Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 23, 2014, 12:35:26 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 (Moderator: True Federalist)
| | |-+  Elections which weren't about the economy, stupid.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Elections which weren't about the economy, stupid.  (Read 1479 times)
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5298
Australia


View Profile
« on: July 10, 2012, 07:58:55 am »
Ignore

What were they?

Ones that come to mind:

2004: Voters minds were on Iraq (and to a lesser extent gay marriage)
2000: Bush won despite the economy booming.
1988: Seemed to be a lot on ideology rather than continuing the good times.
1968: Voters minds were on Vietnam and culture wars.
1952: Voters minds were on Korea.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Modadmin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15185
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2012, 01:07:15 pm »
Ignore

1988 is debatable; it's true that a lot of the campaign focus was on rather trivial matters, but Bush still would have been solidly favored based on the economic fundamentals. It's pretty hard to distinguish between a Bush voter voting on the economy and a Bush voter who felt Dukakis represented a threat to the pledge of allegiance.

The other four, however are clear examples of elections that the Democrats would have won if they had been about the economy, but lost because of foreign policy (1952, 1968, 2004) or focus on trivial matters (2000).

So I'd say us Dems are due for an election that we win that we would've lost if it had been about the economy; we haven't had one since 1940. Smiley
Logged
phk
phknrocket1k
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12975


Political Matrix
E: 1.42, S: -1.22

View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 10, 2012, 02:59:27 pm »
Ignore

I don't remember things booming that much after mid-2000. Especially considering my dad was in a rush to reduce his exposure to dot-com stocks from April to September of that year.
Logged

#Ready4Nixon
Cathcon
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15024
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 10, 2012, 02:59:56 pm »
Ignore

1796.
Logged

Indy Texas
independentTX
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4580
Virgin Islands, U.S.


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 10, 2012, 03:34:24 pm »
Ignore

Elections are never about the economy when the economy is doing well.

See the 1952-1972 elections and 1996 and 2000.

1976 - inflation
1980 - stagflation
1984 - recession
1988 - US agriculture was a disaster in the late '80s, hence Bush's loss of Iowa and Wisconsin
1992 - recession
2004 - tepid job growth
2008 - cluster
Logged

This may come as a surprise, but I do have a strong head on my shoulders and I am very cognizant of what's going on around me.

It wouldn't come as a surprise. It would come as an M. Night Shyamalan-in-his-prime plot twist.
old timey villain
cope1989
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1731


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 10, 2012, 10:17:59 pm »
Ignore

1988 is debatable; it's true that a lot of the campaign focus was on rather trivial matters, but Bush still would have been solidly favored based on the economic fundamentals. It's pretty hard to distinguish between a Bush voter voting on the economy and a Bush voter who felt Dukakis represented a threat to the pledge of allegiance.

The other four, however are clear examples of elections that the Democrats would have won if they had been about the economy, but lost because of foreign policy (1952, 1968, 2004) or focus on trivial matters (2000).

So I'd say us Dems are due for an election that we win that we would've lost if it had been about the economy; we haven't had one since 1940. Smiley

It's not that hard. If Joe the Plumber (1980s model) saw his standard of living and wages stagnate in comparison to the very rich, yet he still voted for Bush, then it was probably because Dukakis wanted to use the American flag as toilet paper.
Logged

Can't we all just get along?
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4754
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 18, 2012, 06:26:22 pm »
Ignore

What elections were about the economy? Apparently, not many. Why did the Republicans keep winning in so many years in which they ruined the economy?
Logged

Try this wonderful POPULIST BLOG...

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 18, 2012, 07:07:30 pm »
Ignore

Elections are never about the economy when the economy is doing well.

See the 1952-1972 elections and 1996 and 2000.

1976 - inflation
1980 - stagflation
1984 - recession
1988 - US agriculture was a disaster in the late '80s, hence Bush's loss of Iowa and Wisconsin
1992 - recession
2004 - tepid job growth
2008 - cluster

There was no recession in 1984.  The economy was booming that year. 
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4754
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 18, 2012, 07:08:50 pm »
Ignore

Where do people get the idea there was job growth in 2004?
Logged

Try this wonderful POPULIST BLOG...

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com
Mr.Phips
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4963


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 18, 2012, 07:09:56 pm »
Ignore

Where do people get the idea there was job growth in 2004?

Facts. 
Logged
Bandit3 the Worker
Populist3
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4754
Venezuela


Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -9.92

View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 18, 2012, 07:11:22 pm »
Ignore

Where do people get the idea there was job growth in 2004?

Facts. 

What?
Logged

Try this wonderful POPULIST BLOG...

http://onlinelunchpail.blogspot.com
morgieb
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5298
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: August 09, 2012, 10:10:55 pm »
Ignore

Looks like 2012 can be added to this, although of course there's still time.
Logged
J. J.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 32035
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: August 11, 2012, 06:55:34 pm »
Ignore



It's not that hard. If Joe the Plumber (1980s model) saw his standard of living and wages stagnate in comparison to the very rich, yet he still voted for Bush, then it was probably because Dukakis wanted to use the American flag as toilet paper.

1988 was when we were still in a period of growth.  The market crashed in 1987, but it passed its 1986 high in 1988, and unemployment was dwindling.  You also have to remember that most voters remembered the 1970's.
Logged

J. J.

"Actually, .. now that you mention it...." 
- Londo Molari

"Every government are parliaments of whores.
The trouble is, in a democracy the whores are us." - P. J. O'Rourke

"Wa sala, wa lala."

(Zulu for, "You snooze, you lose.")
5280
MagneticFree
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2675
United States


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: August 17, 2012, 02:26:00 am »
Ignore

I bet if the economy picks up after 2012, 2016 will be social issues once again and probably foreign policies.
Logged

Paul/Cruz 2016!
NY Jew
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 543


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: August 17, 2012, 05:04:06 am »
Ignore

1864 possibly the least economic election ever
Logged
Tricky Dickie
Newbie
*
Posts: 17


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 17, 2012, 02:24:22 pm »
Ignore

2004 is the main one I can think of.
Logged
Kalwejt
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36858


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 17, 2012, 04:02:29 pm »
Ignore

lol
Logged
Comrade Funk
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 637
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -6.96

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 17, 2012, 07:23:10 pm »
Ignore

1844 was about Texas/Oregon.
Logged

We need a public option

Quote from: President Harry S. Truman
“We should resolve now that the health of this nation is a national concern; that financial barriers in the way of attaining health shall be removed
MooMooMoo
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12186
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 22, 2012, 08:25:34 pm »
Ignore

I still don't know what 2004 was about. The economy was kinda ok, but not great...kinda in a mediocre recovery after a small recession. I am guessing it was the opposition to the Iraq War competing against the opposition to Gay Marriage, where those who screamed loudest won...in Iowa and Ohio....and Bush's moderate stance on immigration probably helped him in New Mexico and Nevada...
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
[/quot
Beet
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15887


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 22, 2012, 08:28:46 pm »
Ignore

1820 was particularly remarkable as it came in the wake of the Panic of 1819, yet the incumbent party was reelected almost without opposition
Logged

MooMooMoo
Angry_Weasel
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12186
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 22, 2012, 08:52:21 pm »
Ignore

With only 55 elections before this one, you can only make so many assumptions..
Logged


the result is a sense that we were told to attend a lavish dinner party that was going to be wonderful and by the time we got there, all the lobster and steak had been eaten, a fight had broken out, the police had been called and all that was left was warm beer and chips.
[/quot
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines