2004 Democratic Primary

[Gustaf]

Because "Fascist Dictatorship Party" doesn't give you a whole lot of votes.  I think they are disgusting but as long as they balance out the Commies, so be it.  It's really sad though when your true political alternatives to an incumbent government are Communists and Fascists.

Not just centre-right but the main right-wing party in Denmark. The Swedish Right is called the "Moderate Party" and we also have the Centre Party. Btw, I agree with the points on having to choose between communists (who want the Soviet Union back, I've seen their ads), fascists and the corrupt.

Studying political party names of parties in other countries is very interesting.  My favorite example is the "Left" party in Denmark that is rather center-right

Absolutely! Some alternative! Vote for anyone other than the incumbant party and it may be the last time you ever get to vote! Vladimir Zhiranovsky is truely a frightening prospect. Imagine him with his finger on the button?!

[Gustaf]

He wants to conquer all the old U.S.S.R countries+Afghanistan+Iran+Poland+Finland+Most of the rest of Eastern Europe+Ex-East Germany+Alaska+Parts of the Yukon+Mongolia

I really do not see why he is considered that dangerous.  Sure he is a Russian nationalist with the creation of a Greater Russia as a goal.  But why is that so evil.  For me he is no different from French politicians before WWI that demanded the return of Alsase-Lorriane to France and right after WWI pushed for the annexation of Rhineland to France.  For sure he is no different from American politicans that demanded the annexation of California, Oregon, Florida, Cuba, Haiwai and so on into USA.  One could argue about those postions they took.  But I hardly seem them as evil or dangerous, or no more evil/dangerous than the others I mentioned.

It is perhaps not different, but it was wrong then and it is wrong now! Also, the Elssass-Lothringen conflict contributed to the loss of millions of human lives in three great wars, som it kind of proves the point, don't you think? If the US tried to pursue such imperialist policies today they would get heavily criticized (at least by me!).

[Gustaf]

Objectively, a bad thing.  Relatively, a very very good thing.  

Why is it relatively a very, very good thing?? WORSE?? WORSE!! How could it possibly be WORSE!!!???

[Gustaf]

Objectively, Russia isn't doing very well with the whole democracy thing.

Relatively, I'd MUCH rather have Putin's folks in charge over the Communists and Fascists.

OK, but they weren't gonna win anyway. I wish Yabloko would win, they seem to be the only decent party left in Russia (together with the secret service right wingers, who despite being just that, didn't seem too bad). The communists actually want the good old days of the Soviet Union back, I saw one of their tv-ads on the Swedish news. Scary stuff.

[Gustaf]

I prefer SPS myself - but I'm afraid either of our hopes are nothing but wishful thinking -- wishing that Russia would join the rest of us in the 21st Century.

Objectively, Russia isn't doing very well with the whole democracy thing.

Relatively, I'd MUCH rather have Putin's folks in charge over the Communists and Fascists.

OK, but they weren't gonna win anyway. I wish Yabloko would win, they seem to be the only decent party left in Russia (together with the secret service right wingers, who despite being just that, didn't seem too bad). The communists actually want the good old days of the Soviet Union back, I saw one of their tv-ads on the Swedish news. Scary stuff.

Yeah, I'm afraid so. It is really very disappointing. It is all there for them, the possibility to have a good future and they are jeopardizing it a lot. I saw an interview with a middle-class couple living in Moscow and they seemed to be like any normal people anywhere. And I just couldn't udnerstand how they ended up with this mess despite these nice intellectual people. Parts of Russia don't seem that bad but it just keeps getting messed up.  

[Gustaf]

Peter Hain isnt exactly viable as he negoitiated the European Constitution, good job their Peter.

This country would never elect David Blunkett and you would have to be blind not to see it.

Prescott or Short would be a disaster for this country, perhaps worse than Michael Howard.

Jack Straw doesnt exactly have any good credentials after Iraq, neither does Geoff Hoon who will probably lose his job when Hutton reports.

A couple of names I often heard banded around are Yvette Cooper and personally I think Alan Milburn will be back.

Still, Gordon Brown has done wonders with the economy considering global trends, I am a natural Conservative voter, but I won't vote Tory unless they give me a radical social agenda that stops living in the last century. Blair/Brown still looks to be the most attractive ticket around.

What do you mean by good job??

[Gustaf]

Another re-election economy


By Lawrence Kudlow/William P. Kucewicz



    President Bush should win re-election handily if history is any guide. In the post-World War II era, nine other presidents have asked voters to return them to office. Of these, six won voter approval (Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton), and three were kicked out (Ford, Carter and the first President Bush).
    The six victors had at least this much in common: They were all re-elected during times of economic growth and when inflation and unemployment were relatively low. With only one exception, no president in the modern era has been turned out of office during economic expansion.
    The exception was Gerald Ford. At the time he sought election (as opposed to re-election, having assumed the presidency following Richard Nixon's resignation), gross domestic product was growing, and the rates of inflation and unemployment were on the decline. Yet voters turned thumbs down on Mr. Ford, largely on concern about his competence and in response to his unpopular pardoning of Nixon. Still, the election was close: Mr. Ford and Jimmy Carter split the popular vote 48 to 50 percent.
    Only one incumbent's defeat, Jimmy Carter's, can rightly be attributed to a poor economy. When the 1980 election was held, the country was just exiting a brief recession. Worse, though, consumer price inflation had reached 14.6 percent, and the jobless rate had hit 7.8 percent. That's not to mention the public's frustration with gasoline lines and the seemingly endless hostage crisis in Iran.
    Voters, not surprisingly, jumped at the chance of implementing the supply-side policies advocated by Ronald Reagan. He won 51 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Carter's 41 percent.
    In 1992, George H. W. Bush — Mr. Reagan's political heir — also lost his re-election bid. While the nine-month recession of 1990-91 had raised voter concerns, it's certain that other factors were in play — notably, the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot and Mr. Bush's own abandonment of his "read my lips" no-new-taxes pledge. Bill Clinton secured 43 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Bush's 37 percent, with third-party challenger Ross Perot capturing 19 percent. All in all, the sizeable Perot vote handed Mr. Clinton the victory.
    Democrats are hoping now that 2004 will be a repeat of the election of 1992. But a review of the historical record suggests that the closest parallels to next year's balloting are Richard Nixon's re-election in 1972, when he trounced ultraliberal George McGovern, and Mr. Reagan's impressive win over another unabashed liberal, Walter Mondale, in 1984.
    On both occasions, the country was newly emerged from a recession, and confidence in the economy was growing. In 1972, unemployment was on the decline and inflation was under control. Nixon's re-election was made easier by the fact that the Democrats had nominated a left-winger as their standard-bearer. Nixon won by a landslide 61 to 38 percent, carrying 49 states.
    The election of 1984 was, in effect, a referendum on supply-side economics, and voters gave it an unmistakable stamp of approval. Once the Federal Reserve had wrung inflation out of the system and Mr. Reagan's 5-10-10 tax cuts came into full effect, the economy surged, with GDP rising 8.5 percent year-on-year in the first quarter of 1984. By election time, unemployment was down to 7.2 percent from a high of 10.8 percent in 1982, and inflation had fallen to a bearable 4.2 percent from the 11.8 percent rate that Mr. Reagan had inherited from Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Reagan won a resounding victory with 59 percent of the popular vote to Mr. Mondale's 41 percent. As for the remaining presidents in the good-economy six, timing was almost everything. Harry Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey in 1948 by 50 to 45 percent.
    Ironically, economic activity peaked around election time. By December, the economy started into a nearly year-long slump.
    Two-termer Dwight Eisenhower weathered two economic contractions, but his re-election bid of 1956 fell in the middle of a three-year economic expansion. He easily beat Adlai Stevenson, winning the popular vote by 58 to 42 percent.
    Lyndon Johnson, who assumed the presidency after John F. Kennedy's assassination in November 1963, beat Barry Goldwater a year later. Economic times were good, and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam had yet to arouse controversy.
    Finally, the strong, technology-driven economy of the 1990s gave Mr. Clinton's 1996 re-election effort a major boost. He garnered 49 percent of the vote to Robert Dole's 41 percent and Mr. Perot's 8 percent.
    As the current economic and stock market revival continues to work for Mr. Bush, it seems near certain that he will win in a landslide. Huge progress in the war against terrorism will add to his totals, with the GOP picking up three tour seats in the Senate and 10 to 12 in the House.
    And Mr. Bush will make it seven out of 10 presidents since the end of World War II who rode a good economy back to the Oval Office.
     
    Lawrence Kudlow is a nationally syndicated columnist and is CEO of Kudlow & Co., LLC, and CNBC's economics commentator. William P. Kucewicz is editor of Geoinvestor.com and a former editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal.

The Perot thing seems mostly wrong, though, at least accordin to numbers stated in this forum, which have yet to be contradicted. The article sounded a little biased to me, to tell the truth...

Still, yes, Bush will most likely win. But that the economy is improving is one thing, recovery another. The analysts always exaggerate, since it is generally in their interest, we saw this thoughout this entire crisis, so I am not convinced of the boom yet. I think the recession is at an end, but I woudln't be too sure about the real economy improving rapidly upto the election.

[Gustaf]

Maybe Canada needs some sort of Electoral College to balance things out

Oh I know.
Ontario has over 100 seats. Sask has 14.
I was reflecting on the irony of politics in the Praries

Don't try spreading your mess to unsuspecting neighbours!

[Gustaf]

Wow!  Realpolitic has my total respect as an international observer.  Anyone who can take interest in THAT much politics is good in my books

He even read up on Finnish and Swedish politics recently...

Damn! He will soon know more about that than I do!

[Gustaf]

Been away for a while, so just catching up:

What I meant by good job with reference to Peter Hain is that (at the time) the EU Constitution looked a rather dangerous prospect for Britain, and therefore Peter Hain would not be viable as he negoitiated it on the UKs behalf.

I see Milburn as the longer term successor to Blair, however, I do wonder whether Labour could elect another Blairite. Brown is still waiting in the shadows, and if anything were to happen to Blair (politically or health), then he would take over. I dont see Estelle Morris as a viable candidate, especially after the A-levels fiasco (I had to live thro' that, didnt really endear me to her). Stephen Twigg is an intereting thought, although I think the country may need twenty more years to be ready for a gay PM (not that is a good thing).

Whoever has been reading the Mail ought to stop buying it, it just encourages the right wing lunatics to print more of their crap.

Oh, so the Hain comment was ironic, then? I thought you literally meant that he had done a good job with the EU-constitution, which seemed odd.

[Gustaf]

I agree, everything points to another Labour win in 2005. Labour are unpopular, but not so unpopular that people would kick them out in favour of the most hated politician of the 1990's! (Howard).

Indeed.  Remember though, that we still don't know who Michael Howard will face at the next general election (I remain a dissenter here on the electoral appeal of Gordon Brown), and you're right - Howard has a big task ahead of him.  But don't forget, his namesake here in Australia was the deeply (politically) unsexy "Mr 16%" during the '80s... and John Howard will now probably finish as Australia's second longest serving PM when he goes (he's already no.3).

Possible message?  The souffle can rise twice.

Or maybe not. : )

As a card carrying Tory, can you please explain why the Tory party did not elect Ken Clarke as leader? If they had I'm sure Blair would be looking at a 15% lag in the polls rather than a 5% lead! Anyone would think they like losing elections!!

I would guess, for the same reason why Dems will nominate Howard Dean or the GOP nominated Goldwater in 1964...

[Gustaf]

<<Don't you mean "democrat"?>>


No, rather Im talking about a large portion of Southern Dems that reject the national Democrats.

You really need to read Zell Miller's book.  He compares the modern Dem party with the Whigs.

here is an excerpt:

"...I own a fiddle that supposedly belonged to Zeb Vance, the great North Carolina mountaineer who was elected that state's governor in 1862. He opposed much of what Confederate President Jefferson Davis was doing in Richmond. He was too young to be involved in the Whig Party at the height of its popularity, but he had been "born a Whig" and many thought this moderate, independent-minded, vigorous young leader might be the one to keep the party alive in the South.

When he was approached to do so in 1865, Vance was typically direct: "The party is dead and buried and the tombstone placed over it and I don't care to spend the rest of my days mourning at its grave."

Like that Whig Party of the late 1850s, the Democratic Party of today has become dangerously fragmented, and considering the present leadership it can only get worse. Compromise will become increasingly difficult and no leader's goal will be to reach consensus or common ground. Instead, they will more than ever blindly champion this group and that group...."

Sounds a lot like the Cal recall, doesn't it?!

---

Zell continued...

"...A demagogue is defined by Webster as "a political leader who gains power by arousing people's emotions and prejudices." Isn't that exactly what some of them are doing? Some of the liberal media excuse these actions by calling them "populism." Populism, my butt! Its demagogy, pure and simple.

Howard Dean, while not alone, is the worst offender, and it says a lot about the current Democratic base that he has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. He likes to say he belongs to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but I say he belongs to the whining wing of the Democratic Party...."


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1103/02miller.html

I thought populism and demagougery pretty much WAS the same thing...but I think the term is used differently in English than in Swedish, so that would probably be the explanation.

[Gustaf]

Assuming Asian countries put their dollar reserves in treasuries, thats a $1 trillion hole right there-- 10% of GDP owed to the outside.

Italy's national debt is 110% of GDP...

[Gustaf]

Assuming Asian countries put their dollar reserves in treasuries, thats a $1 trillion hole right there-- 10% of GDP owed to the outside.

Italy's national debt is 110% of GDP...

That makes our debt look small.

Belgium and Greece have similar debts, all 100%+. Kind of scary, especially considering the fact that many of these countries have both budget deficits and stagnant, or even falling, GDP.

[Gustaf]

You really like talking to yourself in this thread, dont you.

No, simply pointing out that it seems quite odd that you can give predictions for 2004 but were unable to give a prediction for 2003Q4.  Would anyone listen to the predictions of a weatherman who couldn’t tell you the current conditions?

---

<<Throw in enough fiscal stimulus with a combination of artifically low long term intrest rates due to Japan buying US debt to keep the Yen at depressed levels>>

Let me try to explain this to you very carefully:  The Bank of Japan (BOJ) does NOT buy US debt to boost the dollar because relative lower US rates depresses the dollar.  What is going on is that the BOJ is selling yen to buy dollars on the open market, thus increasing the supply of yen while lowering the supply of dollars in an effort to boost the dollar’s value.

As a result, the BOJ is holding a large amount of dollars with which it then turns around and buys US debt (purchased in dollars) in order to earn interest on all the dollars the BOJ is holding.

So, the effect on the value on the dollar of the BOJ purchase of dollars (increasing the dollar’s value) is partly being offset by the BOJ buying US debt (decreasing the dollar’s value).

If you’ll take a look at the pdf link I posted yesterday, you’ll find that the dollar’s value is still well above the level of the mid 1990’s.  In fact the bleeding of US manufacturing is closely tied to the sharp spike in the dollar’s value during the late 1990’s.
 

The Japanese cannot allow the dollar to weaken too much against the yen, b/c if it did they would go down even worse than they already have. In reality, they're pegged to the dollar.

[Gustaf]

The Japanese cannot allow the dollar to weaken too much against the yen, b/c if it did they would go down even worse than they already have. In reality, they're pegged to the dollar.

Japan is screwed (as are many countries other than the US) because they rely on exports as their engine for growth.  The US is a consumer led economy that generates its own wealth rather quickly.

The public debt of the US is roughly 40% of GDP and is owed in US dollars.  Japan’s public debt well over 100% of GDP.

The US currently has the:
1)Lowest inflation in 40 years
2)Lowest interest rates in 40 years
3)Highest productivity growth in 50 years
4)Highest GDP growth in 20 years
5)Highest home ownership on record
6)Highest business profits (>$1 Trillion/year) on record
7)Hottest housing market in 25 years

The US also has the most nibble economy of any of any of the G8 countries.  And the US is the most technologically advanced country in the world.  The US remains the envy of the world.

Well, your economy is doing relatively well, but let's not overdo it. You still have a problem with pensions coming up, though it isn't as bad as in many other countries. Fundamentally, it comes down to Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian countries, just like at everything else.

I am a free-trader, and I don't think that reliance on the home market is a good idea in the long run, it only works as long as you're really, really, really good, and that you have been for a long time, but I think it increases the risk of protectionism and lowers creativity.

[Gustaf]

Well, your economy is doing relatively well, but let's not overdo it.

Not overdoing it at all.  Simply posting well known facts.

Well, "the envy of the world" and "many countries are screwed" I felt was overdoing it a little.

[Gustaf]

Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.

WHy AR? I mean, why would you be worried about it?

[Gustaf]

Ohio's losing jobs faster than any state in the country?  Watch out GWB, because that's not a good sign.

Yes, Miamiu I agree that was the most discouraging aspect of the report, though it is hard to discern much from a month to month change.  There were also some bits of good news - better employment in NM and AR.  Also on the bureau of labor statistics web site check out the 'over the year' change - perhaps more informatitve.

WHy AR? I mean, why would you be worried about it?

Oh.. AR is Arkansas isn't it?  Yeah I guess you're right - I don't see it as in any doubt, but a lot of democrats on the forum seem to think so.  It had fairly high unemployment so its nice to see it coming down.  I also like the look of PA's numbers, as well as WV.  I don't really care about the unemployment level in solid states - like say the Carolinas or Alaska.  Its high there but won't make any difference.

AR is at least pretty unlikely to go Dem, it COULD, but it wouldn't be my first worry, especially not if the Dem nominee is a northeastern liberal, like Kerry.

[Gustaf]

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.

[Gustaf]

Yeah, I think that's what I was saying...

you have to have unemployment and it at its lowest levels is usually around 3.9-4%.  You NEED a pool of workers to be able to expand business.

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.

[Gustaf]

you have to have unemployment and it at its lowest levels is usually around 3.9-4%.  You NEED a pool of workers to be able to expand business.

There will always be unemplyment, for a variety of reasons. The idea that we should try to reach zero unemployment is very, very stupid, something that several countries, especially Sweden, learned the hard way during the 70s and 80s.

True I suppose, but at levels below 4 or 5 % I suspect that 'unemployement' is entirely voluntary.  In that it is 1) union/blue collar types enjoying maxing out their unemployment benefits before returning to work, knowing very well a job will be there when they want one.  This is especially common in construction.  and 2) people who are enjoying a few months off collecting unemployment while waiting for another well paid job to come along rather than taking something poorly paid (such jobs are always redily available) to make do.

Well, there's also people who don't get jobs.

[Gustaf]

Full Employment is a good thing, but zero unemployment is not.

Then I suppose you're not defining full employment as zero unemployment, huh?

[Gustaf]

If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%

I think we're all making the same point. There will always be a small group of people without a job, at any given time, and trying to force the unemploymentlevel below that point is only counterproductive.

[Gustaf]

If I remember correctly it's about 2.5%

Actually, I think it used to be like 6% during the 80s.  Now, it's thought to be about 5%. It can't be as low as 2.5% because the pressure on wages would be too high, inflation would result, businesses would sell less and they'd have to lay off workers and raise the unemployment rate.

We used to have 1% in the 50s...I think it could be lower than 5%, we have that in Sweden and we still have a very regulated labour market.