. . . all look good. 52% say the capture of Saddam will make them more likely to vote for Bush according to a Newsweek poll. But it's the economic numbers I find interesting. In an AP poll, 55 percent of registered voters approve of Bush's handling of the economy and 43 percent disapproved, a spread of +12. The amazing thing though is that only ONE month ago approval of Bush's handling of the economy was at 46 percent and disapproval was at 51 percent, a spread of -6. So in the course of one month we've seen a stunning swing of 18 point in Bush's favor.
The less rosy part of the Newsweek poll (as far as Bush is concerned) is that his re-elect numbers are even at 46 for and 46 against. Once voters are given a specific opponent Bush will of course get a bump. Still those numbers offer something about which to be concerned for Bush supporters like myself. The same poll finds that "69 percent of Americans say they're concerned that the U.S. will be bogged down in Iraq for many years without achieving its goals there." In other words, for now anyway, Dean would do well to focus on Iraq and not spend too much time on domestic issues. As much as the people Democraticunderground.com like to think the average American is living in misery, it's just not the case. Things are pretty good and getting better economically. But Bush looks like he's vulnerable on the question of whether he prepared well enough for Iraq. Make the case that if Bush stays in power Iraq will become a long-term problem for America and you may be able to win over some of the undecideds.
I would attribute this to the capture of Saddam. A bounce in the polls was inevitable. However, I would wait a few months to see if this is evidence of a real turnaround or an aberration. Bush's numbers have been tending downwards for many moons now, until they finally started hovering around where they were when he was first elected - right at 50%. I would be a little surprised (and dismayed) if they didn't return to this after a while.
Except this ignores the fact that economy has shown signs of a real turnaround. All the main indicators keep improving. I've yet to hear the Left really acknowledge this which is fine I guess. But it's going to be reality that if things continue to improve it's going to make Dean's task of convincing Americans that we need someone new in office next to impossible. What will the strategy be then?
It's true, the economy does show signs of improvement, but they've been rather slow to date and haven't resulted in much job creation - certainly not enough to offset the recent, massive losses. Of course, perception is everything. If people feel that the economy is improving, it will make it much more difficult for the Democrats to win in 2004. As for whether Bush is responsible, I doubt that the tax cuts are the cause for the somewhat feeble economic recovery. It seems more likely that it's a result of the natural flucuations of the market. However, I'm not an economist, so this is all just conjecture. Even the economists (read: voodoo priests) disagree, so what are we laymen to think?
The Dow being at a nineteen month high is a little more than a fluctuation.
As for your charge that Bush isn't responsible, according to bluesiders, Bush is responsible only when the economy is down (ill-advised tax cuts), but when the economy is up, it's all Alan Greenspan, just as it was when Clinton was the big dog.
I can't think of anything else that is as complete a mystery for me in politics as economics, so I will refrain from speculation. Here is an article (from the 6th) that speculates for us: more jobs, more growth, upside and downside. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/US/greenspan_economy031106.html
I agree that objectively speaking, it's very difficult to assign credit for "recoveries" to administrations--for example there's good reason to believe that the Clinton economy was hardly a product of Clinton's intitial economic policies, but was rather a stroke of luck (though many economists would argue that Clinton's fiscal conservatism helped sustain the boom). Obviously Dean will try to claim the opposite and who knows, maybe it will work. But this alone is not going to cut it.
I dislike the kind of politics that reduces voting to questions of who is the better administrator for "the economy" or "the country" in general--this sort of media saturated pseudo-democracy thrives on banal soundbytes, polls, and of course fundraising for propaganda.
Democracy will be a lot healthier when people step out of their dream world and stop ignoring the fact that politics is really about conflicts between competing interests, and that there isn't any one "correct" policy, but rather choices based on values. When we spend 200 billion on Iraq, we are implicitly not spending this money elsewhere. The same logic goes for Bush's tax cuts. When we hike up the deficit, we are implicitly sending our kids a bill to pay for imperial adventures and tax cuts.
Basically, Dean needs to run a populist campaign, a decisive campaign--a campaign implicitly emphasizing class conflict between ordinary peace-loving Americans and the ultra-rich. He needs to embrace positions like "Health-Care for everyone" and "College for everyone" as well as "Freedom and Security for everyone" and juxtapose them to the priorities Bush has emphasized (war, large tax cuts for corporations, maintaining corporate hegemony, etc). Meanwhile, the media is unlikely to sit by while Bush attempts to smear Dean as a big-spender because, of course, the opposite is true. Futhermore, Dean is in the unique position of being able to use his campaign structure as a model for how he would be accountable to vastly different interests than Bush.
David, I didn't mean that the current upturn was an aberration. I meant that the recovery might just be a result of the long-term fluctuations the economy experiences due to a multitude of factors, not a direct result of Bush's tax cuts. Furthermore, your attempt to conflate this hypothesis with mindless criticism of the administration is disingenuous. I realize you're talking about "bluesiders" in general (which, as a generalization, is easily argued with), but your phrasing seems to include my comments. Also, I never thought Bush was responsible for the downturn; it was clearly a result of the tech bubble popping. However, that doesn't make Bush's tax cuts any less irresponsible.
Scott, Dean is already running a populist campaign. It is the very foundation of his popularity and inherent in the structure of his campaign. I agree that democracy would be better served by a more informed populace, but this is unlikely to occur without a vastly improved educational system and a less complacent, ratings-based media. Unfortunately, neither problem is easy to fix. As for your hope that the media won't allow Bush to smear Dean as a big-spender, I am not so sanguine as you. However, I doubt that will be the biggest weapon Rove and company will use against Dean. His support of civil unions, his criticism of the Iraqi war (which they will attempt to confuse with criticism of the war on terror), and his perceived liberalism will also be used against him. Thankfully, he has begun to modulate his support for a complete repeal of the tax cuts. That would be the final nail in the coffin, despite how much fiscal sense it would make for both the nation and the middle class.
Also, I'd like to comment on the ABCNews article David posted. As Greenspan points out, "the odds 'increasingly favor' a revival in job growth." This is undoubtedly a good thing, but the article then goes on to mention that Greenspan sees potential long-term instability due to our soaring deficit. Essentially, it's a trade off of a short-term postive for a long-term negative. Though the potential job creation may or may not be attributable to Bush's economic policies, the deficit most certainly may. As I have said before, this administration is mortgaging our future for current political gains.
Finally, the article fails to make any mention of underemployment, a problem many in the tech industry have been dealing with for years. Essentially, it is highly skilled workers taking lower paying jobs for which they are over-qualified in order to pay their bills. I would be interested in seeing what the numbers are on this.