No he did not. 1.2% was the best he ever did. That buy health insurance or pay a penalty put a bunch of people on part time.

He ruled and regulated business, to a point where a lot of them were closing down. That government funded older car trade in took a lot of cars that lower income people were buying, and drove the price of used cars up.

Flyover country suffered a lot at his hands. I think he was way worse than Carter, and that's going some. I'm very glad he's gone, and he should stay gone.

No he did not. 1.2% was the best he ever did. That buy health insurance or pay a penalty put a bunch of people on part time.

He ruled and regulated business, to a point where a lot of them were closing down. That government funded older car trade in took a lot of cars that lower income people were buying, and drove the price of used cars up.

Flyover country suffered a lot at his hands. I think he was way worse than Carter, and that's going some. I'm very glad he's gone, and he should stay gone.

I can tell you have a very one-sided point of view about the economics. I think you're mostly wrong, but the American economy IS probably the MOST difficult thing to understand of everything voters need to make decisions about.

For example, during the entire time Republicans were in charge of the government, in the eighties, nineties, and again in this century, I never got a raise. And several times, the "loosening" of restrictions and regulations that the GOP is so fond of, seems to have resulted in an economic mess several times.

What makes it tricky to know, is that economic decisions made by the government don't EVER affect anything instantly. I got my last two raises during the end of, and shortly after the end of the two Obama administrations. I almost had total personal economic collapse, due to the incredible mess left by Bush the Second.

If you want to pretend that the Republicans weren't responsible for the messes that came at the end of EVERY two term control by the GOP, then you can't logically pretend that the beginning of the boom we are in, which started during the Obama years, is somehow unrelated to Democratic leadership.

Now. I personally don't think EITHER party is really intelligent as a group, especially when it comes to economics. Both have some rather idiotic ideas.

As to the "blue wave," I'm not personally expecting anything, but not because the GOP is doing anything at all to deserve to be returned to further control. Frankly, I am certain that a lot of what they are doing right now, is AGAIN going to put the US economy into the ditch AGAIN.

However, since economies always move so slowly that they APPEAR to be good when a bad leadership is in place, and vice versa, I don't expect the economy to tank until AFTER the mid terms, and maybe not until after the next Presidential election. Just due to timing.

Overall, the main theme I see right now, is that the Democrats are copying the Republicans of the last decades. That is, instead of proposing ANYTHING to do differently, instead of showing actual leadership, they seem to be counting on the incredible corruption and lies of the Trump administration to cause voters to vote against the GOP.

That doesn't work. It didn't work for the Republicans back in the nineties, and I can't see it happening now for the Dems, especially since they aren't making any concerted effort to point out the non-stop lies of the Trump people.

Bottom line, if you want to lead, you need to actually try to lead. Democrats aren't trying to lead right now. Republicans aren't either, but since they are IN power, they can get away with continuing to sit on their hands about health care, and all the other major concerns they believe in doing nothing about.

Unless we start seeing some serious new campaigning from the Dems, I'm expecting overall, to see most of whoever is in Congress now, to be sent back.

thats reaching. When did Obama say that? Do you truly believe the average voter knows about or understands, cares about or votes on the issue of GDP?

btw, Obama had several quarters above 3 percent, that rate fluxuates pretty regularly. That does not signify steady improvement, just normal trend.


it seems more likely he won because of the conspiracy theory ferver that dogged Clinton, and the mirror he gave to people who wanted to finally feel vindicated and free to be hateful and selfish towards others, the dream of a PRESIDENT reflecting their prejudicial fears were justified was pretty convincing.

Lol..Lol ..wow, talk about reaching. that logic is way out there... The reason trump won was for one simple reason.. People were sick and tired of the way our country was being turned into a totally lame woosified s*ithole. And after Obama surprised the world and won his second term, well that brought out the folks that never voted before to make sure the liberals wouldn't have another 4 years to ruin this country for good. Same this time , no way will the Liberal democrats gain more power. Those scary years with Obama may have been enough to ward off another democrat controlled USA ever again.

Where am I getting my information?

Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily, Edward Jones, Raymond James & Associates, Roney & Company, Oppenheimer Funds, Fox Business, CNBC, Bloomberg.

I've seen those made up numbers by the DNC. If we had those numbers going, then why wasn't hillary elected? Why were people losing their homes? I've been seeing just too many homes in horrible condition BECAUSE of the lousy economy obama was claiming was to be the NEW NORM.

Hey, guess WHAT! Obama was LYING to you too!

the scary years where more people became insured and we AVOIDED another depression and the crash of wall street, stock market, and the auto industry, and eliminated the head of the terrorists of the time.

yes, that kind of TERRIFYING thing could scare off anybody from wanting someone like OBAMA again ...

lots of people who had insurance lost theirs at the expense of having increased premiums to pay for non-payers insurance.and yes after several hours of indecisiveness on Obamas part to take Bin-Laden out he finally gave permission. And I guess it's a good statement of your presidency to say" we didn't have a depression" .

thats reaching. When did Obama say that? Do you truly believe the average voter knows about or understands, cares about or votes on the issue of GDP?

btw, Obama had several quarters above 3 percent, that rate fluxuates pretty regularly. That does not signify steady improvement, just normal trend.


it seems more likely he won because of the conspiracy theory ferver that dogged Clinton, and the mirror he gave to people who wanted to finally feel vindicated and free to be hateful and selfish towards others, the dream of a PRESIDENT reflecting their prejudicial fears were justified was pretty convincing.

that's just crazy liberal talk... He won because of the inherent lying and Not giving a damn about the American people by all the democrats..

except the same could clearly be said about him,, so the MAIN differences were more of the conspiracy rhetoric surrounding Clinton and she being a female

Hillary Clinton thinks she lost because she is a female?

what a sore loser, she lost because she isnt trustworthy, the American people would rather put up with a womanizer that has no filter on his mouth vs a smooth talking polished liar like Hillary.

They got tired of a Washington insider and chose an Outsider.

It has nothing do with her being a woman, she has too much baggage.