Seeing the really, really good profit news today from Merril Lynch and others, it looks like the growth number for the third quarter is going to be really good, and following a 3.3% second quarter, and a September where we finally added some jobs, I think it's pretty clear that recovery is happening right now. If the economy is taken off the table as an issue for Democrats in 2004, do they run for president on National Security? If things don't continue improving in Iraq, can Bush actually lose the white house on a national security debate?
Even if the economy begins to turn around now, it won't be soon enough for all the currently and recently unemployed people to forget.
Only 13 months left before elections. Is that enought time for people to forget how bad it is now and has been for about 3 years?
That is assuming that the economy actually turns around.
Economy was weak for much of Reagan's first term but it kicked into gear in time for him to ride to a 49-1 win over Mondale (of course, Mondale's incompetance contributed to that as well. For further Mondale incompetance, see Minnesota Senate race '02). And remember, Roosevelt was re-elected in '36 and '40 without much of an economic recovery, as the recovery really didn't begin until WWII. As for National Security: Unlike many, I think a second major attack in the US actually would be the death knell of the Bush Administration. If they display an inability to protect the citizens at home, what's the point of the government? Have it happen once, you get the support of the people. Twice, and the people will run you out of town.
Where's the spaceship? The Mayor promised a spaceship if we beat the A's, and I want my spaceship.
I think they could survive another. Once is funny, twice is silly, third time's a spanking.
The more the GOP talks about things like "really good profit news from Merril Lynch" to try and show the economy's turning around, the more likely they are to lose. You're not trying to convince the University economics department to vote for you. Either folks have a decent job or they don't. Come back when the employment rate is down and the median income is up.
"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."
Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
The number of new unemployment claims dropped in September, which was the first time in awhile. Now, that doesn't really mean people are getting their jobs back, but just that not as many people are losing their job. Could be worse, I guess. However, last year also saw the 2nd year of increase in the poverty rate in America.
Originally posted by MichromeSeeing the really, really good profit news today from Merril Lynch and others, it looks like the growth number for the third quarter is going to be really good, and following a 3.3% second quarter, and a September where we finally added some jobs, I think it's pretty clear that recovery is happening right now. If the economy is taken off the table as an issue for Democrats in 2004, do they run for president on National Security? If things don't continue improving in Iraq, can Bush actually lose the white house on a national security debate?
Don't confuse profits with jobs. You can jack your profits up in a variety of ways not involving jobs, in fact often by slashing jobs. Let's not forget that alot of the growth and profits a few years back turned out to be an illusion. Even if it does generate jobs, there is usually a lag in hiring.
This helps the "W" in several ways. Perhaps the most important is increased profits and a stock market that has gone up significantly will generate revenues for states and ease the crisis at the state and local levels come April 2004.
The problem for "W" is that were are permenantly losing many high paying jobs (manufacturing etc) and we are moving ever faster into a service economy. Employed people making less are not very happy, especially as they also tend to have fewer benefits.
All that being said, even though I am a lifelong Dem., unless things really go down the toilet or one of the Dem's actually looks presidential, I can't see Bush losing. Unless the Iraq situation gets much, much worse.
If we throw journalists in jail for not divulging their anonymous sources why don't we throw priests in jail for not telling who admits to crimes? Obviously, I'm not a very religious type person, but I don't really see much of a difference here.