PA-Quinnipiac: Romney leads a weak Obama, Santorum barely trails

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Regardless of the basis for the economic conditions or how unstable they were, the fact remains that conditions were far better in 2004 then they are now. The disconnect in this thread is a result of what caused those economic conditions being considered along with the conditions. Most people don't do that and while it is preferable to seek a more solid footing so that it lasts, most would pick any environment with 5% unemployment and $2.75 gas to what we have now.

A man having a job and earning a paycheck in 2004, isn't an illusion to him. He loses it, in say 2008 or 2009, he votes for Obama because that idiot Bush cost him his job and thinks getting someone new will lead to him getting his job back. Three years later, the guy has exhausted his unemployment, the savings are gone, prices are higher and he is no closer to a new job. I am sure you can find that story all across the Keystone state. When asking the question regarding which year was better, almost always, the primary considerations are unemployment and inflation (And don't I don't mean that worthless number people focus on to say it's zero and claim anyone who says otherwise is stupid. With no one buying houses, cars, or furniture/appliances, of course it's zero. I mean food and fuel, which is far more important in my opinion).

People associate the housing bubble with creating the economic downturn, but I am not sure most associate it with the economic growth proceeding that downturn. Not to the extent that it was truly responsible for that growth.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Regardless of the basis for the economic conditions or how unstable they were, the fact remains that conditions were far better in 2004 then they are now. The disconnect in this thread is a result of what caused those economic conditions being considered along with the conditions. Most people don't do that and while it is preferable to seek a more solid footing so that it lasts, most would pick any environment with 5% unemployment and $2.75 gas to what we have now.

A man having a job and earning a paycheck in 2004, isn't an illusion to him. He loses it, in say 2008 or 2009, he votes for Obama because that idiot Bush cost him his job and thinks getting someone new will lead to him getting his job back. Three years later, the guy has exhausted his unemployment, the savings are gone, prices are higher and he is no closer to a new job. I am sure you can find that story all across the Keystone state. When asking the question regarding which year was better, almost always, the primary considerations are unemployment and inflation (And don't I don't mean that worthless number people focus on to say it's zero and claim anyone who says otherwise is stupid. With no one buying houses, cars, or furniture/appliances, of course it's zero. I mean food and fuel, which is far more important in my opinion).

People associate the housing bubble with creating the economic downturn, but I am not sure most associate it with the economic growth proceeding that downturn. Not to the extent that it was truly responsible for that growth.

Such economic growth around 2004 was either the housing bubble (now irreplicable and irresponsible  or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq  (ditto). Maybe the Republicans can offer jobs -- but jobs that lack something that usually goes with them, like pay -- and jobs created by pay cuts to the people who still have them and whose fruit goes entirely to the Ruling Elite of America.

Once again, most don't associate the economic growth with the housing bubble to the extent that it in actuallity contributed to it. My point being that the original point, about the economy being better in 2004, matters only in terms of how much voters think that such is so, rather then how much politicos on a forum think such.