It is a huge mistake to put too much emphasis on polling numbers for Bush. If you look at the recent trends in polling numbers, it looks like his position is getting shakier and shakier. But in reality, I think the opposite is taking shape. The numbers to focus on not the poll numbers but the economic numbers, particularly the jobs numbers. Of late, there is a growing consensus among economists that the economy is headed for a strong rebound, and that jobs - which have hitherto lagged behind - will also recover as well (though possibly at a slower pace). This is supported by surveys such as this one. If this happens soon enough, it would seem that Bush will be almost unbeatable, barring some unforeseen future development. I don’t think a sitting president can be beaten in the face of an improving economy.
Another direct economic figure to look at is consumer confidence. These numbers represent people’s perceptions about the economy (which may diverge from reality) and are probably most closely correlated with the jobs market. They have been slack of late, and probably correlate with Bush’s falling approval ratings. When these begin to recover, I would expect to see Bush’s approval ratings recover as well.
You’re making a pretty big assumption about things that haven’t happened yet and are running out of time to happen too, Izzy. The recession “officially ended” in November 2001, for instance, but do you think anyone’s noticed? Certainly not any of the millions who have lost their jobs during this administration. That cannot be totally or even significantly reversed in the time remaining. Bush is still well on target to be the first president since Hoover to preside over net job losses.
While it’s true that one shouldn’t make too much of the current numbers in the polls, one also has to consider what the upside and downside potential are either way. If the Dem nominee dusts off the old Reagan chestnut “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”, Bush won’t have an effective counter.
I agree that the net loss of jobs will be a good campaign line for Democrats. But I think the current direction of the economy is more important than the comparison to 4 years prior - if at the time of the election the economy is humming along and adding jobs, people’s feelings about the economy will be positive, and this will translate to support for Bush. So the amount of time needed is not the amount of time to completely erase all the job losses of the last 4 years, but the amount of time needed for the job situation to firmly reverse direction. More than enough time remains for that.
You are right about it being things that have not yet happened. Also that might not happen. Interestingly, I saw one economist claim that the recovery would yet reverse again and head downhill - his position was that the only thing propping up the economy to this point was the Bush tax cuts - once the impact of these faded the economy would fade too. But this is a minority opinion. What seems to be the consensus of the vast majority of economists is that things are going to pick up.
The important thing to remember here is that it’s not as if Bush is 20 points behind in the polls right now and desperate for an economic rebound to reverse that. He is ahead in most or all polls that I’ve seen, even with all his troubles. All I’m saying is that his recent slippage is most likely due to economic malaise (which is being masked by foreign policy/terrorism rallying-round to a steadily decreasing degree). All Bush needs is for some significant improvement, and he will be almost unbeatable.
Nothing certain, of course. But at this point, I give Bush 3-1 odds. Maybe even 4-1.
“I don’t think a sitting president can be beaten in the face of an improving economy.”
It happened 11 years ago.
Besides even with a decent economy in 2004 the overall economic performance during the Bush administration will be terrible. It’s almost certain that there will have been a net loss of jobs and a fall in the Dow Jones during his four years. Plus a dramatic turn from surpluses to deficits. Any competent Democratic candidate will be able to use this even if there is some growth in 2004.
I think even more worrying for Bush is that his national security credentials are steadily being eroded. It’s hard to see how that will turn around. Even in the best-case scenario Iraq will be messy and expensive for the next couple of years. Voters don’t like the idea of pumping tens of billions of dollars into Iraq. Plus no WMD are likely to be found. Even if voters don’t think the Democrat will do a better job, it will nullify Bush’s big advantage.
At the end of the day it’s going to be hard for Bush to tout any serious accomplishments. I don’t think one year of average economic growth after three years of a sluggish economy is going to be much of a vote-winner.
All this is not to say that Bush is certain to lose, of course. But on present trends he is in some trouble.
I don’t think so - the timing is quite different (than is currently expected). If you look at this table you can see the unemployment rate at 9/1/91 - at our point in the election cycle - at 6.9%. The rate continued to rise until it peaked on 6/1/91 at 7.8%. As voters headed to the polls in November it had declined only slightly, to 7.4%. If the jobs situation from here to the election follows a similar pattern, I think it will hurt Bush. But this is not expected to happen - from everything I’ve read, job creation is expected to begin in a few months, with a decline in the unemployment rates sometime after that (there tends to be a lag, as job creation attracts more people back into the job-market). The unemployment rate is expected to remain relatively flat until it declines. No one that I’ve seen thinks the rate is going to rise by a full percentage point.
(BTW, having seen this table, I would question whoever it was that said earlier that Bush will be the first prez since Hoover to preside over a loss in jobs. Looking at Bush Sr’s unemployment numbers, I would think the same must have happened during his term as well).
Izzy,
You are right wrt. the unemployment statistics though the economy had recovered in terms of GDP by 1992. Still I don’t think a partial recovery in terms of jobs is going to help Bush much. “Vote for me because in a few years we will recover all the jobs lost during my presidency” isn’t much of a vote-getting message.
It is different from 1992 ,though, where Bush was very strong on national security and very weak on the economy (in terms of voter perception). I think this Bush is probably going to be mildly vulnerable on both issues. I don’t know if this is better or worse but I can’t see how it translates easily into a winning platform. Bush definitely has his work cut out for him in giving swing voters a really solid reason to vote for him.
That is highly unlikely. Most of the people who lost their jobs, lost them because their factories closed and moved to asia, or because their business is now outsourcing the labor to asia.
There is no possiblity that those factories will move back here, nor will companies stop outsourcing using cheap asian labor, esp by next summer.
do you really think all those millions of lost jobs to foreign countries will be back here within the next 9 months when all the campaigning will be on?
The stuff before that expected job creation in a few months as well. In fact Bush has been predicting job creation for about 2 years now. But I am sure this time will be different and Bush will be right.
This time we have recovered in terms of GDP quite some time ago. In general, we are further along in the recovery cycle than Bush Sr was. (Also, in absolute terms the economy did not tank as much, but I don’t think this is as significant).
As mentioned previously, IMHO, people’s feelings about the economy are more affected by current direction than by comparisons to some point years ago. Time will tell.
Sterra, your first sentence is incoherent, but from your post as a whole I gather that you are confusing “the majority of economists” with “Bush”. Not a mistake many people would make and not advisable either.
To correct spoke’s mistaken impression: John Kerry has not spent his own money on his campaign. In addition, he is the only sitting senator to have run all of his four Senate campaigns without taking any PAC money.
Meanwhile, examine today’s CNN poll – John Kerry and Wes Clark are the two candidates people think can beat Bush. (And everyone else is in striking distance, which is a great sign for whomever the eventual nominee turns out to be.)
Was I mistaken about Kerry’s use of personal funds? Sorry about that.
I still don’t think he has a prayer in the primaries, and certainly not in the general election.
First, he has a patrician air, which simply does not connect with voters outside Massachusetts.
Second, one gets the impression that every word he says is calculated for political effect. Of course, that may be true of all the candidates, but it is not so palpable with any of them as with Kerry. Kerry gives the impression of someone who tries his damnedest to follow the prevailing political winds. I think voters are looking for someone who has the courage of his convictions, not someone who is telling them what he thinks they want to hear.
I wish Kerry no ill. Hell, if he gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him. But it would be a lost cause; of that much I am quite certain.
I believe the Democratic nomination is a two horse race between Clark and Dean. Clark is showing that he is not a politician and still a bit unpolished. Assuming he is a quick learner, the race is his to lose. If he misses, then Dean gets the rebound.
Interesting article in Slate today, which seems to support my theory that conservative pundits are trying to bait Hillary into running (because they see her as an easier opponent for Bush).
Ah, yeah. I do think that there will be a spike in growth in december because its Christmas. In fact I would be suprised if jobs did not grow then. On the other hand that does not mean that it will continue past Christmas. Economists were also predicting that jobs would grow back a few months ago when the report came out that there would be a loss of 43,000 jobs.
I was out of the loop for Clark’s entry into the race, but from what I heard he stumbled a bit. Currently, I’d put my money on a Dean-Clark ticket, just from all the attention those two names have been getting.
Hillary ain’t gonna run, no-chance, no-how. And anyone who thinks GWBush has the election in the bag is deluding themselves; George is already going to have a hard time getting the moderate vote in 2004, since they’ve now had four years to see his true colors.
In my view, most people are less affected by “direction” and more affected by how their personal experience was and/or is. In short, an analysis of “I had a good job when Bush came into office, and now I’m unemployed,” would come into play… not a positive thing for Bush, and it probably won’t be looking much better next year, either. Don’t expect to rebuild in a year what it took three years to dismantle.
As to the OP (what were we talking about again?), I think Dean has the momentum to take the primary. He’s got good experience, no major scandals (yet), definite grassroots support, and he is strong and (dare I say it) Presidential in a way that most of the other candidates are not. I’m betting that he’ll take the primary, and he’ll give Bush a run for his money at the very least. Who wins there is still up in the air.
And I agree with rjung about Hilary… whoever thinks she’ll suddenly leap into the 2004 race is just being silly. She’s a smart woman, and she knows it would be a political mistake to jump in right now. She’ll bide her time, and wait for the right moment in a later race.
and not advisable either.