What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[The Minsky Moment]

There's lots of good indicators on the US economy - but real wages are falling and I believe basically have been since Biden took office. It feels a little "that's your bloody GDP. Not ours."

Real wages have gone up slightly in 2023 but are down overall since Biden's inauguration.  The basic point stands.

[DGuller]

That being said, I would hope that not too long after re-election that Biden would retire and hand the reigns of to Harris - and I don't really like Kamala Harris.

Why?  Biden seems to be doing a good job, or whoever it is that's doing his job for him.  What has Kamala Harris done to show that she should be doing this kinda important job?

[Josquius]

That being said, I would hope that not too long after re-election that Biden would retire and hand the reigns of to Harris - and I don't really like Kamala Harris.

Why?  Biden seems to be doing a good job, or whoever it is that's doing his job for him.  What has Kamala Harris done to show that she should be doing this kinda important job?

Would there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?

[Sheilbh]

Would there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?

But reasonable for a fair few VPs - especially back when it was a party pick/regional ticket balancing.

[Syt]

Nice poster, but doesn't hold a candle to Nixon's campaign materials:

[Josquius]

Yes many VPs became President.
But did they do anything whilst VP to really show their credentials to the public?

[Sheilbh]

Yes many VPs became President.
But did they do anything whilst VP to really show their credentials to the public?

No one does anything as VP. As LBJ said the Vice Presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss". But many had been pretty big figures before then - they were often a prominent leader in another political or regional wing of the party. Even after the Presidential candidate basically gets to pick, they're often people who did well in the primaries. Obviously doesn't mean they'll be good at it.

Edit: For example with those two LBJ was, possibly, the most effective Senate Majority Leader in American history and Dick Nixon was on the House Un-American Activities Committee

You could say the same for Harris - on paper I should really like her and think she sounds really impressive. But I found her really really underwhelming in the primaries.

[The Minsky Moment]

No one does anything as VP. As LBJ said the Vice Presidency is "not worth a bucket of warm piss".

That was another Texan, John Nance Garner.

[Sheilbh]

Apologies - and another Texan sidelined by their liberal Northern boss

[DGuller]

That being said, I would hope that not too long after re-election that Biden would retire and hand the reigns of to Harris - and I don't really like Kamala Harris.

Why?  Biden seems to be doing a good job, or whoever it is that's doing his job for him.  What has Kamala Harris done to show that she should be doing this kinda important job?

Would there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?

Would there be a decent answer for basically any vice president in history?

  I guess you could say that for Joe Biden.

[Valmy]

Although the partisan split they talk about there is not as strong as it was under Trump:

This just shows how the Republicans are just so influenced by their media people. The end of the Obama administration was kind of a puzzling time because, as I said earlier, the economic statistics looked great but there was still a lot of dissatisfaction that the benefits were not being felt by many of the people.

Conservatives made a big deal about this, talking about how the unemployment rate wasn't the real unemployment rate and went on about how economic statistics don't tell the whole story and so forth. And at the time I felt like maybe they were being sincere and had some good points.

But holy shit once their guy got in office those same statistics were suddenly used to show how now everything was great. Nothing had really changed at all but suddenly the economy was amazing. So you have 18% of Republicans thinking the economy was good in 2016 and 60% thinking so in 2018 despite not much changing.

The power of their media machine is really amazing. This is what makes them so tough to beat. They are going to try the same game again.

[Valmy]

A "generic democrat" - sure.

But the thing is there's no such person.  You have to name an actual person.

The question is "would Kamala Harris be better able to beat Donald Trump"?  Or Gretchen Whitmer.  Or Pete Buttigieg?  Or Elizabeth Warren?  Or Gavin Newsom?  Or Bernie Sanders?

I think all but Sanders and Warren qualify.

Though Buttigieg is kind of unsufferable.

[Sheilbh]

This just shows how the Republicans are just so influenced by their media people. The end of the Obama administration was kind of a puzzling time because, as I said earlier, the economic statistics looked great but there was still a lot of dissatisfaction that the benefits were not being felt by many of the people.

Conservatives made a big deal about this, talking about how the unemployment rate wasn't the real unemployment rate and went on about how economic statistics don't tell the whole story and so forth. And at the time I felt like maybe they were being sincere and had some good points.

But holy shit once their guy got in office those same statistics were suddenly used to show how now everything was great. Nothing had really changed at all but suddenly the economy was amazing. So you have 18% of Republicans thinking the economy was good in 2016 and 60% thinking so in 2018 despite not much changing.

The power of their media machine is really amazing. This is what makes them so tough to beat. They are going to try the same game again.

Ish. I think this has been written about but there was basically a short, sharp sectoral recession in 2016 that quite possibly impacted the election, especially as you had a bit of a "that's your bloody GDP. Not ours" emphasis on headline stats/upbeat vibe from Clinton's campaign. Via the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/29/upshot/mini-recession-2016-little-known-big-impact.html

Or Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-counties-idUSKBN1YM0HC

Or Forbes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnfvail/2018/03/27/revisions-show-us-industrial-mini-recession-in-2015/?sh=638400c35184

And as with everything inn the economy now it's actually a global story of interacting policy in China, the US and Eurozone - plus energy.

In the US the impact was localised and sectoral - it hit energy, manufacturing and agriculture. It also hit Clinton's Blue Wall states/swing Obama-Trump areas disproportionately. The local impact (and its political effect) wasn't noticed at the time because from a headline/national perspective there were issues but the headline numbers were still broadly positive/manageable.

I always think the stuff about Trump and Russia and micro-targeting misreads 2016. I think there's always a fighting the last battle element and the first political leader to really use data and microtargeting was Obama in 2008. It was key in beating Clinton. Her campaign in 2016 leaned into that very heavily - I think in the 2016 retrospectives many have said they were making decisions too much on the basis of data. That ties into the mini/invisible recession because again from the autopsies of that election, apparently there was feedback from activists and campaigners in those Blue Wall states that were going through a really tough time economically that the message wasn't working and they needed to start talking about the economy more etc. From what I've read of the reporting (after the event) that was largely ignored in favour of the pure data analytics which was showing great engagement, the message was resonating etc.

I think it's the risk with politics - and governing - for that matter with a too technocratic model. You'll only ever know what's being measured and have imperfect information because it won't be granular, local or detailed enough quickly enough - and what's being measured might not be what's mattering in people's lives. They definitely need more and better data but also, vibes matter Or vibes are also giving information and it's always about balancing them and a lot is in the judgement call.

[Valmy]

You are talking about the election, and I agree, but I was mainly focused on Republican opinions which go from "everything is shit" to "everything is awesome" and back almost instantaneous to their people being power regardless of what is really going on. And such a huge number of people passionately having that opinion really does shape the feelings of those of us around them.

It just shows the power of their machine.

The fact that sure the prosperity in the US economy doesn't really seem to get down to most of the people but the bad times sure do. That's a serious problem and I have talked about that before. It has really disillusioned me on classical liberal economics.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah, but I think it plays into the media too - how much is it shaping opinion v behaving as a mirror? And the same goes for Democrats post-2016 in that respect. I'm reminded of the studies on disinformation that shows the people who are most susceptible are those with strong political views (particularly graduates) - the biggest danger with it is confirmation bias.

There was a short, sharp recession that disproportionately hit areas that subsequently voted Trump. I'd imagine that was also reflected in the people consuming right-wign media, who were responding to their customers interests, views and experience. So for people who swung Republican in 2016 (and I think became Trump's base in many ways) 2016 was really shit for them and then there was a big recovery. And, of course, you could ask the opposite - were the NYT etc too focused on the experience around them. Was there mirroring there of consumers who are less likely (I imagine) to work in energy, agriculture or manufacturing, were based in areas that didn't experience that localised recssion and it wasn't reflected in the headline numbers of, say, the Fed? On the economy there were two true stories at once and the two media worlds told the one that reflected their consumers.

Subsequently, in general, I think Biden's done very well on the economy and has the right priorities - and I genuinely think has a claim to be the most effective President in my lifetime in terms of actually getting stuff passed and done. The headline numbers are good - but, until recently (thanks JR), real wages have been falling. So I don't think it is just media flim-flam or false consciousness.

It's a real example of lived experience.