Defending the stimulus in that it prevented the depression from getting worse and making the case for government intervention and support when the economy is in the crapper.

My predictions for tomorrow night:

Corbett wins in PA.

House flips but not by as wide a margin as the media thinks.

Senate Races:

R-AL, AK(Murkowski), AZ, AR, FL, GA, ID, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, MO, NH, NC, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, UT, WI(unfortunately)

D-CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, NV, NY, OR, PA, VT, WA, WV

Dems keep Senate.

kopphanatic wrote:

pacino wrote:expanding the safety net and investing dollars into infrastructure is what should be done during a downturn in the economy. the former verifiably stimulates teh economy immediately more than anything else that can be done, and it helps people live their lives. if anything, we didnt go far enough on the latter. infrastructure and construction get people working, show the public where money's going, and provides long-term benefits which can help us for 50 years (until we have to do it all over again).

oh well

Yeah but FDR tried that and it failed because he was a Communist. People need to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and go out there and find a minimum wage job at their nearest fast food restaurant. We would be so much better off with 12% unemployment than 9%.

?

Even the Republicans don't dispute FDR - the main issue people had with him back then was his attempt to completely restructure the Supreme Court and stack it with his own people. I've heard Republicans during this election cycle often point to FDR and Kennedy as examples of how to do things.

The problem with the stimulus is that counterfactual arguments are impossible to prove--it's not that voters are morons but rather that because for the average voter (because as far as they're concerned it's jobs and then inflation more than anything else that they see) the economy has not improved. You can say "it would have been worse without the stimulus" but that's not certain. While it works the other way--say that the economy did improve over the last two years and unemployment was down to about 7%. You still can't prove the stimulus caused the improvement, but it's a lot easier to take credit for it.

There's also a real problem with how the much of the stimulus was spent--cash for clunkers and the home buyer's credit are economically suspect as they target specific industries rather than the economy as a whole. They only benefit individuals in a position to buy a new car or home, generally those who are doing ok. And all the homebuyer tax credit did was push decisions to buy homes forward.

But if it makes you feel better to say to yourself voters are racist morons go ahead with that.

jerseyhoya wrote:Now for something other than me fapping to the incoming majority of people determined to ruin America...


Fascinating look at psychological motivational techniques and voter behavior

(says the guy doing reading for his political psychology class tomorrow, which is unfortunately not fascinating. though we did read the article on that New Haven experiment in one class a few weeks ago.)

As you're probably already discovering, there's little to no actual evidence for what passes for conventional wisdom among political professionals. In some ways, the difference between political scientists and pros is like the difference between the sabremetrics people and Joe Morgan.

Politico has an article stating that one of the GOP's first orders of business will be neutering Palin. I hope they can do this, but they'll need to find a viable alternative to her if they don't want to lose the Tea Party.

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem with the stimulus is that counterfactual arguments are impossible to prove--it's not that voters are morons but rather that because for the average voter (because as far as they're concerned it's jobs and then inflation more than anything else that they see) the economy has not improved.

This is similar to what happened in 1992. Bush I kept trying to tell us that the economy wasn't as bad as Clinton and the media were telling everybody it was. And some of the numbers backed him up. But it didn't matter because the jobs numbers sucked.

If the average voter's job situation and purchasing power are bad or getting worse, the other numbers don't really matter.

Swiggers wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The problem with the stimulus is that counterfactual arguments are impossible to prove--it's not that voters are morons but rather that because for the average voter (because as far as they're concerned it's jobs and then inflation more than anything else that they see) the economy has not improved.

This is similar to what happened in 1992. Bush I kept trying to tell us that the economy wasn't as bad as Clinton and the media were telling everybody it was. And some of the numbers backed him up. But it didn't matter because the jobs numbers sucked.

If the average voter's job situation and purchasing power are bad or getting worse, the other numbers don't really matter.

Except that in this case, it's even a more difficult job--because the economy isn't great. So you're left arguing that "things would be even worse without the stimulus".

Hey Kids! When people tell you that you're too old for Twilight, but still want that Team Edward vs Team Jacob excitement in your life, try Politics!

Do you like paying close attention to and arguing about the adventures of creepy dudes in a far-off place, that you have no control over?

Do you like believing that "your guy" is awesome and that the "other guy" sucks? Can regurgitate a load of crap from websites to support your belief that Team ___ is fundamentally awful and going to ruin Bella Swa... uh, America forever? Politics! is the thing for you!

from Deadspin.

So I'm going to the polls tomorrow because I want to vote for my state rep, who is a good guy and helps with a number of my local interests. My question is, who else should I vote for?? I think i've ruled out Onorato, because I don't want to hear that stupid salute your shorts song in my head every time KYW mentions the governor....other than that I have no clue.

Gallup numbers don't look good.

By far, for me anyway, the most compelling race tomorrow is the California Prop 19 race.

Bucky wrote:So I'm going to the polls tomorrow because I want to vote for my state rep, who is a good guy and helps with a number of my local interests. My question is, who else should I vote for?? I think i've ruled out Onorato, because I don't want to hear that stupid salute your shorts song in my head every time KYW mentions the governor....other than that I have no clue.

I'd take 5-10 minutes, look over the issue pages of Sestak and Toomey, then of the Dem and Republican in your House district - http://www.house.gov/htbin/zipfind if you don't know your rep

See who seems more in line with your views

TenuredVulture wrote:By far, for me anyway, the most compelling race tomorrow is the California Prop 19 race.

but what about this

Many outspoken marijuana users have stated that they are against California's Proposition 19, saying that while the proposition sounds like a dream come true, in reality it is a huge step backward in the movement to legalize marijuana.

...

Most media state that the proposition will fully legalize marijuana, though in fact, the proposition will put restrictions where there are none currently, such as reversing freedoms users now enjoy under Proposition 215 and paving the way for the current marijuana industry to be corporatized, eliminating small-time marijuana farmers.

also,

I'm going to post an election day thread, and update it throughout the day with new posts on the House and Gov and prop races which I will write when I take breaks from boring reading. Intro and Sen races are done.

jerseyhoya wrote:15%, 55-40%.

And the Dems passed a massive health care bill, 3/4 trillion dollar stimulus, financial reregulation, the house passed cap and trade. If that's barely anything, something would be pretty substantial.

The Gallup poll is good news for the Republicans, bad news for the Democrats but you're overstating it, just the same.

Gallup says the Republicans have a range of between 52% and 55% of the generic ballot vote for Congress and Democrats have between 40% and 42%.

A 10% margin is still horribly bad for the Democrats. But it's not 15%.

I'm not over stating it. Their traditional model has it at 55-40%. Their high turnout model had it at 52-42%. I said I didn't believe the 15 point spread, but it's what they found.

OK, I thought the variances were the margin of error.

I'm torn about the PA Governor race.

Corbett as Atty. Gen. helped my mom out greatly when she was paying this company to reconcile her debt and they did absolutely nothing to help her. Onorato put out a commercial that made it sound like people were too stupid to figure out how to pronounce his name.

But I saw them in Hershey in a debate. Honestly, Corbett looked like a goofball and Onorato seemed like he had his head on fairly straight- even mentioned that Republicans have good ideas, and that he wouldn't be about carrying the party line.

I don't know.

Not having as much attention span for politics as you guys do, for me it just comes down to being afraid of Corbett deregulating everything, starting with the forthcoming natural gas drilling. The whole idea of not taxing that seems preposterous.