oligarchy -- is given a coat of paint instead of the actual renovation it needs.

"It's all okay. Believe us instead of your lying eyes."

[DCBob]

12. I wouldnt say "status quo".

Its more like.. lets not dismiss the gains we have made and look at ways to build on that progress.

[Armstead]

17. Gains made on a corrupt system

And no I am not a radical calling for utopia.

But there have been demonstrable structural and ethical distortions that have been embedded into the economy and political system since the 1970's that have undermined competition and screwed average people and the poor to enrich a handful of individuals and corporations and financial institution.

That's a reality that we have to acknowledge before we can fix it.

[DCBob]

20. I agree with most of that.. maybe all of it.

I think the problem is we need to hang onto this "flawed" system while we come up with a better one. A rapid abrupt change will likely send us back into a recession or depression.

[ibegurpard]

34. you're backing a candidate

And a party power structure that is actually fighting that.

[DCBob]

36. I disagree.

Its simply a different approach.

[Thinkingabout]

10. Great post, especially this part

"This will be an interesting argument during the campaign. Trump will argue that the economy is a disaster and Hillary will argue we have made great gains since the catastrophe Bush left Obama and we need to continue on that path. I think Hillary wins that argument."

[DCBob]

14. That's my part!

[Thinkingabout]

27. Yes and the point was received, Trump or Cruz will say how bad the Obama administration has been

but in fact whoever is the next president will have a better office on day one than Obama received.

[uponit7771]

11. +1, it seems like most of the anger is among a white, male, straight on boths sides of the isle and

... not with the marginalized

[workinclasszero]

13. Hillary will be a great President

Trump will carry the pissed off white male racist vote, Hillary will take the rest of the non-insane country.

[DCBob]

15. Thats one way to put it.

[Armstead]

18. yeah like white racist males are the only people tossed aside for the sake of corporate profits

[workinclasszero]

21. Who else but haters are going to vote for this?

Quotes

[Armstead]

22. I hate Trump -- But your characterization of the stakes in this election are wrong

The anger is not something to be dismissed as limited to one sector of the electorate

Everyone has been hurt by this system, except the elites at the top 10 percent.

That transcends the demographic categorizations that might be handy for cheap political marketing, but ignore the larger universal issue.

[workinclasszero]

24. Yes things could be better

Remember the utter destruction that eight years of total republican control under Bush engendered?

Things are way better than that now, still not perfect of course.

Its not going to make me vote for a fascist pig like Trump, that's for damn sure.

[Armstead]

26. Nothing could make me vote for a pig like Trump

But the economy still has the underlying structural problems and trends that have been decimating the middle class and poor since the 1970's,

We have to change that disastrous course before it's too late.

[mvd]

19. Trump's anger is just among the racists and xenophobes

Sanders' anger is legitimate. Income inequality is still sky high, and wages have yet to rise much for the middle class and poor. And what he says about the billionaire class buying elections is absolutely true. In my area of PA, many stores in a big shopping center are too empty and consumer spending could be better. It's a recovery that sounds better on paper. That said, I agree with the premise in the OP. We should be able to argue that things are definitely looking better than before President Obama took office.

[DCBob]

23. Trump and Sanders supporters anger mostly stems though from the same root cause..

that the economy is failing. That actually is a flawed inaccurate concept. For sure there are problems due to the loss of good-paying manufacturing jobs and that many parts of the country aren’t participating in the recovery but overall the economy has been improving steadily and there’s no real sign of a looming downturn. The issue of income inequality is definitely real and needs to be addressed but its foolish to dismiss the tremendous gains that have been made in the past 7 years.

[Armstead]

25. Meaningful change is impossible as long as we support Monopoly Corporate Capitalism

It is infinetly complex but can be summed up in a simple sentence or two.

As long as we allow a handful of large corporations and institutional institutions to keep swallowing up competition, purchasing our government and politicians and screwing workers and consumers and all citizens -- we will never again have an economy in which the benefits of growth and prosperity are distributed fairly.

We will instead devolve into a New Gilded Age, and ultimately a much bigger social and economize collapse that will make 2008 look like a garden party.

[mvd]

30. What we're saying is the economy is still failing many, and..

that is the good in Sanders running. As I said, there are positives, but the negatives are still glaring. I know I'm not doing so well, though I have been worse off.

[tabasco]

29. The millions of brainwashed kooks and imbeciles in this country

have been indoctrinated to believe that "free-spending" Obama has massively increased the national debt to pay for more welfare cadillacs. They will rally around Trump along with all of the flag-waving mom-and-pop republicans. Trump has a frighteningly good chance to be elected.

[DCBob]

32. I believe there are not enough "brainwashed kooks and imbeciles in this country"...

to give this election to Trump. If our side shows up we will win.

[tabasco]

38. We agree to disagree.

[JackRiddler]

37. The global capitalist political economy remains in crisis.

It's more than seven months to the election.

Corporate earnings have declined in consecutive quarters since mid-2015.

From February 20:

Since corporate profits turned negative in mid-2015, Wall Street has pondered whether it's just a passing phase or a signal of something worse. History strongly suggests the latter.

Recessions have followed consecutive quarters of earnings declines 81 percent of the time, according to an analysis from JPMorgan Chase strategists, who said they combed through 115 years of records for their findings.

The news gets worse: Of the remaining 19 percent of the time, recession was only avoided through either monetary or fiscal stimulus. With the Federal Reserve holding limited easing options and a deeply dysfunctional Washington thwarting a fiscal boost, the prospects for help are not good.

The warning comes amid a stock market hovering around correction territory and a mixed economic picture. Citigroup this week warned of escalating risks for a global recession, though data Thursday on durable goods orders suggested the manufacturing sector may be shaking off a contraction phase. Fed officials in recent days have been talking down recession risks.

More
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/25/recession-sign-is-in-play-and-has-81-accuracy.html

The Fed has wanted to raise interest rates for years, and turned back each time in terror. The 2007-09 crisis cannot be said to have been resolved, rather central banking has flooded the financial sectors with easy virtual cash to keep the appearance of stability in their balance sheets. This has not trickled down. The destabilizing dynamics of banking have not been addressed, with concntration of Wall St. institutions greater than ever and derivatives speculation still in the hundred-trillions.

Meanwhile, China, Europe and the energy market are among the centers where a new crash can begin and is feared.

Others here are arguing about what your stats really mean to the majority who do not have the perception of good economic times, and who have not been seeing the benefits of the so-called growth as the increases in wealth and income have gone overwhelmingly to the top 0.1%.

The dynamics of the system are such that downturns are inevitable. It's risky to assume the PTB are in control of this over longer terms, or at any given point. This can act independently of the supposedly sound economics being practiced by the administration. Who will be blamed if the inevitable downturn begins before the election? And, for that, matter, after the election? It's a stealth issue that no one here is considering and that can become the central issue suddenly and within a matter of weeks.

(It's also the biggest argument for Sanders that Sanders could not actually address before a recession begins, because then HE would be blamed for trying to bring it about, and of course talk in this realm that is so unpredictable over short terms often translates into real panic!)

In short, with more than seven months to go before November, don't be assuming this stuff!

[CorkySt.Clair]

39. Interesting responses from some

Makes you wonder who, or more appropriately, what, they will be rooting for in November.

[DCBob]

40. It almost as if they hope she loses..

so they get some perverted pleasure from saying I told you so.