Decision ‘08

Some Good Election Year News

Democrats had better hope the old adage that people vote their pocketbooks is not true (or, to paraphrase James Carville’s memorable wording, that ‘it’s not the economy, stupid!’). Wholesale prices dropped 1.4% in February, durable goods orders increased by 2.6%, and consumer confidence is at its highest level since May, 2002.

Look for a pretty huge GDP growth number in the first quarter…

6 Responses to “Some Good Election Year News”

1 mtl Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
So they can’t run on unemployment or the economy.
They won’t run on a immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

They could try getting to the right of Bush on immigration…nah.

Early prediction? Turnout in 06 is less than 02.
2 peter Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
I think this is wishful thinking on your part – although the economy has been fairly decent for a while, Bush has yet to get a lift in the polls from it – this is because a) the economy is a lot better than most people think it is, and b) like it or not, the 2006 elections are likely to be a referendum on Iraq, regardless of what else happens between now and then.
3 Mark Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Possibly…but it’s not black and white. I’ve been the first to admit the Republicans have a tough November, but it’s quite possible that opinion polls won’t be reflected in the vote. The old saw didn’t materialize out of thin air, and it’s an undeniable plus to have a good economy…
4 mtl Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
A referendum on Iraq…

So all candidates will answer the question of whether to continue funding…if they answer no, they have to explain why they aren’t worshipping at the alter of Murtha.

Choices are:

continue with uncertainty or discontinue because of uncertainty. If the dems have plan b on Iraq, they should bring it up. Their only current plan is to use the negative sentiment on Iraq to their political advantage, against Bush.

IF they were leading one way or the other, they would get something called support, which translates to turnout. Right now they are standing behind the crowds, as opposed to in front of them.

Off year elections are about turnout.

Take NJ-in 2002 2 million voters for their senate race.
3.6 million in 04-a presidential year.
I’d expect in 2006, 2.5 million should be the over under.

Which come backs to the turnout thing. Whichever sides gets its base going, and by history…gop still has the edge.
5 mtl Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Another example.

Ohio 2nd district.

2002-183,000 voted.(136k gop, 48k dem)
2004-317,000 voted.(227k gop, 90kdem.)

along comes Paul Hackett, less than 9 months off the most humiliating defeat for dems. He’s hyped and funded by every dem in this country.

Results? He loses. Not a huge surprise, as it is a red district. The shocker was…

He garnered 54k votes.

He lost 43% of the dems from 9 months prior. He gained only 12% from 2002, 6000 votes.

Turnout.
6 mtl Says:
March 28th, 2006 at 10:53 pm
I will say this on the economy, in regards to public perception.

401k’s are the ultimate measure. While the gdp numbers have been good, it has not tranlsated into a large market move.

The market is closing in on a previous high, but the high was from 5 or six years(or maybe even 8 years?) ago. If you have a 401k, you are just getting back to where you might have been. Things will catch up, as the market is probably undervalued, at least relative to when it was it it highs.