Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 12:55:04 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  U.S. Presidential Election Results
| | |-+  2004 U.S. Presidential Election Results (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | | |-+  Why didn't John Kerry get a post-convention bounce?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] Print
Author Topic: Why didn't John Kerry get a post-convention bounce?  (Read 10344 times)
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #100 on: July 20, 2010, 11:31:46 pm »
Ignore

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

Well I hope you're happy that poor people caused the housing bubble which caused alot of families to go hungry who weren't already poor. Regulations have done nothing but kill jobs in terms of economics because the government is run by those who FLUNK OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and can't do anything else for a living. Why would you think for half a second that the politicians who want to regulate know what they are talking about? What about those banks merging caused the housing burst? WHAT ABOUT THEM MERGING CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? Not the best? That's because the democrats in congress are a bunch of people who either couldn't get a job in the private sector like Obama, have so much money that they don't want others on their level like John Kerry, or want our economy to fail so government can run our lives like Pelosi.

It's very simple, members of ACORN took out loans that they had no intention of paying back. Middle class America defeated themselves with the old buy/sell technique that is caused by greed and eventually it got to a point where homes couldn't appreciate in value anymore.

How did the housing bubble cause people to go hungry? Some regulations are actually good for the economy to prevent/limit corporate abuse and greed. You know that the economy was heavily regulated between the 1930s and 1970s and grew at a pretty fast pace most of the time. Once commercial banks were allowed to combine with investment banks, commercial banks undertook a huge amount of risky investments in the housing industry (which they were not allowed to do before) and thus many of the commercial banks lost a lot of money or became bankrupt once the housing bubble burst. Had the Republicans not deregulated the financial sector, our economy would have been in better shape right now.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #101 on: July 20, 2010, 11:34:31 pm »
Ignore

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

Well I hope you're happy that poor people caused the housing bubble which caused alot of families to go hungry who weren't already poor. Regulations have done nothing but kill jobs in terms of economics because the government is run by those who FLUNK OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and can't do anything else for a living. Why would you think for half a second that the politicians who want to regulate know what they are talking about? What about those banks merging caused the housing burst? WHAT ABOUT THEM MERGING CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? Not the best? That's because the democrats in congress are a bunch of people who either couldn't get a job in the private sector like Obama, have so much money that they don't want others on their level like John Kerry, or want our economy to fail so government can run our lives like Pelosi.

It's very simple, members of ACORN took out loans that they had no intention of paying back. Middle class America defeated themselves with the old buy/sell technique that is caused by greed and eventually it got to a point where homes couldn't appreciate in value anymore.

How did the housing bubble cause people to go hungry? Some regulations are actually good for the economy to prevent/limit corporate abuse and greed. You know that the economy was heavily regulated between the 1930s and 1970s and grew at a pretty fast pace most of the time. Once commercial banks were allowed to combine with investment banks, commercial banks undertook a huge amount of risky investments in the housing industry (which they were not allowed to do before) and thus many of the commercial banks lost a lot of money or became bankrupt once the housing bubble burst. Had the Republicans not deregulated the financial sector, our economy would have been in better shape right now.

Corporate abuse and greed? 1932 called and the democrats want their talking points back. The economy was regulated alot until after Carter and look at the economy in the 80's and 90's. Risk, success, and failure is the American way as everyone gets to compete equally under the law. Again what about the GOP deregulations caused the housing market bubble?
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #102 on: July 22, 2010, 03:43:54 pm »
Ignore

So why don't you think Kerry got a post convention bounce? I think it's because he was a weak candidate.

I think it had more to do with Bush's scare tactics and with many people deciding early that year. I mean, Gore and Dukakis got convention bounces even though they were also bad candidates.

Oh right like people weren't smart enough to vote for the best candidate so somehow they were tricked into it. Just admit it, Bush kicked your asses. Kerry was a loser and that's why he didn't get a bounce.

I'll admit that Kerry was a bad candidate, but I honestly don't think that was why Kerry didn't get a convention bounce. I think my previously stated reasons were correct. And I'm actually happy that Kerry lost because that allowed Bush and the GOP to get blamed for the financial crisis instead of the Democrats. You Republicans would have been so much better off right now had Kerry won in 2004.

You're happy that people get blamed for something they didn't do? What a great American, at least you're a democrat still. You realize that would be like me saying that I hope people lose jobs and families struggle so that Obama loses in 2012? No we wouldn't have been better off because unlike you, we care about our country first and Kerry would've been stubborn enough to try something of his own in Iraq or Afghanistan and gotten more troops killed or pulled out and had both countries collapse because he'd do so prematurely. At least Obama just continued Bush's policies mostly except for the torture issue. Stop thinking like a partisan and start thinking like an American.

Bush did support Greenspan when he blew up that housing bubble, and that caused the financial crisis. Kerry would have just gotten blamed for the timing. I don't know how Kerry would have handled Iraq, but I do think that he would have done a better job of handling Afghanistan. Bush gave Obama a huge mess in Afghanistan because he essentially ignored it for his last six years. And Obama saved our economy from total collapse, gave us universal healthcare, and gave us financial reform, which are things Bush wouldn't have done. And you know that many Republicans actually do want the economy to go bad so that Obama will lose reelection.

No giving loans to people from ACORN based on racial fairness that was started under the Clinton administration was what caused the financial crisis. There were no back room fat cat deals like you and your party want America to believe. It was the fairness requirements combined with politicians like Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama getting sweet heart deals from the corporate fat cats in exchange for favorable treatment from the government. What do you think of Fannie and Freddie being exempt from this new financial reform legislation? Are you suddenly supporting all that now?

Giving loans to poor people who couldn't afford it helped cause the housing bubble itself, but the financial crisis was caused by the financial deregulation that the Republicans proposed. Without that financial deregulation, the housing recession would have probably been much less severe and there would have been no financial crisis. That financial deregulation allowed commercial and investment banks to combine together, and that allowed those banks to become "too big to fail" (during the housing bubble) and to drag down the whole U.S. economy with them once they indeed failed after the housing bubble burst. And I know that the current financial reform that the Democrats passed isn't the best bill they could have written.

Well I hope you're happy that poor people caused the housing bubble which caused alot of families to go hungry who weren't already poor. Regulations have done nothing but kill jobs in terms of economics because the government is run by those who FLUNK OUT OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR and can't do anything else for a living. Why would you think for half a second that the politicians who want to regulate know what they are talking about? What about those banks merging caused the housing burst? WHAT ABOUT THEM MERGING CAUSED THE COLLAPSE? Not the best? That's because the democrats in congress are a bunch of people who either couldn't get a job in the private sector like Obama, have so much money that they don't want others on their level like John Kerry, or want our economy to fail so government can run our lives like Pelosi.

It's very simple, members of ACORN took out loans that they had no intention of paying back. Middle class America defeated themselves with the old buy/sell technique that is caused by greed and eventually it got to a point where homes couldn't appreciate in value anymore.

How did the housing bubble cause people to go hungry? Some regulations are actually good for the economy to prevent/limit corporate abuse and greed. You know that the economy was heavily regulated between the 1930s and 1970s and grew at a pretty fast pace most of the time. Once commercial banks were allowed to combine with investment banks, commercial banks undertook a huge amount of risky investments in the housing industry (which they were not allowed to do before) and thus many of the commercial banks lost a lot of money or became bankrupt once the housing bubble burst. Had the Republicans not deregulated the financial sector, our economy would have been in better shape right now.

Corporate abuse and greed? 1932 called and the democrats want their talking points back. The economy was regulated alot until after Carter and look at the economy in the 80's and 90's. Risk, success, and failure is the American way as everyone gets to compete equally under the law. Again what about the GOP deregulations caused the housing market bubble?

Once commercial and investment banks were allowed to combine, commercial banks undertook a bunch of risky investments in the housing industry which they were not allowed to do before.     This caused those banks to become much larger and more volitaile, and thus made the U.S. economy much more dependent on those banks because they became so large. Once the housing bubble burst and those banks either lost a lot of income or failed and declared bankrupcy, then those banks dragged the whole U.S. economy down with them and caused the financial crisis and Great Recession of 2008. As for real GDP growth, here it is for every decade since the 1940s:

http://www.measuringworth.org/datasets/usgdp/result.php

1940s: U.S. real GDP grew by 72%
1950s: 50%
1960s: 54%
1970s: 37%
1980s: 35%
1990s: 37%
2000s: 20%

Thus, the data shows that real GDP growth was actually higher before Reagan came into office and pursued his massive deregulation policies. Also, Reagan's massive deregulation made the economy much less stable, leading to the savings and loans crisis in the late 1980s and the financial crisis of 2008.
Logged

Derek
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4701
United States


View Profile
« Reply #103 on: July 22, 2010, 05:49:36 pm »
Ignore

There is more to the economy than GDP such as taxes and unemployment rate. There is even more to life than a good economy.
Logged

I'm Derek and I approve this message.
Bo
Rochambeau
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 14384
Israel


Political Matrix
E: -5.23, S: -2.52

View Profile
« Reply #104 on: July 22, 2010, 07:14:02 pm »
Ignore

There is more to the economy than GDP such as taxes and unemployment rate. There is even more to life than a good economy.

I proved my point that Reagan's deregulation policies didn't do anything positive for the economy, though, and just caused two financial crises.
Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines