The Economist backs Obama

[TonyR]

Far from being the voice of fiscal prudence, Mr Romney wants to start with huge tax cuts (which will disproportionately favour the wealthy), while dramatically increasing defence spending. Together those measures would add $7 trillion to the ten-year deficit. He would balance the books through eliminating loopholes (a good idea, but he will not specify which ones) and through savage cuts to programmes that help America’s poor (a bad idea, which will increase inequality still further). At least Mr Obama, although he distanced himself from Bowles-Simpson, has made it clear that any long-term solution has to involve both entitlement reform and tax rises. Mr Romney is still in the cloud-cuckoo-land of thinking you can do it entirely through spending cuts: the Republican even rejected a ratio of ten parts spending cuts to one part tax rises. Backing business is important, but getting the macroeconomics right matters far more. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

[TonyR]

Time's E.J. Dionne:

This election does not represent a choice between left and right. It represents a choice between balance and a new, extreme form of conservatism. This new conservatism cannot accept any tax increases as part of a deal to reduce the deficit. For all his attempts to sound moderate in the campaign’s closing days, Romney has not altered the response he gave during a Republican-primary debate rejecting a hypothetical deal involving a 10-to-1 ratio between spending cuts and tax increases. This refusal to acknowledge the need for more revenue is a recipe for eviscerating government—and the cuts, as Ryan’s budget shows, would fall disproportionately on programs for Americans with the lowest incomes.

The new right has broken with conservatism’s past—and our country’s most constructive traditions—by adopting a new and radical individualism that largely ignores our country’s gift for community. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/01/the-case-for-barack-obama/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+timeblogs%2Fswampland+%28TIME %3A+Swampland%29

[TonyR]

A prediction of how, should Romney lose, the GOP will spin it:

It's the liberal/drive-by/lamestream media's fault. It always is. They covered for President Obama's lapses in Benghazi, failed to hold him to account for his obvious failures, generally failed to vet him properly in 2008, and ignored the scandals during his first term. They tipped the scales. And in the last week, they covered his response to Hurricane Sandy as if he were a conquering hero. They hated Mitt Romney because they were jealous of his success. They ignored Chicago's relentless negative campaign. http://theweek.com/article/index/235642/how-republicans-will-explain-a-romney-loss

[Rohirrim]

This movement on the Right is "conservative" only if you take your dictionary and throw it out the window. It has almost nothing to do with conservatism. It's an extremist movement.

[Blart]

History of The Economist's endorsements:



1980 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1980): Ronald Reagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan), Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28US%29), "That, perhaps, is the most pressing reason why so many of America's friends want, unusually in a presidential election, to see a change at the top, even one laden with risk. We agree with them."<sup id="cite_ref-economist.com_34-0" class="reference">[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-economist.com-34)</sup>
1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984): No endorsement<sup id="cite_ref-economist.com_34-1" class="reference">[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-economist.com-34)</sup>
1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1988): No endorsement, "Oh dear!"<sup id="cite_ref-economist.com_34-2" class="reference">[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-economist.com-34)</sup>
1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992): Bill Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton), Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28US%29), "Despite the risks, the possibilities are worth pursuing. Our choice falls on him."<sup id="cite_ref-economist.com_34-3" class="reference">[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-economist.com-34)</sup>
1996 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996): Bob Dole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Dole), Republican Party, "We choose him on the assumption that the real Bob Dole is the one who spent three decades on Capitol Hill, not this year's dubious character; that he would be more prudent than his economic plan implies. That is an awkward basis for an endorsement. But the choice is a lousy one."<sup id="cite_ref-economist.com_34-4" class="reference">[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-economist.com-34)</sup>
2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000): George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush), Republican Party, after John McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain) was defeated in the Republican primaries. At the time, the newspaper hoped George W. Bush could transcend partisanship, but now the newspaper describes him as the "partisan-in-chief."<sup id="cite_ref-35" class="reference">[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-35)</sup>
2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004): John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry), Democratic Party, “The incompetent George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush) or the incoherent John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry)” <sup id="cite_ref-36" class="reference">[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-36)</sup>
2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008): Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), Democratic Party, "He has campaigned with more style, intelligence and discipline than his opponent. Whether he can fulfil his immense potential remains to be seen. But Mr Obama deserves the presidency."<sup id="cite_ref-37" class="reference">[38] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-37)</sup>
2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012): Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), Democratic Party, "Mr Obama has dragged America’s economy back from the brink of disaster, and has made a decent fist of foreign policy. So this newspaper would stick with the devil it knows, and re-elect him."<sup id="cite_ref-38" class="reference">[39] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_editorial_stance#cite_note-38)</sup>


I get The Economist because of their reporting on world affairs, but I usually hate their neoliberal editorial schlock. When they endorse anyone left of center, you know the guy on the right has to be terrible.

[Smiling Assassin27]

98% of Europe is going with Obama. This should not be surprising. Underlying moral: Be more like us, vote Obama.

[orinjkrush]

wonder what the economist said about Ron Paul?

[TonyR]

98% of Europe is going with Obama. This should not be surprising. Underlying moral: Be more like us, vote Obama.

LOL Why am I not surprised this is the moral you take from this! We're right and everybody is else wrong!?! ROFL!

[Blart]

wonder what the economist said about Ron Paul?

lmgtfy

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/08/ron-pauls-campaign-0

"Mr Paul would probably have made a disastrous president: he is intemperate, cranky, obsessive and he has a very nasty past. America's government could no doubt stand to be leaner and more efficient, but Mr Paul proposed cutting marrow, muscle and vital organs, not just fat. Still, his candidacy was welcome and valuable. If Republicans mean what they say about leaner government, they will welcome rather than drive out their libertarian wing."

[TonyR]

David Frum makes a case for Romney, and Sullivan responds/analyzes. Good read.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/11/case-romney.html

[Kid A]

I get The Economist because of their reporting on world affairs, but I usually hate their neoliberal editorial schlock. When they endorse anyone left of center, you know the guy on the right has to be terrible.

Exactly; there was a half sensible editorial in there, but when you've got a board of editors they had to include some fairly dumb critiques as well (lol at "left-wing democrats" influencing Obamacare, Obama not golfing with republicans or whatever). Is interesting that this is first time they've endorsed same guy twice in a row.

And if SmilingAssassin thinks The Economist in any way reflects "European liberal" opinion, he has no idea what he's talking about. It's one of the most prominent voices for free market economic opinion in the western world. As they made clear, they aren't wild about Obama. The GOP candidate is just that obviously ****ty, even to people who should be in his wheelhouse.

[TonyR]

And if SmilingAssassin thinks The Economist in any way reflects "European liberal" opinion, he has no idea what he's talking about.

Obvious conclusion bolded.

[BroncoInferno]

(lol at "left-wing democrats" influencing Obamacare

I lol'd at that, too. It was the blue-dog Democrats who forced Obama to abandon single-payer and adopt a plan that originated from the right-wing.

[manchambo]

Salon has a good interview with Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in which Stiglitz says that Romney's economic plan relies on "magic." http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/joseph_stiglitz_makes_the_case_for_obama/

For those keeping score at home, that's two Nobel prize winners (Stiglitz and Krugman) who have opined that Romney's plan is not just unwise or unfair, but nonsensical. And Nixon adviser and speech writer Ben Stein recently said that the evidence doesn't support a correlation between tax rates and economic activity. And so did the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Bush's chief financial adviser, Andrew Samwick, said the following about Bush's claim that decreased tax rates led to increased revenue: "You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_side_economics

I could go on, but what would be the point?

[DenverBrit]

98% of Europe is going with Obama. This should not be surprising. Underlying moral: Be more like us, vote Obama.

What do you expect? Romney is seen for what he is.

A political windsock.

[Bronco Yoda]

98% of Europe is going with Obama. This should not be surprising. Underlying moral: Be more like us, vote Obama.

look, it's J.W Pepper Ha!

http://content8.flixster.com/question/53/08/69/5308698_std.jpg

[Rohirrim]

Salon has a good interview with Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz in which Stiglitz says that Romney's economic plan relies on "magic." http://www.salon.com/2012/11/02/joseph_stiglitz_makes_the_case_for_obama/

For those keeping score at home, that's two Nobel prize winners (Stiglitz and Krugman) who have opined that Romney's plan is not just unwise or unfair, but nonsensical. And Nixon adviser and speech writer Ben Stein recently said that the evidence doesn't support a correlation between tax rates and economic activity. And so did the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Bush's chief financial adviser, Andrew Samwick, said the following about Bush's claim that decreased tax rates led to increased revenue: "You are smart people. You know that the tax cuts have not fueled record revenues. You know what it takes to establish causality. You know that the first order effect of cutting taxes is to lower tax revenues. We all agree that the ultimate reduction in tax revenues can be less than this first order effect, because lower tax rates encourage greater economic activity and thus expand the tax base. No thoughtful person believes that this possible offset more than compensated for the first effect for these tax cuts. Not a single one."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_side_economics

I could go on, but what would be the point?

Thirty years ago George H.W. Bush called it, "Voodoo economics." He was right then, and he's still right.

[Blart]

It's been fun reading conservative magazines & newspapers cover the endorsement,

The Economist endorsement (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one)(courageous, given their readership) is also a terrible sign for Mitt. If the magazine of free-markets and the ‘one per cent’ can’t bring themselves to hold their noses and endorse Mr Romney, who can?

Their backing of Mr Obama is certainly begrudging, but the arguments against Mr Romney must make painful reading for the strategists plotting his ‘etch-a-sketch’ lurch back to the centre in the final month of this campaign.

“The problem is that there are a lot of Romneys and they have committed themselves to a lot of dangerous things,” the editors write, as they puzzle over who exactly Mitt Romney is, and what he might do if he is elected on Tuesday night.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peterfoster/100187557/some-dangerously-sensible-people-have-endorsed-barack-obama/

[Smiling Assassin27]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ltCIEbLMaQg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>