DEMS OVERPLAY THE ECONOMY CARD

NY Daily News ^ | 5/7/03 | Zev Chafets

[areafiftyone]

Have you heard the news? More jobs have been lost during the first two years of President Bush's administration than under any President since Herbert Hoover. Haven't heard it? You will. It's one of the Democratic Party's new talking points.

There's an esoteric, History Channel quality to the Bush-Hoover comparison. Hoover left the White House 70 years ago. His name evokes little emotion, or even recognition, among voters under 80. Average Americans, if they've heard of Hoover at all, probably think he invented the vacuum cleaner.

In fact, Hoover was the unlucky and inept fellow who presided over the first years of the Great Depression. Today's Democrats are trying hard to convince the public that an analogous economic crisis is upon us. So far, it's not working.

This week, the Gallup Organization published the results of an economic public opinion poll it conducted in late April. The survey's main finding is that Americans aren't forming bread lines quite yet.

Gallup did find that 56% of the public thinks the economy is in recession - high, but hardly Hooverian. More to the point, it is far better than Bush's father fared on the same question after the first Gulf War. Then, 88% of Americans told Gallup they thought the nation was in a recession.

That disparity is crucial. Today's Democrats are inspired by the fact that Bush I lost his wartime popularity - and the 1992 election - because voters blamed him for hard economic times.

In 1991, not only did almost nine in 10 Americans say there was a recession, but almost 60% called it "serious" or "moderate" (as opposed to "mild," "no recession" or "no opinion"). Today, only 35% regard the country as in a serious or moderately serious recession.

Even more striking, 57% of Americans, asked about the business conditions in their communities, called them "good" or "very good." Obviously, many people who say there's a recession aren't experiencing it personally. Contrast this with 1991, when only 44% of Americans described the economic conditions in their communities in positive terms. This disparity is crucial, because people who pick candidates for financial reasons tend to vote their own pocketbooks, not those of their neighbors.

In 1991, with his overall job approval at 88%, President George Bush got favorable ratings for economic stewardship from just 37%. This Bush has a far lower (if still very high) overall rating of 70%. But 49% of the public approves of his economic job performance.

In Saturday's Democratic debate, Sen. John Edwards asked the Ronald Reagan question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Perhaps not, but the answer is not quite the rhetorical slam dunk the North Carolina senator and his fellow Democrats imagine. Sixty percent of the public told Gallup that they are are as well off, or better off, than they were a year ago. Even more telling, almost two-thirds expect to be better off financially a year from now than they are today.

Everyone knows that polls are a snapshot. Eighteen months before the next election, surveys reliably predict nothing. On the other hand, the precedent of 1992, on which the Democrats are basing so much hope, was also a snapshot - and, like the employment figures of the Hoover administration, it is yellowing into irrelevance.

If the Democrats want to exploit what they see as Bush's economic vulnerabilities, they will have to bring their talking points into the 21st century.

Originally published on May 7, 2003

[Just mythoughts]

Little legal Johnnie didn't ask a very bright question considering who was running the show 4 years ago.

[Gary Boldwater]

6% of the labor force can say:

"I'm unemployed and I vote!"

[areafiftyone]

Johnnie has been talking a little to much to Bill and Hillary. Lots of morphing going on! Jeeze isn't there one democratic candidate who can be themselves. I hate to say this but Al Sharpton is the only one who hasn't tried to morph himself into another president.

[ken5050]

A just release CBS/P poll shows that 95%of Americans think that Hoover makes vacuum cleaners..and since 88% of American homes already have one...

[areafiftyone]

I have one too - Its a nice Hoover Wind Tunnel - It Can suck up any Democreep it sees!

[RichGuy]

This issue appears to be playing out like the health care issue did for Hillary! The problem then was that most people did not have a health care problem or know personally of anyone who did. There was a great poll at the time that found 80% or more satisfied with their situation but around 70% concerned for their neighbor because he must be the guy who has no insurance.

The economy right now is the same way. An artical I read yesterday (unfortunately I don't remember the source or author) explained that the economic slowdown does not mean that people aren't spending but just that there are a couple fewer items in the cart. This is not enough pain to cause widespread concern.

The only ones feeling serious pain are the elderly who stayed invested in the market. With the market down as far as it is tehy are no doubt feeling a lot of pain.

[biblewonk]

The economy card can never be over played. Ask x42.

[nicmarlo]

And here I was thinking he was talking about the FBI and G-men! Hoover was a president, too? : )

[AmericanVictory]

Those who are truly interested in historical accuracy might want to point out that Herbert Hoover responded to a damaged economy by doing what the Democrats want to do, raising taxes, which turned out to be a mistake.

[Just mythoughts]

"one democratic candidate who can be themselves", LOL, I think they are very much being themselves, that is what makes them funny.

However, we cannot ignore that it worked for the perverts Bill and Hillary and almost algore, he couldn't steal enough votes.

[Poincare]

Sometime before the election it will be recognised that the stock market is indeed bullish again, and weapons of mass destruction will be found.

Then the Dems are back to complaining about Florida 2000.

[Abynormal]

Why aren't Republicans exclaiming that the boastful 'it's the economy, stupid' during the Clinton was nothing more than a huge scam. Yes the economy flourished during Clinton's tenure. But how? Cheating Enron, Arthur Andersen funny bookkeeping, etc. All built on sand (and hot air). The economy did not crash within the first 6 months of Bush Administation due to his influence, it crashed because of crooked dealing throughout the 90s. That should be the perfect platform for Republican campaigning.

[ex-Texan]

The economy was not the cause of the Bush I loss: It was Ross Perot. I will repeat that again just in case people do not understand: Ross Perot took his revenge and the result was a great tragedy for this nation.

BillyBlowJobandHitlery came out of nowhere because Ross Perot wanted to his revenge on Bush I. It is all Perot's fault. Third Party Traitor Sell Out . . . And then hung out with Hillary-Heath-Care dupes for the promise of more money.

Just another reason why Perot ought to be strung up in effigy like a big-eared paper goose and beaten with baseball bats.

[Phlap]

To have any hope in '04 the dems need a bad economy and they will do their best to have one.

[areafiftyone]

they will do their best to have one

You bet they will. They are the most spiteful vindictive people on the face of the earth!

[Contra]

This just in - Democrats have agreed to come into modern times, dropping their references to Herbert Hoover in favor of references to Newt Gingrich.

[Contra]

Speaking of Newt, does anyone remember when that young guy asked Newt "Mr. Speaker, the people want to know, which is it, boxers or briefs?" And Newt basically called him an idiot. That was one for the ages.

[jackbill]

The only ones feeling serious pain are the elderly who stayed invested in the market. With the market down as far as it is tehy are no doubt feeling a lot of pain.

It's not so much the elderly "who stayed invested in the market" who are hurting, it is those who rely on "fixed income" investments and have seen interest rates tumble.

Perhaps as recently as two years ago, they could get 5-6% on a CD or in a Money Market. Now they're lucky to get 2% and Money Markets are paying less than 1%.

What surprises me is that the "analysts" who talk about consumer spending never mention the fact that many of the elderly have stopped spending for this very reason. It's got to be having a huge impact on the economy. But it doesn't seem to be recognized.

[1Old Pro]

The economy will be noticably improving in 9 months. time to buy stocks and short Democrat candidtes.

Don't forget to ==>> Contact MCI--Say NO to anti-US Danny Glover