As I mentioned yesterday, it's an article of faith on CNBC and Wall Street that the market does better under Republicans, even though the facts don't bare it out.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/for-lobbyists-recession-may-be-deepening.html
The market actually consistently does better under Democratic Presidents than Republicans but you'd never know it listening to CNBC. Yet, there it is. Not just the market, but the larger economy. Don't believe me? It's been well documented.
https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B008DZO7C6
However, I hate Republicans so I'm not an honest broker right? How about the National Review-they hate Democrats, a lot. Here the National Review at Why Does the Economy Do Better Under Democrats?
"That’s the question two Princeton economics professors set out to answer in a new study. The answer: The impressively large gap seems to have little to do with the presidents and policies themselves. There happen to have been fewer oil shocks under Democratic presidents, consumer confidence has been higher, and something called “total factor productivity” has been higher (it reflects the value the economy produces on top of the labor and capital inputs)."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/365375/why-does-economy-do-better-under-democratic-presidents-republican-ones-patrick-brennan
Ok the NR wants to blame it solely on luck but they admit the correlation exists. On CNBC we are lead to believe that it's the opposite-the market, and presumably the attendant economy-does better under the GOP. Right now we have Larry Kudlow on CNBC-he hasn't been around too much lately, but of course he surfaces now. Theyve' decided on CNBC that it's not going to be just a GOP win but a landslide, a wave, no the wave to end all waves.
How do we know it's going to be a wave? The market has been going up a lot. Who's assuming the result here?
"This might be a wave election, where both houses come in better than expectations for Republicans," said Larry McDonald, head of U.S. strategy at Macro Group, Newedge USA, in New York. Republican gains in polls are "the reason the stock market has bounced back so much."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102151570
Krugman gets a lot of flak for arguing against moral equivalence of the parties-'both sides do it.' One big difference-arguing against moral equivalence-is that as election day approached in 2012 you heard more and more GOPers making the fantastic claim that because the polls showed the GOP behind they were all just biased liberal polls that were systematically lying to discourage Republicans from voting-thereby these claims were self-fulfilling.
Are Democrats claiming that these polls are all just partisan hackery? Hardly. For my part, I accept that this is the consensus of the polls and the most likely outcome. All I can say is that there is no proof of any wave and that the Dems still do have a significant chance of holding onto the Senate-1 in 4 is significant. Nate Silver:
"After two months of forecasting, it comes down to this: Republicans are favored to win the Senate. Their chances of doing so are 76 percent,according to FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast, which is principally based on an analysis of the polls in each state and the historical accuracy of Senate polling."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-update-republicans-have-a-3-in-4-chance-of-winning-the-senate/
I kind of feel like Schumpeter who believed that Socialism was inevitable. He pointed out that just because he believed this was the future didn't mean he liked it. I believe the odds are we'll have a GOP Senate in January, though we still have a plausible chance of the Dems holding on and there are a lot of close races.
I also think it's just absurd for folks like Kudlow to run around telling us about all the great policies the GOP will pass-they don't have the votes, assuming they can even find agreement between a GOP Senate and a GOP House, or even the GOP House itself.
Let's be clear. If this likely outcome comes to pass, the next 2 years will be even more frustrating and dispiriting than the last, assuming the GOP declares a wave and a huge mandate for its policies and you know that it will. They won't compromise with the President on anything but will define compromise as him signing their awful bills.
By this definition 'compromise' won't happen but what will unfortunately probably happen is more of Benghazi Nation- Darrell Issa will be the busiest man in America investigating where the President went to dinner last night.
Still the Dems can conceivably win which would be a tragedy for the GOP as this is probably going to be their last decent election for awhile.
Kudlow was declaring that the GOP will probably know it took the Senate by 7:15-as if Scott Brown wins NH this likely would mean just that. However in fact, it may well take considerably longer to crown them if crown them we must.
"Still, for Republicans, it would be worth the wait after failed attempts to win the Senate in 2010 and 2012. They’ve been modest favorites in the FiveThirtyEight forecast all year, in part because the national environment is favorable for them: the group of states holding key Senate elections lean red; several Democratic incumbents have retired and the others were last elected in 2008, a high-water mark for the Democratic party; President Obama is unpopular and midterm elections have a long history of being challenging for the president’s party."
I should also point out that while the President's approval rating isn't great, it's not that bad-the low 40s; hardly Nixon or George W. Bush territory which is where both were at this time in their second terms.
What the GOP really could use right now if they get their victory here is a little humility. It would help them in 2016 and going forward. As a Democrat I never have to worry about that though-the GOP is never humble. Losing only makes them more arrogant.
http://diaryofarepublicanhater.blogspot.com/2014/11/for-lobbyists-recession-may-be-deepening.html
The market actually consistently does better under Democratic Presidents than Republicans but you'd never know it listening to CNBC. Yet, there it is. Not just the market, but the larger economy. Don't believe me? It's been well documented.
https://read.amazon.com/?asin=B008DZO7C6
However, I hate Republicans so I'm not an honest broker right? How about the National Review-they hate Democrats, a lot. Here the National Review at Why Does the Economy Do Better Under Democrats?
"That’s the question two Princeton economics professors set out to answer in a new study. The answer: The impressively large gap seems to have little to do with the presidents and policies themselves. There happen to have been fewer oil shocks under Democratic presidents, consumer confidence has been higher, and something called “total factor productivity” has been higher (it reflects the value the economy produces on top of the labor and capital inputs)."
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/365375/why-does-economy-do-better-under-democratic-presidents-republican-ones-patrick-brennan
Ok the NR wants to blame it solely on luck but they admit the correlation exists. On CNBC we are lead to believe that it's the opposite-the market, and presumably the attendant economy-does better under the GOP. Right now we have Larry Kudlow on CNBC-he hasn't been around too much lately, but of course he surfaces now. Theyve' decided on CNBC that it's not going to be just a GOP win but a landslide, a wave, no the wave to end all waves.
How do we know it's going to be a wave? The market has been going up a lot. Who's assuming the result here?
"This might be a wave election, where both houses come in better than expectations for Republicans," said Larry McDonald, head of U.S. strategy at Macro Group, Newedge USA, in New York. Republican gains in polls are "the reason the stock market has bounced back so much."
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102151570
Krugman gets a lot of flak for arguing against moral equivalence of the parties-'both sides do it.' One big difference-arguing against moral equivalence-is that as election day approached in 2012 you heard more and more GOPers making the fantastic claim that because the polls showed the GOP behind they were all just biased liberal polls that were systematically lying to discourage Republicans from voting-thereby these claims were self-fulfilling.
Are Democrats claiming that these polls are all just partisan hackery? Hardly. For my part, I accept that this is the consensus of the polls and the most likely outcome. All I can say is that there is no proof of any wave and that the Dems still do have a significant chance of holding onto the Senate-1 in 4 is significant. Nate Silver:
"After two months of forecasting, it comes down to this: Republicans are favored to win the Senate. Their chances of doing so are 76 percent,according to FiveThirtyEight’s Senate forecast, which is principally based on an analysis of the polls in each state and the historical accuracy of Senate polling."
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/final-update-republicans-have-a-3-in-4-chance-of-winning-the-senate/
I kind of feel like Schumpeter who believed that Socialism was inevitable. He pointed out that just because he believed this was the future didn't mean he liked it. I believe the odds are we'll have a GOP Senate in January, though we still have a plausible chance of the Dems holding on and there are a lot of close races.
I also think it's just absurd for folks like Kudlow to run around telling us about all the great policies the GOP will pass-they don't have the votes, assuming they can even find agreement between a GOP Senate and a GOP House, or even the GOP House itself.
Let's be clear. If this likely outcome comes to pass, the next 2 years will be even more frustrating and dispiriting than the last, assuming the GOP declares a wave and a huge mandate for its policies and you know that it will. They won't compromise with the President on anything but will define compromise as him signing their awful bills.
By this definition 'compromise' won't happen but what will unfortunately probably happen is more of Benghazi Nation- Darrell Issa will be the busiest man in America investigating where the President went to dinner last night.
Still the Dems can conceivably win which would be a tragedy for the GOP as this is probably going to be their last decent election for awhile.
Kudlow was declaring that the GOP will probably know it took the Senate by 7:15-as if Scott Brown wins NH this likely would mean just that. However in fact, it may well take considerably longer to crown them if crown them we must.
"Still, for Republicans, it would be worth the wait after failed attempts to win the Senate in 2010 and 2012. They’ve been modest favorites in the FiveThirtyEight forecast all year, in part because the national environment is favorable for them: the group of states holding key Senate elections lean red; several Democratic incumbents have retired and the others were last elected in 2008, a high-water mark for the Democratic party; President Obama is unpopular and midterm elections have a long history of being challenging for the president’s party."
I should also point out that while the President's approval rating isn't great, it's not that bad-the low 40s; hardly Nixon or George W. Bush territory which is where both were at this time in their second terms.
What the GOP really could use right now if they get their victory here is a little humility. It would help them in 2016 and going forward. As a Democrat I never have to worry about that though-the GOP is never humble. Losing only makes them more arrogant.
No comments:
Post a Comment