Talk:It's the economy, stupid

Legacy

Some Alt Right guy wrote a book called "It's the Jews, stupid" and I think it should be mentioned here. (I'm not a fan of the Alt-right, but I think it belongs on the page.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.164.29 (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Move - quote is wrong

I don't know how to go about doing it, but I believe the title of this entry should be changed, since the phrase used by Carville was simply "The economy, stupid," minus the first word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.192.220 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 February 2006

I disagree. "It's the economy stupid!" is how the phrase became famous and was/is quoted/referred to. --Soylentyellow 16:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

But the "correct" version — the original phrase — does not contain the word "It's". Just because everybody else has misquoted it doesn't change that fact. Captain Quirk (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if the above is true, but I know that the first two sentences of this article presently make no sense. They read: "It's the economy, stupid" [...] is often quoted [...] as "It’s the economy, stupid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.48.6 (talk) 19:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I just saw in the history that this was due to the most recent edit, a few days ago, and I also saw that I could undo this myself, even as an IP. So I did.--89.0.48.6 (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Last Sentence

"Although it is often cited as a Clinton campaign slogan, the phrase was only used internally, and did not become public until shortly after the election."

It's right that it wasn't a campaign slogan, but I think it became public well before the end of the campaign. Towards the end of The War Room George Stephanopoulous refers to this line of the 'haiku' by saying something like "I think if you did a Lexis search for it it would come up in a million different places." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaccuse (talk • contribs) 15:00, 6 May 2006

Meaning

It's rather ridiculous to have an article about this without explaining the meaning...--Chealer 01:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This is quite frustrating. After wasting some time on a Google search, I found that the phrase was coined originally to remind Clinton campaigners to concentrate on talking about the importance of economic issues.

Subsequently the phrase may be becoming a theme around which meaning will accrue in time. For me, for example, it means that a great many things people gripe about are symptoms thrown up by a badly designed economic system driven by the outdated theories cobbled together in pre-industrial times.--Janosabel 12:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Thanks to the original authors for wasting my time :P I suggest adding an explanation or deleting the page altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.240.154 (talk) 09:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Incredible, 12 years later, and there's still no explanation whatsoever of the meaning of the phrase :-D

I would have expected something about what the economy was at the time, what the others issues were, why the other issues should be superseded by the economy, stuff like that. Or at least some citation from one of the authors or proponents of the phrase. Jrob kiwi (talk) 13:08, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Bush I 80% Approval

Hi, when Rhodog edited this entry, he noted that George Bush had an 80% approval record one year before the election. Source, please. I tried to find it to add it myself, but couldn't find it. Thanks!--Beth Wellington 02:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The article on presidential approval ratings says that HW Bush got well above 80%. I don't know where they got their info from, but they may be able to help out if you want to ask over there. Croctotheface 05:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A citation for President George H.W. Bush's best approval rating is in the article now. Incidentally, his approval rating was 90% soon after American troops invaded Iraq by land during Operation Desert Storm. How a president with a 90% approval rating was voted out of office a year and a half later is another story for another Wikipedia article. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

...

It seems kind of ironic that you can win a presidential campaign by calling your voters stupid, doesn't it? Some context must be missing in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.179.226 (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is clear that the line was used internally by the Clinton campaign to keep its people on message. Croctotheface (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Was this line used in a debate by Clinton?

This could be one of those false memories we develop after the fact, but. . . I think I remember hearing a sound bite of Clinton actually using that line in one of the presidential campaign debates in 1992? This article says the line was only used internally, so I guess that it might be the case that I only heard it mentioned after the fact, and retcon'ned the saying into my memory of the campaign. 216.136.68.194 (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I remember it. It was one of those debate moments when you know the guy scored big. It was on the opponent's time and Clinton just (rudely) made the comment. The question, as I remember it, was - what is the thing most important to Americans - kind of thing. Afterwards, I remember reading an article trying to dodge the thought that it was rude to call an opposition debater stupid. The article argued that there's a difference between "the economy stupid" and "the economy, stupid"; with and without a comma. (That's now been reused in a lot of writing commentaries.) I don't think I'm so susceptible to false memories that I'd have built such a complete story. But I am wondering why it's so difficult to find the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.58.88 (talk) 16:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Questionable content

There's a line in this article that indicates it was originally going to be "it's the economy, retard". A quick google search shows no original research substantiating this claim: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22it%27s+the+economy+retard%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq= Therefore, I am removing it until a citation can be found.--76.193.22.93 (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was probably just vandalism. Good work removing it. Croctotheface (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Source on sign

The source for the sign which Carville hung is cited with a Telegraph (UK) newspaper blog post (or some other informal article). Can anyone find a better source for this? --72.207.192.237 (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I recall reading about the sign in Newsweek back around 1993. Captain Quirk (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

OK - but what does it mean?

I am not from the US and after reading the article, I do not have the contextual reference to understand the phrase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.151.133.116 (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on It's the economy, stupid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012041134/http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html to http://blog.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2007/07/approval_highs_and_lows.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Legacy"

In the British political satire The Thick of It, "It's the Everything, Stupid" was the name of a book written by one of the characters. In a later episode a character shouts "it's the economy, Stewpot" at spin doctor Stewart Pearson.

In an episode of the TV series The West Wing, "the economy stupid" can be seen written on a whiteboard in Bartlet's campaign headquarters. In an episode of Weeds, "it's the economy, stupid" is a line said by a crazy man rambling about his free goat. Composer-lyricist Stephen Schwartz and bookwriter Winnie Holzman created their own version of the phrase while working on the hit musical Wicked: "It's the girls, stupid" to keep their plot focused on the musical's two female leads, Elphaba and Glinda. Another variant of the phrase, "It's the constitution, stupid" or "It's about the constitution, stupid", has been used by several parties in various election campaigns. It appeared on bumper stickers against the Bush–Cheney ticket in 2004, for the Ron Paul ticket in 2008, and appeared in video ads for the Gary Johnson ticket in 2012.

A variation of phrase was also used to coin a name for an episode of CBC radio Ideas (radio show). An episode named "It's The Economists, Stupid" aired on November 28, 2016, featured two economists voicing strong criticism on the role economists play in modern decision making and explaining how modern mantras on the economy limit our choices and shut down civic debate.

I've moved this text out of the article to avoid an indiscriminate collection of catchphrases that are plausibly related in some way. Reliable, secondary sources that explain why any of these are significant would help in establishing due weight for this material. See also WP:TRIVIA. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC)