California, Kentucky, Mississippi

[g5man]

Three states have now gone to the GOP.

Four Democratic Senators are retiring ensuring Republican control and gains in the Senate in 2004.

The economy is turning around.

Bush's approval ratings continue to remain high.

Will we see a weaker second term or a stronger and more powerfull Administration?

Or is this AP story correct? Only 38% would vote for Bush.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/ny-bc-ny--bush-poll1104nov04,0,962563.story

[jonapete2001]

All polls i have read have bush and any democrat in a pretty much 50-50 dead heat. It will be the same as 2000. It will be so close that their will be recounts and other nonsense. God i hope i am wrong. Please let either a democrat or a republican win, just not another 2000.

[Desertrat]

Lame duck presidencies are always weaker than the first term. There's less fear of retaliation toward Congressfolks from the White House, particularly in the final two years.

Haven't yet really looked at US Senate races, but the redistricting in Texas should increase Republican numbers in the House.

'Rat

[g5man]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Lame duck presidencies are always weaker than the first term. There's less fear of retaliation toward Congressfolks from the White House, particularly in the final two years.

Haven't yet really looked at US Senate races, but the redistricting in Texas should increase Republican numbers in the House.

'Rat

Rat I would agree with you 100% if politics today behaved normally.

This Administration is very different and times are different as well. The trent for its party to loose seats in an off year election like last year was broken. Since then we have seen states that have been dominated by Democrats change hands and that trend is building momentum.

If Bush wins by 54% or more next year look to see a much more agressive and quicker implimentation of international and domestic agendas.

Those in congress have given Bush about 80% of what he has proposed. In his second term I just don't see them being any less cooperative since he will be ensuring their re-election long after he is gone.

[Taft]

The jury is still out on whether the economy is turning around just yet. Job cuts are on the rise. (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/11/04/job_cuts/index.html) Could be seasonal, but it won't help this economy. If the economy doesn't turn before 2004, Dems will make it an issue and people will listen.

Bush has a weakness in his economic policy, as the policy is geared toward helping business and the wealthy in the hope that it will spur general economic growth. Its basically trickle down. If the average American isn't perceiving a benefit from this policy, he is likely to view it as ineffective and serving only the interests of the rich. Its a gamble, really. If the economy turns around, middle class America won't complain and Bush will get a pass on his economic policy/tax cuts. If the economy doesn't improve, they'll likely assign blame to Bush and his trickle down policy.

I'm not saying its fair or completely rational, but that is whats likely to happen. Also, state budget health will likely be attributed to Bush as well. If the states continue to see budget shortfalls and continue cutting funding for education, roads, etc., middle America is going to get restless.

I think Bush also has weaknesses in his credibility from the whole buildup to war issue as well as from his ties to corporate America. A few stories like this one (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44978) and America might just wake up to the fact that war profiteering and the "good ole boys club" is alive and well in this administration. The Dems will likely make this an issue (that is, if their past isn't littered with corporate connections, as well).

Our "quagmire-lite" in Iraq, while I agree it is necessary, is also likely to reflect negatively on Bush. The fact that this administration wouldn't relinquish some control of Iraq to the U.N. will be used against Bush by the Dems. Had Bush gave up some control, less of our boys would be in Iraq and international support would have been much higher.

Bush still has a good approval rating, but it is slipping. 9/11 can be invoked only so many times as a justification before people start asking questions. Bush's free-pass from the American people could be coming to an end. Then again, Rove and Co. could spin all of this effectively and deflect blame. They are skilled political advisors, so it's certainly not out of the question.

Also, while the Republicans gained seats mid-term and that certainly bucked a trend, I'd hardly say that this country is ready to denounce all liberal principles. If black and hispanic voters could be energized (and aren't marginalized by GOP-lead redistricting plans--shame on you, Texas legislature), they could provide a lot of support for a down to earth liberal platform.

Now, if we can just get a candidate with a reasonable platform running against Bush in 2004...

Taft

[g5man]

Taft,

I heard predictions that we can have up to 5 million new jobs by this time next year if the economy keeps moving the way it has this year.

That is rather rosy, but even the Secretary of Treasury predicted 2 million new jobs next year.

Now if one does not trust Bush then nothing that comes out of the White House is believable. Most people however trust him. When the tax cuts were past they predicted an economic turnaround.
You many not see it yet, but the numbers tell a different story.

On Friday we will know the latest unemployment numbers.

[g5man]

Originally posted by jonapete2001
All polls i have read have bush and any democrat in a pretty much 50-50 dead heat. It will be the same as 2000. It will be so close that their will be recounts and other nonsense. God i hope i am wrong. Please let either a democrat or a republican win, just not another 2000.

Correct. Every poll that indicated a 50/50 splint matched Bush against an unknow candidate. Against each of those known he beats them pretty solidly.

Now let me predict that at some point next year Bush will be behind in the polls against his opponent.

Iraq will get worse next year since the those who want the Americans out also want Bush out. Democrats are hinting that they would take the troops out if they won. I don't think they will but campaigning this way is very dangerous.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

I heard predictions that we can have up to 5 million new jobs by this time next year if the economy keeps moving the way it has this year.


even if that number becomes reality, bush will still show a net job loss.

fwiw, millions of new jobs were predicted due to bush's first tax cut. in reality, there was a net job loss.

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man

Now if one does not trust Bush then nothing that comes out of the White House is believable. Most people however trust him. When the tax cuts were past they predicted an economic turnaround.
You many not see it yet, but the numbers tell a different story.

The numbers tell no such story. You have yet to convince me that the 7.2 GDP for a single quarter is indicative of overall economic health. Few economists would share your assessment as the GDP for the last year has been bouncing between great and pathetic in alternating quarters.

Unemployment is still high (did you even read the link I provided? If you had, you'd notice that companies are planning on cutting twice the number of jobs they did last quarter. Not heartening). Consumer debt is through the roof. And confidence has been bouncing around about as much as the GDP. Counter each of those facts, and then I'll listen to your rosey economic outlook. There are a few bold men out there ready to predict an economic turnaround (or the opposite), but most people are uncertain.

Taft

[g5man]

I did read that link before you mentioned it in your post. It is a survey not actual numbers. From what I have read an increase in layoffs in October is normal.

You must remember that we are still going to have layoffs since this is part of the economic cycle. If we get more jobs then they will have less of an impact on the overall economy.

Now I have found what I was lookign for. This link shows GDP http://special.kiplinger.com/kbftables/usecon/gdp/graphs/img002.htm

This shows unemployment.
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3

Please not that unemployment has decreased while overall GDP has increased.


Anyway the GDP has bounced between 1.2 to 5.0. We suddenly got 7.2 last quarter in large part because of the accelarated tax cut and that number will be revised later this month. Next quarter they are predicting a 4.5% increase. If that becomes a reality I would not call that a pathetic number.

You are correct that consumer confidence continues to be low and fluctuating. However every report I have read and heard reports that the economy is turning around.

[g5man]

Originally posted by zimv20
even if that number becomes reality, bush will still show a net job loss.

fwiw, millions of new jobs were predicted due to bush's first tax cut. in reality, there was a net job loss.

This first tax cut was passed in 2001. Then Sept 11 happened and we saw many businesses suffer. In 2002 the tax cut only provided about $20 billion to the economy. I don't know the figures for this year.

How will Bush show a net job loss?

[Dont Hurt Me]

The real question is what has happened to the democratic party? why are so many voters going republican? do the Democrats stand for anything? They looked like a bunch of clowns performing in front of a bunch of clowns the other night.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by g5man

How will Bush show a net job loss?

the last figure i saw was 6.2 million. that's net jobs lost since he took office. a net gain of 5 million in 2004 would still put him down for the 4 years.

that would be the first time since hoover, iirc. or was it wilson?

[mactastic]

We also need to have the right kind of jobs as well. Growth in the low-paying service sector while high-tech jobs flee the country isn't the kind of "net job growth" we need.

[Desertrat]

mac, that swap of $25/hr jobs for $10-and-under jobs has been going on for the best part of twenty years...As the smokestack jobs have moved out of the country, the blue-collar middle class has been hammered.

To me, that's the big problem with this "consumer economy". Somebody has gotta produce something that's useful to folks outside the country. We can't keep on depending on low wages being able to buy ever-cheaper goods forever...

The USD is already down a bunch against the Euro, which means imports from Europe will be going up in price. If the Chinese ever let the Renmimbi float, all that el cheapo stuff in Wally World ain't gonna be so cheap...

And then?

As I've commented before, Greenspan's already used the only stimulus tool he had--foolishly, IMO--and so what's to work with?

'Rat

[Code101]

Originally posted by Dont Hurt Me
The real question is what has happened to the democratic party? why are so many voters going republican? do the Democrats stand for anything? They looked like a bunch of clowns performing in front of a bunch of clowns the other night.

That's for sure!

[wwworry]

11 state legislatures went from democrat to republican
12 state legislatures went from republican to democrat

democrats won mayorships
3 republicans won govenorships (though one outgoing democrat was involved in a sex scandle and in California it was not really a normal election)

America, divided as usual.

[wwworry]

The real question is what has happened to the republican party? why are so many voters going democrat? do the Republicans stand for anything? They looked like a bunch of monkeys performing in front of a bunch of criminal CEOs the other night.

[mactastic]

You mean why did slightly more than half of the voters go democrat last time?;)

[Desertrat]

zim, within all these discussions of the economy and jobs, interesting tidbits show up. For instance, back in the 1989/1991 recession, many middle-management jobs just disappeared. Email obviated the need.

Since mid-2000, over two million manufacturing jobs have gone away forever. The companies have moved operations out of the country. I don't know what amount of IP jobs are leaving, but they're another datum of people losing decent pay and most likely going then to lower-pay jobs...

One aspect is that it's beyond the control of anybody besides market forces, seems to me. If satellite communications and the Internet allows you or me to work at home, can't it also allow somebody in the Virgin Islands to answer questions about the warranty on your Sears&Sawbuck refrigerator?

I guess all these bits and pieces provide the reason I pay little attention to pronunciamentos from Greenspan, or what's said on CNBC. About all any Administration can do, IMO, is put a positive spin on whatever numbers they are given.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
zim, within all these discussions of the economy and jobs, interesting tidbits show up.

technology is certainly changing things, yes. your point about international telecommuting is well-made. i do most of my support work from home (in chicago), including supporting a small system in new york. i've been there once, to set it up.

last night, on ABC World News Tonight, they talked about this week's productivity numbers and did spots on two firms that bought new equipment to increase their productivity. one did hire back some workers they'd laid off, but the reporter (martha radditz, iirc) made the point that this contributed to the jobless recovery.