Another Reelection Economy

[mr mahs]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush should win reelection handily if history is any guide.

In the post-World War II era, nine other presidents have asked voters to return them to office. Of these, six won voter approval (Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton), and three were kicked out (Ford, Carter, and Papa Bush).

The six victors had at least this much in common: They were all re-elected during times of economic growth and when inflation and unemployment were relatively low. With only one exception, no president in the modern era has been turned out of office during economic expansion.

The exception was Gerald Ford. At the time he sought election (as opposed to re-election, having assumed the presidency following Richard Nixon’s resignation), gross domestic product was growing, and the rates of inflation and unemployment were on the decline. Yet voters turned thumbs down on Ford, largely on concern about his competence and in response to his unpopular pardoning of Nixon. Still, the election was close: Ford and Carter split the popular vote 48 to 50 percent.

Only one incumbent’s defeat, Jimmy Carter’s, can rightly be attributed to a poor economy. When the 1980 election was held, the country was just exiting a brief recession. Worse, though, consumer price inflation had reached 14.6 percent, and the jobless rate had hit 7.8 percent. That’s not to mention the public’s frustration with gasoline lines and the seemingly endless hostage crisis in Iran.

Voters, not surprisingly, jumped at the chance of implementing the supply-side policies advocated by Ronald Reagan. He won 51 percent of the popular vote to Carter’s 41 percent.

In 1992, George H. W. Bush — Reagan’s political heir — also lost his reelection bid. While the nine-month recession of 1990-91 had raised voter concerns, it’s certain that other factors were in play — notably, the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot and Bush’s own abandonment of his “read my lips” no-new-taxes pledge.

Bill Clinton secured 43 percent of the popular vote to Bush’s 37 percent, with third-party challenger Ross Perot capturing 19 percent. All in all, the sizeable Perot vote handed Clinton the victory.

Democrats are hoping now that 2004 will be a repeat of the election of 1992. But a review of the historical record suggests that the closest parallels to next year’s ballot are Richard Nixon’s re-election in 1972, when he trounced ultraliberal George McGovern, and Reagan’s impressive win over another unabashed liberal, Walter Mondale, in 1984.

On both occasions, the country was newly emerged from a recession, and confidence in the economy was growing.

Though Nixon used harmful short-term fixes, unemployment was on the decline and inflation was under control in 1972. Nixon’s reelection was made easier by the fact that the Democrats had nominated a left-winger as their standard-bearer. Nixon won by a landslide 61 to 38 percent.

The election of 1984 was, in effect, a referendum on supply-side economics, and voters gave it an unmistakable stamp of approval. Once the Federal Reserve had wrung inflation out of the system and Reagan’s 5-10-10 tax cuts came into full effect, the economy surged, with GDP rising 8.5 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 1984. By election time, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent from a high of 10.8 percent in 1982, and inflation had fallen to a bearable 4.2 percent from the 11.8 percent rate Reagan inherited from Carter.

The Gipper won a resounding victory with 59 percent of the popular vote to Mondale’s 41 percent.

As for the remaining presidents in the good-economy six, timing was almost everything.

Truman beat Thomas Dewey in 1948 by 50 to 45 percent. Ironically, economic activity peaked around election time. By December, the economy started into a nearly year-long slump.

Two-termer Dwight Eisenhower weathered two economic contractions, but his reelection bid of 1956 fell in the middle of a three-year economic expansion. He easily beat Adlai Stevenson, winning the popular vote by 58 to 42 percent.

Lyndon Johnson, who assumed the presidency after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963, beat Barry Goldwater a year later. To make matters worse, Goldwater was stupidly against the President Kennedy’s tax cuts.

Finally, the strong, technology-driven economy of the 1990s gave Clinton’s 1996 reelection effort a major boost. He garnered 49 percent of the vote to Robert Dole’s 41 percent and Perot’s 8 percent.

As the current economic and stock market revival continues to vote for Bush, it seems near certain that he will win in a landslide. Huge progress in the war against terrorism will add to his totals, with the GOP picking up 3 to 4 seats in the Senate and 10 to 12 in the House.

And Bush will make it seven out of ten presidents since the end of WWII who rode a good economy back to the Oval Office.

[breakbeatz2]

i think most people in their right minds sure hope so

[dgmodel]

Originally posted by mr mahs

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

President Bush should win reelection handily if history is any guide.

In the post-World War II era, nine other presidents have asked voters to return them to office. Of these, six won voter approval (Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton), and three were kicked out (Ford, Carter, and Papa Bush).

The six victors had at least this much in common: They were all re-elected during times of economic growth and when inflation and unemployment were relatively low. With only one exception, no president in the modern era has been turned out of office during economic expansion.

The exception was Gerald Ford. At the time he sought election (as opposed to re-election, having assumed the presidency following Richard Nixon’s resignation), gross domestic product was growing, and the rates of inflation and unemployment were on the decline. Yet voters turned thumbs down on Ford, largely on concern about his competence and in response to his unpopular pardoning of Nixon. Still, the election was close: Ford and Carter split the popular vote 48 to 50 percent.

Only one incumbent’s defeat, Jimmy Carter’s, can rightly be attributed to a poor economy. When the 1980 election was held, the country was just exiting a brief recession. Worse, though, consumer price inflation had reached 14.6 percent, and the jobless rate had hit 7.8 percent. That’s not to mention the public’s frustration with gasoline lines and the seemingly endless hostage crisis in Iran.

Voters, not surprisingly, jumped at the chance of implementing the supply-side policies advocated by Ronald Reagan. He won 51 percent of the popular vote to Carter’s 41 percent.

In 1992, George H. W. Bush — Reagan’s political heir — also lost his reelection bid. While the nine-month recession of 1990-91 had raised voter concerns, it’s certain that other factors were in play — notably, the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot and Bush’s own abandonment of his “read my lips” no-new-taxes pledge.

Bill Clinton secured 43 percent of the popular vote to Bush’s 37 percent, with third-party challenger Ross Perot capturing 19 percent. All in all, the sizeable Perot vote handed Clinton the victory.

Democrats are hoping now that 2004 will be a repeat of the election of 1992. But a review of the historical record suggests that the closest parallels to next year’s ballot are Richard Nixon’s re-election in 1972, when he trounced ultraliberal George McGovern, and Reagan’s impressive win over another unabashed liberal, Walter Mondale, in 1984.

On both occasions, the country was newly emerged from a recession, and confidence in the economy was growing.

Though Nixon used harmful short-term fixes, unemployment was on the decline and inflation was under control in 1972. Nixon’s reelection was made easier by the fact that the Democrats had nominated a left-winger as their standard-bearer. Nixon won by a landslide 61 to 38 percent.

The election of 1984 was, in effect, a referendum on supply-side economics, and voters gave it an unmistakable stamp of approval. Once the Federal Reserve had wrung inflation out of the system and Reagan’s 5-10-10 tax cuts came into full effect, the economy surged, with GDP rising 8.5 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 1984. By election time, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent from a high of 10.8 percent in 1982, and inflation had fallen to a bearable 4.2 percent from the 11.8 percent rate Reagan inherited from Carter.

The Gipper won a resounding victory with 59 percent of the popular vote to Mondale’s 41 percent.

As for the remaining presidents in the good-economy six, timing was almost everything.

Truman beat Thomas Dewey in 1948 by 50 to 45 percent. Ironically, economic activity peaked around election time. By December, the economy started into a nearly year-long slump.

Two-termer Dwight Eisenhower weathered two economic contractions, but his reelection bid of 1956 fell in the middle of a three-year economic expansion. He easily beat Adlai Stevenson, winning the popular vote by 58 to 42 percent.

Lyndon Johnson, who assumed the presidency after John F. Kennedy’s assassination in November 1963, beat Barry Goldwater a year later. To make matters worse, Goldwater was stupidly against the President Kennedy’s tax cuts.

Finally, the strong, technology-driven economy of the 1990s gave Clinton’s 1996 reelection effort a major boost. He garnered 49 percent of the vote to Robert Dole’s 41 percent and Perot’s 8 percent.

As the current economic and stock market revival continues to vote for Bush, it seems near certain that he will win in a landslide. Huge progress in the war against terrorism will add to his totals, with the GOP picking up 3 to 4 seats in the Senate and 10 to 12 in the House.

And Bush will make it seven out of ten presidents since the end of WWII who rode a good economy back to the Oval Office.

i agree wholeheartedly...

[breakbeatz2]

great, people are so desperately running out of things to blame Bush for that now you guys are blaming him for being President when ouyr economy turns upward? This is pathetic. You probably wished that our stocks would crtumble and more jobs would be lost just so that wimp of a democrat could get office.

This is truly truly sad. Everything in this world has to do with timing, (dgmodel, as a trader i'm sure you understand) and its nobody's fault that Bush is ending his first (first of two that is) term on a good economic note. This just show that we dont need some sort of radical reform to jumpstart our economy and so our economy does not need a new face in office to do something different.

This just takes one reason away of why we need a change of president, not giving Bush a free card for a second term. Bush will win the second term for many other reasons, such as the lack of a strong opposing candidate and the fact that he is the only one of the candidates who foreign powers know mean business. If Dean or Kerry become president it will be a severe blow to the fight against terror and will weaken us in the eyes of the Europeans and Russians in a very delicate time.

[pattbateman]

right on!

[dgmodel]

Originally posted by breakbeatz2

great, people are so desperately running out of things to blame Bush for that now you guys are blaming him for being President when ouyr economy turns upward? This is pathetic. You probably wished that our stocks would crtumble and more jobs would be lost just so that wimp of a democrat could get office.

This is truly truly sad. Everything in this world has to do with timing, (dgmodel, as a trader i'm sure you understand) and its nobody's fault that Bush is ending his first (first of two that is) term on a good economic note. This just show that we dont need some sort of radical reform to jumpstart our economy and so our economy does not need a new face in office to do something different.

This just takes one reason away of why we need a change of president, not giving Bush a free card for a second term. Bush will win the second term for many other reasons, such as the lack of a strong opposing candidate and the fact that he is the only one of the candidates who foreign powers know mean business. If Dean or Kerry become president it will be a severe blow to the fight against terror and will weaken us in the eyes of the Europeans and Russians in a very delicate time.

i am in agreement that he will be a twoterm president... i feel that it was the republicans who set us in the right economic direction, and clinton just had good "timing" in being president...(oddly enough even though clinton was a dem but acted like a rep, and bush jr. is a rep acting more like a dem) and that republicans will bring us out of this again~! (ahem reagan.)that is what i was in agreement with... however to play devils advocate, bush the senior was not reelected because of some of the same factors his son is facing, middle east, economic conditions, unemployment etc... in any event i have confidence that he will be pres. for a second term, there are a lot of bullets he has in his favor...

[marksimons]

a change from bush will make america seem stronger in the eyes

of Europe.

a large section of the population loathe bush.

really loathe him.

with a passion.

bush has been ridiculed left right and center by comedians and impressionists.

the man is a scary joke.

if Kucinich were President, man, the world could well be a better place...

[dgmodel]

we ve always been secretly hated, the war is just a scapegoat so ppl could actually voice their opinions now... IMO.

[marksimons]

.

[marksimons]

we, as in we the people, no, governments, yes.

there is a massive difference.

the problem is, as presidents and numerous dictators around the world, have discovered if you wrap yourself up in the flag as a patriot you can deflect attacks from you, as attacks on the country, the way of life... etc etc...

and this is a great way of ensuring the public blank out criticism of the government's actions as being anti-american or against the father/mother land or whatever...

Presidents and prime ministers take the credit when things are good and blame others for bad things...

bush is great at this. as is blair.

wankers.

oh, and the british were hated, piss taken for a good while, and in places the legacy of colonialism is still a hot issue, so don't think it's just america who pisses off the rest of the world...

[mr mahs]

Originally posted by marksimons

a change from bush will make america seem stronger in the eyes

of Europe.

a large section of the population loathe bush.

really loathe him.

with a passion.

bush has been ridiculed left right and center by comedians and impressionists.

the man is a scary joke.

if Kucinich were President, man, the world could well be a better place...

Real quick....

1)If your are talking about the U.S population loathing him, the +61% of the american public approves of the job he is doing

If you are talking about EUROPE... then who gives a flying fawk what you idiots think, worry about yourselves....

2) Great so comedians are making fun of Bush so thats why he should lose his seat.. Take a look around Jack his pre-emptive stance is working.

-Iran is allowing inspections..

-Lybia is dropping his WMD program..

-North Korea is allowing inspections....

How many of these accomplishments would have taken place if the same "sit on your hands" policy The Europeans praise but fail to produce results???

Kucinich? The guy's a pussy??? He would raise taxes and pull the troops from Iraq....You think alot of civilians died in the war,

what do you think would happen if we pulled the troops out completly.... Kucinich is a scary joke, CHAP........

[marksimons]

I've shaken Kucinich's hand and looked into his eyes, read his background, seen him speak and well, no, he isn't scary. he is the most progressive candidate america could have.

Kucinich? Pussy...

"Dennis Kucinich's unsinkable optimism stems from a poor and chaotic childhood in which he lived in 21 places, including the back seats of cars, and spent a holiday season in an orphanage."

"For him to understand where the rest of us have been, are now and could be - that gives him such an insight that the George Bushes of the world could never understand," said Janice Lascko, a military veteran and single mother of three who works at the American Legion in Cleveland.

what he did with cleveland electric took balls, and given the problems places like california have had of late, well, it seems like he was right...

anyway.

America has occupied Iraq.

tell me why pulling troops out of iraq would be a bad thing? would iraq degenerate into chaos? I don't think the iraqis would let themselves have another dictator.

if the troops pulled out completely? hmm, I don't know, but then many countries have managed to overthrow a brutal dictator and get on with things, without having an occupying army telling them how to run their country.

Iraq is a well educated country.

I believe that every Iraqi has imagined what they would do once saddam had gone.

Do you believe the American administration knows better than the Iraqi's what is good for their country?

How would you feel if America was invaded, and say the British told you who could run your country, and there were British checkpoints all over the place, and you were told that the troops wouldn't leave until you were ready for democacy, but you knew the only reason they were staying is so they could put in a government that will allow british companies to buy up american assets...

I believe you might go to the gun cabinet and start taking aim at those redcoats...

[dgmodel]

Currently Bush is running at 73% odds of reelection on www.tradesports.com

[pattbateman]

Originally posted by marksimons

I've shaken Kucinich's hand and looked into his eyes, read his background, seen him speak and well, no, he isn't scary. he is the most progressive candidate america could have.

progressive come fuckin on its a way to fool the uneducated its the same as socialists pig

its the way you liberals work hide behind clever words and phrases and fool all the minorities you control!

[marksimons]

lol now who is paranoid!

progressive is not the same as socialist.

not by a long shot.

kucinich wants to set up a department for peace... I mean, damn, yeah that crazy socialist nutter, I mean goddamn, that's dangerous for the world, working for PEACE.

everyone knows the only way of securing peace is through war... at least thats what mr bush said...

[pattbateman]

democrats use the word progressive cause it sounds better then liberal

you know it

i know

and the half way intelligent american people know it!

republicans can be called progressive too wtf???