this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2023
277 points (86.7% liked)

politics

19233 readers
2736 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The last time this happened, voters didn’t credit Bill Clinton. That may be a bad omen, or a good one.

If the stock market chose presidents, Joe Biden would be a shoo-in for reelection in 2024. The market rallied this month amid growing optimism about the economy, with the S&P 500 zooming 1.9 percent Tuesday on news that the consumer price index rose only 3.2 percent in October (compared to 3.7 percent in September). Stocks rallied again Wednesday on news that the producer price index fell 0.5 percent. Commentators are no longer debating whether the economy will experience a “soft landing” (i.e., a reduction in inflation without recession). The only question now is when it will arrive. The S&P 500 seems to have decided it’s already here.

But the stock market doesn’t choose presidents. Voters do, and polls continue to show they think the economy is in terrible shape. A Financial Times–Michigan Ross Nationwide Survey conducted November 2–7 is absolutely brutal on this point.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheBananaKing 45 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

High stock prices don't get people food, housing or healthcare.

It's great news if you own a hedge fund, but completely fucking worthless if you can't feed your kids.

Any time someone talks about "the economy", you can freely substitute "rich people's yacht money".

[–] alvvayson 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The main problem is, that most of the things you need to help people are in the power of Congress, not the president.

The first two years, Manchin and Sinema blocked meaningful reform in the Senate. And now there is a republican shit show in the house.

[–] TheBananaKing 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"but hey, the rich people are doing fabulously" is pretty fucking cold comfort for the people that they're unable to help. Read the goddamn room.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

Also, if the government isn’t capable of helping me, why bother voting?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I don’t think this article is meant for us Normans, this is a nod to the donor class that Biden is worth re-investment for ‘24.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I'm so fucking tired of hearing about Manchin and Sinema.

[–] SCB 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The economy doing well helps you feed your kid because you can, ya know, have a job.

[–] TheBananaKing -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SCB 2 points 1 year ago

Having a job is infinitely preferable to not, so... Pretty well.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And Trump, the self-professed billionaire who cut the taxes of other billionaires, is going to be SO much more beneficial for the middle and lower class.

[–] TheBananaKing 9 points 1 year ago

Or you know maybe we could raise the bar just a teeny little bit above 'at least he isn't as bad as trump'.

Yeah, neither is a shit sandwich and a rubdown with a cheese grater, but that doesn't mean you have to want it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm really sick of this line of reasoning that functionally goes:

  1. Look, you don't know what you're talking about, it's fine, everything's fine, and despite what your lived experience is telling you, you're doing great because just look at the charts and the stonks. Yes, okay, you had to cut back on groceries, but did you see the charts? The economy is doing great.

And when somebody says "hey, this doesn't align with my experience, can we just acknowledge that things aren't actually that great and work towards fixing them?" The response is

  1. Ugh, why would you want to vote for Trump?!

MF, I don't, but if the people don't feel seen by Biden, they might not vote for him specifically because of all the tone-deaf paternalistic "stop whining about my economy, you're fine actually" messaging. It's kind of a similar vibe to answering "can we not support genocide in Gaza, please?" With "why do you hate Jews?!". It's just an attempt to avoid dealing with legitimate criticism while deflecting it back onto the asker. The clinton campaign already tested this strategy in 16, and we all saw how that turned out.

[–] SCB 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s fine, everything’s fine

This is, generally, true on all counts.

Anyone who doesn't think avoiding a recession is better than the alternative is not a serious person worth listening to, and there is probably a link between their understanding of economics and their poverty.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I kinda get the vibe you're trying to be smarmy. Look, saying "you should be happy you're not in a recession, stupid" is not effective messaging. If it's going to take losing this election for you and the DNC to learn that, I'm going to be awfully fucking cross.

[–] SCB 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Democrats literally just had a massive series of electoral victories, this month.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, it's not like Democrats have never managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory before. I'm just saying, this is shit tier messaging, and when the whole ass republic is at stake, it sure would be nice to see them actually trying instead of phoning it in with shitty messaging because "the other guy is basically Hitler and we've been doing pretty well".

[–] SCB 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dude the other side couldnt get it's shit together enough to keep a speakership in place. What do you expect the Democrats to be doing? It's a miracle the government is funded at all.

This is a result of them trying. Biden's "contribution" here was primarily from democrat-pushed legislation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Look, if your point is that "they deserve to use shitty messaging if they want, don't worry about it, bro", well, okay. That's your opinion, and that's fine. I don't think it's a smart choice, politically speaking, and that's where I'm coming from. People are feeling the hurt right now, and I think you're going to find that correcting their complaints with "we should be thanking Biden, actually" is bitter medicine. Maybe they know what they're doing, but somehow this feels familiar from the '16 Clinton Campaign; like they've got permission to fucking phone it in because the other guy is unelectable. I hope you're right and they really do know what they're doing.

[–] SCB 1 points 1 year ago

My point is a rebuttal to your insinuation that Democrats are not trying to fix anything or do anything. That's false.

I agree Dems aren't as good at messaging as Republicans.