General Question

Mr_M's avatar

Did the recent economic crises totally blow it for the Republicans this election?

Asked by Mr_M (7621points) September 19th, 2008

Is Obama going to be a “shoe-in” now because of it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

St.George's avatar

I certainly hope so. It’s going to be tough for a few years and I wouldn’t want the job, but there will be some positive changes with Obama as our president. He is able to see the big picture, is not reactive, and will choose the right people to help him implement the details.

tWrex's avatar

Arrr.. I have ta disagree with ye Megan. Me thinks that the looming idea of higher taxes will hurt the scalliwag Obama. No one wants ta be payin’ more taxes to tha king and queen with an economy sinkin’ faster than a ship with no bottom! Arrr…

Sueanne_Tremendous's avatar

Market up almost 800 points in two days? Crisis? What crisis?

cwilbur's avatar

It depends on how successfully the Obama campaign can connect the economic crisis to Republican policy.

And the problem with “nobody wants to pay more taxes” is that a large part of our current economic crisis is because we’re running such a huge deficit and because we have such a huge national debt. We need to pay off this debt, and that means either cutting government services back drastically or raising taxes, and probably both.

Harp's avatar

Hopefully, it will demonstrate in a very graphic way the hypocrisy of those who constantly rail against “big government”. Not only did the “hands off” policies of small government allow the current situation to develop, but now we’re seeing some of the most vociferous advocates of “free market” economics hailing the intervention of government to save Wall Street’s backside.

If the government’s takeover of the flagships of the financial markets isn’t big government, I don’t know what is. I’m not saying it wasn’t necessary; most experts seem to think it was. But let’s not hear anymore about how the markets should be allowed to regulate themselves and how government shouldn’t be giving handouts. If we agree that we’re all better off because big government used our tax money (or rather our children’s tax money) to ward off a crisis, then let’s agree that that same principle might apply to our other crises, such as health care.

fireside's avatar

@ Sueanne – I think the news of a potential ONE TRILLION DOLLAR bailout by the US government is a good part of the reason the market has gone up in the past couple of days.

Also, the market wouldn’t have had such huge gains if it were not for the giant loss.

@Mr. M – I would have to say that the current election will probably hinge more upon divisive debates about social issues. Either one of them will step into a situation that they will not know how to handle and will ultimately end up relying on a board of financial advisers to handle the economics.

Which means that the question goes back to the same old debate of Experience versus Fresh Thinking. If the middle of the line voters (which the election hinges upon) think that John McCain’s experience in public service will make him more capable of understanding his advisers, then they will vote that way. If they feel that Obama’s intellect and desire to make a difference will help him to not get misled by the advisers, then they will go his way.

You can look back at the past two presidents as a good example of this:
Bill Clinton always made sure he was one of the smartest people in the room so that he was leading his advisory board while George W. Bush seems to be more willing to let his advisers lead him.

Mr_M's avatar

To be fair, no matter WHO becomes president, the “specialists” will ALWAYS know more about their specialty then he will. And there’s nothing wrong with that. That’s the way it SHOULD be. It’s what decisions the President makes based on that info and his comprehension of that info.

I come from a healthcare environment where the Medical Director gets, needs and relies on the input of his “specialists”. That’s teamwork.

tWrex's avatar

Yaargh, I can tell ye almost infallibly that if cuts be made t’ first cuts will come to Veterans health care, which tells ye how much we care about those who sacrificed most for the likes of this country of ours. And me thinks that both scalliwag candidates would make those cuts, which tells ye how excited I am about t’ landlubber and t’ sea cap’n.

fireside's avatar

@Mr M. – Agreed. That is why voting based on the economy will ultimately come down to which candidate will be better able to understand what the advisers are telling him.

There is a big danger in assuming that “specialists” always know best. A good Director or President will take what they say and form their own opinion, not simply rubber stamp what they are being told (regardless of whether the rubber stamp is given because the advice is in line with their initial gut reaction or because they simply don’t have the time/desire to form their own opinion).

Judi's avatar

We still don’t know what the October Surprise might be.

tWrex's avatar

@Judi Arrgh, it be the clap for everyone.

discern's avatar

tWrex (and everyone else who thinks Obama is going to raise YOUR taxes), consider this chart (unless you make over $603,403 annually). Yes, Obama’s plan includes a tax raise, but not on the average American—only the top 1%.

But to answer the question asked at the top… no, I don’t. The parties came together to pass the unfortunately necessary bailout. And those at the top (see previous paragraph) are supportive of the R party. So I think they will do everything they can—and the can do a lot with that kind of money—to get McCain elected. Those 1%ers own the big media outlets. Don’t be fooled when they spout that “liberal media” nonsense.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther