eric_schafer
(91 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:39 PM
Original message |
CNN/Money: Economy not expected to hurt Bush re-election |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-26-03 05:41 PM by eric_schafer
From the article:
Though President Bush's Democratic challengers have gained some political traction from bad job-market data and growing deficits, the economy seems unlikely to be much of a problem for Bush's re-election campaign in 2004, according to some economists.
<snip>
CNN/Money used Fair's model to come up with a prediction for the 2004 election, assuming the Philly Fed's projected 3.7 percent GDP growth rate for the first three quarters of 2004, growth above 3.2 percent for the last two quarters of 2003, and average inflation of 2.2 percent during the first 15 quarters of Bush's term.
The result: Bush should win more than 60 percent of the vote on election day -- an unequivocal landslide.
********** Like we needed any more proof that CNN is chock full of pandering bastards. Yes, voters certainly DON'T consider how the economy is affecting their lives when they cast their vote.
|
Woodstock
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:43 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't see that he "has the conservative base wrapped around his finger" |
|
Edited on Fri Sep-26-03 05:45 PM by Woodstock
A lot of TRUE conservatives are alarmed at his economic and foreign policy. He's not a conservative, he's a neocon, there's a difference. I know quite a few people who voted for him last time who won't this time, and that's just me. I know of NO people who didn't vote for him last time who will this time.
And I wonder if these are the same economic geniuses who said Iraq's reconstruction would be paid for by the oil. Trickle down didn't work for Reagan, and it won't work for "Bush 43*."
|
Room101
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:55 PM
Original message |
To my fellow unemployed....... |
|
There is no Economic recovery until we get a job:(
|
central scrutinizer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:45 PM
Response to Original message |
|
How can they come up with this shit when every poll shows his approval rating on the economy in the 30% range.
|
im4edwards
(215 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
7. I believe that they are projecting into next year, not now |
|
and if it does go as expected, they may well be right.
|
diplomats
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
11. It's still up in the air, obviously |
|
but economists are known for being all over the map when it comes to predictions.
|
AP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:56 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
9. And, furthermore, everyone is putting the economy at the top of their list |
|
of issues concerning them, and the U of Mich sentiment numbers are miserable, and 3 million people have lost jobs.
Today, I heard Krugman say that the economy needs to produce 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with population growth, while Bush, if he's lucky, might be able to produce 30,000 (per month?) before election day.
|
childslibrarian
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The economy doesn't recover if bonds are considered junk because of our deficit, jobs are outsourced to other countries, and the middle class is losing ground every day. This recovery is a rich person's recovery and let's face it... there's more of us than them. Even the Republican millionaire wanna-bes are starting to understand that Whistle-ass doesn't care about them.
|
newyawker99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
Skittles
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:49 PM
Response to Original message |
|
either it is just run-of-the-mill corporate whoring for Bush Inc, or it's all part of the setup to make people understand how, when Bush Inc again STEALS THE F***ING ELELCTION, to "explain" why he was "re-elected". EITHER WAY, IT IS SICKENING.
|
cprise
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:51 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Just WHAT kind of pills are these non-HMOs prescribing these days?
Must be something strong.
|
AP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:53 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I have NEVER heard of a projection/poll/model like this one!!! |
|
A model which considers projected GDP growth and inflation rates (from an administration probably lying about the numbers in the first place) can predict the margin of victory? Whazza? Does this model of a track record for success?
|
carpetbagger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
14. It's a good model, but now the numbers don't reflect reality. |
|
It's similar to the 1992 situation. Bush and Quayle were factually correct in citing the numbers of the recovery, but off the mark in extrapolating that to the real-life numbers.
In 2004, the numbers will look good (GDP, inflation, unemployment), but they will connect more poorly than usual with real indicators of family and individual economic health (debt, net income, disposable income, cash on hand, job security and more "real" unemployment indicators, stock market stability, costs of major expenses).
If they think the traditional economic models will work in an engineered plutocracy, they need to lay off the sauce.
|
cmf
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:55 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Time for you guys to put down the crack pipes.
This so freaking absurd.
|
LiberalEconomist
(293 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #8 |
|
Industry and corporate economists are a pack of lying whores. Their analyses are disingenous at best. They are there as part of marketing. For the past year Economy.com has been claiming that the economy will take off and the unemployment problem will be relieved. Well?
I actually use their "forecasts" in projecting my county's revenue. If they say up I say down etc.
Another thing, why do we have journalists who minor in business acting as if they are real economists? Wall Street don't equal the fucking macroeconomy. Jeeze!!
|
newyawker99
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
diplomats
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 05:57 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Economists have been predicting strong economic growth |
|
and job creation for some time now, and they haven't been right yet. The economy might be better in 2004, it might be worse or it might be the same. Two of those three scenarios aren't good for Bush.
|
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:01 PM
Response to Original message |
|
This is so fucking stupid. How much of that GDP is more military deficit? Just like a couple of months ago, we all remember. They got away with this shit in the 80's with Reagan's military deficit, we CANNOT let them get away with it again.
No jobs, businesses racing overseas, increased poverty rate, downsizing to post profits, falling dollar... the economy SUCKS. And it's not going to change.
|
leesa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:23 PM
Response to Original message |
17. Bizarre...that's why there are all those phony articles about the economy |
|
being on the upswing. Open your eyes and look around you. Do NOT believe a word that comes out of mainstream media or its polls.
|
mkregel
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:24 PM
Response to Original message |
18. CNN/Money: Low Votes not expected to hurt Bush re-election |
|
I expect to see this soon ;)
|
eric_schafer
(91 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #18 |
19. to be followed shortly by... |
|
CNN/Money: NOTHING will be allowed to hurt Bush re-election
:eyes:
|
tsipple
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 06:32 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Wasn't the Economy Really Good in '68? |
ShaneGR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Sep-26-03 09:40 PM
Response to Original message |
21. LINK?????????????????????????????????????????? |
|
On this board, I require a link. I don't see this on CNN's website.
|
dusty64
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-27-03 06:45 AM
Response to Original message |
|
of shit, thats all I can say. Disgusting propaganda disguising as news. The economy and our Iraqi quagmire WILL be the downfall of our regime, I don't care what the desperate whores say.
|
jiacinto
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Sep-27-03 09:32 AM
Response to Original message |
23. This model has not had a good track record |
|
In 2000, I believe, this model predicted a Gore landslide. The only real model that has ever worked is Alan Lichtman's Keys to the Presidency, but even that system has problems because the criteria are subjective. The FAIR model has not worked as well as it claims.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:01 PM
Response to Original message |