Ralith The Third wrote:
P1: Several people I know supported Obama just because he's black, or Clinton, just because she's a woman, or either for their dress sense, without any attention to policies.
P2: And the last time we had a democratic president during an economic crisis was during the great depression. FDR may have done well in the war, but when it came to economics, he wasn't so brilliant. (NRA, AAA, etc... price fixing = bad.)
Admittedly, he did good with the bank-closing, and FDIC, but our banks are already insured, and the people DO have faith in the banks.
Pp1: Fair enough point, people do that - but carrying on the idea, how many others supported McCain for similarly vapid reasons?
Pp2: You didn't have the early 90s recession same as us, then? Slick Willy may not have had a mega crisis to deal with, true, but didn't start from the firmest ground.
Afraid I don't know enough other American financial vs political history to properly argue out the rest of this, though. I don't know how well the last Republican administration to face a major crisis did; only that the outgoing one didn't seem to even know how to handle prosperity
- or preparing for the inevitable downturn that comes as part and parcel of economic cycles (the sort of thing our Mr Brown thought himself invincible to until the world turned and proved him badly wrong) in a sensible manner.
And FDR may have been pretty rubbish at it, and done some dumb things, but as far as my limited history knowledge goes, that's the first time anyone had experienced such a widespread economic panic event, the situation Wall Street had gotten into was fairly novel. We have the good fortune currently of having that example from history to warn and inform us. History of course has yet to judge how we come out of this. 20 years time we may look back on the Obama administration as being a horrific mistake, worse than Bush. I doubt it, but I dare not predict that it won't be the case.
I may be being too general. Might be a silly thing (ad hominem on my own part) to judge the future performance of a particular political party in these things on past performance of many years previous. A lot of someone's own personality goes into a thing like this, so they may not be representative of the party ideal as a whole, or that of their successor. But this time round, the proposition (if we're to believe something a politician said in an election year...) of actually doing something to try and actively pull the economy back from the brink, and to impose slightly more discipline upon the culprits to try and prevent a re-run, sounded a bit more sensible to my ear than what was largely "more of the same, and stronger" on the other side.
Late edit: Gero, I thought it might have been a joke, but I took that chance.
And yes ... they voted in GWB twice. First time, it may have been "fool me once". Who knows what it was the second. There was a lot of debate re: poll fixing etc, if you remember. Maybe it was poor turnout/apathy amongst the blue team - there was definitely a lot of high profile activism this time was there not?