Laffer’s Laughable Prediction
Via The Hill: Economist: GOP may win 47 states in general election
Supply-side economist Arthur Laffer is predicting Republicans will win the White House in a landslide this year, regardless of the nominee.
“I would be surprised if the Republicans don’t take 45, 46, 47 states out of the 50,” Laffer told host John Catsimatidis on “The Cats Roundtable” on New York’s AM-970 on Sunday.
“I mean, I think we’re going to landslide this election.”
Allowing that predicting the future is tricky, and also allowing that one could produce scenarios in which the Republicans win in November, it would take some pretty powerful intoxicants to convince me that the GOP has a shot at a 45+ state landslide.
If one looks at the 2012 map and then gives the GOP Florida, Ohio, AND Virginia but leaving everything else the same for 2016, the Democrats still win 272 electoral votes (go here to play with the numbers).
Of course, Laffer’s credibility goes to (dare I say), Laffability with statements like:
“When I look at these candidates, I don’t see one of them who wouldn’t do a great job as president,” he said.“I think Donald Trump is phenomenal, I think Rand Paul has done a great job, I even like Jeb Bush — I think Jeb Bush is great, he did a wonderful job in Florida,” he added. “Chris Christie – phenomenal.”
Why is Laffer still described as ‘an economist’ and not as a crank, which is a more accurate description of how the rest of the economics field regards his supply-side proposals?
Why are you giving this complete failure bandwidth?
Oh that’s right…you actually believe trickle-down economics creates growth.
@C. Clavin: ??????????????????????
@C. Clavin: Basically I can only assume that you read “Laffer,” skipped the rest, and went straight to comment.
@Steven L. Taylor: More likely, he thought you were Doug.
@C. Clavin: I don’t think Steven does, but a heck of a lot of other people out there still consider that Laffer’s theories make any sense.
@Argon: We should listen to this guy (Taylor har har) instead of the economist who saved this country – because . . . stupid.
@grumpy realist: The really weird thing is this: Laffer is conceptually right, there is a rate that maximizes revenue beyond which higher taxes reduce economic activity, it’s standard econ and was long before Laffer. For the top income tax rate IIRC it’s around 70-75%, to which Kennedy had long before lowered it in his successful supply-side tax cut. It’s not that Rs are totally wrong about supply side, it’s that Dems know when and how and Rs don’t.
Laffer’s prediction is more proof that neck ties cause cerebral hypoxia
@deegeejay: And who, pray tell, would that great hero of the ages be and when exactly did he perform these miraculous feats of economic resurgence?
Of course no non-incumbent in history has ever won 45 states, and in any case we live in an age of extreme partisan polarization where both parties go into each election with a floor of about 15-20 states that will never, ever vote for the other party no matter who the candidates are or what’s happening in the country.
Appropriately, this sounds like his attempt at Trump-style trolling. Unfortunately, he hasn’t got quite the knack of it: he’s supposed to say the Republican will win all 50 states.
Every thing that has ever come out lof Laffer’s mouth has been a laffer. His Laffer curve and supply side economics has not worked after over 30 years. Yes, you can raise taxes too much but as George W. Bush proved you can lower them too much as well.
The Democrats have a lock on nearly all of the electoral votes they need to win. They have the populous blue states while the Republicans have a lock on the much lower populated red states.
@gVO08: The issue is conservatives seem to believe that the US is perpetually on one side of the curve (many of the representations that I have seen are bell shaped).
We’ve never had a rate that high.
@deegeejay: “Saved this country” for the rent-collectors to work even less for even more, while everyone else works harder for less, you mean?
And yet, during the most prosperous period of across-the-board economic advance in our history, the top rate was 90% or more.
Too many Republicans seem to not understand the diminishing marginal utility of money. At all.
@Guarneri: See @DrDaveT: above.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I missed the byline…and maybe read too fast.
I think Laffer is probably telling the truth. HE probably does believe that the Republicans are on the verge of a massive landslide victory, especially if his understanding of politics is as good as his understanding of economics.
@Pete S: It’s the old evil vs. stupid debate.
Wow, deja vu all over again.
That comment reminds me of what my father and 7 of my 8 brothers and sisters believed back in 2012 – that Mitt Romney was going to win in a landslide, because – as the 24/7 mainstream conservative media was telling them – the economy was in a shambles, the president was weak on terrorism, the president was regularly acting without constitutional authority, and ACA was a socialist disaster.
Now, it is very possible that the GOP can win the White House – 2 term fatigue with current administration, voter registration suppression, possible investigation fall-out for Hillary – but, if Democrats maintain large blue state dominance, and get strong turnout among their constituencies, it won’t matter if the GOP wins 30-35 or close to 40 states, it depends on which 10-15 (or even 20) states Democrats win.
Well, if Trump by some cosmic abortion is the nominee then it’s pretty well assured that he’ll win 47 cocktail parties on Park Avenue.