Post Convention Bounce

[rightwinger]

Coming out of 9/11 and a recession that hit in Bush's 1st year, his economic policies did result in a fairly nice bump in GDP and jobs for a stretch in there between 2003-2008. None of his policies had anything to do with the housing bubble or the credit crisis. None. We could use the same kind of bump right now if you ask me.

The Bush economy benefitted from the housing bubble and unrestrained speculative investing

 

[Dot Com]

The one thing I fault President Clinton for in his official duties was the signing of the repeal of glass steagal. In his defense, it wasn't his handiwork:
Gramm

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[4]

 

[Wiseacre]

Coming out of 9/11 and a recession that hit in Bush's 1st year, his economic policies did result in a fairly nice bump in GDP and jobs for a stretch in there between 2003-2008. None of his policies had anything to do with the housing bubble or the credit crisis. None. We could use the same kind of bump right now if you ask me.

The Bush economy benefitted from the housing bubble and unrestrained speculative investing

As did the Clinton admin. I bought a house in San Antonio when I got back from Germany in 1990 and sold it 6 years later, doubled my investment. And the dot com craze during the 90s? Geez, it was crazy, companies with nothing to show for how they would become profitable were priced outragiously high on the stock market. You could make money hand over fist, but you had to know the party couldn't last forever.

I wouldn't say the Bush policies were any more helpful to the economy than the Clinton policies were. There are no doubt numerous factors are involved in economic growth or lack thereof, personally I am convinced that tax rate changes and increases/decreases in the regulatory state are not insignificant most of the time. I do think they are more important at a time like this when the economy is slow, if we allow the tax hikes that are coming Jan 1, 2013 to occur, we will get a recession soon after.

 

[Wiseacre]

The one thing I fault President Clinton for in his official duties was the signing of the repeal of glass steagal. In his defense, it wasn't his handiwork:
Gramm

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[4]

Oh yes it was, Clinton did support the final version and so did many democrats. It passed the Senate 90-8, and by a large margin in the House. 155 House democrats voted for it.

 

[jillian]

The one thing I fault President Clinton for in his official duties was the signing of the repeal of glass steagal. In his defense, it wasn't his handiwork:
Gramm

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government.[4]

Oh yes it was, Clinton did support the final version and so did many democrats. It passed the Senate 90-8, and by a large margin in the House. 155 House democrats voted for it.

i don't think anyone is saying otherwise. it was a compromise bill.

and it was a huge mistake.

 

[Wiseacre]

The one thing I fault President Clinton for in his official duties was the signing of the repeal of glass steagal. In his defense, it wasn't his handiwork:
Gramm

Oh yes it was, Clinton did support the final version and so did many democrats. It passed the Senate 90-8, and by a large margin in the House. 155 House democrats voted for it.

i don't think anyone is saying otherwise. it was a compromise bill.

and it was a huge mistake.

100% agreed. Laid the seeds right then for the credit crisis that followed in 2008. Might've been some earlier legislation and policies that greased the slide too. Going back quite a ways I think.

 

[koshergrl]

Re the OP:

"When the Washington Post/ABC poll tells you there’s been no convention bump for Barack Obama, you can pretty much take that to the bank. Their latest survey shows the likely-voter split in the presidential race right where we found it a fortnight ago, with Obama up one single point over Mitt Romney — in a sample that favors the Democrats."

"
The survey shows that the race remains close among likely voters, with Obama at 49 percent and Romney at 48 percent, virtually unchanged from a poll taken just before the conventions.
So, the second paragraph actually disproves the first. But the Post tries hard to pretend that no movement among likely voters means improvement for Obama."

WaPo/ABC poll shows no change in race from before convention « Hot Air

 

[Trajan]

Obama needs to drive home exactly what shape the country was in four years ago

Lower unemployment, less debt, more people working, GM bondholders and creditors taking action to build a better business model....

we were bleeding jobs.
the economy was crashed
banks failing

the debt? that's what happens when you lower taxes and run two wars.

GM thriving now. And the jobs in the supply chain saved.

thats the second time you have mentioned the 2 wars and the debt accrued by not raising taxes or deferring tax cuts, so what happens to the 6 trillion we just rang up for virtually no benefit?

 

[del]

Lower unemployment, less debt, more people working, GM bondholders and creditors taking action to build a better business model....

we were bleeding jobs.
the economy was crashed
banks failing

the debt? that's what happens when you lower taxes and run two wars.

GM thriving now. And the jobs in the supply chain saved.

thats the second time you have mentioned the 2 wars and the debt accrued by not raising taxes or deferring tax cuts, so what happens to the 6 trillion we just rang up for virtually no benefit?

you have proof that there's been no benefit?

what was the benefit derived from invading iraq?

 

[Dot Com]

Apparently "not going into a depression"= "no benefit" to Trajan

 

[Interpol]

What the last two weeks have shown is that Romney is still unable to get past even.

Even is where Obama's floor is, but it's where Romney's ceiling is. That has to change with Romney and he's got the first debate to get the job done or else forget about it, the subsequent debates aren't as closely watched and the public tends to have made up their minds after the first one.

The Democratic convention was a more optimistic affair. The speeches were uplifting. The Republican convention was filled with doom and gloom. Americans already have enough doom and gloom to worry about, they don't need an entire political party to tell them that. They were looking for answers but all the Republicans were able to muster was how bad Obama was.

If Mitt Romney wants to become President, he has to actually run on why he's the better choice and what it is he'd do. Saying, "I'm not Obama and I'll do the exact opposite of whatever Obama does" isn't good enough.

It's still going to probably end up being a spread of 6 points or less, but over the last 4 months now, it's the President who keeps moving ahead from the even spot, while it's Mitt Romney who continues to get stuck at 46-48%.

I'd say it hurt Romney's chances for a bounce that he took Labor Day weekend off. He should've gone on a big tour the next 3-4 days, but he basically went into hiding for the entire following week. He squandered a chance at an opening by doing that.

As the Republican party's elite begin to snipe at Romney, he'll have even less of a chance of getting the opening he needs. And as long as he continues to get himself stuck having to explain why one day he's for health care and the next why he isn't, he'll never gain any traction.

As long as he holds his own in the debate, the race will stay rather close, but if it's clear that Obama has beaten him at that, too, than we're looking at 1984 all over again, particularly if Republicans decide they're fed up with Mitt, which seems to be the case with all the sniping over the last day or so.

 

[koshergrl]

That wasn't doom and gloom, it was just a recounting of lefty failures since Obamatron took office.

 

[asterism]

Obama needs to drive home exactly what shape the country was in four years ago

Lower unemployment, less debt, more people working, GM bondholders and creditors taking action to build a better business model....

we were bleeding jobs.
the economy was crashed
banks failing

the debt? that's what happens when you lower taxes and run two wars.

GM thriving now. And the jobs in the supply chain saved.

GM is living on borrowed time. Any company can thrive for a few years with $25 Billion in gifts from the federal government.

The higher debt since 2009 is not from tax cuts, it's from increased spending.

 

[asterism]

Apparently "not going into a depression"= "no benefit" to Trajan

The economy had already bottomed out by the time the stimulus was implemented. If anything prevented another depression, it was TARP and TARP II.

 

[blackhawk]

Now that the conventions have passed, it seems clear that the democrats have gotten a bounce from theirs, while the GOP has not.

Why do you think that is? And do you think it's going to be dispositive of the election outcome.

Reminder: This is the CDZ. Thanks for guiding yourself accordingly.... on both sides of the aisle.

The main reasons are because the conventions were back to back and the Democratic convention was second. When conventions are back to back as these were you barely had time to study or think about the Republican convention before everyone's attention switched to Democrats. In 2008 the Republican convention was second and they got the bigger bounce but that bounce did not hold up and Obama was elected we should get a better idea of what the Obama bounce does or does not mean sometime next week.

 

[auditor0007]

that might be. but mccain's ideas weren't exactly new and he got a bounce from his.

palin's star power? mccain a more appealing person?

This is pretty simple. A very large percentage of Romney's support is just people supporting the other candidate because they are dissatisfied with Obama. Romney doesn't have a swelling of pro-Romney support, and no matter what he says, that is not going to change. On the other hand, a lot of people like Obama but are disappointed that things have not gone better. Given a reason, they will still get behind him, so when people heard positive things coming out of the Democratic Convention, it moved some people. Romney was never going to move anyone. I really think Romney has peaked. I could be wrong, but barring a red herring, I think Obama's lead will actually increase the closer we get to election day.

 

[FA_Q2]

The one thing I fault President Clinton for in his official duties was the signing of the repeal of glass steagal. In his defense, it wasn't his handiwork:
Gramm

Oh yes it was, Clinton did support the final version and so did many democrats. It passed the Senate 90-8, and by a large margin in the House. 155 House democrats voted for it.

i don't think anyone is saying otherwise. it was a compromise bill.

and it was a huge mistake.

You say this in this particular post and yet previous posts place the blame for the recession on Bush. I guess the question is, if this was such a large contributor to the recession, why is Bush policies the ones that you lay the blame on? What specific policies that Bush put into play are you blaming the recession on?

I personally don’t think that you can point to a ‘side’ and blame them. That speaks of serious partisan bias. There are errors all over the place and no one party or person is the sole benefactor of blame here. It would be more constructive to find specific policies that were the problem.

Now that the conventions have passed, it seems clear that the democrats have gotten a bounce from theirs, while the GOP has not.

Why do you think that is? And do you think it's going to be dispositive of the election outcome.

Reminder: This is the CDZ. Thanks for guiding yourself accordingly.... on both sides of the aisle.

The main reasons are because the conventions were back to back and the Democratic convention was second. When conventions are back to back as these were you barely had time to study or think about the Republican convention before everyone's attention switched to Democrats. In 2008 the Republican convention was second and they got the bigger bounce but that bounce did not hold up and Obama was elected we should get a better idea of what the Obama bounce does or does not mean sometime next week.

This. Honestly, the bounce is meaningless because it is not going to hold. That has already been shown by others here. Obama went second and the coverage was pretty widespread for both. I can remember changing radio stations and hearing the conventions on all 6 of the stations that I listen to. It was rather funny switching through them because they were all the same. A twilight zone episode in the making

Post convntion bounce?
If any, it means nothing.

Why Bush Is Toast - Slate Magazine

This really underlines a good point that I think was missed. There are calls all over this board of Obama has it in the bag and Romney has it in the bag. This article underlines how dumb it can be to call the election for one guy or the other this early based on anything. There is a lot more to go and neither of these candidates have a clear victory. The tilt is toward Obama and the bump he gets is not something that is a good sign for Romney but neither is it indicative of an Obama lead either. It is just a bump and the race is particularly close.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Apparently "not going into a depression"= "no benefit" to Trajan

It ain't over yet.

 

[kwc57]

So much for that 6 point bounce.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports™

"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows President Obama attracting support from 46% of voters nationwide, while Mitt Romney earns 45% of the vote. Four percent (4%) prefer some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided.

The president received a modest convention bounce, but that's now gone. On the day the conventions began, Obama was up by two points. Now the numbers are essentially back to that starting point with the president leading by a point........"

 

[koshergrl]

Bounce officially over.

Not likely to occur again.