Post New

I noted in my prior post that I think voters care about priorities in Presidential elections, not just positions. And I think that's smart. In fact, I think knowing a candidate's priorities is more useful than knowing their positions, because while Presidents can't necessarily control what policies actually get adopted (hi, DREAM Act!) they can control what their Administration prioritizes.

I think Harris has done a remarkable job managing the handoff from Biden. But let me ask the denizens of this board who, like me, really want her to win in two weeks:

What is her top economic priority?

I don't know what it is. I follow politics, because I find it interesting, so I'm a little more up on these things than a typical voter, I think. But I couldn't tell you what her main economic priority is. There's a hundred things that any Democratic president would want to do (support unions, beef up the health care system, reduce the carbon output of the economy, make child care more affordable, reduce drug prices, decrease inequality, etc.). But what's her priority? What's the top item on her agenda?

I can answer that for Trump, pretty easily. It's tariffs and protectionism. That's something he cares passionately about, something that's a reason why he's running for office. He wants a more mercantilist economic policy, with the U.S. negotiating preferential deals rather than a global "most favored nation" free trade regime. He's got other non-economic priorities (The Border!), but that's his top one on the economy. Number two would be tax cuts.

But I can't tell you what Harris' top economic priority would be. What's her top goal? What's the one thing she most wants to spend her political capital on?

I don't think she's communicated that. It might be a choice - if you don't tell people what your top priorities are, then everyone can think that their important position is one of your important positions. But I think that we're seeing the downside. People don't think they know what she stands for. Which seems silly, since you can probably state her position on any given issue (for unions! against tax cuts for the rich! etc.). But I think it makes sense if you think of it in terms of priorities.

What is her top economic priority?

Going after "price gouging" and pursuing an "opportunity economy". Those are the 2 things she and most democrats downticket are talking about.

She has to walk a very fine line: if she acknowledges that she has Top Priorities to help the economy she's tacitly admitting that Bidenomics has warts. So she has to, as you've noted...largely not say much.

To the degree she's willing to say something, she has to pin the blame on *anybody* but her Administration. Hence the "price gouging" that is allegedly driving the inflation we've experienced. Anyone who knows rudimentary supply and demand knows that isn't true, but it's the best and only card they have to play and thus...she's playing it.

The "opportunity economy" plays to the democrats' normal vision of class economic distinctions and is an appeal to working class voters.

The ads I've seen (and I deliberately don't consume ads, as much as possible) would indicate that her top economic priority is lowering taxes on the middle class (with an implication they will go up on the wealthy), and NOT impose the "Trump sales tax" (i.e. tariff). That probably is a tie with providing an "economy of opportunity", which I take to mean jobs. Though there aren't any specifics about that in the ads that I have seen.

I think she is also hitting reproductive freedom (which will get a LOT of women out to vote for her). Or maybe that is just the anti-Lake ads that supporters of Gallego are running. (I see a lot of anti-Lake ads...probably more than POTUS ads, or pro-Gallego ads, though Gallego seems to be getting more radio time since I hear one of his ads if I drive for more than about 20 minutes.)

And because this is a financial site, let's look at some numbers. All data sourced from publicly available financial reporting via Yahoo! Finance:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/KR/financials/

Kroger:

Income Statement
TTM 1/31/2024 1/31/2023 1/31/2022 1/31/2021
Revenue 150.2 150.04 148.26 137.9 132.5
Gross Profit 33.7 33.36 31.78 30.35 30.9
Gross Margin 22.4% 22.2% 21.2% 20.2% 20.6%

Operating income 4.21 3.096 4.126 3.5 2.78
Operating margin 2.8% 2.1% 2.7% 2.3% 1.9%

Net income 2.78 2.15 2.22 1.639 2.585
Net Margin 1.9% 1.4% 1.5% 1.1% 1.7%


Just maaaaaasive amounts of "price gouging" going on there. I mean, they jacked up their net profit mar-, oh, right. They've mostly been less profitable than they were in 2021.

The ads I've seen (and I deliberately don't consume ads, as much as possible) would indicate that her top economic priority is lowering taxes on the middle class (with an implication they will go up on the wealthy), and NOT impose the "Trump sales tax" (i.e. tariff).

I'm not really talking about the ads (her campaign will pick and choose which ads run the most often, and probably based on testing). I'm wondering about her priorities.

Trump is very good about communicating his. He may be a liar, but we can all feel pretty comfortable that we genuinely know what issues really motivate him. He cares a lot about immigration and border control - his #1 non-economic issue. On economics, he's deeply, committedly at heart a protectionist/mercantilist. He genuinely disagrees with the idea of a neutral global playing field that gives every country a fair chance equally in every market; his view is that since we're one of the biggest and strongest economies, we should use that uneven strength to our advantage in global trade.

Harris is very good at communicating her depth of feeling about abortion. It's obviously her #1 non-economic issue. But does she have a similar commitment to anything relating to the economy? Obama put health care reform at the top of the list. Whether you agree with him or not, you know Bernie Sanders also feels passionately about his Medicare for All proposal. Warren oriented her political priorities around finance and banking reform. But I'm hard pressed to think of what Harris would put at the top of her list.

I'll only speak for myself on this one. I'm not that interested in priorities. In a very real sense, the job of President is to do everything all at once. You don't get to prioritize. You have to do it all, and do all of it at the same time.

If there is any priority, most of the time that priority of the day/week/month will be dictated from outside events. A recession or inflation will happen, forcing economics to become a slightly higher priority. Or a pandemic will hit, bringing that to a slightly higher priority. Or some countries will be on the brink of war and bring that to the top of the list for a while.

But even when that happens, the President doesn't get to skip out on all of the other things that also continue. They have to do it all.

Which is why I put policy way ahead of priority. Policy is what you will do when something becomes a priority for a while. So you ask a candidate what they will do if a recession seems imminent or has begun. Or you ask what they will do if Whats-it-stan goes to war with Place-over-there-land.

And maybe you'll ask what will get their priority for those few days over the course of 4 years when priority isn't dictated by outside events.

The problem with focusing in priority is that doesn't tell you want the candidate will actually do. I'll accept that the border is something Trump will prioritize. But what does that mean? What will he do? Is he going to deport people who aren't white? Is he going to build more walls? Is he going to stop letting anyone who is not a citizen into the country? Without knowing the policy, the priority is useless.


--Peter

<<But I'm hard pressed to think of what Harris would put at the top of her [economic policy] list.>>

As she's said on every occasion, it's about focusing on expanding opportunity for working families: expand the child tax credit, provide a tax credit for the first year of a child's life, enact a variety of proposed policies to incentivize building and rehabbing affordable housing, provide a tax credit to first-time home buyers, make health care and prescription medicines more affordable, and more.

It's a lot to get across in one sentence, agreed. But the focus is clear, sincere, and do-able.

<<Trump is very good about communicating his. ..[W]e can all feel pretty comfortable that we genuinely know what issues really motivate him.>>

I'm very comfortable that I know what really motivates him. It's not immigration or tariffs or any of that crap, no more than it was in his first term, when he talked big but accomplished little. Those are merely the kind of tropes used by authoritarians the world over to stoke self-righteous hostility among the "aggrieved." What really motivates Trump is: an unquenchable need for acclamation to assure him that he's not a sick, broken shell of a human being, power, money, and--perhaps most of all, this time around--staying out of prison.

But I'm hard pressed to think of what Harris would put at the top of her list.

You just noted that abortion is a high priority issue for her. If there's no other obviously higher priority, it seems to me that abortion would be her highest priority.

--Peter

In a very real sense, the job of President is to do everything all at once. You don't get to prioritize.

I disagree. You don't get to ignore any of the things that have to be done, of course. And there's tons of stuff that you have to push forward because they're important to your party, or your coalition, or your supporters, or just good policy.

But every President gets to set some of the agenda. They get to decide what to tell their people, and what to tell Congressional leaders, is the issue/program/subject that they most want to get done. What they put at the top of their list.

For Obama, it was health care. Sure, there were plenty of other things he wanted. DREAM Act, ENDA, EFCA, banking reform, climate change legislation, etc. etc. etc. But health care was the top priority. When his team was making schedules, cutting deals, setting agendas, and the like, he made the health care bill the matter that he put his main focus on. Which is why that bill got passed (painfully!) while others did not.

As she's said on every occasion, it's about focusing on expanding opportunity for working families: expand the child tax credit, provide a tax credit for the first year of a child's life, enact a variety of proposed policies to incentivize building and rehabbing affordable housing, provide a tax credit to first-time home buyers, make health care and prescription medicines more affordable, and more.

It's a lot to get across in one sentence, agreed. But the focus is clear, sincere, and do-able.

If everything's a priority, nothing is. If you've got a lot to get across in one sentence (child tax policy; housing; health care/drug policy; and more!), you're not really telling people what your priority is.

There's probably scores of programs and issues across the breadth of the federal government that affect the "opportunity of working families" - a term so broad it could really encompass almost any household that at least one member with a job, which means the issues that "expand opportunity" for them could literally be anything. What's her focus?

I don't know what the answer is. I don't know what her "this has to be in the bill" issue is. If it's "some thing that increases opportunities for working families," that could literally almost be anything that's in the standard issue set for Democrats - it could be a massive public housing promotion, an effort to drive down health care costs, passing labor market and union reforms, tax reforms to benefit people with kids, etc.

Again, I go back to Obama - his top priority was trying to get to universal health insurance. His signature issue was a health insurance bill, and that's what got passed. That was his priority. What's hers?

Very well expressed. I couldn't agree more.

Though "political capital" is a real thing. I suspect she will put hers into women's rights, helping the middle class (tax cut...Reps love tax cuts, so that might actually happen), and I'm sure she will focus on the border to dampen criticisms in four years.

Assuming she wins, of course.

It's a lot to get across in one sentence, agreed. But the focus is clear, sincere, and do-able.

If everything's a priority, nothing is. If you've got a lot to get across in one sentence (child tax policy; housing; health care/drug policy; and more!), you're not really telling people what your priority is.

I agree with both of you, in part.

The comprehensive list spelled out is almost exactly my take on Harris' economic plan and it is comprehensible to me, but I also agree that it is too much to be concise and repeatable, 'meme-able' even, which is basically albaby's point. The message needs not only to be comprehensible in substance, but easily understood and repeatable and therefore memorable. "Tariffs, tariffs, tariffs" (Tora, Tora, Tora) does that, even if universal tariffs are stupid and counter-productive to the claims being made.

Pete

<<What's her priority? What's the top item on her agenda? I can answer that for Trump, pretty easily. It's tariffs and protectionism. That's something he cares passionately about, something that's a reason why he's running for office. ...But ... what's her top goal? ...People don't think they know what she stands for.>>.

Let me try again. First, I'm quite sure that Trump doesn't "care passionately" about tariffs and protectionism, any more than he "cares" about abortion or immigration or any issues. If he thinks it will advance his real priority, which is himself, he will change (and has changed) his issue priorities on a dime: waffle on abortion, become the father of IVF, make nice with China, eliminate taxes on tips, whatever.

As for (some) people not knowing what Kamala Harris "stands for," that's a handy rationalization they can use to justify (even to themselves) not voting for her, a decision grounded in deeper attitudinal and affective predispositions that have nothing to do with political "priorities." This is not merely my opinion. It is consistent with half a century of research into the political psychology of everyday people.

Quite appropriately, Kamala Harris's top priority is to prevent the American democratic republic from falling into the hands of a tyrant. Everything else is a distant second. This is not a normal election offering a choice between normal candidates. Harris and her team have hammered on this basic truth over and over again.

Beyond that, Harris's priority is (re)focusing government on the traditional, as opposed to neoliberal, Democratic objective of advancing opportunity and security for the working- and middle-class, as contrasted with the wealthy, corporate class.

If (some) American voters cannot or will not grasp these facts, they themselves--and not Harris and her team--have failed their country.

If (some) American voters cannot or will not grasp these facts, they themselves--and not Harris and her team--have failed their country.

Most voters do not agree with that framing. They don't believe that Donald Trump is so beyond the pale that he cannot be considered a legitimate choice for President. The number of people who either intend to vote for Trump or who are Harris voters that aren't "double haters" is more than a majority.

Which makes it very possible for Harris and her team to also fail their country. The voters have made it pretty clear that the most important issue to them is the economy. More than saving democracy. They care about the economy.

Democrats can lament that fact. They can call the voters stupid or ill-informed or "failing their country." But they cannot change that fact during a three month campaign. You can change their perceptions of the candidates, you can inform them of new things about the candidates, you can argue over whose policies are better, etc. But you can't change who the voters are in the space of a few short months.

Which means that Harris and her team need to get voters to believe that she will be a good steward on economic issues. And it is very hard to do that if the voters believe they don't know what she would actually do on the economy. "Not be Donald Trump" is certainly something, but it doesn't provide much guidance for what a Harris Administration would look like on economic issues.

Which is why Harris' campaign choices matter. Voters know, intuitively, that the economic priorities of (say) a President Bernie Sanders would be different than those of a Tammy Baldwin or a Cory Booker - they're different people, they have different issues that they care about. And voters want to know where Harris' priorities lie - why she wants to be President, rather than why just why she wants to beat Donald Trump. There are some valid reasons perhaps not to give them want they want, but Democrats will pay a political cost for not doing it.

They don't believe that Donald Trump is so beyond the pale that he cannot be considered a legitimate choice for President.

True. Crazy but true. They do believe that.

<<Harris and her team need to get voters to believe that she will be a good steward on economic issues. And it is very hard to do that if the voters believe they don't know what she would actually do on the economy. ...Voters want to know where Harris' priorities lie - why she wants to be President, rather than why just why she wants to beat Donald Trump. There are some valid reasons perhaps not to give them want they want, but Democrats will pay a political cost for not doing it.>>

Here's the problem--and it is very much along the lines of a post you made earlier: Even though, when asked, most potential voters will typically say that "the economy" is the most important issue to them, a mountain of research has shown that most of them typically know little about the policy positions (or priorities) of candidates. Instead, voters make rough retrospective assessments of (1) relatively recent changes in their personal financial situations and (2) comparable changes in the nation's financial situation, and those things affect how they vote. Alas, there's not a lot that Harris can do about those two things. She can--and has--let them know that she sympathizes with their concerns and tell them what she would do about them if she were elected. But the economic things that really matter, vote-wise, are what they are.

So while I agree, with great regret, that it appears that a (slight?) majority of likely and potential voters have not concluded that Trump is manifestly unfit for office (and I do fault those citizens for their judgments in that regard), I do not agree that the Harris campaign should therefore emphasize economic messages instead. But neither should she downplay her economic priorities--and she hasn't. Nor, importantly, should reproductive rights be downplayed--and they haven't been. All of these things should be hammered home in the closing week. All of them.

Most of all, the ground game matters in these closing days. As it happens, in less than 24 hours Harris herself will be holding a rally in my neighborhood park, and I intend to be there. I will also be in Detroit in the coming week, assisting mostly ignored, impoverished voters in making sure they're registered (which can be done here right up to Election Day) and helping them get to early-voting locations in the city. I've done that for decades. (They don't need me to tell them which candidate or party to vote for.)

Cheers.

And it is very hard to do that if the voters believe they don't know what she would actually do on the economy.

On the other side, Trump has spewed endless nonsense with no real 'concept of a economic policy'. Unless you think his idiotic 100% tariffs actually have any real meaning. The two parties are held to very different standards.

So while I agree, with great regret, that it appears that a (slight?) majority of likely and potential voters have not concluded that Trump is manifestly unfit for office (and I do fault those citizens for their judgments in that regard), I do not agree that the Harris campaign should therefore emphasize economic messages instead. But neither should she downplay her economic priorities--and she hasn't.

I'm not saying either of those things either.

All I'm saying is that Harris has failed to effectively communicate what her economic agenda would be. Not that they've failed to emphasize it, but just to say what it is. I consume far too much political news, far more than the average voter, and I couldn't tell you what her main priorities are. I know what her positions are - she favors middle class tax relief, child tax relief, lowering drug prices and health care costs generally, increasing the housing stock generally, increasing the supply of subsidized/public housing specifically, targeted programs of economic relief for minority groups, student loan reform, and a host of other things. But I couldn't tell you which of those many things Harris feels particularly animated about getting done. Unlike, say, Obama with health care insurance reform, or Elizabeth Warren with banking/consumer regulation, or Trump with tariffs and protectionism.

It makes it harder for her, if voters don't know what her economic agenda is. Partially because voters care about the specifics of the candidates' plans (at least a little, and probably more than they should). But also because voters want to know that the candidate has goals, that they've got a plan in mind - that in their head they have a sense of the steps that they want to take to move forward. A mark of leadership generally is having goals and priorities and things that they want their Presidency to be about. It's a bad vibes thing when a voter doesn't know what a candidate's about - people don't like unknowns generally.

Voters don't trust the Democrats on the economy, and they really trust Democrats on abortion - so obviously a huge part of the closing argument should be to emphasize abortion. But voters care most about the economy, so you need to give them enough to convince them that you can lead on that point. That you have priorities. If everything's a priority, nothing is - not giving voters a clear sense of what her priorities are will end up carrying a cost for the campaign.

All I'm saying is that Harris has failed to effectively communicate what her economic agenda would be.

-------------------

I think priorities for countering the economic problems all of these -- ahem -- "sophisticated" voters see HAVE been evident, both in terms of things Harris has spoken about repeatedly in the campaign and as a function of actions pursued by the current Biden Administration.

1) INFLATION - Going after monopolies that have been proven to jack up prices far beyond what was driven by labor and supply spikes during COVID.

2) PAY SUPPRESSION - The DOJ filed lawsuits against major tech companies conspiring for years to suppress hiring competition between them to avoid a "bidding war" for tech talent, thus depriving employees of legitimate competition for their skills which, according to a "free market" so beloved by conservatives, would have driven their incomes significantly higher rather than stalling with typical 3% growth.

3) UNIONIZATION - The Biden Administration did NOT interfere with existing unions attempting to use their legitimate collective bargaining power to win contract improvements and big "catch-up" contract changes. The Biden Administration literally WALKED THE PICKET LINE with UAW workers to demonstrate its support for labor and its efforts to secure better pay and working conditions which trickle down to ALL workers by enforcing "floors" in wage rates and work rules.

4) MEANINGFUL PENALTIES - As part of covering her biography, Harris has made it clear that when big companies do wrong to workers or society, government will not settle for mere slaps on the wrist that leave those harmed without meaning compensation and do nothing to change incentives for executives to avoid similar criminality in the future. She clawed back many more BILLIONS to her state of California from fraudulent banks who triggered the financial meltdown than would have been the case had anyone else been in her position.

5) ANTI-TRUST - The Biden Administration, guided in large part by FTC Chair Lina Khan, has been much more aggressive at pursuing anti-trust cases against giant monopolies whose market abuses are harming businesses of all sizes and contributing to data breaches that harm millions of individuals as tech firms leverage petabytes of data to implement unlawful price discrimination that raises prices. One notable example includes FTC efforts to counteract software being used by hundreds of landlords to automate the process of raising rents negotiated for new leases on a continuous basis, triggering a faster upward spiral in rents paid by Americans in every major city.

America has easily had the best recovery and softest landing of any major industrialized economy in the post-COVID era. Americans may not want to hear that when they still see vast inequities in the economy before them. However, those inequities have resulted from DECADES of misguided coddling of giant tech firms that have allowed our newest economic drivers to be dominated by monopolies. This has stifled competition in the most impactful sectors of the economy. Those problems have been worsened by a complete lack of anti-trust enforcement as part of a misguided assumption on MANY Americans' part that we shouldn't choke off these big American companies that are leading the tech world or we'll lose leadership to the Chinese or the Russians or Oceana. It's always good if these lead tech firms are "doing well", right? No, it's not. If they are "doing well" by "doing us" and concentrating 99% of the wealth being generated into the hands of CEOs with distinctly anti-democratic, anti-competitive preferences, economic inequity will get far worse and those with all that money will find more ways to interfere with the freedoms of the rest of us.

For the first time in FORTY YEARS, the Biden/HARRIS Administration is actually applying the right regulatory forces via the right tools to the "appropriate tools" in the economy that have made the economy so inequitable. The biggest problem is the average "sophisticated" voter who thinks that no message has been communicated doesn't understand enough about the underlying economic forces to see where the damage is coming from and how these efforts are actually more effective at solving those problems than giving more tax cuts to billionaires.


WTH

For the first time in FORTY YEARS, the Biden/HARRIS Administration is actually applying the right regulatory forces via the right tools to the "appropriate tools" in the economy that have made the economy so inequitable.

Sure. But that's a position. The Biden/Harris Administration has lots of positions. They've also done a ton of other things, from vastly increasing the amount of money for green initiatives, passing a massive child tax credit, various student loan forgiveness programs, fighting junk fees, increasing infrastructure spending, promoting "Made in America" rules, etc.

Nothing Harris is saying on the campaign trail gives the impression that this aspect of the administration's policies is the one that's super-important to her. Unlike social policy, where it is crystal clear that she views abortion rights and reproductive health as her top top priority. You can rattle off lots of stuff that the Administration is doing on competition/anti-trust matters, but it's not like Harris is communicating to anyone that this is her priority. Her stump speech (link below to one example) doesn't position any of those things as particularly important. In fact, she barely hits on it at all. I am pretty sure that there virtually no voters out there who believe that Harris' main priority is "trustbuster" as opposed to any other Democratic economic position:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-...

Again, you might like the Democrats' approach to anti-trust and business competition, and think Harris will follow in Biden's footsteps. But she's not selling that as a priority of her economic agenda.

<<I couldn't tell you which of those many things Harris feels particularly animated about getting done. Unlike, say, Obama with health care insurance reform, or Elizabeth Warren with banking/consumer regulation, or Trump with tariffs and protectionism.>>

Al, as a political scientist who has studied and conducted research on voters and elections for more than 50 years, let me simply say that your distinction between issue priorities and issue positions is one that eludes 98.5% of ordinary Americans.

Also, health insurance reform as a priority played at most a cameo role in getting Obama elected in 2008 (party ID, the financial crisis, and racial attitudes were what mattered), and I'm very confident that the vast majority of Trump voters (not to mention Trump himself) are motivated by matters other than tariffs and protectionism as priorities, just as they were in 2016 and 2020.

Al, as a political scientist who has studied and conducted research on voters and elections for more than 50 years, let me simply say that your distinction between issue priorities and issue positions is one that eludes 98.5% of ordinary Americans.

I'm sure that's true. I doubt anyone's actually talking about Harris in these terms when sitting around the kitchen table.

But I think it's the main reason that Harris has an "I don't know what she stands for" problem. That's a big problem she's facing. It's a big enough concern that Michele Obama, in her speech trying to rally support for Harris, felt the need to address it:

Speaking directly to the stark gender divide that polls show is a feature of this presidential campaign, Obama railed against “the lie that we do not know who Kamala is or what she stands for”....

https://www.npr.org/2024/10/26/nx-s1-5166173/miche...

Voters are saying they don't know where Harris' mind is at on a lot of things. They certainly know it on abortion, but I don't think they know it on many other matters - including any economic matters.

Obama's defense is to call that a lie (and implicitly root it in sexism). But I kind of get the same feeling, and I already voted for her. I don't know what her deal is. I know she's not Trump, and on virtually any economic issue she'd have close to the same position as Standard Generic Democrat. But what's going to be the big thing she takes on as her signature domestic economic issue? I don't know.

I didn't need to know - and I'm pretty cynical about the ability of Presidents to have much of an impact on economic issues without a supermajority in the Senate anyway. So I don't entirely care. But I think that a lot of the voters that are saying that they don't know what Harris stands for are expressing that concern.

They care about the economy.

No they don't. If they did, they'd be all for current policies, because the economy is firing on all cylinders. The "it's the economy, stupid" really only applies to the here-and-now. Voters have very short memories (actually, even non-voters...people in general). It killed Carter in 1980 (that, and Iran hostages).

Is the economy producing jobs? Is the market near all-time highs? Have wages been going up more than inflation (for the first time in a while)? All of that is "yes". Are you better off than four years ago? A resounding yes. Though I have heard a few ads with ominous music talking about how horrible the economy is, but that is factually incorrect. The right-wing propaganda machine is trying -with some success- to convince Americans otherwise, but objectively things are much better than 4 years ago. Plus the deficit is down (for the budget hawks).

When the economy is going well, then I think other issues move to the front. Harris -correctly- is emphasizing the prior tax cuts benefiting the convict and his billionaire buddies, and contrasting that with the plan to cut taxes on lower-income (i.e. not billionaires) people. I think people are really looking at the perceived insecurity of our borders, and that's what's harming her most. Of course, the right-wing propaganda machine (henceforth, the "RWPM") is really going after that. And the reason that hurts is because it is partially true. It's difficult to refute the numbers, and most people don't have the patience to get into the weeds about asylum, the Geneva Convention, current US law, and similar. Harris' campaign needs to hit on being "tough, but fair and humane" on border policy.

I think that is driving support for the convict far more than the economy. People overall are doing well, so the economy shouldn't have as much traction as a few other issues. Most of the road signs I see that have more than "[convict] 2024" mention "secure the borders". That's the major issue for a lot of people. Not the economy.

If they did, they'd be all for current policies, because the economy is firing on all cylinders.

I said they care about the economy. Not that they have the same assessment of how well the economy is doing. Voters view the economy through a partisan lens. While that used to be true only of Republicans, it's also true of Democrats these days. During 2019, for example, only 33% of Democrats rated the economy as good or excellent - even though it was also firing on all cylinders back then as well:

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/25/pu...

Regardless of whether people think the economy today is good or bad, correctly or incorrectly, it's still something they care about. They want to know a candidates' economic positions, and they feel less supportive of the candidate if they feel like they don't have a sense where they stand.

That said, the economy isn't "firing on all cylinders." While wage growth has caught up to inflation, voters still don't like inflation. Prices are still high, and inflation rates are still higher than they were during the Trump years. And they don't like high interest rates. Lots of voters out there that don't have a job (or have one of the jobs that hasn't caught up to inflation) - students and retirees get pinched when both inflation and wages rise, especially the latter. And interest rates make people who are financing major purchases (house, car, education) worse off - again, more of a pinch for the young people. Especially housing costs.

The economy is good (solid GDP growth and low unemployment) but not great (still elevated inflation, high interest rates).

C'mon, albaby. Voters don't know what the inflation rate was 4 years ago. Answer: it's just about what it is now.

Nobody likes inflation. That's sorta basic. Though one way they control inflation is to jigger the interest rates (which probably 70% of people don't know, and of the remaining 30% probably 28% don't know why). You and I aren't typical. We pay attention (you far more than me), and know some basic economics. The average person has better things to do than become economy wonks, or at least more interesting (to them).

Without deflation, prices will never come down. They are what they are. The rate of increase is the only relevant thing, and it's pretty low. Unemployment also is pretty low (compare and contrast to the election run-up in 2020...yeah, there was a pandemic on, but if we're going to blame the subsequent inflation on Harris, then we have to blame the unemployment and deficit on the convict...apples to apples).

I do agree that there are people who will not pull the level for a given party, and will always pull the lever for their party (even if Adolph himself was running). They will rationalize that their candidate is the best no matter what, viewing issues through the "partisan lens" you mentioned. Which is why the undecideds in a few key states are what swing the election. Evidently, they see beyond the partisan lens (which is good). I don't believe the economy is foremost on their minds because they aren't hurting...they have good-paying jobs, are able to take vacations (travel is way up the past few years), inflation is low...so they're focusing on reproductive rights (pro or con), border security, and maybe even some of them are paying attention to the SCS and Ukraine. I doubt the tariffs idea is resonating, and Harris is rightly pointing out that this is -in effect- a sort of national sales tax (because consumers ultimately pay the cost of the tariff). Middle-class tax cuts will resonate with them, and I think Harris is doing a reasonable job of pushing for that (especially in contrast the the convict's tax cuts that mostly benefited people earning over $200K per year, as I recall).

I'm not really sure what you're uncertain about. Harris talks about the tax cuts for the middle class, women's health, and border security. I would equate those to being her priorities. The convict really only talks about one thing: "they're eating the cats...they're eating the dogs...millions of illegals, murders and rapists cross the border". That clearly is his priority because that's all he talks about.**





**Except it isn't. His priority is himself. He's just stoking fear with lies to try to frighten the undecideds to swing in his favor.

Voters don't know what the inflation rate was 4 years ago. Answer: it's just about what it is now.

Oh, they couldn't tell you to the decimal point, of course not. But they know it was really low before. They know it's been really high during Biden's term. They also know that it hasn't gotten really low again. Both prices and the inflation rate. It's not high any more. But the inflation rate was 1.4% throughout the Obama Administration, and 1.9% during the Trump Administration. So getting down to 2.4% - after spending a few years way above it - isn't getting people excited about Democratic stewardship of the economy. It's also why there aren't any headlines about how inflation is back down to where it was when Trump was President, which is what might help as well.

Harris talks about the tax cuts for the middle class, women's health, and border security. I would equate those to being her priorities.

I mean, you could equate them with her priorities, if you like, but I don't think very many other people would come up with that as her top issues. I mean, they're things she'd probably do, if she got around to them - but not necessarily things she would prioritize over other matters. It's not like she really emphasizes tax cuts as a central theme in her campaign. She'll mention them, surely. The child tax credit gets a mention in her standard stump speech, as does the tax deduction for small businesses. But I don't think it comes anywhere close to things like Obama's health insurance plan, Sanders' Medicare For All, or Trump's mercantilist trade policy.

If Trump had to choose between Ryan Paul-esque entitlement reform and tighter border controls and tariffs, he'd choose the latter every day of the week and twice on Sunday. If Bernie Sanders had to choose between Medicare 4 All and almost any other Democratic priority (like a carbon tax or racial equity programs), we know what he'd pick also. But Kamala Harris and....middle class tax cuts? Maybe I need to watch more TV and get more ads, but I don't really get that messaging coming through.

Voters don't know what the inflation rate was 4 years ago. Answer: it's just about what it is now.

-------------------------

Yup. How many Americans kvetch about the price of gas today when they fill up their giant gas guzzling SUV and pay $2.99 in 2024? How many wish they could be magically transported back to the good ol' 1970s when gas was $0.69/gallon?

Here's an interesting exercise in financial literacy. "Use the google" and find the average price of gasoline at a point where you think things were the worst in the 1970s. Say 1978. Answer? $0.69/gallon. Adjusted for inflation, that gasoline that cost you $0.69 in 1978 would now equate to $3.33. Prices obviously vary across the country based on proximity to refineries and state taxes but I just filled up for $2.77. To be fair, the F-150 that cost an average of $4729 in 1978 now should cost $22,795. The fact that typical F-150 prices actually range from $36,00 to $85,000 reflect some other dynamics beyond mere inflation are involved. Some are safety related, some are emmisions related but many could be due to the fact that customers now seem to expect an arena-worthy stereo system, an engine that can tow 11,200 pounds AND accelerate from 0-60 in 5.6 seconds but those distortions are not applicable to perceptions of the larger economy.

Try it yourself here with the cost of your favorite time traveling indicator of now verus the good ol' days:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-p...

The idea that the average undecided voter is some highly discerning, hard-nosed, genius intellect of economics, geopolitics and technology who just doesn't like being pressured in public can be refuted by watching this Lewis Black video from The Daily Show. (NSFW... It's Lewis Black...)

https://youtu.be/kY12SbF3J_4?si=gGMkKWFJq9uMi8IE&t...

I've bookmarked the clip to play at the 1:38 point where you can hear from some of these highly discerning geniuses directly with no media filter. They all say the same things:

I need to do more independent research.

I have to do my own research.

I just have to do more research.

Yea the clip is edited to make his point but SERIOUSLY, does one ever hear anything different? Do you think these voters spend a Saturday at the local public library pouring over US News, The Economist, Fortune, WSJ, Barron's and policy papers from the Brookings Institute and the regional Federal Reserve Bank Presidents before finally making a decision? How many of these undecideds have even HEARD of those publications or think tanks? Or can describe what the Federal Reserve does?

Let's drill into this a bit more. Let's assume a voter is going to choose their best candidate for President based on REAL MATH rather than internet memes and who they think would be more entertaining to share a beer with.

Let's assume the voter's decision is driven by only four issues. Doesn't matter what they are. Those issues have the following values:

* issuevalue1
* issuevalue2
* issuevalue3
* issuevalue4

Each issue has its own value or weight to the voter as an individual that further affects the value. These should add up to 1.00. We'll label these

* voterweight1
* voterweight2
* voterweight3
* voterweight4

Each candidate has their own preference for each of these issues based on how much THEY support that issue. We'll label these:

* candidateweight1
* candidateweight2
* candidateweight3
* candidateweight4

Now of course, there is some higher factor involved with all four issues that reflects some greater likelihood that any particular issue gets enacted which is a function of ALL of the politicians in the system, certain financial realities and the laws of physics. We'll label these:

* likelihood1
* likelihood2
* likelihood3
* likelihood4

Now, of course, the sophisticated, discerning voter with a background in mathematics and basic economics would immediately recognize that the "expected value" within a given issue from voting for a candidate is simply the product of all of these variables:

Expected Value = issuevalue1 * voterweight1 * candidateweight1 * likelihood1

The total expected value of a vote for that candidate across all the issues that voter cares about is thus:


EV = issuevalue1 * voterweight1 * candidateweight1 * likelihood1
+ issuevalue2 * voterweight2 * candidateweight2 * likelihood2
+ issuevalue3 * voterweight3 * candidateweight3 * likelihood3
+ issuevalue4 * voterweight4 * candidateweight4 * likelihood4


With our theoretical, analytical genius voter, several things are obvious from this mathematical model:

If a likelihood is near zero, a similar high voterweight and candidateweight does little to improve the voter's EV. Ergo, selecting a candidate based on areas of agreement regarding issues going nowhere is not an effective use of the vote.

If a candidateweight is near zero on a high issuevalue, voting for that candidate does little to improve the voter's EV. Ergo, duh... Voting for a candidate who won't push a voter's preferred issues does the voter no good.

But that voter must also perform that calculation with a second set of weights from the second candidate. Then they need to compare the two totals. It may not be immediately apparent and they may not like what their math is telling them each election but it could be the case that given the values, the weights and the larger probabilities of that season, the best candidate may be the "other one." If the voter understands the math and thinks they have good data for the weights and likelihoods, then the MATH will be clear who the best choice is.

This sounds like a high falutin', hoity toity concept in economics and academics but it only involves eighth grade algebra. I can confidently stake that NO individual voter undertakes this level of analysis, even on simple kitchen table economic issues that can be estimated to some degree. (I WOULD state with equal confidence that PACs and big business lobbyist organizations DO perform these calculations when trying to determine whose palms they will grease with campaign contributions and how big those contributions will be.)

Does anyone seriously think this is the level of thought being applied by these undecided voters? Again, we are talking about voters who cannot comprehend exponential math, compounding interest and inflation-adjusted statistics.

If someone wants to argue that these voters ARE performing this type of analysis, only that they are doing so on "values" issues that have no direct bearing on specific legislation, I would agree with that but, at that point, we aren't talking about dry analysis of quantifiable, measurable desires and attainment. We are instead in the realm of feelings and shared hatreds and those cannot be argued rationally.


WTH

Does anyone seriously think this is the level of thought being applied by these undecided voters?

No. And none of them should be engaged in that level of thought. Any rational voter is just going to use heuristics to get them to a "close enough" answer on which candidate is going to be the one that they should vote for. The odds of them changing the outcome of an election - especially a statewide or federal election - are so low that it just doesn't make sense to get into the weeds too much. Unless you enjoy the weeds, which we political junkies do.

So for most people, it's not worth trying to figure out a massive list of the candidates' positions. Or which proposals might make it through Congress. Or the minutiae of whether their health care plan has a mandate or not. Etc. They need a super top-level sense of where this candidate is coming from - what "team" are they on, what motivates them, what is their general "deal" as a politician, what do they care about. Because if you show me what you care about, what's important to you, then I know more about you than looking at positions guides over on Ballotpedia (or wherever).

That's why I keep bringing up priorities. On economics, Trump's a right-wing economic populist. Everything he says screams that viewpoint. So when he keeps banging on about tariffs and ripping up the global trade playbook so that we can beat China, you get a good sense of where he's coming from. It's dumb and stupid, and mercantilist policies generally don't make countries better off - but it has the virtue of being solidly communicated to voters.

There's little for Harris that voters can use as a heuristic like that. We know she's deeply passionate about abortion - she's really hit that message, and she's energized when she talks about it. Great - when a voter knows that, it serves as a strong heuristic for a lot of other social issues.

But I think she lacks something similar for economic issues. Voters don't have a good heuristic for that - a single fact that they know about Harris that's enough for them to get a "probably wrong in detail but close enough" sense of what her economic policy will be.

And that's not great. I think enough voters are uncomfortable not knowing which part of the Democratic economic tradition she's roughly aligned with. A huge part of that is that she was Veep - during the last 3.7 years, and even now to some extent, she's had to exactly be in the Biden slice of that Democratic economic tradition - 100%. But if she's President? I couldn't tell you what she most wants to do.

Maybe I need to watch more TV and get more ads, but I don't really get that messaging coming through.

I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

But that is the message I'm getting. We stream at home (no cable). Some services we use employ "freevee", which means you sit through a few minutes of ads, and then you watch your feature (usually uninterrupted). Those are the only TV ads I see, and the pro-Harris ads are about middle-class tax cuts and an economy that works for the common man. Pretty loud and clear. Plus some (perhaps not enough?) emphasis on strict but fair border security. For me, as an atypical voter, I would also like her to comment on some foreign policy. But most voters aren't going to rank that in the top 5 issues, so I get why they aren't hitting that particular issue.

Are the ads calling out a specific policy? Sort of. A "middle-class tax cut that will save the average household $6000" is moderately specific. I assume she has a position paper on her website if I bothered to look it up (which I don't simply because there is no point...there is no choice next week). I'm sure she has papers on foreign policy, too, even if she doesn't talk much about it. Again, no need for me to look since the alternative is so incredibly dangerous to our democracy and a functioning government, that I have no choice. I had to spend more time on judicial choices (we have "retain: yes or no" for judges) than on the POTUS election because once the convict won the primaries, almost any alternative would have been better. So I can pretty much ignore that one, and the senator race (Lake is insane...only slightly hyperbolic).

I would think she's running similar ads in FL as AZ. "Middle-class tax cut" translates into every state, so no need to change that message.

And I don't think that is a "partisan lens". If, for example, it was Menendez vs Kitzinger, I'd have to go for Kitzinger simply because Menendez is profoundly corrupt, and not even smart enough to hide it. Kitzinger, if he's corrupt -and I have no reason to believe he is-, is smart enough not to flaunt it.

We are instead in the realm of feelings and shared hatreds and those cannot be argued rationally.

I think that's what a lot of this comes down to. That's most of the convict's support. Perhaps not all of it, but most of it. I am hopeful that the undecideds in the key swing states aren't dragged down to that level. If not, Harris should win the swing states. If they are dragged down into the muck of vitriol, the convict may avoid prison for the next four years (and the world will go to "hell in a handbasket").

Which is why I am not discussing this with most people on this board. I'm either preaching to the choir, and beating my head against a wall (with partisan goggles on). Either way, a waste of time. Albaby, and a few others, provide more insight and topics for probing about the minutiae of the campaigns. Which is why I discuss that with them (or you, in this post). It won't affect my vote, or ultimately the outcome next week, but it is interesting from an academic point of view.

I couldn't tell you what she most wants to do.

Middle class tax cut, and "economy of opportunity". The former is a moderately specific policy, the latter is a bit more hand-wavy. She hits that over an over, in ads, and in the occasional clip I see from a speech she gives (I don't see many, but occasionally one slips through). What else do you have in mind? What is not clear to you, unless it is how to implement an "economy of opportunity"...that is certainly a bit vague, but I do get the general idea.

Not trying to be difficult, but I'm apparently not seeing what you're not seeing.

I know the political ads are out there, but I’ve only seen a couple of them when I’m out in public.

I don’t see them on the television at home because we only turn it on once or twice a month to watch Netflix or the latest episode of Outlander on Starz.

Not trying to be difficult, but I'm apparently not seeing what you're not seeing.

Yeah, I guess I'm just not "feeling" it, to use the vibey language from up the thread. I know that's what her ads hammer on. But I don't think she sells it in person. She sells her interest in protecting abortion rights, but I absolutely do not get that when she talks about economic matters.

It's certainly part of her campaign platform, and it's something she's running on, and it's something that she (or her campaign) has made the deliberate choice to foreground. But in her actual appearances, she's not at all effective (to me at least) in communicating that "middle class tax cut" is one of the major things that motivates her to be President. And "economy of opportunity" is so vague and expansive that it's not all that much better than saying that one wants to run for President because you want "to do a really good job" - again, if everything's a priority then nothing is.

Again, this is part of the handicap of having to run for President with only three months. Part of establishing something as your signature policy or your brand or your priority is repetition. If you spend years hammering home your Medicare 4 All plan, people are going to sense your commitment to it. But I also think that Harris isn't doing a great job in communicating that this is something that's a personal priority for her, if indeed it is.

But maybe I'm just not seeing it - again, I only watch Harris herself, and don't see a lot of ads. Maybe it communicates better in the ads.

" I'm pretty cynical about the ability of Presidents to have much of an impact on economic issues without a supermajority in the Senate anyway.

Even with a supermajority there's no way a POTUS can snap his fingers and fix the debt and deficit problems that exist.

Harris could make an equally incredulous lie but does not. Perhaps she should have explained that it'll take time and work to reverse course, pay down the debt. It wouldn't be a popular message to a nation that is overextended but has no tolerance for austerity measures.

We all want a pony!!

<<on virtually any economic issue she'd have close to the same position as Standard Generic Democrat.>>

There was once such a thing, but not for quite some time. Bill, Hillary, and to a large extent Barack were/are neoliberals: free trade, market-led solutions to poverty, healthcare, etc.

Biden is much more pro-union, pro-national industrial policy, skeptical of pointy-headed market-led “solutions” and demonstrably willing to invest in bold, government-led projects to address pressing social needs.

Harris-Walz are more like Biden and quite unlike the Clintons.

There was once such a thing [as Standard Generic Democrat], but not for quite some time.

There still is. But the Standard Generic Democrat changes over time, because the party (and the country) changes over time. Today's baseline "standard" Democrat is going to have vastly different positions on things like gay marriage and immigration than the SGD from thirty years ago, for example. And of course, every actual Democrat will differ in some degree from the Standard Generic Democrat.

But they'll all come close. For the most part, the positions of most Democrats will hew pretty closely to the standard party positions overall. The (D) next to a candidate's name is a really good heuristic on what their positions are. For example, both Obama and Biden were pro-union. Their positions on most things were pretty much the same. At the edges, there might be some differences - but their core stance on unions (they're good! they should be encouraged and protected!) will be the same.

Where they differ, though, is not in their positions, but (dare I say it?) in their priorities. Obama supported EFCA. He and Biden had the same position on that issue. But health insurance reform and banking reform were higher priorities for Obama than EFCA - so they went first, and received most of his political capital. Biden might have structured his priority list differently, had he been President with a supermajority in 2008. He might have insisted on EFCA before the health care law - not because he had a different position on the bill, but because it was more important to him. Obama was the health care guy, and Biden's the union guy - which doesn't mean that Biden didn't support health care reform or that Obama doesn't support unions. Just that they prioritize the issues differently.

But I can't tell you what Harris' top economic priority would be.

Harris' website today only has one issue paper: "A NEW WAY FORWARD FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS, A Plan to Lower Costs and Create an Opportunity Economy". Harris's top priority is to "Strengthen the middle class", with a focus on lowering prices and producing quality jobs.

Harris promises to:
Fight price gouging and enhance competition.
Build more housing to bring down housing costs.
Strengthen the middle class with lower prices, tax cuts, and new investment.
Avoid driving prices higher with higher tariffs.
Lower medicine prices through negotiation.
Strengthen the Affordable Healthcare Act.
Continue building more U.S. factories and infrastructure with the Inflation Reduction Act.
Promote entrepreneurship.


Trump promises to:
Lower egg prices with lower energy prices.
Lower energy prices by 50% with massive subsidies.
Stop outsourcing with high tariffs.
Cut taxes mostly for the billionaires.
Repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act.
Deport the most people in history (same as the 2016 promise that failed).


The voters have made it pretty clear that the most important issue to them is the economy.

Nope. The most important issue for Repubs is the economy. The most important issue for Dems is democracy.

Harris speaks at campaign event in Little Chute, Wis., November 1, 2024
At 17:55 "January 20th, Oval Office. It's either going to be him, sitting there, pouring over and stewing over his enemies list. Or when I am elected it will be me, walking in there on your behalf, working on my to-do list. Because we have work to do. Because we have work to do. And at the top of my list is bringing down the cost of living for you. That will be my focus every single day as President, including giving a middle-class tax cut..."
https://www.youtube.com/live/41gJ1tgHwY4?si=kHMlqO...

What is her top economic priority? ...
I can answer that for Trump, pretty easily. It's tariffs and protectionism. That's something he cares passionately about, something that's a reason why he's running for office. He wants a more mercantilist economic policy, with the U.S. negotiating preferential deals rather than a global "most favored nation" free trade regime. He's got other non-economic priorities (The Border!), but that's his top one on the economy. Number two would be tax cuts.

The U.S. trade balance hasn't changed much in the last 15 years: we import about 15% of GDP, and export about 12% of GDP. Trump's first term policies created headlines, but did not change the top line numbers. The top line numbers are small anyway. Most of the U.S. economy is domestic production and consumption.

  DATE    Imports  Exports  Balance
7/1/2024    14%      11%      -3%
7/1/2023    14%      11%      -3%
7/1/2022    15%      12%      -3%
7/1/2021    14%      11%      -4%
7/1/2020    13%      10%      -3%
7/1/2019    14%      12%      -3%
7/1/2018    15%      12%      -3%
7/1/2017    15%      12%      -3%
7/1/2016    15%      12%      -3%
7/1/2015    15%      12%      -3%
7/1/2014    16%      13%      -3%
7/1/2013    16%      13%      -3%
7/1/2012    17%      14%      -3%
7/1/2011    17%      14%      -4%
7/1/2010    16%      12%      -4%
7/1/2009    14%      11%      -3%

Imports and Exports as Percent of GDP
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1xPFx

And there is a similar story on the border. Obama deported more people than Trump, and Trump did not come close to his promise of "the largest deportation in history". Again, Trump's actions in his first term generated headlines, but did not change the actual number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. by much. Trump is lots of talk, but no results.

Trump did deliver on his 2nd economic priority: tax cuts for billionaires.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.