For Democrats, Economy's Surge Poses Challenge

New York Times ^ | 11/02/03 | DAVID LEONHARDT

[Iowegian]

For more than two years now, the Democrats seeking the presidency have planned on running a 2004 campaign built around the weak economy and patterned after Bill Clinton's 1992 defeat of President Bush's father.

But with the economy having surged this past quarter they are suddenly confronting the possibility of a far less encouraging historical comparison: that the election year economy could be more like the one Ronald Reagan ran on in 1984, when the country was coming out of a long slump.

The rapid change in the outlook — underscored by figures released on Thursday showing the fastest quarterly economic growth since 1984 — is already forcing the Democratic presidential candidates to calibrate their attack on Mr. Bush's economic record in ways they did not have to just a week ago. It has also left them in danger of looking as though they were clinging to economic gloom.

Rather than simply lamenting the the economy, the Democrats now say that one good quarter does not erase three sluggish years. The growth has not caused a rebound in the job market, they note, and large budget deficits loom for years.

"For there to be a genuine recovery, it's got to happen in more than economic statistics," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and a presidential candidate, said on Thursday on the campaign trail in Buffalo. "It's got to happen in the lives of America's middle class and those working hard to get into it."

Many Democrats say they still consider the economy an issue that will benefit them next year. President George Bush lost in 1992 even though employment began growing eight months before Election Day, they point out.

"I just think the likelihood — I can't prove this in any way — is that people are going to have uncertainty, not reassurance, about where the economy is headed," said Representative Richard A. Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, another presidential contender.

But even many Democratic campaign aides concede that their task has just become more difficult. A sustained recovery could reduce projected budget deficits that are at the core of their attacks on the administration's tax cuts. A turnaround might also cause the job market to improve early enough before Election Day to influence voters.

[T Lady]

Translated: We the Editors and Reporters at the New York Times hope the economy tanks, so that one of the nine Democratic Presidential candidates, namely Howard Dean, can 'rescue' America from the clutches of the evil, capitalistic Bush Regime.

-Regards, T.

[Pukin Dog]

In other words:

Good news for the country - Bad news for Democrats.

Bad news for the country - Good news for Democrats.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

If W can keep terrorists bottled up and out of the country, I'd say the election is his.

[anniegetyourgun]

They'll continue to pound on "jobs" until we continue to see payrolls added to each month. They'll try pounding on the deficit, until the receipts to the Treasury go up due to tax cuts and expansion.

And when there is nothing left to pound on, they'll dig up a DUI on one of the Bush twins, find a former housekeeper to say that Laura is a tyrannical witch, or release a photo of W. golfing with a "former Halliburton exec" (aka Dick Cheney).

[pierrem15]

Lieberman is showing how the press and dems will respond: move the goal posts:

a) if the economy is bad, complain and blame it all on the Bush tax cuts;

b) if the economy grows, complain that employment lags;

c)if employment picks up, complain only "McJobs" are available;

d)if good jobs are available, complain they're not enjoyed by |name your favorite minority group|

e)if the economy booms, initiate out of control spending and regulation so you can return to (a)

[At _War_With_Liberals]

"that the election year economy could be more like the one Ronald Reagan ran on in 1984, when the country was coming out of a long slump. "

This was not a long slump, that is for sure the recession ended in 2001.

The Dim establishment is accepting the economic reality and is shifting tactics. The DNC memo has been sent to the media this week. It always amazes me how all Dems and their media argue the same talking points in sync. I'll give them one thing- they are well coordinated.

[Iowegian]

Yep, they have to pray for a depression to get back into power. Unfortunately there are many of FR (conservatives?) that seem to have the same bad hopes for our economy.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

They will say "the recovery is only benefitting Bush, Cheney, and other rich, white, racist, war mongering, Haliburton stock holding blue bloods who do not pay their fair share."

[anniegetyourgun]

It's frightening to see how much and how accurate your information is with respect to 'the agenda.' Are you sure you aren't on his staff?

[Arpege92]

We are talking about a group of people who actually wanted to see the United States lose the war in Iraq, so that they could get there sorry butts back into the White House.

Everytime they open up there mouths now, it comes back to haunt them and they are going to really start grasping at anything they can get there dirty hands on. Let's just sit back and watch them destroy themselves....I'll bring the popcorn.

[TheHound]

And all the while Dubya will treat them with the utmost respect, and win 2004 in a massive landslide.

[DeFault User]

Many Democrats say they still consider the economy an issue that will benefit them next year. President George Bush lost in 1992 even though employment began growing eight months before Election Day, they point out.

Neither the Dims nor the media were pointing out the growth in employment during the last eight months before the election. "It's the worst economy in 50 years, blah, blah,..." How many of the Times' writers and media pundits exposed that lie?

With the internet and talk radio available to disseminate information now, those grandiose fabrications just won't work quite so well. But they never stop trying.

[zencat]

"If W can keep terrorists bottled up and out of the country, I'd say the election is his."

Eyup. If the recovery is as real as it seems and the economy keeps adding jobs (57K in Sept., supposed to be 60K-80K for Oct. and up to 200K per month by next March) it will be a W landslide. Unemployment is predicted to be between 5.4%-5.6% by the next election. Iraq won't matter unless it dissolves into complete chaos, because the American people will never trust Democrats on security over this President.

[GiveEmDubya]

A little from some Senate proceedings I saw this week:

Sen. Pete Domenici (R) was bubbling about the growth and how he's positive that things will improve.

Sen. Harry Reid (D) spoke after him in a dull voice:
"I too am, uh, very pleased about the....economic, uh, growth."

Says it all.

[pierrem15]

LOL, not with the 'agenda.'

Just old enough to seen this dem re-run on the economy a few times.

It's the Gilligan's Island of American politics.

[redhead]

"Lieberman is showing how the press and dems will respond: move the goal posts: a) if the economy is bad, complain and blame it all on the Bush tax cuts; b) if the economy grows, complain that employment lags; c)if employment picks up, complain only "McJobs" are available; d)if good jobs are available, complain they're not enjoyed by |name your favorite minority group| e)if the economy booms, initiate out of control spending and regulation so you can return to (a) "

Got MY vote for quote of the week...

[ccmay]

"For there to be a genuine recovery, it's got to happen in more than economic statistics"

WTF? Moving the goalposts a little, eh, Senator?

What scum these Democrats are.

-ccm

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Saddened. Deeply.

[John H K]

One thing to look out for pretty much every single night on ABC, CBS, and NBC in September and October of 2004 is a feature on the "town left behind" in the recovery. Each network will pick the 60 towns with the highest unemployement in the country, and do a sob-story featurette on someone who doesn't have a job, in each of the towns, night after night.