CNN/Money: Economy not expected to hurt Bush re-election

[eric_schafer]

From the article:

Though President Bush's Democratic challengers have gained some political traction from bad job-market data and growing deficits, the economy seems unlikely to be much of a problem for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004, according to some economists.

<snip>

CNN/Money used Fair's model to come up with a prediction for the 2004 election, assuming the Philly Fed's projected 3.7 percent GDP growth rate for the first three quarters of 2004, growth above 3.2 percent for the last two quarters of 2003, and average inflation of 2.2 percent during the first 15 quarters of Bush's term.

The result: Bush should win more than 60 percent of the vote on election day -- an unequivocal landslide.

**********
Like we needed any more proof that CNN is chock full of pandering bastards. Yes, voters certainly DON'T consider how the economy is affecting their lives when they cast their vote.

[Woodstock]

1. I don't see that he "has the conservative base wrapped around his finger"

A lot of TRUE conservatives are alarmed at his economic and foreign policy. He's not a conservative, he's a neocon, there's a difference. I know quite a few people who voted for him last time who won't this time, and that's just me. I know of NO people who didn't vote for him last time who will this time.

And I wonder if these are the same economic geniuses who said Iraq's reconstruction would be paid for by the oil. Trickle down didn't work for Reagan, and it won't work for "Bush 43*."

[Room101]

To my fellow unemployed.......

There is no Economic recovery until we get a job:(

[central scrutinizer]

2. absurd

How can they come up with this shit when every poll shows his approval rating on the economy in the 30% range.

[im4edwards]

7. I believe that they are projecting into next year, not now

and if it does go as expected, they may well be right.

[diplomats]

11. It's still up in the air, obviously

but economists are known for being all over the map when it comes to predictions.

[AP]

9. And, furthermore, everyone is putting the economy at the top of their list

of issues concerning them, and the U of Mich sentiment numbers are miserable, and 3 million people have lost jobs.

Today, I heard Krugman say that the economy needs to produce 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth, while Bush, if he's lucky, might be able to produce 30,000 (per month?) before election day.

[childslibrarian]

3. They are Delusional

The economy doesn't recover if bonds are considered junk because of our deficit, jobs are outsourced to other countries, and the middle class is losing ground every day.
This recovery is a rich person's recovery and let's face it...
there's more of us than them. Even the Republican millionaire wanna-bes are starting to understand that Whistle-ass doesn't care about them.

[newyawker99]

15. Hi childslibrarian!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Skittles]

4. TWO EXPLANATIONS

either it is just run-of-the-mill corporate whoring for Bush Inc, or it's all part of the setup to make people understand how, when Bush Inc again STEALS THE F***ING ELELCTION, to "explain" why he was "re-elected". EITHER WAY, IT IS SICKENING.

[cprise]

5. They're delusional.

Just WHAT kind of pills are these non-HMOs prescribing these days?

Must be something strong.

[AP]

6. I have NEVER heard of a projection/poll/model like this one!!!

A model which considers projected GDP growth and inflation rates (from an administration probably lying about the numbers in the first place) can predict the margin of victory? Whazza? Does this model of a track record for success?

[carpetbagger]

14. It's a good model, but now the numbers don't reflect reality.

It's similar to the 1992 situation. Bush and Quayle were factually correct in citing the numbers of the recovery, but off the mark in extrapolating that to the real-life numbers.

In 2004, the numbers will look good (GDP, inflation, unemployment), but they will connect more poorly than usual with real indicators of family and individual economic health (debt, net income, disposable income, cash on hand, job security and more "real" unemployment indicators, stock market stability, costs of major expenses).

If they think the traditional economic models will work in an engineered plutocracy, they need to lay off the sauce.

[cmf]

8. Okay CNN

Time for you guys to put down the crack pipes.

This so freaking absurd.

[LiberalEconomist]

13. The other liars

Industry and corporate economists are a pack of lying whores. Their analyses are disingenous at best. They are there as part of marketing. For the past year Economy.com has been claiming that the economy will take off and the unemployment problem will be relieved. Well?

I actually use their "forecasts" in projecting my county's revenue. If they say up I say down etc.

Another thing, why do we have journalists who minor in business acting as if they are real economists? Wall Street don't equal the fucking macroeconomy. Jeeze!!

[newyawker99]

16. Liberal Economist!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[diplomats]

10. Economists have been predicting strong economic growth

and job creation for some time now, and they haven't been right yet. The economy might be better in 2004, it might be worse or it might be the same. Two of those three scenarios aren't good for Bush.

[sandnsea]

12. Hahahahhaa

This is so fucking stupid. How much of that GDP is more military deficit? Just like a couple of months ago, we all remember. They got away with this shit in the 80's with Reagan's military deficit, we CANNOT let them get away with it again.

No jobs, businesses racing overseas, increased poverty rate, downsizing to post profits, falling dollar... the economy SUCKS. And it's not going to change.

[leesa]

17. Bizarre...that's why there are all those phony articles about the economy

being on the upswing. Open your eyes and look around you. Do NOT believe a word that comes out of mainstream media or its polls.

[mkregel]

18. CNN/Money: Low Votes not expected to hurt Bush re-election

I expect to see this soon ;)

[eric_schafer]

19. to be followed shortly by...

CNN/Money: NOTHING will be allowed to hurt Bush re-election

:eyes:

[tsipple]

20. Wasn't the Economy Really Good in '68?

And the War really bad?

[ShaneGR]

21. LINK??????????????????????????????????????????

On this board, I require a link. I don't see this on CNN's website.

[dusty64]

22. This is a crock

of shit, thats all I can say. Disgusting propaganda disguising as news. The economy and our Iraqi quagmire WILL be the downfall of our regime, I don't care what the desperate whores say.

[jiacinto]

23. This model has not had a good track record

In 2000, I believe, this model predicted a Gore landslide. The only real model that has ever worked is Alan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency, but even that system has problems because the criteria are subjective. The FAIR model has not worked as well as it claims.