Poll: Will the economy be a big issue in 04?

Listening to NPR this morning, the standard line now is that the economy has turned the corner, and will be on the upswing for the next year. Employment has yet to show significant gains, but may also be on an upward trend by next year.

So the question is, will there be at least enough improvement in the economic "mood" next year that the economy will not be a viable issue for the Democrats to challenge Bush on?

and a lot of people will simply believe what they hear (most people don't want to believe bad news, so it will be hard for Dems to make inroads here). In addition, wealthy Bush* supporters will artificially drive up the stock indexes before the election to make it look like a recovery. Also, even if the economy is on the table, Bush* will use fear to overcome it as he did during the 2002 elections. It's going to be near impossible to beat these assholes, which is really something when you realize he's the worst president in history and has ruined everything.

There are economic cycles. That's part of life. The economy is improving. Our best bet is to talk about sharing the benefits of an improving aconomy.

In the debate yesterday, in the closing statements, only Clark addressed national security. That will be the primary issue.

>>>>Our best bet is to talk about sharing the benefits of an improving aconomy.<<

Personally I'd take it farther and talk about more fundamental ways the now ingrained inequalities of sharing in "proeperity" can be rectified.

I think that it may be a lesser issue this time than in previous years, but it will be not less than #2.

"no recovery in sight." The yield on a 5 yr Treasury is around 3%. This is low - still far lower than in early Spring of 2002 - & consistent with the idea that the bond market (much larger than the stock market, & less driven by hype) sees no recovery on the horizon.

For mind-control purposes, though, the media will be able to use phrases like "the economy has turned the corner" and "the accelerating recovery...." - and this will be quite sufficient to fool the public. The public's main concern is employment, but they will be told ad nauseum that employment is a "lagging indicator." IOW - the one thing the public wants, it won't get -- but they will hear "explanations" of why they're not getting it.

It's like the last 25 years, as the real position of average and poor Americans eroded, the "illusion" of prosperity made people ignore the realities going on underneath the glittery surfaces of the so-called "booms."

(Not that things we're a lot better in the 90's, but it was also a house of cards).

However, I did actually hear Media Whore extrordinaiire Howard Fineman say that he believes trade and the loss of good jobs will be a big issue next year.

Exactly.

Um, not calling you stupid, just repeating the old campaign line... You know what I mean.

The economy won't be recovered enough to help Bush by November 2004. Keep in mind that of the last two presidents that were booted after one term, both are considered bad economy presidents (Carter, Bush), but both inherited bad economies, and in both cases the economy had turned around six months or more before they lost re-election. In both cases, in my opinion, the presidents lost because they had failed to inspire any confidence that they could fix a wide range of problems, not just because the economy was bad.

Reagan, on the other hand, had caused the worst recession in American history at that time, and the economy had not recovered from his tax cuts by his re-election term, but he won anyway. People blamed his recessions on Carter. It was because of two things-- one, Reagan sold himself better, inspiring hope in people that he could do better than his opponent (even though he really said nothing intelligent the whole time), and two, Mondale spent all of his time attacking Reagan's job rather than campaigning on what job he himself would do. Mondale successfully undermined Reagan's credibility and made my heart warm, but he did not successfully convince people that he had a greater vision for the nation. Thus, he lost.

Just like our current crop of candidates are doing.

In contrast, both Reagan and Clinton campaigned on grand visions. Reagan's "Morning in America" image and Clinton's "A place called Hope" image (with his "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" theme song) made people want what they were selling. Both criticized the incumbents they ousted, but that was periphery and not central to their message. It's simple sales. You will starve if you try to make a living only by criticizing the competition's product, even if you are 100% accurate. They have to love yours, not hate the competitor's. And politics is just sales.

Again, none of our candidates (so far) are doing that, which is why I'm brushing up on my "Anybody but JEB" slogans for 2008, and hoping someone in our group has a steep learning curve.

But I'm hoping that some of the candifdates have a steep learning curve.

Dean is trying with his "I want my country back" and "You have the power." I think there's kernal of a message of the kind you referred to there, and he's having sucess with it, but not quite there yet.

In terms of substance, I think Kucinich offers a positive alternative. But he is not connecting. Sharpton also has a deistinct message.

There rest sound a lot like more of the same.

Poor Greenspan. HE is the ONLY reason we are not in a full blown DEPRESSION right now.
it's disgusting that people do not remember that we had a surpluss when the chimperor got the keys to the WH.

:eyes: