It’s easy to have a message. “Affordability! Tax the rich!” Any 16 year old could come up with it.
It’s harder to implement policies that will actually accomplish the slogan. That’s why California has a bigger homeless problem now than when Newsom promised to end it years ago.
It’s harder still when your platform is even bigger government involvement in the economy. I remember the golden age of blogging in the 00s. Back then, it seemed like libertarians overstated the benefits of free markets and there were sophisticated liberal rebuttals around market failure. But now 40% of the nation polls as having a favorable opinion of socialism (read: Democrats) and everything they touch falls apart.
Just the hype over the effect of AI on white-collar employment is enough to cause widespread unease. Add to that group tens of millions of mostly blue-collar people who don't feel that their jobs are secure and that their health care security is guaranteed.
My sense is that only the 20% or so most left-wing Americans are bothered by the huge fortunes of Bezos, Gates, Buffett, et al. What worries a large majority of people is that they and/or their kids won't be able to have secure jobs that pay enough to sustain a long-term middle-class existence. Here's the political reality, like it or not. If the private sector economy is not able to provide opportunities for people to support themselves at what is now a middle-class level, there will be a political revolution and an overwhelming demand for government to redistribute/confiscate income via income taxes and wealth taxes. 21st century Americans won't agree to live like paupers in an oligarchy enjoyed by only a few percent of the population.
Economic perceptions are very much a lagging indicator. Trump didn't help himself with the over the top hyperbole, that's for sure. I am not an economist (thank God) but am a long-time student of the numbers, sometimes for professional purposes.
I think the economy is improving fast, but we really need another couple of quarters to say for sure. If there's the ongoing improvement that I expect, I still doubt that it will make a difference in November. I think of Clinton and Obama getting whacked in their mid-terms, when in both cases the economy was improving fast. There have been 25 mid-term elections in the last 100 years, and the president's party gained in only four of them, with 2002 deserving as asterisk on account of 9/11. In eight of those years, the economy was strong and the president's party still lost seats.
In the very unlikely event that the Dems fail to retake the House, they can start slitting their wrists. All that could save them would be economic trouble in late '27-early '28. If they lose the House in '26 and there are economic tailwinds for Vance-Rubio, the R ticket will beat Newsom-Beshear by 10 points, same as Eisenhower v Stevenson in 1952. The Supreme Court will go 8-1, and the Democratic Party (if it survives) will be out of power for a very long time, like it was for most of the 64 years between 1869 and 1933.
I'd point out that the mid-term brushbacks, a few of them quite severe, did not predict subsequent presidential election losses for Hoover (1928), FDR ('40, '44), Truman ('48), Eisenhower ('56), Reagan ('84), Bush Sr. ('88), Clinton ('96), or Obama ('12).
This is a great big picture essay that rises above the day to day pissing contests over issues. Americans are uneasy over the economic reality they are living, and there are no short term magic fixes. The party with a plan to bring long term financial security to the population might end up being popular.
Since the first oil embargo America has been on an unsteady economic trajectory. The good times never really seem to be as good as they ought to be for large segments of our population. For many of us things got steadily worse. Insecure employment, lower wages, worse or no benefits, and especially healthcare, education and now houses all costing more than many can spend. The good part is that the malaise is now reaching up into the professional managerial class. The more people who feel the pinch the more likely we are that eventually something might get done.
We've been on a 50 year slide, it won't be fixed for the coming congressional election.
It’s easy to have a message. “Affordability! Tax the rich!” Any 16 year old could come up with it.
It’s harder to implement policies that will actually accomplish the slogan. That’s why California has a bigger homeless problem now than when Newsom promised to end it years ago.
It’s harder still when your platform is even bigger government involvement in the economy. I remember the golden age of blogging in the 00s. Back then, it seemed like libertarians overstated the benefits of free markets and there were sophisticated liberal rebuttals around market failure. But now 40% of the nation polls as having a favorable opinion of socialism (read: Democrats) and everything they touch falls apart.
Just the hype over the effect of AI on white-collar employment is enough to cause widespread unease. Add to that group tens of millions of mostly blue-collar people who don't feel that their jobs are secure and that their health care security is guaranteed.
My sense is that only the 20% or so most left-wing Americans are bothered by the huge fortunes of Bezos, Gates, Buffett, et al. What worries a large majority of people is that they and/or their kids won't be able to have secure jobs that pay enough to sustain a long-term middle-class existence. Here's the political reality, like it or not. If the private sector economy is not able to provide opportunities for people to support themselves at what is now a middle-class level, there will be a political revolution and an overwhelming demand for government to redistribute/confiscate income via income taxes and wealth taxes. 21st century Americans won't agree to live like paupers in an oligarchy enjoyed by only a few percent of the population.
Economic perceptions are very much a lagging indicator. Trump didn't help himself with the over the top hyperbole, that's for sure. I am not an economist (thank God) but am a long-time student of the numbers, sometimes for professional purposes.
I think the economy is improving fast, but we really need another couple of quarters to say for sure. If there's the ongoing improvement that I expect, I still doubt that it will make a difference in November. I think of Clinton and Obama getting whacked in their mid-terms, when in both cases the economy was improving fast. There have been 25 mid-term elections in the last 100 years, and the president's party gained in only four of them, with 2002 deserving as asterisk on account of 9/11. In eight of those years, the economy was strong and the president's party still lost seats.
In the very unlikely event that the Dems fail to retake the House, they can start slitting their wrists. All that could save them would be economic trouble in late '27-early '28. If they lose the House in '26 and there are economic tailwinds for Vance-Rubio, the R ticket will beat Newsom-Beshear by 10 points, same as Eisenhower v Stevenson in 1952. The Supreme Court will go 8-1, and the Democratic Party (if it survives) will be out of power for a very long time, like it was for most of the 64 years between 1869 and 1933.
I'd point out that the mid-term brushbacks, a few of them quite severe, did not predict subsequent presidential election losses for Hoover (1928), FDR ('40, '44), Truman ('48), Eisenhower ('56), Reagan ('84), Bush Sr. ('88), Clinton ('96), or Obama ('12).
This is a great big picture essay that rises above the day to day pissing contests over issues. Americans are uneasy over the economic reality they are living, and there are no short term magic fixes. The party with a plan to bring long term financial security to the population might end up being popular.
Since the first oil embargo America has been on an unsteady economic trajectory. The good times never really seem to be as good as they ought to be for large segments of our population. For many of us things got steadily worse. Insecure employment, lower wages, worse or no benefits, and especially healthcare, education and now houses all costing more than many can spend. The good part is that the malaise is now reaching up into the professional managerial class. The more people who feel the pinch the more likely we are that eventually something might get done.
We've been on a 50 year slide, it won't be fixed for the coming congressional election.
"Let's look under the hood..."