Tacitus writes:
Forget economic indicators, battleground states, overall approval ratings, etc.: this is the real reelect number [a poll showing Kerry and Bush drawing even on the war on terrror]. If the President is perceived as being unable to handle in a clearly superior fashion the self-proclaimed central mission of his presidency, then he will lose.
That’s pretty close to conventional wisdom, I suppose. But I can’t help think that — despite 9/11, despite all the purported paradigm shifts, despite Bush’s WoT focus — the old rules still apply. That is, folks vote based on their pocketbooks (or, properly, what’s in their pocketbooks). In which case, this may very well be the dominant theme of the campaign:
“I was pleased to see that the unemployment rate here in Ohio dropped to 5.6 percent,” Bush said at an event here meant to showcase what he calls his “compassion agenda.” “People are going back to work. The economy’s getting better.” May’s 5.6 percent unemployment rate in Ohio was down from 5.8 percent in April.
Indeed, if I had Rove’s ear (and I don’t), I’d suggest a strategy change to Bush: Quit talking about Iraq, the WoT, and how you’re tougher than the other guy. The news is only bad, and you’re protesting too much. Start talking about Main Street. Start talking about the jobs you’ve created. Start talking about how it’s morning in . . . .
Yup, all that is old is now new. Here’s another one:
UPDATE: Lotsa folks are telling me (politely) to shove it, because Bush will likely be the first President since Herbert Hoover to have negative job growth during his tenure. “Hoover,” the argument goes, “HOOOO-VEEERRR. . . . ”
But the Hoover line is actually a bad one. Comparing Bush to Hoover also (implicitly) compares today’s economy with the economy of the 1930s. Look around; does it look like we’re in the Great Depression? Nope. Things are actually lookin’ pretty swell — heck, despite Merrill Lynch’s cold feet, we’re even thinking about an internet IPO! The guy who cries Hoover thus looks like a hysteric, a shrill, a pessimist — like someone who’s hoping for the worst ’cause it suits his politics du jour.
Remember the six-six rule: Good economic news takes six months to filter into consumer thought (we’re currently at about month 5) and people judge the current economy based on what’s happened in the last six months. Come election time, mid-2003 will be meaningless; talking ’bout the 1930s looks just plain silly. The economic message — if Bush exploits it properly — could very well win Bush the election.
And then Harley will owe me a fifth of Bombay. This is what we’re fighting for, folks.
(What do I owe you if Kerry wins? Kettle One or somesuch? I shoulda guessed, ya Flemish-lovin’, wanna-be-frog commie perfidisto . . . . 😉
In my RSS aggregator I don’t get the bylines, so I was pretty sure this one was Edward trying to give some poisoned advice to Rove. But lo! You’re serious :).
I know the American people have a legendarily short attention span, but there’s simply no way that Bush can pretend like the ‘war on terror’ isn’t his defining role. The administration has been beating that drum way too long and way too hard for it to be disappeared this late in the game. And it’s very, very unlikely that the terrorists are going to play along.
Despite several months of job growth, Bush is still the first President since Herbert Hoover to have negative job growth during his tenure in office. Even the present job growth is not particularly impressive for a recovery. Plus, real wages have been declining. And Bush would, of course, also have to talk about the deficits he has created if he talked about the economy.
Despite several months of job growth, Bush is still the first President since Herbert Hoover to have negative job growth during his tenure in office. Even the present job growth is not particularly impressive for a recovery. Plus, real wages have been declining. And Bush would, of course, also have to talk about the deficits he has created if he talked about the economy.
so I was pretty sure this one was Edward trying to give some poisoned advice to Rove
I…WOULD….NEVER…
;-p
Business are indeed hiring again here in my town, for the first time in years, which I take as a good sign; but most of the jobs are part-time: 15-20 hours a week at minimum wage, no benefits. Plus, are there enough of them to make up for all the jobs that have been lost over the past years? Especially since those jobs were jobs at the Whirlpool plant and such — real jobs — and these are jobs at the T.J. Maxx and behind the deli counter at the Sunshine Market.
I’m not sure Bush bragging on job growth would do much to impress us around here. We’re a little desperate these days.
Despite several months of job growth, Bush is still the first President since Herbert Hoover to have negative job growth during his tenure in office.
This meme is so silly.
Q: When was Bush inaugurated?
A: 1/20/00
So, do you start blamin’ him for job losses that start on 1/21? Of course not. It’s called …..laaaaaaaaaaaaagggggggggg time.
So, judge him on job creation after his tax cut plan was passed. If job growth good, give him credit. If job growth not good, give him blame.
Ain’t too hard too figger this out — ‘cept for folks mired in a world of politics 24/7:)
Everything old is new again? It’s the economy, stupid? But I thought 9/11 changed everything.
Everything old is new again? It’s the economy, stupid? But I thought 9/11 changed everything.
It’s a consistent meme with me, Lungfish: Bush’s greatest policy and political goofs occur when he assumes that “9/11 changed everything.” History is more robust.
Von, given your previous postings, I figured you would be on top of this
Meanwhile, a source told CNN that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld never approved a controversial interrogation technique called “water boarding.” That source had told CNN the opposite Monday.
As the main perpetrator of the Hoover line — I even (accidentally) posted it twice! — let me just say that my point was not to compare now to 1930, but instead to say, in shorthand, the following: normally, the number of jobs increases. Sometimes it increases quickly, and sometimes slowly, but the combination of a growing population and an economy that isn’t completely moribund tends to make it grow in some way or other. In fact, this doesn’t just happen “normally”, it has happened during every four-year term since 1930 — where the role of 1930 is just to be quite a long time ago. This is the first time in 74 years when it hasn’t happened. And that doesn’t lead me to think that Bush’s performance is all that impressive.
About internet IPOs: one of the odd features of this recovery seems to be that the stock market is doing well again, but jobs are not doing as well as it is, and real wages are falling. This means that for a lot of people — those who are not likely to be buying into that IPO, but who are affected by wage stagnation — the economy will not seem to be doing better. Their job prospects are still not what they were, their wages have fallen, many of them are losing health insurance or worried about losing it, and the fact that the stock market is rallying will have no direct effect on them. And its indirect effects may be a while in coming.
Oh, I forgot — I wasn’t trying to be shrill, just to say what I honestly think. And I do not hope for bad news about the economy, any more than I hope that we will turn out to have done even worse things to Iraqi detainees. I would dearly love to be wrong about George W. Bush, and I take no comfort at all in this stuff.
Von, given your previous postings, I figured you would be on top of this
To be honest, TtWD, I’m exhausted. I’m trying not to do any thinking this evening. (It’s pretty darn easy, actually.)
Maybe tomorrow.
As the main perpetrator of the Hoover line — I even (accidentally) posted it twice! — let me just say that my point was not to compare now to 1930, but instead to say, in shorthand, the following: normally, the number of jobs increases.
I understand (know also that the Hoover line was also mention in e-mails to me). But that’s the implicit connection one makes. (And I didn’t mean to ascribe ill-intent to you.)
Von, ok
You get your rest and I look forward to your comments.
Timmy
Because I love America, I am more than happy to settle for a fifth of Hangar One. Also see Kevin Drum’s fun chart for why the good economic news is not yet good for everyone.
It’s all about the lag, baby.
Aargh. Still not thinking. But:
Because I love America, I am more than happy to settle for a fifth of Hangar One.
I’m stuck in freakin’ Indiana, Harley, so this is gonna be an awful expensive bet (for me). I gotta find the stuff. Still, any excuse to visit my second favorite city (SF).
BTW, the latest Notwist is pretty damn good. After Neon Golden’s departure, they’ve returned — somewhat — to their roots.
the good economic news is not yet good for everyone.
Is this the new standard? Jeez, it seems kinda high:) Nobody wins, unless everybody wins. It sounds beatific, euphoric, evanescent — I’m envisioning happy, long-hair girls, in tie-dye shirts, frollickin’ through the meadow…
…Picture your self on a boat on a river, with tangerine trees and marmalade skies…..:)
C’mon Harley, GDP is high, unemployment is low, inflation is low, and the economy is steaming along. Them are facts!
Did someone say facts. I discussed econometrics at Harley’s post.
So a little history is in order about another topic of interest, Von.
Saddam link to Bin Laden
Terror chief ‘offered asylum’ in Iraq? US says dealings step up danger of chemical weapons attacks
By Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday February 6, 1999
and look what the AG had to say
“Look, over there! The Clinton administration!”
It has been, for the past few years, the habit of those with no argument to make or ground to stand on to respond to irrefutable criticisms of Bush with the rhetorical equivalent of “At least Bush isn’t Clinton!” For a while there, at the height of the Abu Ghraib dustup, you managed to lower the bar for Bush by reducing the argument to “At least Bush isn’t Saddam!”
Now, it seems, we’re back to the “Look! Clinton!” point.
I should note that my last comment was to Timmy, not von.
I agree with Von. The current economy is nothing like that of the 1930’s AND the Bush administration has presided over the first negative job growth since Hoover. Profits are through the roof, productivity has grown spectacularly AND net income has gone down. Given this information we have to make sure that workers vote for the party committed to stripping their unions of power and removing federal oversight of their workplace. Wage earners should also be eager to vote for the party who shifts the burden of crushing national debt off our insect overlords and onto them. Maybe in another thread we can discuss why gross fiscal irresponsibility is a good thing.
von — I didn’t think you were ascribing ill intent to me (and I’m not into taking offense in any case), but thanks. I wrote the part about my motives mostly because a fair number of conservatives (not you) seem to think that liberals are happy when the economy is bad, and while I’m sure there are some people somewhere who think this way (there are jerks on all sides of the political spectrum), I have never met any.
Navy Davy: this is not about holding Bush to any standard, new or old; it’s about the question whether focussing on the economy is likely to be a winning strategy for Bush. As far as that question is concerned, it seems clear (to me) that people who are not doing well are less likely to be won over by that strategy. That’s all.
Catsy, Catsy, Catsy
Given that this is Clinton’s big week, just a little history, that the Saddam/AQ relationship thread didn’t start with Cheney, Ashcroft or Bush nor did the Saddam WMD thread. Thus, the twofer.
Fabius, I missed the bills going through Congress which
-strip unions of power and
-remove federal oversight of their workplace
but maybe I just wasn’t paying attention.
I look forward to your comment on Bush’s next budget but “the burden of crushing national debt off our”, I remember when that was the big issue with the Reagan Admin (sorry Catsy just a little more history) in the 80s.
Timmy the Wonder Dog: Given that this is Clinton’s big week, just a little history, that the Saddam/AQ relationship thread didn’t start with Cheney, Ashcroft or Bush nor did the Saddam WMD thread.
And if Bin Laden had moved operations into Iraq, and he had still attempted to carry out horrific attacks, our invasion of Iraq would have been wholly justified and this report would be more than just another piece of evidence that the Clinton Administration was focused on counterterrorism before it was “cool”. But Bin Laden stayed in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban, and so our invasion of that country was justified. See how this works, Timmy? The Taliban provided actual material support, not just unproductive overtures.
Now, as to the folks who are currently actually harboring Bin Laden, how’s the war against them going? You know, the ones who did more than send an envoy a few times to put out feelers, but actually took him in, fed him, and currently defend him with force of arms? Or should we be more concerned with digging up more circumstantial evidence against the already demonstrably wicked Saddam in order to justify our own crimes against his victims?
“Now, as to the folks who are currently actually harboring Bin Laden, how’s the war against them going?”
Stalled until the USA figures out a way to deploy troops to Hell in a fashion where they: a, arrive with all their equipment and supply lines intact; b, can survive the unique conditions there; and c, return safely.
Alternatively, I suppose that we could negotiate with Lucfier, but his price for even having a meeting is just a tad… high.
Moe
Just to be clear, are you bringing out the old “Bin Laden is already dead” story (which is wishful thinking until we get some confirmation), or are you referring to the mountainous terrain where Bin Laden is likely hiding as “Hell”?
Wishful thinking*; there may be a place on the surface this planet where American special forces cannot operate, but if so I do not know where it is.
Moe
*Although I’d call it an ‘only moderately uninformed guess’, myself: for somebody supposedly still out there fomenting trouble he’s shown a remarkable tendency to miss easy agitprop successes. A video of him holding and reading yesterday’s New York Times while flipping us the bird would be a definite stick in the eye for American credibility…
Moe
I’d like to think bin Laden’s dead. But I’d also like to think there’s a sign where he’s buried and structured tours to go visit it preceded by heavy drinking contests.
All of which is neither here nor there, but for a president who proudly displays the firearm of Saddam Hussein, Bush is showing a curious lack of interest in the whereabouts of his other nemesis.
But I’d also like to think there’s a sign where he’s buried and structured tours to go visit it preceded by heavy drinking contests.
I have this horrible image of my college friends holding boot’n’rally marathons on top of Osama’s grave.
They’d do it, too.
And if we had, say, a $5 cover charge, we’d make out like bandits.