Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (309875)	11/8/2006 8:54:26 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586534

It is unusual in that there usually is a reason for it Of course. But the 6th year does tend to be a week point for the party in power. Losing 30 seats is a serious defeat. Its not trivial or unimportant, its a major loss. But its also not very unusual under the circumstances. "More like because of all his efforts." You keep claiming that without anything to back it up. If that were the case, the rest of the world would have been recovering from the same economic collapse, but they weren't either. I've posted a number of times backing it up. The rest of the world also put in place quite a few negative policies. One note of clarification - I don't mean "solely because of his efforts". Hoover had quite a few bad policies as well, and conditions where bad in ways that had nothing to do with either of their policies. I'm not saying "FDR created the depression". He just helped make it worse. And to be fair to him, that is just looking at the economics of it. Politically its possible that if he didn't institute some of his very poor policies that even worse policies would have been demanded and enacted. To the extent that is the case, it could be said that in a certain way FDR made things better than they would have other wise been.

To: combjelly who wrote (309875)	11/9/2006 2:48:26 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586534

"The data is enough to show the weaker claim that losing this many seats is not all that unusual for a 6th year president or a sign of total collapse." It is unusual in that there usually is a reason for it, over and above it being the 6th year. Again, the Great Depression dragging on, civil rights and Watergate. It is intellectually dishonest to pretend that it is decoupled from that. These things don't just sail out of the blue, it is the electorate trying to send a message. Losing some seats is common in a mid-term election. Losing 30 isn't. Unless there is something else going on. Damn.......and they accuse us of whining.