I've commented before about gloomy conservatives, for example NRO. A recent Gallup poll shows Bush/Cheney +15pts to Kerry/Edwards in NC. Given that Bush won NC by 13pts in 2000 and Edwards might not have won reelection in NC the poll doesn't seem that farfetched. Yet in the NRO Corner it was dismissed as unlikely and NC was going to be a battleground state.

Some of the gloominess is just rope-a-dope, to keep the faithful from being complacent. We all remember the last 4 days of the campaign in 2000.

Some of it is a natural distaste that many conservatives have for the nitty-gritty of politics.

But when you read that the GOP has over 50,000 volunteers in OH (already at work) to the Democrats' 35,000 - you know that the nitty-gritty is getting done.

Tradesports.com has a US Elections futures market. Before Kerry picked Edwards, Bush 2004 was trading at 53 or 54, while after the VP pick Bush is at 50 to 51 and change.

I interpret this as the bump given to any candidate (in this case Kerry) that does something dramatic (appears at the convention bump, or his VP pick) and may be their high tide. I hope so....

It is awfully hard to beat an incumbent president. I know the last one was George H.W. Bush but the economy was in a recession and people perceived it to be much worse than it was (remember that bogus Clinton line, "worst economy in 50 years" he obviously was inhaling during the Carter Administration). Jimmy Carter lost because he was Jimmy Carter and it was the 1970's. For heaven's sake Ford almost won with watergate hanging around the GOP's neck.

A month from now, all the scheduled "bumps" for the Dems will have come and gone, while the GOP still has their convention (and if you are paranoid or a Leftist, which are the same thing these days, the October Surprise) to give him a bump. So unless Bush pulls a Jerry Ford and frees Poland, does anyone think that the joint appearances (the ones that are called debates), are going to help either candidate? And why would the Dems want to have any debates, anyhow? The only thing that seems to work for their candidate is for him to go on vacation and disappear.

One thing not in favor of the GOP is the insane attitude you people have about the economies now and back in 1992.

I was too young to really remember the Carter years, but my understanding is that unemployment was not too bad, but the inflation was killing people. And Carter lost anyway. And the early 90's recession was bad. If someone denies that, I tend to discount their ability to feel the pulse of the nation.

The economy today is not disastrous, but nowhere near justifying the optimism OJ has. In talking with family and friends in several states (AZ, CA, IL, NV, WA) everyone remarks on how weak things are; how many established businesses still seem to be going under, how difficult it is to get a good paying job, and a unease about how secure they are.

They don't get these attitudes by paying attention to the pundits on TV or in print, but from their lives and the lives of their friends. The last 4 years were not severe, but very stagnant in terms of people's prospects and 4 years is a long time for that.

Is that enough to defeat Bush? Maybe not. But Bush did lose the popular vote in 2000. Why would the conservative nominee of the conservative party of a conservative nation lose that?

His one strong hand was being perceived as a decisive leader after 9/11. But what if the person is decisive in the wrong decision? I usually agree with OJ in regards to the Iraq War, but public perception does not.

If I had to place money, I'd bet that Bush wins in November. But we'll have to see how the campaign turns out after the conventions and the Olympics. Everyone thought Bush would have easy sailing after the Democratic primaries was over and the Dems had no money and Bush had a ton. It didn't happen that way.

And if the Democrats had nominated someone that people could definitely trust on national security, my money would not be on Bush.

"I was too young to really remember the Carter years, but my understanding is that unemployment was not too bad, but the inflation was killing people."

Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember them all to well. The Peanut Farmer scored the leftist triple-double. Unemployment, inflation, and interest rates were all in double digits. That's a big part of how Reagan, considered a dangerous right-wing bomb-throwing nut by the totality of liberal media and academia, was able to get elected.

There's another difference, via Vodkapundit:

"John Podhoretz:

JOHN Kerry has finally spo ken the words that make the November election an unambiguous choice. On "60 Minutes" on Sunday night, according to the official transcript released by CBS News, Kerry said: "I am against the — the war."
He tried to qualify them, to fudge them a bit, but no matter. The words are now out there and can't be taken back

Read the whole thing."

9/10 world v. 9/11.

No, the '92 recession was not bad. Most of the '70s were bad. The '82 recession was bad.

Chris,

The 1970's had this thing called "stagflation". It wasn't good.

In 1980, the prime rate of interest was at 21.5%.

What is the current prime rate of interest? In June 2004, it was 4.00.

Clearly, there was a recession in 1990 and 1991; however, it wasn't as bad as other recessions. Prior to 2001, the last multiple-quarter negative growth in real GDP (i.e., the last recession) occurred during the final two quarters of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. The last decrease in GDP over a full year occurred in 1991, when the economy shrunk by 0.5% (during the middle of the last Bush Administration.) During the first 3 quarters of 1992, the GDP grew between 3 and 4 percent each quarter. Thus, by the time the 1992 election rolled around, the economy was on fire, having exhibited growth for six consecutive quarters.

I believe the unemployment rate was 7.5 in 1980 and the unemployment rate in 1991 was 7.8. I'd have to double check those numbers.

I got a great deal on my first car loan in 1978-- it was at a rate of 16.9% for four years.

"I was too young to really remember the Carter years..."

Not meant to be too hard or too personal, but ... What's your problem with learning a little history? What are they teaching these days? That only what you personally experience matters, and all the rest is hearsay? (Unless of course Micheal Moore says it. Then it's gotta be true.) No wonder the Democrats can still run against Herbert Hoover and "the worst economy since the Great Depression".

"And if the Democrats had nominated someone that people could definitely trust on national security, my money would not be on Bush."

There hasn't been a "trustworthy" Democrat on national security since Henry "Scoop" Jackson died in 1983. The Democrats have spent the last few decades driving away anyone who attempted to become his successor, and now they've gonna whine about it?

As another survivor of the Carter years let me help put things into perspective, interest rates during the carter years peaked at 18.9%, that's for a 30 year home loan folks - not a credit card rate. Unemployment and underemployment was into the double digits, inflation broke the 13% mark and the upper income bracket for taxes was a whopping 70%. That was a crappy four years. The best part, in one speech Carter gave, the famous "Crisis of Confidence" speech, Jimmy blamed the American public's lack of faith in the government for all of the problems they were suffering through.

Reagan saved this country's economy through tax cuts that stimulated growth and fiscal policies that attacked inflation, and he effectively architected the incredibly robust economic infrastructure we are still running on today. As for the '92 recession? Well the '92 recession was a speed bump on the economic fast track and anyone who inflates it's significance, well, I tend to discount them as not knowing what they are talking about.

To summarize: Stagflation + Political Ineptitude = Jimmy Carter

There are precious few Democrats who can be trusted with national security. Zell Miller, possibly Joe Lieberman, and perhaps John Breaux. Lieberman showed where they stand in the party during the primaries. Even Sam Nunn voted against the first Gulf War, thereby forcing his exit from politics.

There was also another mini-recession in 93-94 after Bubba raised rates.

And as to education, watch the opening sequence of "Miracle on Ice" that covers my 9-19 years.

Sandy, to be fair, Clinton did not raise rates. He did play nice with Greenspan, letting it be known that they could 'get along'. And the touted economic collapse after Clinton's tax increase in '93 never really happened (i.e., if the Dems had taken Rush's bet, he would have lost).

others will want, and get, loan more direct shows of emotion: insurance "Proust/ used to weep over days direct tv gone by," she asks the reader, credit card "do you?" (Feb.) Copyright 2000 dish network Cahners Business Information.A mortgage professor of classics at McGill mortgage University and the author of directv Autobiography of Red, a National satellite tv