A Boom with a View (Bush Economic Policies Starting to Pay Off)

National Review Online ^ | 10/16/03 | Jerry Bowyer/Donald Luskin

[NYC Republican]

Good book review of someone who provides some much-needed perspective...

[samtheman]

Let's make a deal:

If you have a job, vote for Bush.

If you don't, vote against him.

[oceanview]

more likely, it breaks down to "if you have a job, but work someplace where your collegaues have been laid off, ....". those are the people we have to worry about not voting for Bush, and there are alot of them, don't kid yourself. the employment picture is a long way from turning, i just heard another offshoring story today at a prominent US company.

[1rudeboy]

we're doomed

[alloysteel]

Oh, no! Don't you realize that this probably spells "doom" for the Democrat party at the national level? SO MANY of the seats now held by Democrats in both Houses of Congress are now vulnerable, how did this happen? And how could ANY Democrat gain traction against Bush in a contest for the Presidency of the United States?

We really needn't panic, the media spin machine still has an impressive number of innovative ways to polish up the image of the Democrats in the coming months. Don't count them out yet....

[Consort]

Ever wonder why all the doom-and-gloom economic pronouncements you hear in the media, and from liberal politicians,...

And from the Serial Doom-and-Gloomers right here....

[alloysteel]

Oh, no! Don't you realize that this probably spells "doom" for the Democrat party at the national level? SO MANY of the seats now held by Democrats in both Houses of Congress are now vulnerable, how did this happen? And how could ANY Democrat gain traction against Bush in a contest for the Presidency of the United States?

We really needn't panic, the media spin machine still has an impressive number of innovative ways to polish up the image of the Democrats in the coming months. Don't count them out yet....

[oceanview]

if you don't believe there is real apprehension out there amongst people in many industries, people with jobs, that they may be hit next, you are dreaming.

[1rudeboy]

People are apprehensive? Now that is a newsflash. [chuckle]

[RiflemanSharpe]

if you don't believe there is real apprehension out there amongst people in many industries, people with jobs, that they may be hit next, you are dreaming.

No lie there. This is good news but we need to see result before we start to clap. ANd it will take a load of jobs to get back what was lost.

[Coop]

if you don't believe there is real apprehension out there amongst people in many industries, people with jobs, that they may be hit next, you are dreaming.

No more than you're dreaming that the economic situation is not improving.

[Coop]

ANd it will take a load of jobs to get back what was lost.

President Bush doesn't need to get back the jobs that were lost. Polls show Americans blame 9/11, not him, for the economic woes. If next summer/fall voters perceive the economy is improving, Bush cruises to re-election.

[samtheman]

The economy is turning around. Employment is a lagging indicator. If the kind of fear that you describe isn't largely dispelled by summer, Bush is out.

The fear will be gone. Bush will be re-elected by a landslide.

I have no fear about that.

[Jumper]

A landslide is correct; by the time the election season is upon us, the media will have surpressed the economy so long that it will look like a hugh economic volcano spewing cash.

[IMRight]

don't kid yourself. the employment picture is a long way from turning, i just heard another offshoring story today at a prominent US company.

Don't kid yourself. Unemployment of 6% used to be called "full employment" by economists. Reagan was re-elected with unemployment of over 8% (and won a couple more EC votes than he needed). Look at where things have gone over the last six months and project it out a year? Things will look pretty good for election season.

[NYC Republican]

Interesting review/analysis...

[HostileTerritory]

Unemployment in Nov. '84 was 7.2%, high by current standards but a full three-and-a-half points lower than where it was in Nov. '82. The trend was Reagan's friend.

[IMRight]

November 1984 was the month of the election and nobody knew the rate until after the election. We are now slightly better than one year out. What was the rate then? I'm not certain for October, but I know the average for that years was over 9.5%

[HostileTerritory]

Right, unemployment more than a year before the '84 election was 8.5%. People didn't know the Nov. '84 rate by election time, but the numbers were in the low 7 range by June, which means the drop in unemployment was well-known public knowledge by election day. Certainly no one thought economic times were still bad by Reagan's reelection.

You seemed to imply that Reagan won reelection when people were still worried about unemployment and the economy; I apologize if that was not the case.

If the unemployment rate drops by one percentage point between now and next November, as it did for Reagan, Bush will will in a landslide of 35+ states. If it doesn't drop, his win could be more difficult.

[IMRight]

You seemed to imply that Reagan won reelection when people were still worried about unemployment and the economy; I apologize if that was not the case.

Not really. I'm saying that the number itself is historically quite low (it will be hard to spin as "terrible performance" if it hasn't changed) AND I'm saying it seems likely that it will move lower over the next year. Unemployment figures lately have been quite positive and GDP growth estimates for the next 12 months exceed 4%.