Since my revealation that George W. Bush will win the 2004 Presidential election, I've already received a number of emails from fans, would be rivals (I suffer no rivals!), sycophants & toadies, friends and enemies, all around. The reaction to my Oracle has been surprisingly muted. I have received a number of emails where people have offered other visions as to what the future holds, politically, for the American Presidency in 2004. However, I have not received one single email from any partisans saying words to the effect that, "You are a liar! Kerry will trounce Bush!" or "Well of course you dumb a&$!@. President Bush is going to win the election! What planet do you live on?"
With that said, I will go into a multi - part analysis over how the Palantir revealed this Oracle to me. Tonight, I will start with making the case for a George Bush victory.
The case for a George W. Bush victory: 1) One of the greatest weapons that a sitting politican holding any office has is that they control the current spoils. De facto, that fact makes any challenger's job that much more difficult, but it's not impossible.
Historically, sitting Presidents running for a second term are tough to overthrow. Going back to the days of Woodrow Wilson, incumbent Presidents have an (I believe - I'm trying to recall this off the top of my head) 10 - 3 win / loss record when it comes to actively seeking reelection. The losers were Bush the elder, Jimmy Carter, and Herbert Hoover. All of these men presided over an America that was experiencing economic difficulties of varying degrees. Which leads me to topic number 2...
2) "It's the economy, Stupid!" What about Bush and the economy? Even though an American President has far less control over the course of the American economy than many people think, the fact of the matter is that it is largely a given in the political science literature that the higher up the political ladder you are, the more the state of the economy matters in what is to become of your political fortunes, whether you have any control over the economy or not.
This sad (and somewhat unjust - but who's talking about justice here?) state of affairs is especially true in American presidential politics. In fact, a former political science professor of mine at the University of Houston, Christopher Wlezien, made his academic name in developing models that try to predict the outcome of U.S. Presidential elections strictly on the basis of economic outcomes and how those outcomes influence how people vote.
Well, it's no secret that the economy has not done brilliantly in the past 40 months since the Supreme Court handed Bush the White House - I mean since Bush was elected in November 2000. America is a Republic, right? Tell me it is - PLEASE! My hands are shaking here! Pass me a drink!
Much has been made by the intellectual classes, such as Paul Krugman, of the rising tide of deficits and what they will mean for America's economic future. I am of the firm belief that deficits will be a non - issue in this election. My view of the 1981 - 1995 Reagan, Bush the elder, and early Clinton deficits was that they were ignored by the political classes, except by a group of Republican senators, until Ross Perot MADE them matter politically in 1992 by winning 20 million votes (19 percent of the turnout). Deficits will not matter again until an economic crisis is caused by massive borrowing. This crisis would probably take the form of massively higher interest rates, unwillingness of foreigners to continue to underwrite American debt, or the fact that imports (including one import called Petroleum) become so prohibitively expensive (when they are paid for in U.S dollars that is) that people begin to take political action. Until then, nothing will be done about them. Mr. Perot, you might be an eccentric - do remember that Mr. Perot is rich - but we need you again.
Much has been made of poor (or non - existent) job growth during Bush's tenure. However, it's one thing to say that "the economy is a complete disaster," but it is another thing to see what the economic situation is really like. Currently, the official unemployment rate has been hovering at around 5.6 - 6 percent range for the last year or so. Moreover, the job reports of late seem to be holding steady or picking up.
Of course purists are going to scream and wail about how the official unemployment rate doesn't count discouraged workers, the part timers, and so on. But what is important is that the unemployment rate has not gotten entirely out of control - politically speaking. Yes, the unemployment rate was at 4 percent during the latter half of the 1990's, but it is not as though the unemployment rate has slid to - say - the 8 to 11 percent range. That would a clear signal to many that the country is in a serious economic slump and one which would provoke people into thinking about making a change in political leadership.
In a similar vein, the stock markets (and broader financial markets) have not cratered, although the bubble which they were in has partially popped. The broader picture that emerges is that, no, most Americans are not any better off than they were 4 years ago, but they aren't any worse off either.
So, what does the economic situation say for the fortunes of Mr. Bush? My reading of these matters is that the people who voted for Bush in 2000 are going to vote for Bush again and that the people who voted against Bush in 2000 are going to vote against him again. Broadly speaking, barring a significant movement either way over the next few months (which could very well happen), economic issues will probably end up being a neutral factor in the 2004 elections, with enough positives for enough voters canceling out the negatives suffered by other voters.
Tomorrow, more on the fortunes of Bush. This will be followed by my analysis of Kerry and perhaps Ralph Nader.
Posted by The Mighty Wizard at April 28, 2004 11:25 PM