Also, I agree with your point that a lot of it is based on luck -- there are plenty of reasons why the economy does better or worse, and not all are tied directly back to who controls the presidency or congress and what policies they pursue. I will say that I also believe that is a large part of why you say "it's getting hard to explain since one R president after the next leaves the WH with the US economy in the dumpster" -- the housing market crash that caused the 'Great Recession' was due mostly (but not entirely) do things that happened beyond what Bush or the Dem-led congress did, and COVID was mostly what caused the economy to tank in 2020. I don't know enough about the situation under HW Bush, but Reagan didn't exactly inherit a good economy.
yeah finding the right metric is hard to do, but it doesn't seem to matter - going by just about anything, having a Dem president makes everything better.
I mean you can do all the googling you want and find one study after the next finding the same thing. it's not really debatable. Some people introduce a different metric...on how the economy did vs. what it was *expected* to do, and find the Rs did better. Ok.
I like this piece, but there are dozens of solid studies and articles saying the same thing. And this one is before Trump left the economy in yet another mess. So the results would be even more positive for the Dems.
Biden won by 74 electoral votes in 2020. Trump won by 77 electoral votes in 2016.
Trump declared that he won in a landslide in 2016.
Given that, I have no trouble saying that Biden won easily.
Neither election was won in a landslide. In 2016, three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% was what pushed Trump over 270: Michigan (16 EVs) where he won 47.50% of the votes to Hillary's 47.27%, Pennsylvania (20 EVs) where he won 48.18% of the votes to Hillary's 47.46%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won 47.22% of the votes to Hillary's 46.45%. The largest margin there, in Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.77% difference. That's not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
In 2020, it was again three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% pushed Biden over 270: Georgia (16 EVs) where he won with 49.47% to Trump's 49.24%, Arizona (11 EVs) where he won with 49.36% to Trump's 49.06%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won with 49.45% to Trump's 48.82%. The largest margin there, once again Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.63% difference. Yet again, not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
I find it interesting that you feel the need to agree with the terms Trump uses. I think most people understand why Trump does such things (he's an egomaniac that isn't all that intelligent), but why do you?
Just making a sarcastic point. As your analysis showed, my point was well taken.
I agree with you that the economy has tended to do better under Democrat presidents (not by a huge margin, but enough where it may *possibly* be worth noting ... maybe not, but possibly.)
However, it can also easily be argued that the economy has tended to do better under GOP-controlled legislature, and by a much larger margin than the difference between who was president.
So, if we agree that the economy does better under Democrat presidents, can't we also agree that the economy does better under GOP-controlled legislature?
It's almost like neither party is inherently better than the other, but the country does best when both sides are represented and neither totally get their way...
apparently when you adjust for which party has control of congress, the result is the same - the economy does materially and substantially better under Democratic presidents.
So no, your claim is not correct, from what I've seen.
Honestly, much of this is probably just luck but it's getting hard to explain since one R president after the next leaves the WH with the US economy in the dumpster.
Giving FDR and Truman credit for the WW2 boom, Clinton credit for the 90s tech boom, or Obama credit for the growth after the 2008 crash is just silly.
Dems cheat so much if an election is remotely close the Republican won in a landslide.
Both sides cheat IMO. That's why there is a need for better election laws, to make it harder to cheat and the results of the election can be better trusted.
Individuals from both sides cheat. Only the Democrats cheat as an organization. ACORN and other corrupt organizations that profit off of election fraud only exist on the left.
Both sides cheat IMO. That's why there is a need for better election laws, to make it harder to cheat and the results of the election can be better trusted.
Individuals from both sides cheat. Only the Democrats cheat as an organization. ACORN and other corrupt organizations that profit off of election fraud only exist on the left.
Remember when Al Gore called the Secretary of State in Florida to find him 539 more votes?
Individuals from both sides cheat. Only the Democrats cheat as an organization. ACORN and other corrupt organizations that profit off of election fraud only exist on the left.
Remember when Al Gore called the Secretary of State in Florida to find him 539 more votes?
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This is the section of the Constitution that could keep Marjorie Taylor Greene from running for re-election. The full hearing about this was on Friday and it is posted on YouTube.
It's a long-shot that anything will actually come of it, but I found the testimony and oral arguments fascinating. I had to watch it in chunks over the course of several days. Here are my takeaways:
* Both sides had excellent representation. These were two very good lawyers.
* This is not a frivolous case. It's very possible that the judge will rule against Greene. Based on the evidence, she did support the insurrection. She clearly said she would not accept a peaceful transfer of power and she said, "this is our 1776 moment". But does showing public support for violence rise to the level of "engaged in" or "aid and comfort"? I think that legally, it's a tough hill to climb and the judge is most likely to rule in favor of MTG.
* MTG could not remember ANYTHING. She must have said "I don't recall" about a billion times. She couldn't remember people she knew. She couldn't remember if tweets from her account were really from her. She claimed that she didn't remember interviews she had given. She couldn't even remember if she had discussed martial law with the President of the United States. She didn't deny it. She's just not sure if she did it or not.
* Frankly, I wasn't even sure that MTG could remember her own name.
* But when questioned by her own attorney, her memory suddenly got better. Suddenly, she could remember names, dates, times, everything. When her own attorney showed her a tweet that might have helped her case, then yes, "I do think I was the one who posted that."
* The defense tended to argue why the 14th amendment didn't apply to the case. He really didn't try to argue that MTG had not done what she is accused of. In other words, he argued the law instead of the facts.
* The prosecuting attorney tended to argue the facts instead of the law. I thought the dichotomy was interesting.
The whole thing will get even more interesting if the judge rules against Greene. Then, the judge's recommendation goes to the famous Georgia Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger. Raffensperger will make the final decision about whether or not she is on the ballot.
Given that Greene has endorsed Raffensperger's Trumpy opponent, Jody Hice, what he might do is anyone's guess.
apparently when you adjust for which party has control of congress, the result is the same - the economy does materially and substantially better under Democratic presidents.
So no, your claim is not correct, from what I've seen.
Honestly, much of this is probably just luck but it's getting hard to explain since one R president after the next leaves the WH with the US economy in the dumpster.
Giving FDR and Truman credit for the WW2 boom, Clinton credit for the 90s tech boom, or Obama credit for the growth after the 2008 crash is just silly.
Yeah, that would be kind of like blaming Biden for inflation.
Giving FDR and Truman credit for the WW2 boom, Clinton credit for the 90s tech boom, or Obama credit for the growth after the 2008 crash is just silly.
Yeah, that would be kind of like blaming Biden for inflation.
or W Bush for the housing market crash, or Trump for COVID.
Both sides do it, making excuses for 'their' presidents and blaming presidents of the other party.
As for Biden and inflation, though... I feel like that's the most defensible of all the assertions of guilt or credit, because our inflation shot up far higher and faster than any other country in the G20 (at one point, when inflation first neared 8%, the rest of the G20 was still only around 2-3%). That margin has nearly disappeared in the time since (mostly when the Russia-Ukraine crisis started to rear it's head), but that difference tells you it's not as simple as "COVID is entirely to blame! COVID made this happen!" without any consideration for the policies that were put in place and the individual situations within each country.
Giving FDR and Truman credit for the WW2 boom, Clinton credit for the 90s tech boom, or Obama credit for the growth after the 2008 crash is just silly.
Yeah, that would be kind of like blaming Biden for inflation.
Biden's actions directly contributed to inflation. FDR didn't cause WW2. Clinton had nothing to with the tech boom. A pepsi machine could have led a stronger recovery than Obama did.
Yeah, that would be kind of like blaming Biden for inflation.
or W Bush for the housing market crash, or Trump for COVID.
Both sides do it, making excuses for 'their' presidents and blaming presidents of the other party.
As for Biden and inflation, though... I feel like that's the most defensible of all the assertions of guilt or credit, because our inflation shot up far higher and faster than any other country in the G20 (at one point, when inflation first neared 8%, the rest of the G20 was still only around 2-3%). That margin has nearly disappeared in the time since (mostly when the Russia-Ukraine crisis started to rear it's head), but that difference tells you it's not as simple as "COVID is entirely to blame! COVID made this happen!" without any consideration for the policies that were put in place and the individual situations within each country.
If you give blame to biden for the inflation then you also must give him credit for the much stronger economic growth and job recovery than other G7 nations. They are two sides of the same coin.
You heard it here first. I believe I am the first to report that we have definitive proof that Marjorie Taylor Greene lied in her testimony on Friday.
On Friday, she testified that while she was under lockdown in the capital, "We thought Antifa was breaking in or BLM".
But at that time, she sent this text message to Mark Meadows:
"Mark I was just told there is an active shooter on the first floor of the Capitol. Please tell the President to calm people."
I'm quite sure that MTG didn't think that the president would be able to calm Antifa or BLM.
She knew exactly who had broken in. She knew it was the m@gas.
Of course, later, she and her colleagues did decide to blame Antifa. But this was clearly a cooked-up story as shown in a text from Jason Miller to Meadows where he tells Meadows that they should, without evidence, blame it on Antifa.
Miller said:
Call me crazy, but ideas for two tweets from POTUS: 1) Bad apples, likely ANTIFA or other crazed leftists, infiltrated today’s peaceful protest over the fraudulent vote count. Violence is never acceptable! M@GA supporters embrace our police and the rule of law and should leave the Capitol now! 2) The fake news media who encouraged this summer’s violent and radical riots are now trying to blame peaceful and innocent M@GA supporters for violent actions. This isn’t who we are! Our people should head home and let the criminals suffer the consequences!
Miller also knew it was M@GA who stormed the capitol. He said, "Our people should head home".
And he knew that blaming Antifa was a "crazy" idea. But that's what the R's decided to go with.
Also on Friday, Marjorie Taylor Green was asked if she discussed martial law with the president or anyone on his staff. She said she couldn't remember.
Then today, this tweet to Meadows from MTG comes out:
In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law. I don’t know on those things. I just wanted you to tell him.
Does anyone think MTG was telling the truth about that? Suggesting martial law to the president's chief of staff is a pretty big deal. But she says she can't remember at all?
Also on Friday, Marjorie Taylor Green was asked if she discussed martial law with the president or anyone on his staff. She said she couldn't remember.
Then today, this tweet to Meadows from MTG comes out:
In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law. I don’t know on those things. I just wanted you to tell him.
Does anyone think MTG was telling the truth about that? Suggesting martial law to the president's chief of staff is a pretty big deal. But she says she can't remember at all?
The only thing left for some of those tzees to get tossed in jailed. They keep getting caught in their lies, in this case under oath.
the bad news is that it looks like twitter will be owned by elon musk, who will probably aid the m/ga destruction of the United States.
The good news is that partly because of this, trump's media company stock (DWAC) is down 80% from its highs. Just one more way Republicans are taking money from the rubes.