But I thought those tax cuts were going to pump money back into the economy and magically create jobs!
It’s still to early to tell, folks. If the Democrats nominate someone obviously left of center, they will lose. Carter was perceived as a moderate and he had watergate bitterness going for him. Clinton talked like a moderate and was charming enough (especially to women) to get elected. Gore was also perceived as a moderate and he got very close. Mondale, McGovern and Dukakis got their heads handed to them.
IF the economy continues to struggle…
IF soldiers keep dying and no WMD’s are found in Iraq…
IF the democrats nominate someone who is charming and moderate…
Bush might lose. But as it looks now, I don’t see it happening. The economy is looking up, I think Iraq will be brought under control and I think that Dean (chuckle) is going to be the nominee.
Really? When I volunteered for AmericCorps *VISTA (and me an evil republican too, who’d of thought?) part of our service involved reading and doing art activities with all of the kids -over the age of one or so- in our county’s Women, Infants and Children clinics (a program that provides suplemental food and minimal checkups for pregnant mothers and children though age five. The cap of which is/was $45,000 a year income for a family of 4, though the majority of clients probably made much less) each month. I remember seeing just about same amount of kids at WIC clinics month to month from 11/99 to 11/00. 'Course, I had to write reports on it, so that helps me to remember that the numbers were pretty steady (except in the winter when there was another clinic site that didn’t run the rest of the year.) <shugs> guess what we were doing then colors our preception of how the economy was, huh?
It’s important to realize that many voters are elderly and don’t feel the economic pinch the way the some of us do. In fact, if yo’re young and democratic, the best thing you can do to ensure a Democratic victory in 2004 is move back in with your parents and tell them you doubt you’ll be in a position to strike out on your own until the economy recovers. THAT’S how the elderly feel it when belts tighten.
I never blamed Clinton for anything. I never even mentioned his name. Somehow that was read into my statements, but I never said it. I just made the statement that there was no real prosperity when Bush became president, meaning that the economy was already in the toilet. Its an unfortuneate fact that most people automatically equate the performance of an economy with the performance of a president. People also vote that way. I don’t think the two have anything to do with each other. I think there is really very little a president can do to improve an economy, though they claim otherwise. And for the record, I am not a Clinton hater. I never voted for him. I voted against him twice, but once was for a 3rd party candidate and once for a Republican. I don’t hate him, though, and certainly don’t blame him for the fact that the internet bubble burst, which is ultimately what caused the markets to decline.
FDR was reelected three times. Was he a president during a great span of "Peace and prosperity?" I just disagree with this sound bite type statement that someone threw out. And I repeat, I do not plan on voting for Bush in 2004.Most of the elderly people I know, are now struggling, because they are now only getting 1 or 2% interest on their money in bank. Their incomes have dropped significantly.
They also complain as to why bush allows Canadians to get prescriptions drugs so cheap, but not older Americans. Bush wants free trade on everything else with Canada, but not for the drugs that the older people have to buy. Dont count on older people backing bush.
FDR was elected because Hoover ignored the economy, much like Bush is doing. FDR inherited a depression, he did not create it.
Bush was elected in boom times, the american economy went from good to bad during the bush administration.
FDR was re-elected because everyone knew FDR’s prime consideration was in prosperity, and in getting jobs back, and the economy back, regardless of how successful his programs actually were. What people saw, and heard, was that FDR was doing everything, trying everything, to do something about jobs.
FDR was clearly the candidate to vote for if you wanted prosperity or jobs, not the republican candidates. Ergo, FDR won.
FDR was was against war, and even promised not to get involved in ww2 in the campaign of 1940. By 1944, the anti-war attitude of the american people had changed, and FDR’s successful “putting an end to Hitler and the world war” was actually a plus for FDR. A tremendous victory in ww2, is not the same thing as an endless pointless war in Vietnam or Iraq.