2004 Democratic Primary

[jravnsbo]

OK I see BUsh with a 216-200 generic lead in EV.

Dems have tough Gore states to protect in MN, IA, WI, NM, OR and PA

BUsh's states at risk I think are FL, LA, AR, MO, NH and WV

THe GOP has alot of advantages in these states.  They have a lot of new registered voters, NH traditionally votes for GOP and hasn't gone Dem since LBJ I believe; FL I have discussed elsewhere as being BUSH country for both brothers; LA and Ar are socially conservative and Dem candidates there have to run as conservative to moderate at best.  

--also as some said with other states but no DEm President has won the presidency without 5 southern states, not one , but 5!

--oh and along those lines MO picked the winner from 1900 to 2000 every time but once went for Adlai Stevenson, well no state is perfect

[jravnsbo]

ok all the seats set--I think the GOP picks up seats and retains control.  Currently the GOP holds a 229-205-1 advantage.  The Dems need to NET 13 seats to gain control.  

I see the GOP picking up around 5-7 seats esp if the new Texas map stays in place.

The more the GOP gains this time the harder it will be for Dems to take control.  The Dems were gaining ground until 2002, now as many say I think the GOP maintains control through 2010.

[jravnsbo]

i stand corrected on NH.  ty for correction.

[jravnsbo]

Well I think MN is definately in play along with WI, IA, OR, NM and PA for Dem side.

MNs were p*ssed in 2002 at the rally and swept GOP to wins in the Gov, Senate and increased state house maj and are closest  ever in St senate.  A lot of the suburban Twin Cities voters are becoming more and more GOP backers, plus as with other states the GOP registration drive in MN has hit full throttle.

Next a lot of the farm states will benefit from farm bill Pres Bush signed and most likely an energy bill in some form with ethanol provisions in it.

I do agree with you that NJ is a bit of a stretch.  They voted for Lautenberg with the scandal of switching candidates midstream, which I still think was reprehensible and I criticized the gOP for thinking about it in MT too.

[jravnsbo]

jtf you were general but your analysis was 2000 replayed except NH.

Where else do you see Switches in states from one column to the other?

[jravnsbo]

Well o the states you mention I think Dems have problems for the following reasons-

AZ well Mccain has already said he will have an all out effort to help Bush win and with McCain running for reelection himself that will help Bush.

MO-mentioned bad Dem Gov, plus 2002 wins

OH-everything is run by GOP and been trending that way for some time.

AR- socially conservative state and all Dem have to be moderate to conserv to win.  Toss up one.

[jravnsbo]

U.S. stock close higher on strong economic, retail data
Monday December 1, 4:56 pm ET
By Tomi Kilgore


NEW YORK (CBS.MW) -- U.S. stock indexes surged to new 52-week highs Monday as better-than-expected economic news and strong holiday sales data kept investors in a merry mood.
The Dow (^DJI - News) charged up 117 points, or 1.2 percent, to finish at 9,899, stretching its winning streak to six sessions. This level marks the index's highest close in a year and a half.


http://biz.yahoo.com/cbsm-top/031201/d06c49ce740a454d9a17df305482d47d_1.html

come on 10,000!

[jravnsbo]

DEan and Gephardts and Clarks and Liebermans and Edwwrds and Kerrys TAX INCREASES are not going to be popular anywhere.  Just ask Mondale.

[jravnsbo]

Manufacturing jobs recovering is great news for all Americans!

Come on job numbers.  I'll be anxious to see them Friday.

[jravnsbo]

yeah but it could be strongly argued that tax increases plus wanting national health care beaucracy led to Republican takeover of 1994, and when that happened Clinton moved towards the center and did Welfare reform and other more right issues to win reelection.

[jravnsbo]

Yeah and harmful to use all.

So at least pull the GOP lever down the ballot for balance if you want to save from massive middle class tax increases.


[Raising taxes on the wealthy wouldn't be a big political problem. Dean and Gephardt both want to raise taxes on the middle class, which could be harmful to them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[jravnsbo]

yeah real positive, sought to get deferred in coming into doctor's office for draft; won't release gov's papers, wants gay marriage /civil unions=same thing; wants to repeal all the bush tax cuts-which are tax INCREASES even on the middle class; he got rattled by Matthews and asked him in a reactionary mode; "Well why should workers be allowed to work where they want without joining a union?"  

BAM- you never ask an open ended WHY question you don't know what the answer will be, in any debate style-

Matthews came back because this is America and people should be allowed to work where they want; The liberal leaning Harvard crowd rorared with applause.

Also he wants to break up companies like GE and Fox--while admitting he didn't want to name specific companies the plan is still there and he has publicly said before he wants to reregulate companies and put more restrictions on them.  Yeah that'll spur growth and productivity. (sarcastic)

Yeah real positive if that is the kind of person you want as president and policies of more taxes, more regulation.

[jravnsbo]

No as I said he was peppered on GE and Fox and he backed off from them while acknowledging they could be targeted he said while he didn't want to name any specifically he definately though tthey should be more heavily regulated , on Hardball Monday.

[jravnsbo]

Have to be more specific.  He freaks out all the time on talk shows.  He is beginning to make Dean look Calm.

Anyone see Clark in the last debate freak out?

[jravnsbo]

Anyone see Capitol Report?

The GOP guy was keeping Dean alive and talking about him being nominee and Joe Lockhart for the Dems was running Dean downa nd talking about his electability.

[jravnsbo]

love how the GOP posters post the positive numbers and the Dems post the negative ones.

Balance I guess

[jravnsbo]

Unemployment did drop another .1 to 5.9%; so still going it he right direction.  Just not as fast as expected.

[jravnsbo]

who cares about listing the congressional districts?

[jravnsbo]

I was hoping for a .2 drop, but .1 is still progress.  Still coming along.

Unemployment did drop another .1 to 5.9%; so still going it he right direction.  Just not as fast as expected.

"Not as fast as expected"?!  

FYI - the unemployment rate was expected to be flat and remain at 6.0%, so the 5.9% was BETTER than expected.

[jravnsbo]

I see the 4Q having growth and producing more jobs.

However, i see a lot of jobs being made in 1Q next year.  

[jravnsbo]

AP Poll Finds Bush Getting Good Marks    
1 hour, 24 minutes ago  Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!
 

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Amid rising consumer confidence, President Bush (news - web sites) gets good marks for his handling of the economy from a clear majority of voters for the first time in more than a year, an Associated Press poll finds.


AP Photo
 
   

Many offered only qualified support, however.


The uptick in Bush's rating on an issue certain to be central to the upcoming presidential campaign comes as overall public confidence in the economy is as high as it's been since early 2002, according to the national poll conducted last week for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.


In all, 55 percent of registered voters said they approve of Bush's handling of the economy and 43 percent disapproved, according to the survey. That's Bush's best number on this measure in Ipsos polls since the third quarter of 2002, though he briefly came close to this level — at 52 percent — in July of this year.


A month ago, 46 percent approved and 51 percent disapproved of Bush on the economy.


In the new survey, 23 percent said they strongly approve of Bush's handling of the economy, 19 percent said they somewhat approve, and 13 percent initially reported mixed feelings but leaned toward approval. Bush's strong approval score on the economy has hovered in the 20 percent area in Ipsos polls since sliding in early 2002 from around 30 percent.


Also, the public's overall feelings on the economy have risen steadily over the past few months.


"Confidence has improved sharply since the spring, when we were all worried about the war with Iraq (news - web sites)," said Mark Zandi, chief economist with Economy.com.


The economy, primed by low interest rates and tax cuts, is showing mixed signs of recovery.


There are projections of rapid growth for 2004, signs of an improving job picture and a rebound in the stock market. But the nation has lost more than 2 million jobs, economists are uncertain about the turnaround in employment and states are reeling from revenue losses.


The AP-Ipsos index of consumer attitudes, a composite measure of attitudes about the economy generally and consumers' own personal finances, reached 100 in December.


That is the same level as the baseline number at the start of 2002, when Ipsos' index of consumer attitudes and spending by household, known as the CASH index, was set up. It stayed close to that level through May 2002.


At that time, the economy was starting to bounce back from the shock of the Sept. 11 attacks. In the months before the 2001 attacks, the economy was faltering and other surveys found consumer confidence was, too.


According to the Ipsos consumer index, confidence dipped sharply into the 60s in early 2003 leading up to the Iraq war and rallied in April during the war.


Since October, consumers have grown increasingly optimistic. They are more upbeat about their local economy in the next six months, more comfortable making a major purchase and more confident about their job security, according to the poll.


"There is a general sense that some of the geopolitical uncertainties in the world are abating," Zandi said. "Those concerns are not as much on our minds as a year ago."


Groups that have shifted toward approval of Bush on the economy in the past month in the poll are less-educated women, suburbanites, swing voters and Republicans.

   



Thomas Riehle, Ipsos-Public Affairs president, said improving consumer attitudes are driven largely by optimism about the future of the economy rather than by their current personal finances. Bush's overall job approval rating was 59 percent, boosted by the rising confidence and the capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) more than a week ago.

"I'm optimistic, things are starting to turn around a little bit," said Jan Polendey, a mother of four from Canby, Ore. "Gas prices have gone down a little bit."

While some people are gaining confidence the economy will grow stronger, many are not convinced.

Almost four in 10 respondents, or 37 percent, said they expect their local economy to get stronger in the next six months. But half, 51 percent, said they expect it will stay the same.

[jravnsbo]

An election year rally?
 
History says election years are good for the market. Here's why 2004 will likely prove that.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - People who think the market tends to follow the cycle of the presidency expect good things for 2004.

Not only are the economy and corporate profits expected to keep improving, but interest rates are low and are expected to stay that way for some time and the impact of large tax cuts will keep being felt. Plus, Saddam Hussein's in jail.

 
If history is an example, election years tend to be good for stocks as the party in power does what it can to stay there, including keeping investors happy. But there are exceptions: most recently, in 2000, when the country sat through a presidential nail biter. That year, the Dow lost more than 6 percent.

This time things are different though and analysts say regardless of which party wins, 2004 is promising to be in line with the rule, rather than another exception.

"The focus on the election is going to shift from overseas to domestic issues, and that means the economy," said J. Taylor Brown, vice president of the Hirsch Organization, the publishers of Stock Trader's Almanac. "Particularly when you have an incumbent, you're going to see that administration is paying a great deal of attention to the economy, because the party that is perceived as being most likely to propel economic growth is the party that's going to get elected."

Election year goodies
According to the Stock Trader's Almanac and other measures of presidential election cycle theory, the market trend coincides more often than not with the cycle of the presidency.

The theory says that the first and second year after an election are more uneven for the market as the new administration in power makes tougher decisions on the economy, taxes and other policies. Then the pre-election and election year are usually strong ones for stocks as the administration does everything it can to stimulate the economy enough to keep its party in power for four more years. This tends to be true whether it's an incumbent running for reelection or someone new.

Usually, the pre-election year is the best of the four. The Dow rose in 20 pre-election years of the last 24 election cycles, since Theodore Roosevelt took office in 1905, according to the Almanac.

In the last 24 election cycles, in the year of the election, the Dow gained 16 times.

 
So far, the current presidency seems to fit the trend of two down years for the market, one very strong year and one less strong, but still positive year. In George W. Bush's first two years in office, the Dow lost 7.1 percent and 16.8 percent, respectively, and in the current pre-election year, the Dow is up 23 percent as of late December. Historic trends suggest next year should be good, too.

"Theoretically, the incumbent wants the economic recovery to coincide with the election, but really it's a coincidence that those years tend to be positive," said Ned Riley, chief investment strategist at State Street Global Advisors. "I think it's more that there's a good feeling overall during that year -- everyone is promised the world and no one says anything bad to upset the markets."

Adding to the "coincidental" factor, the first two years of Bush's presidency coincided with the events of September 11, the recession, massive layoffs and the aftermath of the bursting of the stock market bubble of the late 1990s. Considering all these external factors, chances are the stock market would have reacted just as it did regardless of the presidential cycle.

So does it matter?
After surviving a three-year bear market, the major indexes have recovered handily this year, in a rally that started in March as the United States waged its war in Iraq. Year-to-date, as of Thursday's close, the Dow is up nearly 23 percent, the S&P 500 is up nearly 24 percent and the Nasdaq composite is up 46.5 percent. The Dow recently blew through 10,000 for the first time in more than 18 months.

Many analysts say next year is unlikely to be quite as strong for stocks, but they do believe the trend remains to the upside.

The latest economic reports seem to point toward a continued recovery -- U.S. gross domestic product growth surged to a 7.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter and even the labor market is starting to show signs of perking up. Earnings in the third quarter have been robust and are forecast to improve in the fourth quarter and 2004. Interest rates are at more than 40-year lows and are expected to stay that way. Although Democratic candidates have talked about repealing some portion of the Bush Administration's tax cuts should they win, that can't happen until 2005 at the earliest.

So while many analysts say next year's rally won't be as robust as that of 2003, with the same factors in place that spurred this year's bull market, 2004 has the potential to be reasonably upbeat, election year or not.  
 

 

[jravnsbo]

New Jobless Claims at Lowest Level in Three Years
 
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
 
WASHINGTON  — New claims for jobless benefits fell last week to the lowest level since President Bush took office in January 2001, a sign that America's businesses are feeling more confident that the economic recovery is genuine.

 
 
The Labor Department (search) reported Wednesday that new applications filed for unemployment insurance dropped by a seasonally adjusted 15,000 to 339,000 for the week ending Dec. 27. Last week's drop marked the third week in a row that claims went down and left claims at their lowest level since Jan. 20, 2001 — Bush's inauguration day.

The latest snapshot of the labor market suggested that businesses may be feeling less inclined to hand out pink slips to workers as the economy shows signs of gaining traction.

The report was better than economists were expecting. They were forecasting a smaller decline that would have pushed claims down to a level of around 350,000.

Claims have been below 400,000 for 13 consecutive weeks, something economists view as a sign that the fragile labor market may be turning a crucial corner.

The more stable four-week moving average of claims, which smooths out week to week fluctuations, decreased last week by 6,500 to 355,750, the lowest level since Feb. 10, 2001.

New claims hit a high this year of 459,000 in the middle of April and have slowly declined, a development cited by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan (search) and other economists who say the pace of layoffs is stabilizing.

The labor market has displayed other signs of improvement in recent months. The nation's unemployment rate currently stands at 5.9 percent — down from a high this summer of 6.4 percent.

But job growth has been slow.

Since Bush took office, the economy has lost 2.3 million jobs, a development that Democrats hope to use against the president as he seeks re-election in 2004. The Bush administration contends that stronger economic growth will eventually lead to more meaningful job creation on a sustained basis.

The uncertain job climate is on Americans' minds.

Consumer confidence dipped in December amid anxiety about the job market, the Conference Board (search) reported Tuesday. The board's consumer confidence index slipped to 91.3 in December, following a surge in November to a revised figure of 92.5, its highest level in more than a year.

Economists believe the labor market will be the last part of the economy to recover even as the economy expands solidly.

The economy grew at a breakneck 8.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the best performance in nearly two decades. Analysts believe the economy slowed to a rate in the range of around 4 percent or 5 percent in the current quarter, which would still mark a solid showing.

Wednesday's report also showed that the number of unemployed people collecting jobless benefits for more than a week rose by 81,000 to 3.3 million for the week ending Dec. 20, the most recent period for which that information is available. This suggests that jobs are still hard to find for some workers.

Economists believe that as companies' profits improve they will feel even more comfortable about ramping up investment and hiring new people, two crucial ingredients to the recovery's staying power.
 

[jravnsbo]

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.

[jravnsbo]

Well for one thing the market always goes up during an election year.  which makes sense as with all te spending going on by both parties and others.