Why didn't the Democrats run more aggressively on the economy this year?

[Indy Texas]

Unemployment continues to go down; the stock market is charging ahead at breakneck pace; inflation hasn't gotten out of control as the goldbugs have been insisting for the past five years that it would. Why didn't the Democrats make this a selling point in the midterms? Republicans insist that America under Obama is a job-killing, anticapitalist totalitarian state even as some of the largest IPOs in history have happened and an energy boom is fueling exactly the sort of well-paying blue collar jobs both parties make such a fetish of - and making red state millionaires richer in the process.

Things aren't perfect. Wages have basically been flat. A broad swath of the country still hasn't made up lost ground in their personal balance sheets - they lost a large chunk of their house-derived wealth and they missed the boat on the bull market in equities.

But things weren't perfect when Ronald Reagan ran on Morning in America in 1984. He had gotten inflation under control and cut taxes for millions of Americans. But the Rust Belt was hemorrhaging jobs; the Upper Midwest was beginning to fall victim to falling crop prices and urban life had taken on a disturbing, post-apocalyptic air in many northern cities.

Why aren't the Democrats willing to unapologetically say that things are going well - even when they aren't for one hundred percent of the country (which is all the time)?

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

Third Way circlejerks are gonna say people aren't feeling it. People aren't feeling it because we haven't been shoving "Obama's saved the economy" down the throats of voters like Republicans have been pushing "Obama sucks". Basically, Democrats don't know how messaging works and are weak.

[Sol]

Most of this prosperity has been concentrated with the elites. To most voters, Obama has been an economic failure.

[IceSpear]

If Romney was president and the economy recovered at the same exact pace, he'd be heralded as a hero and deemed "Mr. Fix It" by the media.

[KCDem]

Third Way circlejerks are gonna say people aren't feeling it. People aren't feeling it because we haven't been shoving "Obama's saved the economy" down the throats of voters like Republicans have been pushing "Obama sucks". Basically, Democrats don't know how messaging works and are weak.

This. The economy is doing great! My stock portfolio has gone up about 60% in the last year and a half. Anyone who can't feel this recovery is an idiot.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Enough people aren't feeling it that they would risk being seen as out of touch among people who aren't well-off.  If Democrats lose any more of them, they're screwed.

[IceSpear]

Enough people aren't feeling it that they would risk being seen as out of touch among people who aren't well-off.  If Democrats lose any more of them, they're screwed.

Well, in retrospect, it's not like it could've gone any worse than it actually did.

[Deus Naturae]

Real median household income is still considerably lower than it was prior to the Recession. Things are slowly improving, but the average household (well, the median household, but you get the expression) is still poorer that it was before the crisis:



The Dems could try to argue that the recession would've been much worse without the stimulus etc (but that's old news so I doubt it would get them many votes) but trying to spin the current situation as a time of prosperity for most people would not go over well.

You're right about the energy boom, but can Obama really be credited with that? To be fair, no President can (or at least, no President should) be directly credited with economic developments of this nature but many people perceive Obama as an anti-oil/gas guy and a Dem advertising campaign stressing the energy boom probably wouldn't work too well since the don't really have any specific policies to attribute the boom to and it'd be pretty hard for them to beat the GOP at their own game in regard to energy.

[Mehmentum]

Because while the economy is growing, the lower and middle classes aren't feeling it.  Most of the growth is happening to the already very wealthy.

Wages are stagnant and most of the new jobs are poor, low paying ones.  Saying that the economy's doing well would be pretty insensitive.

Now, that's not to say there isn't an argument to be made for Democrat's handling of the economy.  Its just a more nuanced argument.  'Look at how Europe and Japan are doing.  Both are looking at another recession.  The U.S. is doing well in comparison. etc.'  And nuanced doesn't exactly work well in politics.

[Anonymouse]

Because most Democrats are garbage. Worse than that, they're cowards. If they even attempted a unified message in support of President Obama and "his" economic "gains," they would have done much better.

As leaders, if you can't take ownership of your policies, why should anyone support you? Every one of those Democrats deserved to lose because they couldn't communicate and they refused to take ownership.

[Adam Griffin]

Real median household income is still considerably lower than it was prior to the Recession. Things are slowly improving, but the average household (well, the median household, but you get the expression) is still poorer that it was before the crisis:

The Dems could try to argue that the recession would've been much worse without the stimulus etc (but that's old news so I doubt it would get them many votes) but trying to spin the current situation as a time of prosperity for most people would not go over well.

You're right about the energy boom, but can Obama really be credited with that? To be fair, no President can (or at least, no President should) be directly credited with economic developments of this nature but many people perceive Obama as an anti-oil/gas guy and a Dem advertising campaign stressing the energy boom probably wouldn't work too well since the don't really have any specific policies to attribute the boom to and it'd be pretty hard for them to beat the GOP at their own game in regard to energy.

Yeah, that's the status quo argument that's been getting used for years and is why Democrats are still getting hammered. Right-wing policies drove the country off of a cliff. The argument shouldn't be "is the economy better in every metric than it was before the Recession started?"; it should be "How much better is the economy now when compared to where it was after conservatives ran it off a cliff?".

Because while the economy is growing, the lower and middle classes aren't feeling it.  Most of the growth is happening to the already very wealthy.

Wages are stagnant and most of the new jobs are poor, low paying ones.  Saying that the economy's doing well would be pretty insensitive.

I'm going to say something, and before I get attacked, understand that I'm a white Southern working-class male who's 26 and still have yet to complete my Bachelor's, so everyone will hopefully withhold their own privilege when/if disagreeing.

That narrative (the "we're growing but people aren't feeling it yet") is because the economy has completely changed and the middle/working class has not adapted with it. We've been hearing it for years (since 2011 at least); Obama in part got re-elected by using this narrative. It's a nicety that politicians are still telling people who have become set in their ways, and I think it's actually detrimental to continue stating it.

You have tens of millions of people who think that they're still going to be able to find good-paying jobs and a steady future with nothing more than a HS degree. You have tens of millions of people who still aren't willing in many cases to learn a new skill set or go back to school. There are millions of good-paying jobs available in this country right now that can't be filled (which ultimately impedes working class hiring), but we have too many 20th century workers and not enough 21st century workers. This aspect of our economic malaise really doesn't have anything to do with the Recession, either; the Recession certainly sped up the process - like a strong wind prematurely dislodging dying leaves on a tree that were going to fall next week anyway - but this was coming one way or another. You can't blame Obama, Democrats, or (as much as I hate to say it) even Republicans, unless you want to go after them for blocking massive public works, training and education programs that were/are needed post-2008. Still, one has to ask: if all of the economic malaise and recession hasn't forced people to act on their own in these cases, would a public program really be embraced by all that many of these folk?

Obviously, this type of argument would be least effective with the exact and aforementioned group of people it applies to the most ("how dare you insult good ol' salt-of-the-earth, hardworking Americans!"), and simple minds are going to continue to blame one party or another. A combination of the Democratic Party and time have delivered everything that can be given the obstruction and political atmosphere right now - the economy's fundamentals at this point are strong, especially when isolating just the past 12 months. If you are still suffering in this economy but were prospering before the Recession, it is almost invariably your own fault for not going back to school, learning a new trade, or adapting in some other facet. Of course, that's not the line for interviews.

[MurrayBannerman]

Third Way circlejerks are gonna say people aren't feeling it. People aren't feeling it because we haven't been shoving "Obama's saved the economy" down the throats of voters like Republicans have been pushing "Obama sucks". Basically, Democrats don't know how messaging works and are weak.

This. The economy is doing great! My stock portfolio has gone up about 60% in the last year and a half. Anyone who can't feel this recovery is an idiot.

The stock market is not a major indicator of the economy.

[Bigby]

If Romney was president and the economy recovered at the same exact pace, he'd be heralded as a hero and deemed "Mr. Fix It" by the media.

The same media that constantly lambasted him for his 47% remark?

[Person Man]

Real median household income is still considerably lower than it was prior to the Recession. Things are slowly improving, but the average household (well, the median household, but you get the expression) is still poorer that it was before the crisis:

The Dems could try to argue that the recession would've been much worse without the stimulus etc (but that's old news so I doubt it would get them many votes) but trying to spin the current situation as a time of prosperity for most people would not go over well.

You're right about the energy boom, but can Obama really be credited with that? To be fair, no President can (or at least, no President should) be directly credited with economic developments of this nature but many people perceive Obama as an anti-oil/gas guy and a Dem advertising campaign stressing the energy boom probably wouldn't work too well since the don't really have any specific policies to attribute the boom to and it'd be pretty hard for them to beat the GOP at their own game in regard to energy.

Yeah, that's the status quo argument that's been getting used for years and is why Democrats are still getting hammered. Right-wing policies drove the country off of a cliff. The argument shouldn't be "is the economy better in every metric than it was before the Recession started?"; it should be "How much better is the economy now when compared to where it was after conservatives ran it off a cliff?".

Because while the economy is growing, the lower and middle classes aren't feeling it.  Most of the growth is happening to the already very wealthy.

Wages are stagnant and most of the new jobs are poor, low paying ones.  Saying that the economy's doing well would be pretty insensitive.

I'm going to say something, and before I get attacked, understand that I'm a white Southern working-class male who's 26 and still have yet to complete my Bachelor's, so everyone will hopefully withhold their own privilege when/if disagreeing.

That narrative (the "we're growing but people aren't feeling it yet") is because the economy has completely changed and the middle/working class has not adapted with it. We've been hearing it for years (since 2011 at least); Obama in part got re-elected by using this narrative. It's a nicety that politicians are still telling people who have become set in their ways, and I think it's actually detrimental to continue stating it.

You have tens of millions of people who think that they're still going to be able to find good-paying jobs and a steady future with nothing more than a HS degree. You have tens of millions of people who still aren't willing in many cases to learn a new skill set or go back to school. There are millions of good-paying jobs available in this country right now that can't be filled (which ultimately impedes working class hiring), but we have too many 20th century workers and not enough 21st century workers. This aspect of our economic malaise really doesn't have anything to do with the Recession, either; the Recession certainly sped up the process - like a strong wind prematurely dislodging dying leaves on a tree that were going to fall next week anyway - but this was coming one way or another. You can't blame Obama, Democrats, or (as much as I hate to say it) even Republicans, unless you want to go after them for blocking massive public works, training and education programs that were/are needed post-2008. Still, one has to ask: if all of the economic malaise and recession hasn't forced people to act on their own in these cases, would a public program really be embraced by all that many of these folk?

Obviously, this type of argument would be least effective with the exact and aforementioned group of people it applies to the most ("how dare you insult good ol' salt-of-the-earth, hardworking Americans!"), and simple minds are going to continue to blame one party or another. A combination of the Democratic Party and time have delivered everything that can be given the obstruction and political atmosphere right now - the economy's fundamentals at this point are strong, especially when isolating just the past 12 months. If you are still suffering in this economy but were prospering before the Recession, it is almost invariably your own fault for not going back to school, learning a new trade, or adapting in some other facet. Of course, that's not the line for interviews.

So working and middle class Republican voters lack.... personal responsibility? ^^

[Modernity has failed us]

Third Way circlejerks are gonna say people aren't feeling it. People aren't feeling it because we haven't been shoving "Obama's saved the economy" down the throats of voters like Republicans have been pushing "Obama sucks". Basically, Democrats don't know how messaging works and are weak.

This. The economy is doing great! My stock portfolio has gone up about 60% in the last year and a half. Anyone who can't feel this recovery is an idiot.

The stock market is not a major indicator of the economy.

You're arguing with KCDem.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is this a serious question? Holy sh[inks]t...

[IceSpear]

If Romney was president and the economy recovered at the same exact pace, he'd be heralded as a hero and deemed "Mr. Fix It" by the media.

The same media that constantly lambasted him for his 47% remark?

Yes.

[DC Al Fine]

As Deus Naturae pointed out, median household income is still below its prerecession peak. Of course, the typical voter isn't looking at statistics when they decide how the economy is doing. It's more of a personal feeling.

Your average white, working class voter just isn't that impressed. There was a nasty recession. He probably faced a cut in hours or benefits even if he didn't lose his job. Meanwhile cost of day to day items (as opposed to durable goods) has increased quite a bit. However, things aren't quite so bleak as they used to be. His friends and neighbours are finding jobs again and some of them are decent paying. He might be seeing raises for the first time in a long while.

What does that guy think of the economy? He might be optimistic, but he sure doesn't think its booming. If the Democrats were acting like its 1996, it'd come off as tone deaf.

Yeah, that's the status quo argument that's been getting used for years and is why Democrats are still getting hammered. Right-wing policies drove the country off of a cliff. The argument shouldn't be "is the economy better in every metric than it was before the Recession started?"; it should be "How much better is the economy now when compared to where it was after conservatives ran it off a cliff?".

C'mon Griff, you know better than to suggest that a politician run against things that happened 5+ years ago. Let me guess, you think Carter should have spent the 1980 election talking about Watergate

[Yelnoc]

There are millions of good-paying jobs available in this country right now that can't be filled (which ultimately impedes working class hiring), but we have too many 20th century workers and not enough 21st century workers.

Before we really get into it, can you clarify what you mean by "20th century" as opposed to "21st century" workers?

[Adam Griffin]

C'mon Griff, you know better than to suggest that a politician run against things that happened 5+ years ago. Let me guess, you think Carter should have spent the 1980 election talking about Watergate

We're not talking about Watergate - we're talking about a series of policies and actions that created consequences of a magnitude felt once per century. It is not a thing; it is the thing. With respect to your Watergate example: I mean, the notion works for the Right, no? ACA was passed five years ago, yet they're still getting plenty of mileage out of saying they're going to repeal it. It wasn't that long ago that we were still catching flak over the stimulus. Part of Obama's re-election was cemented on the notion of "Remember GWB? Remember those guys who crashed it all?". As long as Republicans want to equate Democrats to Obama and his policies, we should be more than willing to return the favor and equate them to Bush and his policies.

There are millions of good-paying jobs available in this country right now that can't be filled (which ultimately impedes working class hiring), but we have too many 20th century workers and not enough 21st century workers.

Before we really get into it, can you clarify what you mean by "20th century" as opposed to "21st century" workers?

Broadly speaking, the type of job where you could earn $15/hour or more in today's terms with nothing more than a HS degree. The difference between a protectionist economy and a globalized one.  The difference between an economy where only white males had to compete for work and one where everybody is competing against one another.

I probably should clarify that I mean "we have too many people with a 20th century working mindset", as many of these people either are working in 21st century jobs (the minimum wage ones or those that pay only slightly better) or not working at all post-recession.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I think what he means is:

20th century: Manual labor (workers that use their muscles)
21st century: Tech-savvy workers (workers that use their brains and are able to adapt faster to the new technology requirements of their jobs).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The Democrats should have ran more aggressively on the economy, but not by shoving in your face "The economy is great and if you don't feel it you are just stupid", yea that would probably work wonderfully.

Incomes have fallen for years, and Democrats cannot take a victory lap on the economy without surrendering every last bit of what it means to be a Democrat by any definition relative to the economy and social economic matters. I mean for heavens sake you got hacks citing the stock market, the F-ING stock market to justify taking a victory lap on the economy in an election cycle. And you wonder why none-minority working class voters don't give a damn for you anymore. Its like Romney in 2012, only getting those working class voters he could win on social issues and coal, Dems in 2014 could only get minority ones.

Look up Chuck Schumer's remarks at the NAtional Press Club on Tuesday I think, aired yesterday on C-Span.

The only thing he should have changed was instead of saying Democrats are the party of/for Government, he should have said Party of/for more pay for working/middle class people and that Democrats must embrace more Gov't as the only way to level the playing field. The message is 95% right for what the Democrats should be doing, but you never define you party based on the means (more Gov't) as opposed to the ends (high wages for working and middle class peoples).

In 1832, Jackson organized your Party around 100% purity on the issue of opposing the national bank and those who didn't were shown the door. It was a populist issue, blatantly stupid, but it made the Democrats the party of common man for over a century and a half. You don't even need to do something like that, that the faculty lounges at Harvard and Columbia will revolt over to achieve the same effect.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think what he means is:

20th century: Manual labor (workers that use their muscles)
21st century: Tech-savvy workers (workers that use their brains and are able to adapt faster to the new technology requirements of their jobs).

You know in the twentieth century people used to make exactly the same argument, but wrote '19th' for '20th' and '20th' for '21st'. I will note here that no ap has yet been devised that can wire a house or fix a drain.

[Indy Texas]

Incomes have fallen for years, and Democrats cannot take a victory lap on the economy without surrendering every last bit of what it means to be a Democrat by any definition relative to the economy and social economic matters. I mean for heavens sake you got hacks citing the stock market, the F-ING stock market to justify taking a victory lap on the economy in an election cycle. And you wonder why none-minority working class voters don't give a damn for you anymore. Its like Romney in 2012, only getting those working class voters he could win on social issues and coal, Dems in 2014 could only get minority ones.

Minority voters are actually far more optimistic about the economy and their personal prospects, going by exit polls, than white voters are. They were often among the hardest hit in the housing crisis, but their long-term (intergenerational) trajectory has been an upward one in terms of their incomes and their opportunities for jobs.

Working class whites have a negative view of the economy, but so do wealthy whites, which is downright bizarre and suggests less charitable reasons for being pessimistic about the economy.

As for the stock market, your party cannot have it both ways. If you're so upset that "Wall Street is doing better than Main Street" then pass some legislation to actually help the people who work on Main Street instead of doing everything you can to deregulate Wall Street and give those who make their money that way another tax cut. And no, Big Oil is not Main Street. Some rural Southern slaughterhouse/factory demanding more "flexibility" to keep their workers less safe and less protected against discrimination is not Main Street.

Your party ran on how bad the economy is and has offered zero ideas for tangibly improving the lives of "real Americans." Defunding the EPA isn't going to put more money in their pockets. If it does, that money will go to asthma medication and copays for cancer treatments. A "flatter" tax code is going to result in people like them paying more to the government so that the people who write checks to your party can pay less. Look at Kansas and see how well that worked out over the past few years. The Republicans already want to reduce the Earned Income Tax Credit - you want one of your first actions in total control of the legislative branch to be to raise the net tax bill of poor Americans so that you can really stick it to those "moochers" and "takers."

The Democrats didn't do much better, not just for the reasons I stated above but because they offered an agenda that doesn't help most Americans. A higher minimum wage is great for the small slice of the country whose wages are so low that it would actually make a difference for them. Is a middle-aged family with kids supposed to be swayed by the prospect of cheaper, easier access to birth control?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Incomes have fallen for years, and Democrats cannot take a victory lap on the economy without surrendering every last bit of what it means to be a Democrat by any definition relative to the economy and social economic matters. I mean for heavens sake you got hacks citing the stock market, the F-ING stock market to justify taking a victory lap on the economy in an election cycle. And you wonder why none-minority working class voters don't give a damn for you anymore. Its like Romney in 2012, only getting those working class voters he could win on social issues and coal, Dems in 2014 could only get minority ones.

Minority voters are actually far more optimistic about the economy and their personal prospects, going by exit polls, than white voters are. They were often among the hardest hit in the housing crisis, but their long-term (intergenerational) trajectory has been an upward one in terms of their incomes and their opportunities for jobs.

Working class whites have a negative view of the economy, but so do wealthy whites, which is downright bizarre and suggests less charitable reasons for being pessimistic about the economy.

As for the stock market, your party cannot have it both ways. If you're so upset that "Wall Street is doing better than Main Street" then pass some legislation to actually help the people who work on Main Street instead of doing everything you can to deregulate Wall Street and give those who make their money that way another tax cut. And no, Big Oil is not Main Street. Some rural Southern slaughterhouse/factory demanding more "flexibility" to keep their workers less safe and less protected against discrimination is not Main Street.

Your party ran on how bad the economy is and has offered zero ideas for tangibly improving the lives of "real Americans." Defunding the EPA isn't going to put more money in their pockets. If it does, that money will go to asthma medication and copays for cancer treatments. A "flatter" tax code is going to result in people like them paying more to the government so that the people who write checks to your party can pay less. Look at Kansas and see how well that worked out over the past few years. The Republicans already want to reduce the Earned Income Tax Credit - you want one of your first actions in total control of the legislative branch to be to raise the net tax bill of poor Americans so that you can really stick it to those "moochers" and "takers."

1. I wasn't responding to your so much as to Clinton, KCDem and Democrats in general.

2. I could have sworn this was about the Democratic Party and what they ran on in 2014. Last I checked Republicans were supposed to be the Party of the Rich, that entails that the Democrats are not, and yet... That is my point.

3-something. I supported regulating wall street, I have been railing against big oil for almost a decade, big agra on subsidies and big business in general on immigration. I also support raising the minimum wage in conjunction with a likwise increase in EITC, medicaid expansion (though the program has long term structural problems that need to be fixed)...

The Democrats didn't do much better, not just for the reasons I stated above but because they offered an agenda that doesn't help most Americans. A higher minimum wage is great for the small slice of the country whose wages are so low that it would actually make a difference for them. Is a middle-aged family with kids supposed to be swayed by the prospect of cheaper, easier access to birth control?

No, that is the point. You need a platform that across the board focuses on an emphasizes rising wages through gov't actions (infrastructure, education, minimum wage) and need you someone that doesn't come across as a condescending elitist to do it. Unfortunately, all your candidates with a southern accent are bought off by Wal-Mart. Not many LBJ's left.