Obligatory USA Election Thread

[AtW]

Some of the tough policies take time to give results so often those who got elected AFTER those who enacted those policies take the credit - just like Bliar and Brown took credit for Major's work.

[ZARDOZ]

Some of the tough policies take time to give results so often those who got elected AFTER those who enacted those policies take the credit - just like Bliar and Brown took credit for Major's work.

That classic CUK argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. From a factual persepctive the party in power cannot take credit for success BUT blame all failure during their tenure (which could be a period of 8 years) on others. You'd have it that the Repulicans are the most unlucky party in history of US politics while the Democrats were the most flukey. I don't buy that nor do many historians.

[AtW]

You'd have it that the Repulicans are the most unlucky party in history of US politics while the Democrats were the most flukey.

I don't see debt figures in your stats - conviniently ignored perhaps?

"Growth" through debt like it happened under Bliar and Clinton is self-defeating - next administration will have to deal with the fallout and in a two party state like UK or USA that easily means same party can deal with tulip all the time because one party can be populist ****s who just want to be elected.

Stock market return 992% under democrats, FFS give me a fooking break!

[ZARDOZ]

I don't see debt figures in your stats - conviniently ignored perhaps?

Not ignored at all, I just thought the other figures were more compelling but as above you can see it's usually reduced under Democrats. Regan Bush and Bush let it spiral out of control.

Stock market return 992% under democrats, FFS give me a fooking break!

Why not? Heard of compound interest? (11% a year for 22 years)

[AtW]

You can see it's usually reduced under democrats. Regan Bush and Bush let it spiral out of control.

Did it occur to you that different presidents had different challenges? Ronald Reagan had to deal with threat of USSR and he successfully solved that problem without WW3.

On the contrary Kennedy nearly started one by placing nukes in Turkey which forced USSR to deploy them in Cuba.

[ZARDOZ]

Did it occur to you that different presidents had different challenges? Ronald Reagan had to deal with threat of USSR and he successfully solved that problem without WW3.

On the contrary Kennedy nearly started one by placing nukes in Turkey which forced USSR to deploy them in Cuba.

Now you are moving on from economics. Of course they faced different challenges, FDR was president during the worst war we have had, still didn't do too bad ecomnomically during his tenure.

Republicans have on average a worse ecomonic record, that I'm afraid is an economic fact. Please leave normative statements out of it.

[AtW]

Now you are moving on from economics.

You think having to deal with global challenges has no effect on economics?

Clinton had massive peace dividend - for 8 years, with low price of oil to boot.

Republicans have on average a worse ecomonic record, that I'm afraid is an economic fact.

So what you saying is that in cases when Democrats (or Labour) bankrupt the country and next administration takes over (which would have to be Republicans (Cons) in two party states like USA and UK) then suddenly it's all the other party's fault?

Things are pretty bad right now in UK but is it due to Conservative policies in the last 12 years or perhaps Liebor's?

[NickFitz]

Well, the NY Times "512 Paths" thingy is throwing an nginx 500 error

EDIT: ah, it's back. Sometimes…

[NickFitz]

And we're done.

Congratulations
to

President
Obama
on his
second term