Can The Democrats Win If The Economy Stabilizes And The Situation

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Poll question: Can The Democrats Win If The Economy Stabilizes And The Situation

in Iraq is stabilized.

I was watching tv this morning and I saw a Gallup Poll that showed Reagan's populatity in August of 1983 was 43%. He went on to win forty nine states and 59% of the vote.

A brief history of the Reagan years. He inherited a crappy economy from Jimmy Carter and proceeded to make it worse. In fact the Republicans lost twenty six House seats in the 82 mid term elections. However the economy started to turn around in the Spring of 84 which allowed Reagan to run a "Morning in America" campaign that buried Mondale.

What if the economy turns around and the situation in Iraq is stabilized; whatever that means ,will Bush be reelected.

Political scientists have a theory called retrospective voting. Folks look back on the tenure of the incumbent and ask themselves if he did a good job and are they better off and vote accordingly.

If the economy turns around and Iraq is stabilized

[paulsbc]

1. the thing that will not occur

is the recovery of all the jobs lost. in fact, the latest news today indicated jobs STILL being lost.

If all goes well, the economy comes back strong and Iraq turns out great, and we get Al Qaeda, and WMD show up from the CIA truck (err, the desert burial grounds they were hid in I mean..), etc., etc,. then yes, Bush will win, IMO.

My feeling is that based on how he is running the country, most if not any of the above will occur, and Dean will cruise into the White House...

[Abe Linkman]

5. Your optimism is admirable, but discouraged voters stay home...

and they don't bother themselves to vote by mail-in, either.

Angry voters vote. Discouraged voters do not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. You Could Also Do A Poll

What if the economy doesn't turn around and Iraq goes further to Hell does Bush win?

I keep thinking of the 72 election. The economy was mediocre and we were mired in a war Nixon said he would end and he buried McGovern.

RMN certainly was successful in changing the subject.

[joeybee12]

3. The Economy is too deep in the toilet to rebound

Seriously, there is some "iffy" good news about the economy coming out now, but the election is only 14 months away. If the economy started picking up TODAY, that still really wouldn't be enough time for people really to feel it, especially with the tremendous loss of jobs. My concern is not over Iraq (God help us all, because we are just seeing the beginning of that mess) but that the Repukes will try to steal the election again--you know they're already plotting. The Dem leadership needs to wake up to this and really keep an eye out.

[Abe Linkman]

4. GOP doesn't necessarily need an economic turnaround

The GOP, in recent decades, has been able to win by dividing voting blocks (using wedge issues like abortion, flag burning and other things that only come up during elections), tactics to discourage Democrats from going to the polls (negative campaign ads), voter intimidation at the polls, and election theft.

Expect more of all of the above in 2004. Commander Bunnypants has a much better chance of getting elected than any Democrat (who might be a shade or two better, but won't fight for the significant changes needed to make life measureably better for most Americans).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I Tend To Disagree

If the econmomy picks up and Iraq is "stabilized" Bush is a 4-1 favorite.


If things are as they are today; a mediocre but not flat out awful economy and chaotic Iraq I think Bush is a 5-3 favorite...

If things really deteriorate than I will come up with new numbers.

[CMT]

7. we will be smarter than in '84

also the recession of '91 was "officially" over when Bush I was defeated, but it was a jobless recovery which I think this recovery will be. Dems will have lots of issues with Bush II

1) 3 million plus jobs lost during Bush II
2) record high deficits
3) health care crisis
4) corporate hijinks and ENRON type situations
5) Iraq--$4 billion per month going down the drain there
6) not fully funding "Put Children First"
7) the energy crisis in this country
8) loss of American prestige in the world
9) Americans working harder and showing less for it
10)Bush fumblings on the real war on terrorism--where is Bin Ladden?
and why isn't he funding homeland security to the states.

There are lots of issues that we can use to cream this guy.

[mlawson]

11. "We" might be smarter, but the 20% in the middle

who vote non-politicallly probably are less smart now, if that is even possible. Again, I say that they will vote for the candidate they "LIKE" the most, just as they did in 1984. We know now that millions didn't particluarly agree with Ronnie's policies, but dammit, they LIKED him!! And that is how they decide on whom to vote for.

We can't understand such mindlessness, but we had better recoginize that it happens.

BTW: If the economy is *perceived* to turn around, and somehow Iraq gets better, GWB wins close to 50 states.

[rock]

8. Even as a hypothetical

you have to assume some reasonable limits. 2.7 million jobs cannot be easily recovered (in the existing timeframe). Besides the harm in a lot of cases has already been done, e.g. home foreclosures, job senority, death from not getting medication, deaths in Iraq.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Agree

Here are my benchmarks

Consistent GDP growth >3%


Unemployment below 5.9% and declining

A Dow > 10,000

An S & P > 1150

and a

NASDAQ > 2,200

I don't know how to define success in Iraq...

I think if those benchmarks are met it's a major uphill climb...

[Bombtrack]

10. again it depends on the candidate

We know Rove is good at being an evil genious. We know that absolutely everything isn't going to go amazing for the GOP, and everything definetly won't amazing for the DNC.

The probability is that the economy will grow very tepidly in some sectors, basically enough to say that it has turned around with some truth. It is also probably that a fledgling pro-western Iraqui government and army will be established, and many foreign troops will have arrived.

That is at the core, a likely scenario. But a democrat who can sell the basic classic Keynsian dem philosophy, that the best way to make america better now, is to protect the invironment, regulate corporate america, shift the tax burden more back to the rich, and cut it off the middle class, - can get 270 electoral votes.

Gephardt Dean can not do that with any liklihood. Kerry would be a real longshot.

If it is any BETTER than the probable scenario, particularly in foreign developments(for instance if Iran has a democratic revolution, and it actually starts to look as if the middle east is having that domino effect from Iraq) or if the economy goes through the roof in a good way

only a ticket like Edwards-Graham or Edwards-Kerry could come close

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. I Disagree To An Extent

Let's say you have the Cassandra scenario- the economy is in the crapper and the world is in turmoil then Bush's reelection becomes extremely dubious

or

you have the Pollyanna scenario wher the economy is growing rapidly, the world is at peace then Bush's reelection looks like a certainty.


I really believe in the efficacy of the retrospective voting model*





*I believe a case can be made that an extremely poor or extremely good candidate can mitigate to some extent objective factors such as GDP growth, employment growth, personal income growth, etcetera.
In fact all the models in 00 predicted a comfortable win for Gore.

[DinahMoeHum]

13. Yes they can, even if both scenarios play out. . .

But it ain't happenin' for *.

One, this has not been merely a "jobless recovery", but a Job-Loss Recovery. How many tens of thousands of jobs lost under *? Can he get those back in time for November 2004? No Way !!

Two, what's happening in Iraq is some very serious, nasty power-playing. That shit don't disappear overnight.


:evilfrown:

[Yupster]

14. If an incumbent wins reelection, he usually ...

wins it in a landslide.

In fact, there are only two times in all of America's history that a president was elected, and then reelected in which he won fewer states in his reelection than he did in his first election. That's kind of an amazing stat to me.

Basically, if you are reelected, you win more states. Bush won 30 states (or 29 depending on Florida) his first time around.

The two exceptions are also interesting.

They are Woodrow Wilson (1916) and Bill Clinton (1996). Those elections share something in common because when they were each first elected there was a strong third party candidate who muddied up the voting. In 1912, Wilson won against two Republicans (Taft and TR) and in 1996, Clinton won against a Republican and a nut (Perot).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. But Clinton Won A Greater Share of The Popular Vote

the second time around and more Electoral Votes...

[Yupster]

19. Yes, just one fewer state

quite an anomaly. Only happened twice in over 200 years.

[Yavin4]

16. The '84 Economy vs. The '03 Economy

The biggest difference between the two economies is that in 1984 the high-tech revolution was just about to take off. For instance, Microsoft was only three years old, and Apple was just about to introduce the Mac. There was a growing, emerging gigantic tech sector on the horizon.

In 2003, there is no such sector on the horizon. There's not going to be an explosion in IT investing nor hiring in the near future.

[uptohere]

20. bio-tech could well be the next big thing

there are signs that this could be huge.

[StopTheMorans]

17. Can the GOP win in 2000 running against a candidate

who has helped oversee 8 years of peace and prosperity and the biggest economic growth in US history? :evilfrown: Oh wait, sorry, already happened, OF COURSE WE WILL WIN IN '04!

[CWebster]

18. Bush policies won't allow it

their only option is to lie.

The stock market rallies when corps cut costs and that means jobs.