Opinion of grading Presidents on their handling of "the economy"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 01, 2024, 03:25:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderator: The Dowager Mod)
  Opinion of grading Presidents on their handling of "the economy"
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Well?
#1
Freedom Practice
 
#2
Generally a Freedom Practice
 
#3
Generally a Horrible/Hilarious Practice
 
#4
Horrible/Hilarious Practice
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 14

Author Topic: Opinion of grading Presidents on their handling of "the economy"  (Read 255 times)
MT Treasurer
IndyRep
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,276
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: June 17, 2022, 06:10:33 PM »

The most infamous example of this probably remains the stereotypical single woman/soccer mom of the 90s who (obviously) elected Bill Clinton "to fix the economy" and reelected him "because he balanced the budget." I always associate the average FL/I-4 corridor/Tampa-area swing voter with this "character" for some reason.

This also been a popular practice during Trump's presidency, with many overlooking Trump's other failures as a President (and person) because of his "handling" of "the booming economy."

Anyway, Hilarious Practice.
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,117
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2022, 07:27:36 PM »

The most infamous example of this probably remains the stereotypical single woman/soccer mom of the 90s who (obviously) elected Bill Clinton "to fix the economy"

Is there any evidence that believing in the president's ability to influence the economy is disproportionately held by women?
Logged
dw93
DWL
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,881
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2022, 08:03:16 PM »

I think it's generally overblown, but Presidents do have some sway over the economy, though some of the impact of their economic stewardship isn't felt until after they leave office. For example, Jimmy Carter first appointed Paul Volcker as Fed Chair. He was the guy that raised interest rates to break inflation. This would, among other obvious reasons, cost Carter re election in 1980 and even hurt Reagan in the 1982 midterms, but it worked and Reagan in the end would ride the resulting boom to a 2nd term. George HW Bush's tax increase in 1990 helped set the stage for the balanced budgets of the late 90s as Clinton too would raise taxes and cut spending.

On the negative end of things, the deregulation Clinton signed into law during the last two years of his 2nd term came home to roost in the form of the 2008 economic crisis, and Reagan basically ushered in an era of "short term gain for long term pain" that we're still dealing with today. One could also argue that much of the stagflation of the mid to late 70s was the long term result of LBJ's guns and butter economics and Nixon's economic policies.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.032 seconds with 14 queries.