May 10, 2004
50-0 FILES:
Jobs jubilation (Bruce Bartlett, May 10, 2004, Washington Times)
For months, economists have predicted solid growth in the gross domestic product would forecast a comfortable victory for Mr. Bush on Election Day. The economy has now averaged 5 percent real growth over the past year and experience shows this is well more than enough to ensure victory for the incumbent party in presidential elections.With the April 29 announcement that the economy grew 4.2 percent in the first quarter, Yale University economist Ray Fair raised his prediction of President Bush's share of the two-party vote in November from 58.7 percent to 60.4 percent. Either figure would constitute a blowout victory.
Other economists are not quite so optimistic but nevertheless show Mr. Bush with a large and growing lead. In an April report, Global Insight, the giant economic forecasting company, sees him winning 55.8 percent of the two-party vote this year.
Economist Robert Dye of Economy.com, looked at economic growth in individual states in an April 21 report and did a state-by-state electoral analysis. Overall, he sees Mr. Bush with 54 percent of the vote and carrying every state but California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. This would produce an Electoral College victory for Mr. Bush of 373 votes to 165 for John Kerry.
Of course, all these forecasters hedged their bets by noting employment growth was slow until recently, and that could offset the benefit to Mr. Bush gets of good GDP growth. However, with the latest employment report, which brought the number of unemployed down by 188,000 and the unemployment rate down from 5.7 percent to 5.6 percent, unemployment is increasingly unlikely to be a factor.
Don't be the only state in your neighborhood to vote wrong.
MORE:
-Forget the Polls. Economic Models Show Bush Win (Caroline Baum, Feb. 6, 2003, Bloomberg)
I saw on Drudge that pollster Zogby thinks it is Kerry's to lose.
Posted by: pchucK at May 10, 2004 11:41 AMThat's because he's Arab.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2004 11:56 AMPolls at this time are of little value, and the economic data is probably more instructive.
Yet, I worry.
Democrats weren't supposed to lose 5 seats the day Clinton won. The Contract wasn't supposed to cause a mini-realighnment, and Clinton wasn't supposed to pick up seats in 1998. Bush wasn't supposed to win (according to the same economic models predicting his impending win) against Gore, and he wasn't supposed to retake the Senate.
We live in interesting times. Bush's presidency will rise or fall with success in Iraq. He better get things back on track there. The population still sees him as the better choice, but that can change.
Let's stop patting ourselves on the back, and start organizing, writing, knocking on doors, developing our e-mail lists, and hoping that Nader picks Kucinich as his running mate.
Posted by: BB at May 10, 2004 11:56 AMGore won and the continuing realignment of the country predicted the mid-term pickups in '02. There is no choice, just the economy.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2004 12:01 PMBush is as toast as he can be. The media have deliberately recreated Vietnam and the people believe it. Period. It doesn't matter whether the troops on the ground are winning. They won in Vietnam too.
Osama was right. 50 % of westerners are like Zapatero. They run for the hills after one shot. 25 % are like Andrew Sullivan. They run for the hills after two shots. And the rest doesn't matter anymore, because they're swept away in the ballot box.
Two things happened to me at lunch today: I had to pay $1.869 a gallon for regular unleaded; and I decided that my principles require me to oppose President Bush's reelection.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 10, 2004 2:00 PMIt is interesting looking at Aug-Nov 2002 Brothers Judd Blog Archives.
Posted by: pchuck at May 10, 2004 2:37 PMDavid Cohen:
$1.869 a gallon is pain , but nowhere near a record ..
ummm... what 'principles' are we talking about ?
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at May 10, 2004 2:39 PMPeter:
And Nixon won twice. During war we want the guys who order torture.
Posted by: oj at May 10, 2004 3:52 PMJOA --
The principle of upholding my Ninth Amendment right to cheap gas.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 10, 2004 7:06 PMDrivers paid around $2 a gallon for gas four years ago in the Midwest and Northern California during the spring before the 2000 election, but by the fall prices were back down and the issue disappeared. The same thing holds true here -- if the prices are lower five months from now it's a non-issue, no matter how much Kerry's people might shout about a secret deal.
Posted by: John at May 10, 2004 7:08 PMGas prices have little to do with Bush, and a lot to do with booming auto sales in China.
Posted by: mike earl at May 11, 2004 10:26 AMTo admit (assuming you are serious) deciding a President based upon the price of gas is to admit to being a simpleton.
This isn't to say that there aren't a lot of you. I just wouldn't have expected it here.
If this truly is your line of reasoning, then it isn't even worth asking what would bring the price of gas down under Kerry.
Posted by: BB at May 11, 2004 10:29 AMI have never denied being a simpleton. In fact, turn it into French, and it's a badge of honor.
John Kerry has a plan to travel to OPEC countries and ask them to do what's right for America and pump more oil. The Arabs will respect his great personal charm and charisma, which as a decorated war hero is backed up by his machismo. In fact, gas is only rising now because OPEC leaders are among the many foreign leaders who know how important it is to get rid of Bush.
Posted by: David Cohen at May 11, 2004 12:11 PM>The Arabs will respect his great personal charm
>and charisma,
And they know a Good Little Dhimmi when they see one.
Posted by: Ken at May 11, 2004 1:30 PM