Economy may save Clinton's presidential bid..

CTM · 03-03-2008, 07:36 AM

I've been noticing that Obama's momentum in the polls seems to have slowed/stopped or even reversed in some cases and I couldn't figure out why.

Then last night, I was watching 60 minutes and a voter said she was voting for Clinton because the economy was better during Hillary's husbands term and she likes the idea of Bill being there as an "advisor" to fix the economy.

Also saw this Suffolk University poll this morning which shows Clinton has opened back up a 12 point lead in Ohio, which shows the majority believe Hillary is better equipped to solve the economic troubles:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/FinalOHIOMarginalsMarch22008.html[/url]

[QUOTE] Q5. Of the three major candidates for President: Barack Obama, Hillary

Clinton, or John McCain - which candidate is best equipped to solve the

country's economic troubles?

N= 400 100%

Barack Obama ................................... 1 ( 1/298) 136 34%

Hillary Clinton ................................ 2 206 52%

John McCain .................................... 3 22 6%

Undecided ...................................... 4 30 8%

Refused ........................................ 5 6 2%[/QUOTE]

Is it possible that Hillary might get into the WH based on same incorrect perception that Bill Clinton was responsible for the tech bubble induced good times of the 90's? Or is it too little to late?

Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?

Winstonbiggs · 03-03-2008, 08:23 AM

[QUOTE=CTM;2406106]I've been noticing that Obama's momentum in the polls seems to have slowed/stopped or even reversed in some cases and I couldn't figure out why.

Then last night, I was watching 60 minutes and a voter said she was voting for Clinton because the economy was better during Hillary's husbands term and she likes the idea of Bill being there as an "advisor" to fix the economy.

Also saw this Suffolk University poll this morning which shows Clinton has opened back up a 12 point lead in Ohio, which shows the majority believe Hillary is better equipped to solve the economic troubles:

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/FinalOHIOMarginalsMarch22008.html[/url]

Is it possible that Hillary might get into the WH based on same incorrect perception that Bill Clinton was responsible for the tech bubble induced good times of the 90's? Or is it too little to late?

Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?[/QUOTE]

The tech bubble was an investor issue created bubble. Budget surpluses a strong dollar, welfare reform and free trade that were all part of the Clinton administration were all good for the economy.

CTM · 03-03-2008, 08:33 AM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2406173]The tech bubble was an investor issue created bubble. Budget surpluses a strong dollar, welfare reform and free trade that were all part of the Clinton administration were all good for the economy.[/QUOTE]

I think you are way underestimating the impact the rise of the Internet had on the economy. It's cheesy to say, but it was truly revolutionary, so much so that just about every established company in every industry was investing massive amounts of capital on the same thing at the same time. Not to mention all of the new companies that were formed..

Besides the internet, you had a ton being spent in mitigating and understanding y2k...

I just don't understand how you can credit Clinton when such a major, non government related change was taking place at the time..

Big L · 03-03-2008, 08:34 AM

[QUOTE=CTM;2406106]Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. [B]At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions[/B] such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like another example of the average American voter being about as dumb as a box of rocks. Maybe mandatory minimum IQ tests for voters should be required?! Don't get me wrong, there are some intelligent voters out there, too, they're just at either end of the bell curve.

And as for Clinton rescuing the economy, wasn't it Billy C who authorized NAFTA? From what I've read and heard, NAFTA is an albatross on our economy.

Winstonbiggs · 03-03-2008, 08:41 AM

[QUOTE=CTM;2406187]I think you are way underestimating the impact the rise of the Internet had on the economy. It's cheesy to say, but it was truly revolutionary, so much so that just about every established company in every industry was investing massive amounts of capital on the same thing at the same time. Not to mention all of the new companies that were formed..

Besides the internet, you had a ton being spent in mitigating and understanding y2k...

I just don't understand how you can credit Clinton when such a major, non government related change was taking place at the time..[/QUOTE]

I credit him for welfare reform and free trade policy both of which benifited us greatly.

jets5ever · 03-03-2008, 09:16 AM

[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2406198]I credit him for welfare reform and free trade policy both of which benifited us greatly.[/QUOTE]

Why do you credit him with welfare reform? He was against it and demegogued the GOP about it. It was only when he realized that the votes for it were veto-proof that he signed it. Now that it worked, he takes credit for it as if he was for it all along, when that is laughably not the case. The GOP was responsible for that, not Clinton.

I'll give him the free trade bills though...I'll give credit where credit is due there....

Winstonbiggs · 03-03-2008, 09:21 AM

[QUOTE=jets5ever;2406257]Why do you credit him with welfare reform? He was against it and demegogued the GOP about it. It was only when he realized that the votes for it were veto-proof that he signed it. Now that it worked, he takes credit for it as if he was for it all along, when that is laughably not the case. The GOP was responsible for that, not Clinton.

I'll give him the free trade bills though...I'll give credit where credit is due there....[/QUOTE]

Sometimes you need a Democratic President to push something the Democrats don't want to get it done. He did it and got it passed.

CTM · 03-03-2008, 09:24 AM

[QUOTE=jets5ever;2406257]Why do you credit him with welfare reform? He was against it and demegogued the GOP about it. It was only when he realized that the votes for it were veto-proof that he signed it. Now that it worked, he takes credit for it as if he was for it all along, when that is laughably not the case. The GOP was responsible for that, not Clinton.

I'll give him the free trade bills though...I'll give credit where credit is due there....[/QUOTE]

Agreed. But I still think that the economic boom of the 90's was primarily due to the internet coming of age. The clintons were merely along for the ride, had anyone else been in there it'd have been no different..

CTM · 03-03-2008, 08:37 PM

Bump...

the polls now have the wicked ***** of the upper east side back in the lead in Tx

[url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html[/url]

She's gonna win this whole thing..God, I can't think of a worse outcome..

asuusa · 03-03-2008, 10:34 PM

[QUOTE=CTM;2406106]
Then last night, I was watching 60 minutes and a voter said she was voting for Clinton because the economy was better during Hillary's husbands term and she likes the idea of Bill being there as an "advisor" to fix the economy.

Is it possible that Hillary might get into the WH based on same incorrect perception that Bill Clinton was responsible for the tech bubble induced good times of the 90's? Or is it too little to late?

Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?[/QUOTE]

The problem with glorifying the clinton economy is that the economy was dramatically on the upswing when he took office in '93 (GDP jumped from -.2% in '91 to +3.3% in '92 while it was tanking when W took office in '01 (dropped from +4.5% in '99 to 0.8% in '01).

The answer to whether the Clinton or Bush economy was better won't come until after '09! If the economy begins to turn later this year as Steve Forbes thinks it will and '09 is decent, then it'll be clear that the Bush economy (even with the 9/11 and Katrina setbacks) will have been better.

Steve also said that the housing problem was that we built 4 yrs worth of houses in 2 yrs but that it will eventually level out.

I think the main reason for the housing problem is the economy was good but that lead to a twofold problem:
1. Greater buyer confidence so more people jumped in and bought houses
2. The lending industry began making risky loans

As the saying says, "What goes up must come down" is true of the economy too!

MnJetFan · 03-03-2008, 10:55 PM

If our economy crashes nothing else will matter much. We must fix our economy, but not with a quick fix either. It must take a slow and steady hand. No tax hikes, no over spending and for Gods sake get control of pork barrell spending! We need a President who knows the word NO!

03-03-2008, 07:36 AM	#1
CTM Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Not bababooey and I resent the implication Posts: 21,029	Economy may save Clinton's presidential bid.. I've been noticing that Obama's momentum in the polls seems to have slowed/stopped or even reversed in some cases and I couldn't figure out why. Then last night, I was watching 60 minutes and a voter said she was voting for Clinton because the economy was better during Hillary's husbands term and she likes the idea of Bill being there as an "advisor" to fix the economy. Also saw this Suffolk University poll this morning which shows Clinton has opened back up a 12 point lead in Ohio, which shows the majority believe Hillary is better equipped to solve the economic troubles: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/FinalOHIOMarginalsMarch22008.html[/url] [QUOTE] Q5. Of the three major candidates for President: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain - which candidate is best equipped to solve the country's economic troubles? N= 400 100% Barack Obama ................................... 1 ( 1/298) 136 34% Hillary Clinton ................................ 2 206 52% John McCain .................................... 3 22 6% Undecided ...................................... 4 30 8% Refused ........................................ 5 6 2%[/QUOTE] Is it possible that Hillary might get into the WH based on same incorrect perception that Bill Clinton was responsible for the tech bubble induced good times of the 90's? Or is it too little to late? Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?

03-03-2008, 08:23 AM	#2
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,933	[QUOTE=CTM;2406106]I've been noticing that Obama's momentum in the polls seems to have slowed/stopped or even reversed in some cases and I couldn't figure out why. Then last night, I was watching 60 minutes and a voter said she was voting for Clinton because the economy was better during Hillary's husbands term and she likes the idea of Bill being there as an "advisor" to fix the economy. Also saw this Suffolk University poll this morning which shows Clinton has opened back up a 12 point lead in Ohio, which shows the majority believe Hillary is better equipped to solve the economic troubles: [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/docs/FinalOHIOMarginalsMarch22008.html[/url] Is it possible that Hillary might get into the WH based on same incorrect perception that Bill Clinton was responsible for the tech bubble induced good times of the 90's? Or is it too little to late? Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?[/QUOTE] The tech bubble was an investor issue created bubble. Budget surpluses a strong dollar, welfare reform and free trade that were all part of the Clinton administration were all good for the economy.

03-03-2008, 08:33 AM	#3
CTM Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Not bababooey and I resent the implication Posts: 21,029	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2406173]The tech bubble was an investor issue created bubble. Budget surpluses a strong dollar, welfare reform and free trade that were all part of the Clinton administration were all good for the economy.[/QUOTE] I think you are way underestimating the impact the rise of the Internet had on the economy. It's cheesy to say, but it was truly revolutionary, so much so that just about every established company in every industry was investing massive amounts of capital on the same thing at the same time. Not to mention all of the new companies that were formed.. Besides the internet, you had a ton being spent in mitigating and understanding y2k... I just don't understand how you can credit Clinton when such a major, non government related change was taking place at the time..

03-03-2008, 08:34 AM	#4
Big L Plus six thousand posts Veteran Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: It's all relative Posts: 1,062	[QUOTE=CTM;2406106]Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. [B]At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions[/B] such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?[/QUOTE] Sounds like another example of the average American voter being about as dumb as a box of rocks. Maybe mandatory minimum IQ tests for voters should be required?! Don't get me wrong, there are some intelligent voters out there, too, they're just at either end of the bell curve. And as for Clinton rescuing the economy, wasn't it Billy C who authorized NAFTA? From what I've read and heard, NAFTA is an albatross on our economy.

03-03-2008, 08:41 AM	#5
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,933	[QUOTE=CTM;2406187]I think you are way underestimating the impact the rise of the Internet had on the economy. It's cheesy to say, but it was truly revolutionary, so much so that just about every established company in every industry was investing massive amounts of capital on the same thing at the same time. Not to mention all of the new companies that were formed.. Besides the internet, you had a ton being spent in mitigating and understanding y2k... I just don't understand how you can credit Clinton when such a major, non government related change was taking place at the time..[/QUOTE] I credit him for welfare reform and free trade policy both of which benifited us greatly.

03-03-2008, 09:16 AM	#6
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;2406198]I credit him for welfare reform and free trade policy both of which benifited us greatly.[/QUOTE] Why do you credit him with welfare reform? He was against it and demegogued the GOP about it. It was only when he realized that the votes for it were veto-proof that he signed it. Now that it worked, he takes credit for it as if he was for it all along, when that is laughably not the case. The GOP was responsible for that, not Clinton. I'll give him the free trade bills though...I'll give credit where credit is due there....

03-03-2008, 09:21 AM	#7
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,933	[QUOTE=jets5ever;2406257]Why do you credit him with welfare reform? He was against it and demegogued the GOP about it. It was only when he realized that the votes for it were veto-proof that he signed it. Now that it worked, he takes credit for it as if he was for it all along, when that is laughably not the case. The GOP was responsible for that, not Clinton. I'll give him the free trade bills though...I'll give credit where credit is due there....[/QUOTE] Sometimes you need a Democratic President to push something the Democrats don't want to get it done. He did it and got it passed.

03-03-2008, 09:24 AM	#8
CTM Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Not bababooey and I resent the implication Posts: 21,029	[QUOTE=jets5ever;2406257]Why do you credit him with welfare reform? He was against it and demegogued the GOP about it. It was only when he realized that the votes for it were veto-proof that he signed it. Now that it worked, he takes credit for it as if he was for it all along, when that is laughably not the case. The GOP was responsible for that, not Clinton. I'll give him the free trade bills though...I'll give credit where credit is due there....[/QUOTE] Agreed. But I still think that the economic boom of the 90's was primarily due to the internet coming of age. The clintons were merely along for the ride, had anyone else been in there it'd have been no different..

03-03-2008, 08:37 PM	#9
CTM Hall Of Fame Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Not bababooey and I resent the implication Posts: 21,029	Bump... the polls now have the wicked ***** of the upper east side back in the lead in Tx [url]http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/tx/texas_democratic_primary-312.html[/url] She's gonna win this whole thing..God, I can't think of a worse outcome..

03-03-2008, 10:34 PM	#10
asuusa All Pro Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,171	[QUOTE=CTM;2406106] Then last night, I was watching 60 minutes and a voter said she was voting for Clinton because the economy was better during Hillary's husbands term and she likes the idea of Bill being there as an "advisor" to fix the economy. Is it possible that Hillary might get into the WH based on same incorrect perception that Bill Clinton was responsible for the tech bubble induced good times of the 90's? Or is it too little to late? Also, in the same program, a likely voter said he was leary of voting for Obama because he heard he was a practicing Muslim. At what point does it hurt the country that the masses are voting based on wildly inaccurate perceptions such that running for office is now a battle between charisma and a better(slimier) propaganda machine. If people don't care to learn the truth and understand what the platforms are, why do they bothering voting?[/QUOTE] The problem with glorifying the clinton economy is that the economy was dramatically on the upswing when he took office in '93 (GDP jumped from -.2% in '91 to +3.3% in '92 while it was tanking when W took office in '01 (dropped from +4.5% in '99 to 0.8% in '01). The answer to whether the Clinton or Bush economy was better won't come until after '09! If the economy begins to turn later this year as Steve Forbes thinks it will and '09 is decent, then it'll be clear that the Bush economy (even with the 9/11 and Katrina setbacks) will have been better. Steve also said that the housing problem was that we built 4 yrs worth of houses in 2 yrs but that it will eventually level out. I think the main reason for the housing problem is the economy was good but that lead to a twofold problem: 1. Greater buyer confidence so more people jumped in and bought houses 2. The lending industry began making risky loans As the saying says, "What goes up must come down" is true of the economy too!

03-03-2008, 10:55 PM	#11
MnJetFan All League Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,302	If our economy crashes nothing else will matter much. We must fix our economy, but not with a quick fix either. It must take a slow and steady hand. No tax hikes, no over spending and for Gods sake get control of pork barrell spending! We need a President who knows the word NO!