US Politics: coughing for peace is like dying for the economy

[TrueMetis]

So here's an interesting historical factoid I found mentioned on Twitter. Captain Crozier commanded the Aircraft Carrier Theodore Roosevelt. During the Spanish American War the actual Theodore Roosevelt was a Lt Colonel, his regiment being the Rough Riders. When disease started to ravage his unit and others the officers decided to send a letter demanding their return home and deliberately sent it to the press. Supposedly Roosevelt was the one to draft it, and he and 9 other officers signed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round-Robin_Letter_(Spanish–American_War)

And much like today, this resulted in the men being returned home, but the admin at the time claimed the letter didn't actually change anything, and they were totally gonna do it anyway.

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

I'd be so, so happy if Florida goes Biden and kills Trump's hopes and dreams. I hope they arrange a street party outside Mar-a-Lago to celebrate the inauguration.

It needs to be burned down to purge this epicenter of plague.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

19 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

A I see Charlie Brown is still charging at the football.

I only believe Florida is capabale of making a sane electoral choice, when I see the Democratic nominee (presumably Biden) actually winning the Meth State in a GE.

Obama won it in '08 and '12 so it's not really that hard to imagine.

[IheartIheartTesla]

About Trump's approval rating, it would be nice to have a few A grade pollsters like ABC/Washington Post or Fox News rather than have pollster data that have to be manipulated. YouGov has almost daily tracking that is driving a lot of the numbers, so I'd treat the 538 numbers with a grain of salt.

Polarization may yet minimize effects of the economy (a topic of research now), but we dont need dramatic movements. Just enough at the margins.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Obama won it in '08 and '12 so it's not really that hard to imagine.

Yes, but Biden is not Obama by any stretch of imagination (neither is Sanders btw.).

And when faced with meh to okayish Democarts (Gore*, Kerry, HRC) they do not have the best track record, add to that their choices for Govenor, and most recently sending Lex Luthor to the US senate to serve alongside that empty suit Rubio.

*with the assistance of Scalia.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

If the economy tanks, I don't think pointing to the economy is a winner.  And while there are no doubt many Trump voters who care about things like conservative judges, NAFTA, and the Paris accord, there are also a lot of Trump voters who don't.  Particularly low information Trump voters.  

From the innumerable "Reporting live from Trump country" articles (as well as talking to some of my Republican in-laws in Delaware), I get the impression that there is a substantial subset of Trump voters who:

1. Disapprove of Trump's general assholery and wish he would tweet less

2. Approve of Trump's handling of the economy/jobs

3. Are anti-immigration

4. Like that Trump sticks up for "people like me" (read: Republicans)

Of those four things, #1 is negative and isn't going anywhere, #2 is in grave peril, #3 is still there, but on the back burner in a health crisis and #4 is threatened by Trump's constant passing the buck instead of managing an effective federal response.  At the very least, the reelection roadmap that Trump had 3 months ago is complete trash.  He'll have to make a new one on the fly. 

Ultimately none of that matters, because he's a Republican. Even McCain got 37% of the vote after Bush fucked the economy entirely. 

Remember, the economy was viewed as 'bad' by Republicans the day right before Trump took office, and 'good' as soon as he became POTUS. Reasons don't matter. All they care about is that they can justify their horrifying choices.

[Maithanet]

34 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately none of that matters, because he's a Republican. Even McCain got 37% of the vote after Bush fucked the economy entirely. 

Remember, the economy was viewed as 'bad' by Republicans the day right before Trump took office, and 'good' as soon as he became POTUS. Reasons don't matter. All they care about is that they can justify their horrifying choices.

You think 2008 is an example that Republicans are immune to the impacts of a terrible economy?  Because 2008 was the most lopsided Presidential election this century, and the economy was the biggest reason why.  Yes, Trump will no doubt still get at least 44% of the vote.  So what?  That "high floor" didn't save McCain from getting wiped out.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

A I see Charlie Brown is still charging at the football.

Nah, it's only a small subsample in one poll.  Moreover, attitudes are almost certainly going to drastically change in very unpredictable ways from now until November.  But, if he's still looking this bad consistently in polling in the Tampa area come late October?  Yeah, that's not "Charlie Brown-ing it," that's just understanding how politicians win statewide in Florida.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Remember, the economy was viewed as 'bad' by Republicans the day right before Trump took office, and 'good' as soon as he became POTUS. Reasons don't matter. All they care about is that they can justify their horrifying choices.

Right, the economy was viewed as "bad" by Republicans - and many swing voters - under an incumbent Democratic president.  Thus the Republican candidate won.  That's how economic voting works.  In normal times, if the economy tanked as much as it's going to in the coming months, then the incumbent would undeniably be screwed.  But, this isn't just a regular recession.  There's no prior information on how voters react to the economy tanking due to the global economy shutting down for months in the face of a global pandemic.  So, who knows.

[mcbigski]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Remember, the economy was viewed as 'bad' by Republicans the day right before Trump took office, and 'good' as soon as he became POTUS. Reasons don't matter. All they care about is that they can justify their horrifying choices.

The regulatory burden on private enterprise is far lower under Trump than it would have been if Clinton continued the trend of the previous administration.  I saw it first hand in my industry.  I would be shocked if that weren't the case in many other fields as well.  Less drag means more efficiency, and more growth.  But I don't expect that would see much validity there.  Like you say, reasons don't matter.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right, the economy was viewed as "bad" by Republicans - and many swing voters - under an incumbent Democratic president. 

There was no incumbent in 2016, no?

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

Thus the Republican candidate won.  That's how economic voting works.  In normal times, if the economy tanked as much as it's going to in the coming months, then the incumbent would undeniably be screwed. 

I'm not convinced that there is any normal times any more. Not since 2008. 

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

But, this isn't just a regular recession.  There's no prior information on how voters react to the economy tanking due to the global economy shutting down for months in the face of a global pandemic.  So, who knows.

That's entirely fair.

1 minute ago, mcbigski said:

The regulatory burden on private enterprise is far lower under Trump than it would have been if Clinton continued the trend of the previous administration.  I saw it first hand in my industry.  I would be shocked if that weren't the case in many other fields as well.  Less drag means more efficiency, and more growth.  But I don't expect that would see much validity there.  Like you say, reasons don't matter.

I'm sure. That hasn't made universal growth across the board, and it really hasn't resulted in particular wage growth. You're right that the economy (at least certain parts) has grown, though a lot of that has also been offset by Trump's trade wars. 

Really, the economy has for whatever reasons stayed largely the same trajectory-wise as it was under Obama. The one exception was the stock market, which had a major boost. Everything else though - wage growth, unemployment, actual jobs - has stayed on the same 1-2% growth trajectory that it was since about 2010.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

There was no incumbent in 2016, no?

Economic voting is based on the incumbent's party.

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not convinced that there is any normal times any more. Not since 2008.

Well, yeah, it's a hell of a lot easier to ignore the building of knowledge over the past 70 years, throw up your hands, and then simply act as if your instincts are just as valid.  That's a great impulse.  But, if the economy tanked without a global pandemic, I'd be very very confident Trump was gonna lose.  I'd do that bug bet or whatever you've talked about before.

[Rippounet]

19 minutes ago, mcbigski said:

The regulatory burden on private enterprise is far lower [...] Less drag means more efficiency, and more growth.

"Regulations bad, growth good."

You'd think after -almost- 50 years of that line smart people would have realized what the problem is.

[Kalbear]

Just now, DMC said:

Economic voting is based on the incumbent's party.

Ah, I got it. That said, it's still weird that the economy was...fine before, and the economy was fine now. 

Just now, DMC said:

Well, yeah, it's a hell of a lot easier to ignore the building of knowledge over the past 70 years, throw up your hands, and then simply act as if your instincts are just as valid.  That's a great impulse.  But, if the economy tanked without a global pandemic, I'd be very very confident Trump was gonna lose.  I'd do that bug bet or whatever you've talked about before.

I don't think my instincts are valid, but I do think trendlines are better, and I also think that basing predictions based on historical values that had significant differences in our current environment is not particularly useful. 

You've been confident that Trump was going to lose based on his approval rate regardless, so I'm not sure how the economy tanking matters here either. Presumably you'd say that his approval would go down like Bush's did in 2008 as well, making both the economy and the approval be a good indication of a 1-term POTUS. And maybe you're right!

But I would say that there are enough things that have changed - partisanship, voting restrictions, urban/rural divides, lack of shared news or facts, social news, foreign interference - that simply looking at previous trends is not enough. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 minutes ago, DMC said:

Economic voting is based on the incumbent's party.

Well, yeah, it's a hell of a lot easier to ignore the building of knowledge over the past 70 years, throw up your hands, and then simply act as if your instincts are just as valid.  That's a great impulse.  But, if the economy tanked without a global pandemic, I'd be very very confident Trump was gonna lose.  I'd do that bug bet or whatever you've talked about before.

Yeah isn't one of you two supposed to eat a bunch of bugs or something?  Pics or it didn't happen

[DMC]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I also think that basing predictions based on historical values that had significant differences in our current environment is not particularly useful. 

The predictions aren't based on "historical values," they're based on models integrating current information that have proven predictive over long periods of time.  They were accurate in 2008, 2012, and 2016.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

You've been confident that Trump was going to lose based on his approval rate regardless

No, I've been confident that if his approval was still in the low 40s on election day eve he would lose.  I have never been confident that Trump is going to lose, since (before all this) I expected his approval would gravitate towards the 47% the GOP candidate has received the past few cycles as the election approached.

[DMC]

12 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah isn't one of you two supposed to eat a bunch of bugs or something?  Pics or it didn't happen

I don't think we ever actually made any bet, but I could definitely wrong about that - sure I was drunk.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

I don't think we ever actually made any bet, but I could definitely wrong about that - sure I was drunk.

I have mentioned Sam Wang's famous 'eat a bug' bet, but I don't think DMC or I bet on anything else.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

lack of shared news or facts

Wanted to cite this because I'm about to do a (recorded) lecture on it.  Porter & Wood's research is pretty damn exhaustive.  While they find respondents across all parties/ideologies correct their attitudes on specific issues when confronted with accurate information, they also failed to find any evidence that exposing respondents to accurate information changed individuals' partisanship or vote choice.  So, frankly "fake news" doesn't really matter, it's completely subsumed by polarization.

[Fragile Bird]

My lord, the lunacy of a Trump press conference.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Fragile Bird,

Michael Lewis wrote a book named Flashboys that heavily featured algorithm based trading and is probably what you were thinking of.