WI: The Great Recession occurs before the 2008 Primaries?

This is of course, assuming Clinton will be voted into 2008 and the fact everyone thinks she would is a bit arrogant. What if Obama or Edwards got in?

1) not everyone in this discussion thinks that 2) saying the fundraising front runner who came within a few hundred delegates of getting the nomination OTL gets elected here isn't arrogant
 
1) not everyone in this discussion thinks that 2) saying the fundraising front runner who came within a few hundred delegates of getting the nomination OTL gets elected here isn't arrogant

My apologies, but I suppose some of the fatalism that is oddly prone to the AH community can be annoying. An earlier recession can have different rammifications, especially on the known political figures likr the Clintons
 
My apologies, but I suppose some of the fatalism that is oddly prone to the AH community can be annoying. An earlier recession can have different rammifications, especially on the known political figures likr the Clintons

Well, what's your thought on how it affects them then?

Just judging by what we know about how the recession was covered, and how the race unfolded OTL, if you move the recession up a year, you're still pretty locked into the three main front-runners on the Dem side by the fall of 2007, and Edwards' baggage is still probably going to come out from Obama or Clinton opposition research before the convention, so you're back to looking at Obama/Clinton for the nomination. Obama's momentum started to really pick up after the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner in October of 2007, so if economic numbers just completely overshadow the pre-primary news and start to dominate the discourse, he may never see his surging poll numbers ahead of the Iowa caucuses. On top of that, Obama was hammering Clinton on Iraq, which may become less of an issue if everyone's retirement accounts are suddenly being sliced in half and we're focused on economic numbers.

A Republican isn't winning in 2008. That's not fatalist, that's just an educated assumption based on everything we know about the incumbent's popularity and economic performance going into an election cycle.
 
Well, what's your thought on how it affects them then?

Just judging by what we know about how the recession was covered, and how the race unfolded OTL, if you move the recession up a year, you're still pretty locked into the three main front-runners on the Dem side by the fall of 2007, and Edwards' baggage is still probably going to come out from Obama or Clinton opposition research before the convention, so you're back to looking at Obama/Clinton for the nomination. Obama's momentum started to really pick up after the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner in October of 2007, so if economic numbers just completely overshadow the pre-primary news and start to dominate the discourse, he may never see his surging poll numbers ahead of the Iowa caucuses. On top of that, Obama was hammering Clinton on Iraq, which may become less of an issue if everyone's retirement accounts are suddenly being sliced in half and we're focused on economic numbers.

A Republican isn't winning in 2008. That's not fatalist, that's just an educated assumption based on everything we know about the incumbent's popularity and economic performance going into an election cycle.

Part of it is the fact that we are taking into account only the Recession and not the various other factors that spun-off from the Recession. How would this affect the Tea Party or the OccupyMovement?

The Great Recession began in Decemeber 2007, so let's move it to Decemeber 2006.

The iPhone might be delayed as a result. Another thing that could happen would be that it would become the talk longer for the Election. So ideas on tackling the debt and crisis will have an influence on what voters do and politicians would react to that. How would Bush handle the Recession with an additional year and how would his decisions affect the population and the voters.

I know the GOP ain't winning in '08. I'm just wondering how everything would be affected with the various motions. Bush's policies for tackling it might discredit further conservative movements and embolden more progressive ones and add growing fuel. The Tea Party may not come into existence.

Politics and such is not my forte and I will bow to the wisdom of those who know better. But assuming Clinton will win through numbers alone doesn't take into account the rammifciations of an earleir recession along with what could happen in a year.
 
The Great Recession began in Decemeber 2007, so let's move it to Decemeber 2006.

In the US it didn’t start until Q3 2008 but other countries were starting to experience it before the US. What elections outside the US would be impacted by other countries starting to feel the Great Recession in 2006?
 
Interestingly, the bitter gun clinger remark didn't seem to hurt O, at least not in the tracking polls. The conventional wisdom is it cost him votes he otherwise could have won, but he did slightly better in the tracking polls in the second half of April:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat..._Democratic_Party_2008_presidential_primaries
It may not have hurt Obama in his campaign, but I think it really hurt his presidency.

It gave a lot of energy to people already predisposed to be against him. And regardless of how centrist his record may have been, it convinced a fair percentage of people that ol' Barry Obama was not a centrist at heart.

For example, I remember talking with a conservative around 2014. And he simply would not believe that deportations had increased under Obama.
 
I think Romney does a lot better here. Not only is McCain a part of the system and an establishment moderate that Romney can foil against well (and did OTL, to greater effect ITTL), but he has also made his career on the idea that he takes over failing businesses and turns them around, so that plays really well in this context. People forget this but in 2008 Romney ran pretty hard as an outsider guy with a "change" message of his own, so I would say he's probably the best the R's can come up with in light of the mess perceived that the Bush admin got the country into. Despite the outsider stuff, he can claim to be the most experienced option for the Presidency both on the aforementioned venture capital turnarounds but also with his experience in a blue state as Governor allowing him to tout himself as the man who can bring the country - and both parties - together to weather the storm ahead.

There's a lot of fun stuff messaging wise he could have done in that situation, and a lot of it could have played really well.
 
Huckabee was very much a part of the "jail the bankers" crowd after the AIG bonus reveal. He in OTL somewhat made efforts at trying to start a class war with Romney with the comments about lay offs. He probably would play that up a lot more.

However, he could run into a problem in that the most populist, Jacksonian voters in 2008 were going with Hillary. The Republican party in 2008 was a much more suburban, Gen-X party than it would be in 2016, where it was a very boomer and socioeconomically sliding party. Those appeals might not go over well.
 
It may not have hurt Obama in his campaign, but I think it really hurt his presidency.

It gave a lot of energy to people already predisposed to be against him. And regardless of how centrist his record may have been, it convinced a fair percentage of people that ol' Barry Obama was not a centrist at heart.

For example, I remember talking with a conservative around 2014. And he simply would not believe that deportations had increased under Obama.
While the person you talked to might not have known this, there acctually was a transition in how they counted deportations in 2009, with the quick catch and drive back over deportations counted, which were not counted beforehand. This isn't to say that Obama was going easy on deportations, but it does mean that most of the big early deportations under him were because of the Secure Communities program. Bush was no border hawk either, mind you.
 
I think Romney does a lot better here. Not only is McCain a part of the system and an establishment moderate that Romney can foil against well (and did OTL, to greater effect ITTL), but he has also made his career on the idea that he takes over failing businesses and turns them around, . . .
And Americans have certainly shown a willingness to vote for rich business guys.

For example, Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 even after dropping out and re-entering the race. And of course the example of Trump in 2016.
 
Part of it is the fact that we are taking into account only the Recession and not the various other factors that spun-off from the Recession. How would this affect the Tea Party or the OccupyMovement?

The Great Recession began in Decemeber 2007, so let's move it to Decemeber 2006.

The iPhone might be delayed as a result. Another thing that could happen would be that it would become the talk longer for the Election. So ideas on tackling the debt and crisis will have an influence on what voters do and politicians would react to that. How would Bush handle the Recession with an additional year and how would his decisions affect the population and the voters.

I know the GOP ain't winning in '08. I'm just wondering how everything would be affected with the various motions. Bush's policies for tackling it might discredit further conservative movements and embolden more progressive ones and add growing fuel. The Tea Party may not come into existence.

Politics and such is not my forte and I will bow to the wisdom of those who know better. But assuming Clinton will win through numbers alone doesn't take into account the rammifciations of an earleir recession along with what could happen in a year.

The Tea Party or something like it was almost inevitable as a reaction of white conservatives against a liberal much less a black liberal president (see 1993/1994 "angry white male" and "Patriot" backlash against WJC for an earlier case example). The GOP has no problem with Keynesian economics when they are likely to benefit from the outcomes (see 2001, 2002, 2007, early 2008).

People don't give a shit about the deficit. They say the deficit is bad when they mean that their perception of the economy is bad. IT is a trained word association. The number of people who actively give a shit about the cyclical deficit and vote on that issue can fill a medium size plenary session at a third tier conference.

The biggest difference is that it might have gotten Franken elected without a recount, perhaps padded Pelosi's non-Blue Dog majority by a couple more seats. One way or another a Dem was going to be president on 1/20/09 with very large majorities. Getting Franken in on 1/3/09 opens up a lot of political space as the decisive vote is now Nelson of Nebraska instead of Collins or Snowe of Maine. That means a more effective and probably larger stimulus package and probably a faster ACA passage.
 
The Tea Party or something like it was almost inevitable as a reaction of white conservatives against a liberal much less a black liberal president (see 1993/1994 "angry white male" and "Patriot" backlash against WJC for an earlier case example). The GOP has no problem with Keynesian economics when they are likely to benefit from the outcomes (see 2001, 2002, 2007, early 2008).

People don't give a shit about the deficit. They say the deficit is bad when they mean that their perception of the economy is bad. IT is a trained word association. The number of people who actively give a shit about the cyclical deficit and vote on that issue can fill a medium size plenary session at a third tier conference.

The biggest difference is that it might have gotten Franken elected without a recount, perhaps padded Pelosi's non-Blue Dog majority by a couple more seats. One way or another a Dem was going to be president on 1/20/09 with very large majorities. Getting Franken in on 1/3/09 opens up a lot of political space as the decisive vote is now Nelson of Nebraska instead of Collins or Snowe of Maine. That means a more effective and probably larger stimulus package and probably a faster ACA passage.

Well yeah, I know in regards to the difference. However, Ron Paul is associated with it so perhaps an earlier recession might mess with that. From what I gather, the Tea Party was born as a result to the government response to the Recession. Whatever economic policy that would happen here would cause a fair bit of problems. Because someone has to propose a solution and it isn't gonna be the same as OTL.
 
Huckabee was very much a part of the "jail the bankers" crowd after the AIG bonus reveal. He in OTL somewhat made efforts at trying to start a class war with Romney with the comments about lay offs. He probably would play that up a lot more.

However, he could run into a problem in that the most populist, Jacksonian voters in 2008 were going with Hillary. The Republican party in 2008 was a much more suburban, Gen-X party than it would be in 2016, where it was a very boomer and socioeconomically sliding party. Those appeals might not go over well.

It would be interesting to see Huckabee vs Romney as the two main factions of the GOP Primaries in 2008. I’d imagine Huckabee still loses to Romney and then the economic populist Huckabee supporters turn elsewhere?
 

trajen777

Banned
I think you can have two ways the recession breaks over people :
1. We need someone with experience in this disaster not a new be ---- Hillary wins big
2. My God we need some one new to change things from the same old way that got us into this mess

Personally in my experience when disaster happens people will grasp to what we know warts and all --- Hillary would have had the Aura of the Bill Clinton economy that would have prob won the election for her. I think Obama lack of experience would be more of a negative then positive with people losing houses, jobs, savings etc.
 
The Tea Party or something like it was almost inevitable as a reaction of white conservatives against a liberal much less a black liberal president (see 1993/1994 "angry white male" and "Patriot" backlash against WJC for an earlier case example). The GOP has no problem with Keynesian economics when they are likely to benefit from the outcomes (see 2001, 2002, 2007, early 2008).

The Tea Party started as the outrage over the bailouts - and that happened when W was still in office. The Tea Party moniker came in 2009, but there was no shortage of anger over the handouts to Wall Street.
 
The Tea Party started as the outrage over the bailouts - and that happened when W was still in office. The Tea Party moniker came in 2009, but there was no shortage of anger over the handouts to Wall Street.

Yeah, so if we give the recession a man extra year to linger, it would change things (and correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the first bailouts to the mortgage folk?)
 
Yeah, so if we give the recession a man extra year to linger, it would change things (and correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the first bailouts to the mortgage folk?)

Yes, that was indeed the first bailout.

People would get angrier just like they did in OTL when the fat cats who caused the mess got billions in welfare while Main Street got nothing.

The new President might actually catch a break in terms of public opinion. He or she would be a potential savior, especially if it isn't someone who was a member on Congress and voted for TARP. Their policies would pass during 2009, and by 2010 (OTL 2011 in economic terms) simple regression to the mean would make them look better.
 
Yes, that was indeed the first bailout.

People would get angrier just like they did in OTL when the fat cats who caused the mess got billions in welfare while Main Street got nothing.

The new President might actually catch a break in terms of public opinion. He or she would be a potential savior, especially if it isn't someone who was a member on Congress and voted for TARP. Their policies would pass during 2009, and by 2010 (OTL 2011 in economic terms) simple regression to the mean would make them look better.

Of course, this is assuming bailouts would still happen... Granted, I figure they still would. If they didn't... well, what would've happened???
 
It would be interesting to see Huckabee vs Romney as the two main factions of the GOP Primaries in 2008. I’d imagine Huckabee still loses to Romney and then the economic populist Huckabee supporters turn elsewhere?
It was kind of shaping up to be that until the Surge issue took over the primaries. McCain was the only candidate who whole heartedly supported it, and he ended up being proven right by spring of 2008, when voting was going apace. In mid 2007, there was a lot more skepticism over it and Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo briefly got a bit more support as a result.

If Bush decides on no surge, and goes the cut and run route in Iraq, I think that it might have ended up being a class war of sorts.

And this is something that many people forget, but Huckabee did well with two groups of voters, the very youngest, and the very oldest. The youngest voters in the GOP Primary (many of whom were heavily influenced by CCM and Christian Youth organizations, which were very big at the time) were enthusiastic about his religiously tinged messaging and somewhat radical ideas about taxation (he was in favor of the FairTax). The oldest voters liked his economic populism and focus on blue collar jobs, along with his almost militant commitment to social security and medicare (entitlement reform in the GOP in the 2000s was a lot more popular than it is now, mostly because the voting coalition was much more upscale and suburban), which other candidates did not share.

Romney, however, would have won the primary, most likely.

As for Huckabee's voters in that case, my guess is that most stay with the party (albeit with depressed turnout) but a portion would switch over if Hillary was the nominee in 2008 (she ran a pretty blue dog campaign that year).
 
So I’m breathing life into my own thread here:

Do you think an earlier recession manifesting in the US in 2007 would have led Bernie Sanders to attempt to make a run for the Democratic nomination in 2008? If so, what impact do you think his policy proposals would have on the discourse of the other candidates running for the Democratic nomination? With a divided field is there a chance that he manages a win in Iowa and becomes a dark horse candidate?
 
Top