2004 Democratic Primary

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Former NDP leader(1975-89) Ed Broadbent has announced that he is returning to federal politics.

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

U.S. GDP growth unrevised
 
Economy grew at 8.2% rate in third quarter, unrevised from previous report, fastest in 20 years.
 
http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/23/news/economy/gdp.reut/index.htm

[WONK]

Doesn't matter. Prez has very little, if anything to do with economy.  This is another favorite of the Dems, where if they repeat something over and over ("Bush lost x number of jobs") it will become truth to the ill-informed 1/3 of our population known as "liberals".  Maybe someone could explain to me how it is that George W. Bush lost anyone their job?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The results!

EDIN  37.6%   222 seats
KPRF  12.6%     51 seats
LDPR  11.5%     36 seats
R-NPS 09.0%     37 seats
Yab.    04.3%      4 seats
SPS     04.0%      3 seats
APR     03.6%      3 seats
NPRF   01.2%    16 seats
Ind.        -          67 seats
Oth.    16.2%    11 seats

[© tweed]

The results!

EDIN  37.6%   222 seats
KPRF  12.6%     51 seats
LDPR  11.5%     36 seats
R-NPS 09.0%     37 seats
Yab.    04.3%      4 seats
SPS     04.0%      3 seats
APR     03.6%      3 seats
NPRF   01.2%    16 seats
Ind.        -          67 seats
Oth.    16.2%    11 seats

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[© tweed]

Hugh Grant is very good.  I liked Nine Months. and About a Boy.  That kid Marcus was great also....

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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

[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!!!???

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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.

[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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

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.

[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.  

[© tweed]

I would rather have Putin in charge than the leftover Soviets.  So I guess I agree with Don.  We can't afford to let that part of the world turn back to communism.

[Michael Z]

I think it will be a long time be for Blair is Re-placed.

I shouldn't be so certain. Saddam's capture has definitely lifted a weight off Blair's shoulders, but he is still facing rancour from within the Labour Party over tuition fees and the part-privatisation of hospitals.

In a recent survey 45% of those asked believe Blair will not be Prime Minister in twelve months' time.

[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??

[Michael Z]

In a recent survey 45% of those asked believe Blair will not be Prime Minister in twelve months' time.

But that means that 55% OF THOSE asked believe Blair will be PM in Twelve Months time.

Doesn't matter. 45% is still a high number.

[afleitch]

Gordon Brown is odds on to succeed Blair, simple as that. Its a job he has been groomed for since the 80's under Neil Kinnock. Blair is still the most consistently popular PM since polling began, and Brown has name recognition. I can see circumstances with  Blair being in power until 2011/12 if he wins his third term and spends out its duration. If this is the case, then it does start to become more unlikely that Brown will be the next leader, or indeed that any of the present front bench will be. The following is a list of names to look out for in this case.

Alan Milburn- former health minister, resigned due to family and personal reasons. Could still be tempted.

Estelle Morris- former education minister, resigned because she felt she was not up to the job. A rare example of an honest politician.

Yvette Cooper- A 'Blair Babe'

David Lammy- Youngest sitting MP. Blairite and Black.

Stephen Twigg- Gay. Bet Portillo in Enfield Southgate in 1997

[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.

[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.

[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.

[© tweed]

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.

Didn't it go down in 2000?

[RhodeRage]

Martin is going to win in 2004, but he'll crash and burn as nothing but an echo of the Cretien legacy (sorry for the spelling of his name, but I never get it right and i've stopped trying).

My predictions is that a dark horse emerges from the new Conservative party and wins 4-5 years down the line when Martin is forced to call an election.  ANy ideas who?

[© tweed]

Martin is going to win in 2004, but he'll crash and burn as nothing but an echo of the Cretien legacy (sorry for the spelling of his name, but I never get it right and i've stopped trying).

Agreed.

C-H-R-E-T-I-E-N

[RhodeRage]

CHRETIEN...got it....

nah, that's not gonna stuck.  The one good thing about AMerican politics is that I can spell the candidate's names easier ;-)

Je ne parl pa!