2004 Democratic Primary

[jaichind]

Heck, United Russia did not even take part in the debates.  But because of so much pro-United Russia propaganda on TV, most Russians polled thought that United Russia won the debates.  An amazing feat given they were not even there.  The Communists claim election fraud which I am sure is true.  In Chechnya, the United Russia candidate took 95%+ of the vote with 90%+ turnout.  Sounds really fishy.  

[M]

What is Rodina's platform? Are they pro democracy, and are they for or against Putin?

[jaichind]

Rodina is a party hatched up by Putin's gang months before the election headed up by an ex-Communist.  Its purpose was to take votes away from the Communist.  Its platform is radical leftist nationalist.  It is suppose to be pro-Putin although during the election it kept is distance as to play the role of capturing protest votes.  It did much better than expected in the electin.  Some say that Putin created a Frankenstien as Rodina now has enough seats to have its own seperate role and not have be slavishly pro-Putin.  I doubt it.  It will vote with Putin's gang as needed and can be counted on for the 2/3 majority Putin needs to enact constitutional changes to make him de facto President for life.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Rodina are a lure to get people who would normally vote KPRF to vote for a Pro-Kremlin party.

BTW the turnout was 30%
Even you Americans can look at that with disgust!

[jaichind]

The official reported turnout was just below 50%.  If it had fallen below 25% the election would have been invalid.  Also about 6% vote for "Againist All."  Of course these numbers are being disputed by the Communists who are doing their own recount.  

In a bizzare alliance of strange bedfellows, the Communists also are sticking up for both the Neo-liberal Yablabo and Pro-business Union of Rightist Forces.  Both parties failed to clear 5% to get into the Duma under PR.  The Communist recount have both of them about 5% and they are demanding that the two parties should be given seats that they deserve.  The Communist recount has United Russia at 31% instead of 37% of the vote.

[Beet]

Districting is really terrible. They should have proportional representatoin on the state for congress level and sequential run-off on the state for president level.

[DarthKosh]

Districting is really terrible. They should have proportional representatoin on the state for congress level and sequential run-off on the state for president level.

It's fine the way it is.

[Beet]

Under the current plurality system of determining a state's electors, you could have a candidate carry all of a state's electoral votes with only a third of it's popular vote. Thus if Perot won 33% in Montana in 1992, Bush H.W. won 33%-1, and Clinton won 33%+1, the whole state goes for Clinton even though 67%-1 voted against him! Surely there is something undemocratic about that.

Similarly, districting has made about 90% of Congressional seats uncompetitive.

[DarthKosh]

Under the current plurality system of determining a state's electors, you could have a candidate carry all of a state's electoral votes with only a third of it's popular vote. Thus if Perot won 33% in Montana in 1992, Bush H.W. won 33%-1, and Clinton won 33%+1, the whole state goes for Clinton even though 67%-1 voted against him! Surely there is something undemocratic about that.

Similarly, districting has made about 90% of Congressional seats uncompetitive.

So?

[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?!

[Kevinstat]

Hey, I like Hugh Grant.  "Four Weddings and a Funeral" is my favorite Romantic Comedy.  His movies since then that I've seen haven't been as good, but they're still enjoyable, although "Mickey Blue Eyes" was kind of stupid.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Weekly Leading Index Rises  
12/19/2003  
NEW YORK, Dec 19 (Reuters) - The U.S. economy should ring in the new year with strong growth that should last at least through the next few quarters, a research group said on Friday.
The Economic Cycle Research Institute, an independent forecasting group, said its leading index rose to 131.2, near its 2003 high of 131.7, in the week ended Dec. 12, from 129.9 the preceding week.

The growth rate, which has remained strong for the past six months between 11.3 percent and 13.3 percent, slipped a touch to 11.4 percent from 11.7 percent. The drop suggests a moderating trend in the recovery, but the ECRI analyst who conducted the survey stressed growth will remain steady.

"It is going to be a prosperous New Year," said Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of ECRI.

"For the next few quarters, we'll be coasting along," he said.

The growth rate for the index is an annualized rate for the four week moving average of the index that evens out weekly fluctuations.
 
http://businesscycle.com/showstory.php?storyID=603

----

Mid-Atlantic factories power ahead
 
Philly Fed says regional manufacturing activity soared to 32.1 in Dec. from 25.9 in prior month.
 
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Manufacturing in the U.S. mid-Atlantic region surged powerfully and unexpectedly in December as new orders jumped to a 23-year high, in one of the clearest signs yet that factories have emerged from a two-year slump.

New orders, a harbinger of future growth, surged 21 points to 41.8 in December from 20.8 in November, while employment, which has so far lagged the recovery in production, showed its first solid rise, soaring to 21.9 from 3.3 last month.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/18/news/economy/philly_fed.reut/index.htm

---

Industrial output surges
 
Federal Reserve says November production at factories, mines and utilities stronger than expected.

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Production from the nation's factories, mines and utilities rose at a faster pace in November, the Federal Reserve said Friday, beating Wall Street expectations.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/16/news/economy/industrial/index.htm

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

O.K... he isn't that bad... but does he have to play himself all the time???(although he does it very well)

[Michael Z]

Vladimir Zhiranovsky is truely a frightening prospect. Imagine him with his finger on the button?!

Wow, that is a frightening thought. He makes Kim Jong-Il look like the Pope.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

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.

We're cool.

But, notice how JNB has repeatedly refused to give an estimate on the current quarter (2003Q4).  LOL!  He loves to spout doom and gloom about the future, but he is unable to acknowledge current conditions.

Instead of saying, "Yeah, Q3 was excellent and Q4 is going to good, but...", he just can NOT bring himself to allow a single ray of sunshine to pass through his lips.

Sad.

[jaichind]

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.

[jravnsbo]

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

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

[7,052,770]

Well i know here in MS, there's no way our US representatives are ever gonna change until one of them retires, as gerrymandering has made them invincible.  I guess it can be good and bad in different ways.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Yes but Russia does not have the right to go around conquering countries it used to own 100 years ago.
Imperialism is Imperialism(and no. All Slavs are not Russians)

[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!).

[Michael Z]

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.

You're totally right of course. I now declare that France, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Russia, India, China, Japan, Australia, Canada, the USA, Mexico and Brazil all belong to the United Kingdom. I will think of some half-baked "historic" reason, then start a war and kill millions of people to achieve my goal.

After all, there's nothing wrong with a little bit of imperialistic zeal, is there?

[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.