MaxedOutMama
Thursday, August 23, 2012
You May Have Seen This
University of Colorado Boulder analysis projects a big win for Romney. This analysis has proved accurate in the past. It is chiefly based on economics.
As to why this should be so, see this Bloomberg article discussing what has happened to real household incomes during the recovery.
Median household income fell 4.8 percent on an inflation- adjusted basis since the recession ended in June 2009, more than the 2.6 percent drop during the 18-month contraction, the research firm’s Gordon Green and John Coder wrote in a report today.Household income is 7.2 percent below the December 2007 level, the former Census Bureau economic statisticians wrote. “Almost every group is worse off than it was three years ago, and some groups had very large declines in income,” Green, who previously directed work on the Census Bureau’s income and poverty statistics program, said in a phone interview today. “We’re in an unprecedented period of economic stagnation.”
There's a reason why the Wisconsin special election worked out as it did. The University of Colorado analysis is predicting a Romney landslide with over 300 electoral votes. I found myself hoping they are wrong about the magnitude, because it would inflict real pain on some of those who are very personally identified with Obama's candidacy.
But ultimately, "It's the economy, stupid!" A lot of people will vote for Obama just because, but not nearly enough.
The statistics in the Bloomberg article are important, because to some extent the effect has been masked by tax changes, which are due to expire.
Comments:
<< Home
They are hoist by their own ignorance of marginal behavior.
A lot of the really nasty, job-killing stuff in the new laws and regulations doesn't take effect until after the election. They planned it that way, figuring that way there would be time for the effects to really take hold before 2016. I'm sure they believe those medium-term effects would be positive, as opposed to the undeniably negative short-term effects.
Too bad executives and small businessment can read, too.
A lot of the really nasty, job-killing stuff in the new laws and regulations doesn't take effect until after the election. They planned it that way, figuring that way there would be time for the effects to really take hold before 2016. I'm sure they believe those medium-term effects would be positive, as opposed to the undeniably negative short-term effects.
Too bad executives and small businessment can read, too.
Neil, times are hard enough for most businessmen that they don't have the option not to pay attention.
There are a chockwad of nasties impending.
There are a chockwad of nasties impending.
That Obama would undeniably lose on a generic economic analysis is balanced by the depth of Romney's commitment to the 1%. It's hard to get people to vote for someone who openly hates them that much.
Post a Comment
<< Home
