Replies

This idea that people vote on "paycheck" issues is nonsense. Most of the layoffs that have occured over the last 4 years have been in dot.com and new economy carrier and equipment companies, whose young engineering and marketing types aren't GOP voters anyway. Anyone who thinks George W. Bush is responsible for the "Economy" is too stupid to be a Republican. Our airports are exponentially safer now than they were four years ago, our borders are safer, our nuclear plants and utilities and dams are safer, our LEOs are communicating better than ever before, our CIA is performing brilliantly in Iraq and getting more folks on the ground each day, Homeland Security will professionalize our domestic LEOs. A dividend tax abolition would create jobs, a Capital Gains tax abolition would create jobs and an Estate Tax abolition will create jobs.

The Democrats have no alternative plan. None.

This "recession" is a God-send for conservatives, because it will force cash-strapped states to start laying off AFSCME, University employees, cut grants and consultant contracts, cut numbers of welfare recipients and grants to non-profits and University academics.

That's your Democrat constituency. Defunding these folks, moving Civil Servants into the private sector, cutting off the money funnel to Identity Groups and Academics will collapse the Democrat syndicate. If Big Shirley ain't getting walking around money from Reverend Leon any more, she ain't voting.

"This "recession" is a God-send for conservatives, because it will force cash-strapped states to start laying off AFSCME, University employees, cut grants and consultant contracts, cut numbers of welfare recipients and grants to non-profits and University academics".

Excellent point but it's starting to raise hell with VA benefits also.

The VA is looking at alot of cut-backs as well but I think they're just cleaning house.

>>>Anyone who thinks George W. Bush is responsible for the "Economy" is too stupid to be a Republican.

Very true Arne. But perception in politics will play into the chain of events that culminate in the 2004 election. The economy has been very slow in repairing itself from the years of "irrational exuburance", that saw the quick rise and fall of so-called financial wizkids. But you're right. As of now, the Democrats have no alternative plan to offer up that can even begin to compete with President Bushes agenda and overall political strategy.

And as usual, its the independent voters who will ultimately determine the winner. If you couple expected business cycle adjustments, with an economy that starts expanding with some consistancy, that will probably lead to sustained monthly growth rates of 3%-5%. With six to nine months of such positive growth figures, its easy to see such a scenario leading to a Bush victory, with a 55% majority. The liberals don't have a chance in hell of unseating a popular and respected president, who successfully commanded the US military campaign to a victory and who is sitting atop solid period of economic expansion.

It's along time between now and November 2004, and "we" all know anything is possible, but I don't think Bush/Rove and Company will allow a total meltdown to take place as happened to GHW Bush back in 1992.

Agree. Unless Bush really, really screws up, he will win a Reagan-esque victory in '04--only California, Minnesota, Mass. and DC are in play for the Dims. The economy is secondary; it will be nice if he gets his plan, and if the economy picks up, but so long as there isn't a depression, the economy will not be the issue. Protecting our lives will be the issue.

Clinton won on a post-Cold War model--it was safe again to vote Democrat. (Even so, Clinton got 43 percent of the vote in 92 and 49 percent in 96.) It no longer is safe to vote Democrat, the vast majority of Americans realize this, and they will vote for Bush. He will get anywhere from 52-59 percent of the overall vote, depending on events, but he will win handily. As I recall, Reagan in 1984 got 55 percent of the vote.