Financial Fears & the US Presidential Election

[August1991]

Why do financial crises tend to happen in September and October? Maybe because the US has its elections in November.

I have a different preoccupation. Forget local elections for governor or state representatives. Forget about federal elections for US representative or US Senator. My question concerns the US presidential election When their country faces a financial crisis, who will Americans choose for president?

In the minds of most Americans, who is likely to manage their money better: A thin young black guy named Obama or an old short white guy named McCain?

-----

Along these lines, Andrew Coyne made a remark that I have thought of too. (Coyne's comment was that this financial crisis has gone beyond a distant worry and would dominate the thoughts of Canadian voters - but in the view of Coyne, this would somehow work against the Conservatives, despite that Canada has no financial crisis. In fact, our only potential crisis is that Americans may not buy as much from us - such as our water, wood and oil. I digress.) In the Canadian context, I disagree with Coyne. But in the US context, I agree with him. This financial crisis (whether true or only apparent) will utterly dominate the thoughts of American voters, and it is foolish to pretend otherwise.

So, who will this financial crisis benefit most: Obama or McCain?

Edited October 3, 2008 by August1991

[sharkman]

I have noted with interest how both sides have tried to gain benefit from solving the crisis. When McCain suspended his campaign, the Dems quickly announced they had completed a bill to solve the mess so it wouldn't appear that McCain was involved in it. But then the bill failed, with 95 Dems in Congress not supporting it. Both sides blamed each other.

For some reason which I don't understand, Obama (who has practically no experience when compared with McCain) is seen as the better of the two for economy issues, and he may well win the election. I'm beginning to think, however, that whoever wins will be an automatic one termer, because the fallout of this mess will be felt for several years.

[eyeball]

I have noted with interest how both sides have tried to gain benefit from solving the crisis. When McCain suspended his campaign, the Dems quickly announced they had completed a bill to solve the mess so it wouldn't appear that McCain was involved in it. But then the bill failed, with 95 Dems in Congress not supporting it. Both sides blamed each other.

For some reason which I don't understand, Obama (who has practically no experience when compared with McCain) is seen as the better of the two for economy issues, and he may well win the election. I'm beginning to think, however, that whoever wins will be an automatic one termer, because the fallout of this mess will be felt for several years.

There's good reason to believe the same fate could befall Harper's Conservatives. Many will point to Harper and claim he's experienced because he's an economist but that could mean little if anything to the electorate if this mess turns into a protracted recession or worse. The party or more to the point the ideology that gets tarred with this could and should be shutout for decades.

As the economy worsened, 1930 proved to have been an election worth losing.

Many voters blamed the Tories for their distress. On Oct. 14, 1935, the Liberals crushed the Conservatives, 173 seats to 39, with others taking 33. The Conservative party didn't return to office until 1957.

Edited October 4, 2008 by eyeball

[sharkman]

Though interesting, I don't think the two situations are worth comparing. The Liberal brand was badly damaged under Adscam and Chrieten and right now they have no leader. Also, the potential threat to our economy is plainly international in nature, something that most Canadians (save perhaps the hard left) understand.

And as for the car industry in Ontario, you can't blame Harper for plummeting SUV and truck sales, North Americans' increasing sensitivity to environmental issues and gas prices is to blame for that.

You say that the ideology that gets tarred with this should rightly be shut out of power in Canada for decades. It appears you are saying that you do not care which party is actually to blame, but whichever one gets blamed, innocent or not, should be punished. I disagree with this on two counts. One, I don't think either ideology in canada is to blame for the US meltdown. Second, if one was to blame, I would prefer that the guilty one be found out and punished.

[August1991]

You say that the ideology that gets tarred with this should rightly be shut out of power in Canada for decades. It appears you are saying that you do not care which party is actually to blame, but whichever one gets blamed, innocent or not, should be punished. I disagree with this on two counts. One, I don't think either ideology in canada is to blame for the US meltdown. Second, if one was to blame, I would prefer that the guilty one be found out and punished.

That's not how many voters decide things. They hold responsible the person or party at the helm when the ship visibly starts to sink - and not when it hit the iceberg.

In the US, many people are going to vote Democrat simply because it was a Republican in the White House when house prices and the stock market started downwards. Americans tend to vote with their wallets.

I have long predicted a McCain win largely because Obama is simply too left wing for America. But I must admit that this election is for teh Democrats to lose and Obama has done a remarkable job of appearing to move to the centre.

So far, it appears that Obama has benefitted from this financial crisis.