Should dems skip the 2020 election?

Many of the economic indicators dramatically shifted right after the election of Trump so how can you say he had nothing to do with it?

Removing a massive amount of regulations had nothing to do with it?

You might want to read some new charts.

 

Next, I want Trump to get the debt under control. We have to look at entitlement spending.

 

no, we have to cut military spending in half

no need to protect Europe, let them protect themselves

 

It's much more satisfying to defeat Dems at the polls when you know they've all poured their hearts and souls into it. ::

 

I have. What economic indicators shifted dramatically right after the election of Trump? By which I mean, which ones broke the pre-existing trend line? Not employment, if that's what you are thinking.

 

Trump should skip the 2020 election.

he's doomed to lose.

 

Yes .... And they will !

 

Try looking at the S&P 500 over the past several years. Look at the trend line. Look before 2015 and after 2016. Limiting the scope to try to make the numbers look more impressive is a very common technique for misrepresenting statistics, especially for something that fluctuates as much as the stock market does.

Try going here and looking over the past 5 years: https://www.google.com/search?q=IND...6&bih=760#scso=uid_BNwhW-bLC5O_jgTmq7yoCw_5:0

 

Naw I'm done with your loaded question and knew you would do this.

I could put up any charts you want and you would simply claim that its not a trend.

Its your way out.

So you can go play those word games with someone else.

 

Or how about this.

You tell us exactly how long a trend should be that you would accept and what numbers you need to show that it changed under Trump but even here you will just go look at the charts then base your numbers on something that Trump won't fit into so that's pointless also.

 

Well, should you decide you care about the facts more than your agenda, here you are: https://postimg.cc/image/rowqkzut3/

 

I'm happy to talk about any numbers that you like. Just show what the trend looks like over the past few years along with it. If Trump had the effect you propose, it should be easy to see the trend line growing steeper. If you have to cut out the previous years in order to make his numbers look impressive, you are hiding the trend to give him credit that he isn't due.

Or, to make it simpler, if you see the lines drifting up and to the right, the honest thing to do is to zoom out until you can see where the trend started. In the case of the S&P 500, the trend you are looking at started in 2009.

 

Like I said, without knowing what you consider a trend its impossible to answer your question.

Is it ten years....50 years....100 years?

And what do you consider a spike? How much would it take for you to call it a spike?

I'm not going to waste time getting this research together just to hear you say that its not a trend.

 

Look at the graph I provided. A "spike" would be numbers falling mostly above the trend line that existed before. I can put it in Excel if you want and actually draw the trend line from 2009 to the present, but you should be able to see it very easily if you just look at the graph. As for the number of years required, again, just look at the trend you are trying to give him credit for and then zoom out until you don't see the trend anymore. Look for when the line graph took a turn and changed direction. If the line graph gets steeper when he takes office, or if the change of direction took place when he took office, that would be something.

The S&P 500 was falling from 2007-2009, then it changed direction at, on the whole, it has been rising ever since.

 

Here you go, a nice long 20 year average and the noticeable spike after Trump was elected.

 

That isn't a 20 year average. Look at the line labels and the X and Y axis. That's a 20 election average, showing only what the percent growth was for these presidents when looking at the 12 months before they were elected through to the 24 months after they were elected. And it shows that the stock market spiked on election day for Bush, JFK, Clinton, and Trump. This isn't zooming out to look at the trends the preexisting trend at all.

 

Well I didn't see that one coming now did I?

I'm tired of this back and forth, there are more interesting threads out there.

 

You grabbed the wrong graph. I can't help that. You thought you were looking at 20 years of data, and you weren't. If you are actually curious what the S&P 500 has looked like over the past 20 years, here you go:



Just as I said before. The upward trend started in 2009

 

I expect Trump to win reelection, I used to be a democrat until I saw my former party had become. FDR and JFK would be rolling in their graves today. I can't believe they favor illegal immigrants over american citizens, it boggles my mind. Do they really need their votes that bad, if that's the case, they may need to change their policies.

 

If the Dems come out in 2020 in as great a number as the Republicans did in 2016 then the Republicans have lost because all of the Republicans came out in 2016 and most of the Dems stayed home. The one thing Trump has not done is made any effort at reconciling with Democrats. You can't continue to run the country with the traditionally minority party alone and the Republicans are still the minority if you go by registered voters. You continue to have NO blacks, hispanics or anyone who is not white on your side and you have far from all the whites for you. Trump still has the onus of being authoritarian hanging over him, authoritarians scare people and fear is the one thing that will override even a good economy, which we will almost certainly not have by 2020 because the baleful effect of Trump's tariffs will be in full swing by then

 

Well heck, you guys are so sure of a win, why bother even voting!

 

You wouldn't know it by the media's representation.


The Democratic Party should not skip 2020
They should try become the party of honesty and higher values!
No super delegates.
Impartial DNC people.
Not pimping candidates such as Harris and Hillary before the primary.
Honest funding.
Stop the bias against straight, white men, the largest pool of qualified people.


When people ask how I could vote Trump over Hillary,
I reply I hold the Democratic Party to a higher sense of morality. Yes I do!
Ignoring the unethical behavior or compromising acceptance
does not further a good party's goals.


Moi

 

Okay sure, but thanks for admitting though you guys nominated a horrid candidate in 2016.

 

This is one thing (among several) that I've always disagreed with my Party on; we have GOT to stop listening to the opposition when they describe our candidates. The pubs have picked up on this feckless attitude we take to our own people and consequently go into full rabid attack mode whenever we bring one forward. The worst part is we take that bs to heart and STAY HOME rather than vote for an imperfect contender. Hillary was a politician, she was also rather a hardworking wonk than a charismatic firebrand. Those things to me are pluses but pubs cast them as detriments. Hopefully we see the folly of perfectionism now and realize that if we will not accept a few faults in our pols we are likely to get one who is ALL deplorable instead. If you stay home you vote FOR everybody (because you reduce the number of negative votes all candidates must offset to win) that includes not only your selection but Ned Nazi and Carl the Communist. Do you want a Trump lickspittle in charge of your LOCAL lawmaking for the next two/six years? Vote early and often to quote George the Younger