Dump Biden.
nohero said:
Please. We all know that the talking point would be that Biden had exaggerated the possibility that Russia would ever contemplate an actual invasion of Ukraine. Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate would have confirmed it.
I wish things had gone that way.
Russia/Ukraine may turn out to be by far the biggest error Biden will make in his presidency. The invasion certainly caused a spike in energy prices, and it will likely tip Europe into recession. It contributed significantly to inflation. And of course it caused a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine of tremendous scale.
There was room for a diplomatic resolution that could have been reached. Just a pledge to abide by assurances given to Russia by NATO thirty years ago might have been sufficient.
ml1 said:
Russia/Ukraine may turn out to be by far the biggest error Biden will make in his presidency. The invasion certainly caused a spike in energy prices, and it will likely tip Europe into recession. It contributed significantly to inflation. And of course it caused a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine of tremendous scale.
There was room for a diplomatic resolution that could have been reached. Just a pledge to abide by assurances given to Russia by NATO thirty years ago might have been sufficient.
See several hundred pages of other threads for my replies.
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Bottom line I think you recognize my take from 10-11 mos ago was correct but of course you won't admit it so you're working every angle to distort it.
whatever the number was a year ago, by itself it has no bearing on the events of the past year that are going to affect this year's midterms.
unless you are claiming that Biden's approval rating was predictive of intervening events, it was not something to have been concerned about a year ago. and yes, it looks silly in retrospect that a number should have been considered so important.
because Biden's approval could just has easily climbed ten points if he had led a NATO diplomatic effort to head off Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Or got BBB through the Senate. Or any number of things he could have done better this year.
There's more to life than just the midterms which seems to be your exclusive focus, for unknown reasons. There were the 2021 elections which didn't go well for the Democrats and McAuliffe actually said Biden was a drag in his race before he lost. There's also the notion of political capital, ie if I'm in congress and on the fence as to whether to support the president on some legislation, I'm more likely to do so if the President's approval isn't well underwater. And less tangibly, there was the general jarring suddenness of a very known-quantity guy (Biden) tanking 7-8 points overnight on something as relatively inconsequential as the Afghanistan withdrawal. All stuff I'm sure I mentioned back 10-11 mos ago.
So yes, I agree, a focus on the approval rating in Aug/Sep 2021 tied exclusively to the implications for the Nov. 2022 midterms would have been silly. But that was not my focus.
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
Bottom line I think you recognize my take from 10-11 mos ago was correct but of course you won't admit it so you're working every angle to distort it.
whatever the number was a year ago, by itself it has no bearing on the events of the past year that are going to affect this year's midterms.
unless you are claiming that Biden's approval rating was predictive of intervening events, it was not something to have been concerned about a year ago. and yes, it looks silly in retrospect that a number should have been considered so important.
because Biden's approval could just has easily climbed ten points if he had led a NATO diplomatic effort to head off Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Or got BBB through the Senate. Or any number of things he could have done better this year.
There's more to life than just the midterms which seems to be your exclusive focus, for unknown reasons. There were the 2021 elections which didn't go well for the Democrats and McAuliffe actually said Biden was a drag in his race before he lost. There's also the notion of political capital, ie if I'm in congress and on the fence as to whether to support the president on some legislation, I'm more likely to do so if the President's approval isn't well underwater. And less tangibly, there was the general jarring suddenness of a very known-quantity guy (Biden) tanking 7-8 points overnight on something as relatively inconsequential as the Afghanistan withdrawal. All stuff I'm sure I mentioned back 10-11 mos ago.
So yes, I agree, a focus on the approval rating in Aug/Sep 2021 tied exclusively to the implications for the Nov. 2022 midterms would have been silly. But that was not my focus.
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
but at this point, you seem to be in violent agreement with me about presidential approval, and what it means in context. so I guess we should agree to agree.
ml1 said:
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
my recollection is the same
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
my recollection is the same
my other recollection is that someone has a tendency to make some pretty strong unequivocal statements, and when challenged starts to walk them back. Way back.
Re inflation causing headwinds for progressive government spending proposals, DB noted in another thread the passage of the CHIPS act and a large increase in defense spending.
I think investing in the domestic semi-conductor industry makes strategic sense, but this is a significant bit of spending passed during a time of inflation, so DB makes a good point there questioning why money for those kinds of programs gets less resistance. While I'm sure "inflation" can, and will, be uses as a line of argument against any future progressive spending program a candidate might run on in 2024, I don't think the presence of actual inflation makes such arguments any more well-grounded than they were in 2020. I don't know if progressives will encounter more headwinds, but I don't think they'll encounter better grounded ones. Opposition to spending money on domestic aid programs is almost never actually about affordability concerns.
PVW said:
Re inflation causing headwinds for progressive government spending proposals, DB noted in another thread the passage of the CHIPS act and a large increase in defense spending.
I think investing in the domestic semi-conductor industry makes strategic sense, but this is a significant bit of spending passed during a time of inflation, so DB makes a good point there questioning why money for those kinds of programs gets less resistance. While I'm sure "inflation" can, and will, be uses as a line of argument against any future progressive spending program a candidate might run on in 2024, I don't think the presence of actual inflation makes such arguments any more well-grounded than they were in 2020. I don't know if progressives will encounter more headwinds, but I don't think they'll encounter better grounded ones. Opposition to spending money on domestic aid programs is almost never actually about affordability concerns.
I agree.
ml1 said:PVW said:
I'm sure inflation will be used as a line of attack. Whether that amounts to greater, less, or equal headwinds against progressives, however defined, in 2024 vs 2020 is not clear.
Put another way, I don't think most complaints about government spending are actually about fiscal policy at all, and don't see that inflation really changes that.
IMHO a lot of the complaints about government spending are thinly veiled racism. A lot of the objection is that the spending benefits the wrong people, the "lazy" people. In the book "Dying of Whiteness," the author Jonathan Wetzl holds focus groups with low income white people who object to any government spending on health care even if it would benefit them personally. Because it would be hard-working people paying taxes to give health care to lazy people who won't work.
I don't know how that kind of thinking can really be turned around.
ml1 said:
IMHO a lot of the complaints about government spending are thinly veiled racism. A lot of the objection is that the spending benefits the wrong people, the "lazy" people. In the book "Dying of Whiteness," the author Jonathan Wetzl holds focus groups with low income white people who object to any government spending on health care even if it would benefit them personally. Because it would be hard-working people paying taxes to give health care to lazy people who won't work.
I don't know how that kind of thinking can really be turned around.
Well, part of the problem in turning it around is the deeply ingrained, and wrong, belief that their taxes are needed to pay for anything (at the Federal level). Unfortunately that belief is never going to go away.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
IMHO a lot of the complaints about government spending are thinly veiled racism. A lot of the objection is that the spending benefits the wrong people, the "lazy" people. In the book "Dying of Whiteness," the author Jonathan Wetzl holds focus groups with low income white people who object to any government spending on health care even if it would benefit them personally. Because it would be hard-working people paying taxes to give health care to lazy people who won't work.
I don't know how that kind of thinking can really be turned around.
Well, part of the problem in turning it around is the deeply ingrained, and wrong, belief that their taxes are needed to pay for anything (at the Federal level). Unfortunately that belief is never going to go away.
a lot of those people aren't even paying federal income tax (although they do pay plenty of other federal taxes). It's even more infuriating that they express sympathy for the rich people whom they view as hard-working bootstrappers who are being "punished" with taxes that pay for the "wrong" people to get "free stuff."
it's pretty amazing how right wing talking points have been internalized by tens of millions of people, to their own detriment. Talk about brainwashed.
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
my recollection is the same
my other recollection is that someone has a tendency to make some pretty strong unequivocal statements, and when challenged starts to walk them back. Way back.
Looking back, I wrote in haste / miswrote Jul 27 when I said presidential approval is "not in and of itself causal". My bad. I should have said "not automatically causal" or the like. Because yes, a presidential approval rating can be in and of itself causal, which is what I've been saying all along. So with this statement amended, I haven't walked back anything.
You're a big data/research guy, yes? Well, there's ample research out there that shows presidential approval rating is significant, holds implications, and can indeed be causal.
"presidential approval ratings shape a wide range of political phenomena. Approval ratings alter presidents’ policy proposals (Canes-Wrone and Shotts 2004; Canes-Wrone 2005), public statements about issues (Eshbaugh-Soha and Rottinghaus 2013) and use of unilateral powers (Rottinghaus and Warber 2015). Higher approval ratings are at least sometimes related to presidents’ success in Congress (Canes-Wrone and de Marchi 2002; see Edwards 2009 for a review) and the president’s party is more successful in congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative elections when presidential approval is higher (Newman and Ostrom 2002; Simon, Ostrom, and Marra 1991). Moreover, presidential (dis)approval has been strongly related to the way people vote from 1952 to 2012 (Abramson, et al. 2015) and even how people view previous presidents (Panagopoulos 2012)."
There's also this piece which has similar stuff in first 2 grafs of overview on page 1. I'm sure there's much more - these weren't difficult to find. (Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
So there you are, a bevy of research that shows presidential approval # is significant, does hold implications, and can be causal. As opposed to the support I've seen so far for your argument that presidential approval is "just a number" of no significance -- which is, just you saying so emphatically.
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
my recollection is the same
Smedley
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
Smedley said:
Smedley
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
I mean, he's gotten nothing accomplished since October 2021, right?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
my recollection is the same
my other recollection is that someone has a tendency to make some pretty strong unequivocal statements, and when challenged starts to walk them back. Way back.
Looking back, I wrote in haste / miswrote Jul 27 when I said presidential approval is "not in and of itself casual". My bad. I should have said "not automatically causal" or the like. Because yes, a presidential approval rating can be in and of itself causal, which is what I've been saying all along. So with this statement amended, I haven't walked back anything.
You're a big data/research guy, yes? Well, there's ample research out there that shows presidential approval rating is significant, holds implications, and can indeed be causal.
"presidential approval ratings shape a wide range of political phenomena. Approval ratings alter presidents’ policy proposals (Canes-Wrone and Shotts 2004; Canes-Wrone 2005), public statements about issues (Eshbaugh-Soha and Rottinghaus 2013) and use of unilateral powers (Rottinghaus and Warber 2015). Higher approval ratings are at least sometimes related to presidents’ success in Congress (Canes-Wrone and de Marchi 2002; see Edwards 2009 for a review) and the president’s party is more successful in congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative elections when presidential approval is higher (Newman and Ostrom 2002; Simon, Ostrom, and Marra 1991). Moreover, presidential (dis)approval has been strongly related to the way people vote from 1952 to 2012 (Abramson, et al. 2015) and even how people view previous presidents (Panagopoulos 2012)."
There's also this piece which has similar stuff in first 2 grafs of overview on page 1. I'm sure there's much more - these weren't difficult to find. (Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
So there you are, a bevy of research that shows presidential approval rate is significant, does hold implications, and can be causal. As opposed to the support I've seen so far for your argument that President approval is "just a number" with no significance -- which is, just you saying so emphatically.
I should have conceded that yes, a presidential approval rating can sometimes cause other political outcomes -- like a decision to run against an incumbent in a primary.
But your question (and at times it was almost badgering) -- why are all of you not concerned about Biden's approval rating less than a year into his presidency, and more than a year ahead of the midterms?
Why? Because there was a hell of lot more that was going to happen in the world, and a hell of a lot more that Biden was going to try to do in the next year that would influence his approval rating. My answer today is different that it would have been a year ago. Yes, I'm concerned that Biden's approval rating is where it is now -- but it's where it is now not because of what it was last year. It's been persistently low because a lot of negative stuff has happened AND Biden's response to a lot of events has been slow, or not strong enough, or both. In addition, members of his own party in Congress have thwarted him on legislation.
And all that said, presidential approval rating might not be all that important any more in the broader political landscape. It may simply be telling us how people rate the president individually.
Why The Gap Between Biden's Popularity and Democrats' Polls Isn't That Weird
Smedley said:
(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
The study says the reduction of the unemployment rate from a rate that’s slightly above 7% or higher is what improves presidential approval. When Biden took office, unemployment was 6.4%.
(There also the study’s implication that the plus-7% unemployment was persistent before its reduction, which would exclude short-term spikes like the one at the start of the pandemic under Trump. The study also says media attention on the high unemployment is a factor in how its reduction improves presidential approval. The media focus on the 2020 spike was on its pandemic, not policy, causes.)
ml1 said:
and there's this:
You forgot to add "Even Nate Silver" to that.
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
The study says the reduction of the unemployment rate from a rate that’s slightly above 7% or higher is what improves presidential approval. When Biden took office, unemployment was 6.4%.
(There also the study’s implication that the plus-7% unemployment was persistent before its reduction, which would exclude short-term spikes like the one at the start of the pandemic under Trump. The study also says media attention on the high unemployment is a factor in how its reduction improves presidential approval. The media focus on the 2020 spike was on its pandemic, not policy, causes.)
I didn't even mention those two linked articles because I didn't have time to read them all the way through. But looking at the abstract and conclusions suggested that neither of them suggested presidential approval was a causal factor in anything. Each seemed to be looking at presidential approval as an outcome meausure.
From the first link:
With respect to the first question, we incorporate salience into a time series model of
George W. Bush’s approval ratings. This suggestion has not been explored often in the
aggregate time series framework and certainly not in the George W. Bush presidency. In doing
so, we argue that the impact of environmental factors (including war, economy) should vary with
the relative salience of the economy over the course of each president’s tenure in office. When
we incorporate salience into a model of Bush’s aggregate approval, we find that the factors
shown to affect approval for previous presidents, namely peace, prosperity, and security, also
account for Bush’s approval.
and the second:
Contrary to previous empirical studies that find a linear link between economic conditions and
presidential approval, this study argues for and finds a nonlinear relationship. A threshold
regression is used to assess potential nonlinear relationships between macroeconomic variables
and presidential popularity. A quarterly data analysis for the 1960Q1–2012Q2 time period reveals
that domestic factors prevail in shaping presidential approval. Most compelling is evidence of a
threshold relationship involving economic conditions: When unemployment is slightly over 7%,
its decline impacts significantly and favourably on presidential approval, an effect that virtually
disappears below the threshold value. Change in consumer sentiment affects presidential
approval in a limited way, while inflation shows no association at all. These results combine to
encourage further investigation of nonlinear processes in the nexus of economics and politics.
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
my recollection is the same
Smedley
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
yes. you wrote that. But the discussion after that was very focused on the midterms. Probably because that you started with this:
Smedley said:drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Anyone worried about the Biden presidency yet?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bidens-approval-rating-isnt-bouncing-back/
election is 3 years away. why are you so worried?
Ever hear of midterms?
but thanks for finding it. Nice trip down memory lane. A lot of us wrote about our concerns about what would happen over the next year that would affect Biden's approval. And those concerns were well-founded. We didn't know how high inflation would go, and how high the price of gas would rise, and that there would be concerns about a possible recession. But it's hard to argue that those factors aren't the albatross around Biden's and the Democrats' necks, and what voters are concerned about.
Not his 38% approval in September, 2021.
ml1 said:
I didn't even mention those two linked articles because I didn't have time to read them all the way through. But looking at the abstract and conclusions suggested that neither of them suggested presidential approval was a causal factor in anything. Each seemed to be looking at presidential approval as an outcome meausure.
Smedley apparently posted the second study not as evidence in support of causation but as counterevidence undercutting the outcome argument, because if unemployment is low why isn’t Biden’s outcome better? Also apparently, he did this without reading deep enough into the study.
DaveSchmidt said:
ml1 said:
I didn't even mention those two linked articles because I didn't have time to read them all the way through. But looking at the abstract and conclusions suggested that neither of them suggested presidential approval was a causal factor in anything. Each seemed to be looking at presidential approval as an outcome meausure.
Smedley apparently posted the second study not as evidence in support of causation but as counterevidence undercutting the outcome argument, because if unemployment is low why isn’t Biden’s outcome better? Also apparently, he did this without reading deep enough into the study.
I'd be surprised if the authors of that paper wouldn't agree that perhaps very high inflation might not supersede UE rate as instrumental in a president's approval rating. We'd have to go back to Reagan to find an economic environment in which inflation was significant.
ml1 said:
I'd be surprised if the authors of that paper wouldn't agree that perhaps very high inflation might not supersede UE rate as instrumental in a president's approval rating.
You won’t get any spoilers from me.
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
The study says the reduction of the unemployment rate from a rate that’s slightly above 7% or higher is what improves presidential approval. When Biden took office, unemployment was 6.4%.
(There also the study’s implication that the plus-7% unemployment was persistent before its reduction, which would exclude short-term spikes like the one at the start of the pandemic under Trump. The study also says media attention on the high unemployment is a factor in how its reduction improves presidential approval. The media focus on the 2020 spike was on its pandemic, not policy, causes.)
I didn't even mention those two linked articles because I didn't have time to read them all the way through. But looking at the abstract and conclusions suggested that neither of them suggested presidential approval was a causal factor in anything. Each seemed to be looking at presidential approval as an outcome meausure.
From the first link:
With respect to the first question, we incorporate salience into a time series model of
George W. Bush’s approval ratings. This suggestion has not been explored often in the
aggregate time series framework and certainly not in the George W. Bush presidency. In doing
so, we argue that the impact of environmental factors (including war, economy) should vary with
the relative salience of the economy over the course of each president’s tenure in office. When
we incorporate salience into a model of Bush’s aggregate approval, we find that the factors
shown to affect approval for previous presidents, namely peace, prosperity, and security, also
account for Bush’s approval.and the second:
Contrary to previous empirical studies that find a linear link between economic conditions and
presidential approval, this study argues for and finds a nonlinear relationship. A threshold
regression is used to assess potential nonlinear relationships between macroeconomic variables
and presidential popularity. A quarterly data analysis for the 1960Q1–2012Q2 time period reveals
that domestic factors prevail in shaping presidential approval. Most compelling is evidence of a
threshold relationship involving economic conditions: When unemployment is slightly over 7%,
its decline impacts significantly and favourably on presidential approval, an effect that virtually
disappears below the threshold value. Change in consumer sentiment affects presidential
approval in a limited way, while inflation shows no association at all. These results combine to
encourage further investigation of nonlinear processes in the nexus of economics and politics.
make up your mind, dude. Can a presidential approval rating sometimes cause other political outcomes, or not?
Smedley said:
ml1 said:
DaveSchmidt said:
Smedley said:
(Note also this second piece says the unemployment rate is the most important macro factor influencing presidential approval - so by your argument that pres approval is wholly a function of macro factors, Biden's should have improved over past year+ with UE rate rock bottom.)
The study says the reduction of the unemployment rate from a rate that’s slightly above 7% or higher is what improves presidential approval. When Biden took office, unemployment was 6.4%.
(There also the study’s implication that the plus-7% unemployment was persistent before its reduction, which would exclude short-term spikes like the one at the start of the pandemic under Trump. The study also says media attention on the high unemployment is a factor in how its reduction improves presidential approval. The media focus on the 2020 spike was on its pandemic, not policy, causes.)
I didn't even mention those two linked articles because I didn't have time to read them all the way through. But looking at the abstract and conclusions suggested that neither of them suggested presidential approval was a causal factor in anything. Each seemed to be looking at presidential approval as an outcome meausure.
From the first link:
With respect to the first question, we incorporate salience into a time series model of
George W. Bush’s approval ratings. This suggestion has not been explored often in the
aggregate time series framework and certainly not in the George W. Bush presidency. In doing
so, we argue that the impact of environmental factors (including war, economy) should vary with
the relative salience of the economy over the course of each president’s tenure in office. When
we incorporate salience into a model of Bush’s aggregate approval, we find that the factors
shown to affect approval for previous presidents, namely peace, prosperity, and security, also
account for Bush’s approval.and the second:
Contrary to previous empirical studies that find a linear link between economic conditions and
presidential approval, this study argues for and finds a nonlinear relationship. A threshold
regression is used to assess potential nonlinear relationships between macroeconomic variables
and presidential popularity. A quarterly data analysis for the 1960Q1–2012Q2 time period reveals
that domestic factors prevail in shaping presidential approval. Most compelling is evidence of a
threshold relationship involving economic conditions: When unemployment is slightly over 7%,
its decline impacts significantly and favourably on presidential approval, an effect that virtually
disappears below the threshold value. Change in consumer sentiment affects presidential
approval in a limited way, while inflation shows no association at all. These results combine to
encourage further investigation of nonlinear processes in the nexus of economics and politics.make up your mind, dude. Can a presidential approval rating sometimes cause other political outcomes, or not?
I don't think I ever wrote that presidential approval NEVER causes any other political outcomes. But here's the thing -- let's assume for a minute that there was no polling on Biden's job approval. Do you think absent the polling that the economic news by itself would cause any of the same outcomes? Or do you think voters and other politicians would be blissfully unaware of any of the problems facing the country without Gallup or Rasmussen telling them that people disapprove of Biden's job as president?
ml1 said:
Smedley said:
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
I don't have the patience to look for the thread. I'm pretty sure you were very focused on the midterms, and asking us why we weren't concerned.
my recollection is the same
Smedley
My point is, and always was, that the sudden, fairly precipitous, and apparently non-temporary decline in Biden’s approval ratings is a sign that his presidency is going meh at best, and this holds meaningful implications for his political capital in terms of him getting things done, as well as the midterms.
yes. you wrote that. But the discussion after that was very focused on the midterms. Probably because that you started with this:
Smedley said:drummerboy said:
Smedley said:
Anyone worried about the Biden presidency yet?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bidens-approval-rating-isnt-bouncing-back/
election is 3 years away. why are you so worried?
Ever hear of midterms?
but thanks for finding it. Nice trip down memory lane. A lot of us wrote about our concerns about what would happen over the next year that would affect Biden's approval. And those concerns were well-founded. We didn't know how high inflation would go, and how high the price of gas would rise, and that there would be concerns about a possible recession. But it's hard to argue that those factors aren't the albatross around Biden's and the Democrats' necks, and what voters are concerned about.
Not his 38% approval in September, 2021.
I did that one time pull an mtierney and go gadfly. Wasn't my finest post. But beyond that the debate went on because people were debating it, not because I was badgering. And as noted I haven't brought up presidential approval as a fresh talking point in many months. Only talking about it now bc you brought it up.
I do suggest being more careful with your allegations. Like when you say I have a tendency to make statements and then walk them back, way back. I have no such tendency. If you're going to shoot from the hip like that, provide supporting evidence; if you don't have the patience to look back, don't make such statements.
You know who throws stuff around and then never follows up with evidence, or retracts? A certain former president.
I don't know. I count this as walking something back:
Smedley said:
nohero said:
Smedley said:
I didn't expect such a sh*tstorm from what I thought was a pretty non-controversial assertion that inflation will be a headwind for progressives in 24. But we agree that Democratic policies will be perceived by many to be inflationary, which was essentially my point from the beginning.
Maybe the “storm” was because you started like this -
Smedley said:
My take on this primarily comes down to one practical consideration: inflation.
Progressives favor more government spending on social services. Government spending is inflationary. So how well will a Green New Deal or Build Back Better redux go over when inflation is a big problem, compared with 4 years ago when inflation wasn't a problem? And I can't see Sanders and Warren pivoting to run on an austerity platform.
So that is what I mean when I say progressives face headwinds in 2024.
It wasn’t “perceived” the first time.
OK, you got me attempting to shorthand a statement. I'll amend to "An increase in government spending is one of the factors that economists say can drive inflation."
Is that acceptable?
Smedley said:
Again you're making obvious, common-sense statements and calling it a victory lap. Ray Bolger FTW.
Yes, I realize that a president's approval in and of itself is not causal. And I realize that the approval rating is a function of a combination of factors, some controlled by the president, some not. I also know that the sun rises in the east.
I believe anyone who reads my previous posts would reasonably conclude that I grasp the approval-rating concept sufficiently. If you believe otherwise, please show direct evidence to back this up. But stop with the straw men. Thank you.
and I'd count this as walking back your comments on presidential approval. And why do I? Because if this was your position from the start, I never would have argued with it to begin with.
For Sale
Rentals
-
Huge Brand New construction Apartment in 2 family home with 4 bedrooms 3 bathrooms
4 Bd | 3Full Ba
$4,500
Please. We all know that the talking point would be that Biden had exaggerated the possibility that Russia would ever contemplate an actual invasion of Ukraine. Jimmy Dore and Aaron Mate would have confirmed it.