Is Michigan really in play? It would seem that given the current popular governor, and the fact that approzimately a half million Arab-American votes should swing from Bush to whomever his opponent is, Bush's chances of carrying Michigan are roughly equivalent to the Democrat's chances of carrying Arkansas or Lousiana (i.e., Bush would in a Dukakis-sized landslide, but short of that, not so much). This would be especially true if a moderately gun-friendly candidate like Dean or Clark wins the nomination.

Just based on pure demographics, this hurts Bush. Ohio is a state that Bush simply must carry to win, and it hurts him there. Even West Virginia is a significant loss--it's essentially halfway to a Democratic victory.

Political watchers can also note from this story that Democratic candidates Dean, Clark, and Gephardt (of course) all cricitized lifting the tariffs.

Of course, perhaps part of that is political posturing, but it's still significant.

President George W. Bush must be taken to task for protecting the steel industry from foreign competition. This may have been the greatest mistake of his administration. However, its reversal will have little impact upon his reelection chances. Let’s get this straight: President Bush will probably be reelected by a minimum of six percentage points. The Democrats must therefore rely on a foreign policy disaster, a completely unexpected economic downturn---or somebody must locate a picture of Bush having sex with a farm animal! The election is Bush’s to lose.

I just want to know. Why is it good to be multilateral when the issue is Iraq, Kyoto, or making Israel do something, but its bad to accede to the rulings of international bodies,when the issue is steel tariffs? Could either Dean or Gephardt explain that for me?

Now if the WTO could rule against US porkbarrel spending...

Lifting the tariffs was the right thing to do for a number of reasons, but as noted above, this is going to hurt him more than it will help him. I do hope that this signifies a shift towards a more multilateral foreign policy, but I'm afraid it's probably simply bowing to political reality, and most people realize this.

In response to David above, I would disagree that barring a "foreign policy disaster", the election is Bush's to lose. The fact is, Bush's approval ratings have invariably trended downward ever since a few months after he took office. In fact, the only major surges in his approval took place /after/ major events affecting the country, such as 9/11 and the Iraq war. This downward slide in approval is so consistent over the last three years that it clearly implies Bush's job approval and re-election prospects are helped only by crises and major news-making events, whereas the more people watch the day-to-day governance of the country, the less they like where it's heading.

Unless there is a major shift in policy, an unexpected magical resolution in the ME, or another catastrophe befalling the country, this does not bode well for Bush's re-election prospects.

Just realized I forgot to include links to evidence to back up my assertions. This graph is a compilation of Bush's approval ratings as reported by fourteen major national polls (Zogby, CNN, Ipsos-Reid, Fox, etc) and does pretty well at covering the whole spectrum of potential bias.

The results are pretty much all over the place for the first few months of his presidency, with a slight but noticeable downward trend--up until 9/11, at which point Bush takes a tremendous spike in popularity as the country rallies around him.

But despite this surge in support, the downward trend not only continues, but actually becomes steeper and steadier. It continues in a freefall slide until just before the invasion of Iraq, takes another big spike when our troops rolled in, and then immediately starts to plummet again--even more sharply.

I often distrust statistics on general principle, but given the broad spectrum of polls and sampling information, the data paints an /extremely/ compelling argument against Bush's re-election prospects.

Catsy-- interesting graph. I'm not sure that the initial trend is significant; those early pre 9/11 polls don't have a strong trend to me.

Thus, I'm pretty sure that the hypothesis "Bush has a natural support rate of right around 50%, which is sometimes temporarily inflated by crises" shouldn't be rejected quite yet. I think that's there's ample reason to expect the race to be close, but other than that, the jury's still out.

It matters little what the past polling shows concerning President Bush’s approval ratings. The economy is on the rebound and I strongly believe that the Iraqi situation will look much better by March. Thus, the President should comfortably win the next election. There is also another point to consider: his Democrat opponents are a bunch of losers! Does anyone, other than a liberal ideologue, take them seriously? The Bill Clinton of 1992 is far too conservative to win this time around. Folks like Brad DeLong, James Fallows, and Appalled Moderate will have to endure a long dark night of the soul. The New Democrats are no longer welcome within the Democrat Party.

Thus, I'm pretty sure that the hypothesis "Bush has a natural support rate of right around 50%, which is sometimes temporarily inflated by crises" shouldn't be rejected quite yet.

This is certainly still a valid theory. But given that it's started to dip below 50% (as indicated by the Gallup and Zogby polls, arguably the more reliable and median of the set), I'd argue that we have yet to see the bottom.

The NAES shows Bush gaining a slight bump in the polls following his Thanksgiving layover in Baghdad, although the approval rating contradicts their other poll results, and their methodology is a bit suspect. I'm waiting to see whether the other national polls give him a similar bump, but I don't think it'll be germane to the overall trend.

Whoops. Sorry for the unclosed link.

It matters little what the past polling shows concerning President Bush’s approval ratings.

On the contrary, it matters quite a bit. I believe it strongly suggests that the longer the public watches Bush govern the country on day-to-day matters, the less they approve of the job he's doing. While an upswing in the GDP will certainly help slow the free-fall, I don't think it will stop it.

I could be wrong on this, as John points out an alternative interpretation of the data. But given that the only positive trends in Bush's approval rating have been due to major news events like 9/11 and Iraq, I feel fairly comfortable with my observations.

There is also another point to consider: his Democrat opponents are a bunch of losers! Does anyone, other than a liberal ideologue, take them seriously?

If this was anything other than a rhetorical question, then the answer is most certainly yes. Clark has support from both sides of the aisle, and Dean's supporters include quite a few people (some of whom I know personally) who voted for Bush in 2000 but are unhappy with his dramatic departure from conservative fiscal and foreign policies.

The Bill Clinton of 1992 is far too conservative to win this time around. Folks like Brad DeLong, James Fallows, and Appalled Moderate will have to endure a long dark night of the soul. The New Democrats are no longer welcome within the Democrat Party.

Could you please explain to me what you were trying to convey by any of that? It strikes me as hyperbole almost entirely devoid of content.

OK, I was actually tracking with you, catsy, much as I would be prone not to, until your 'Clark Support' thing.

You are apparently out of your mind. Clark has support from whom again?

“Could you please explain to me what you were trying to convey by any of that? It strikes me as hyperbole almost entirely devoid of content.”

Did you fail to read John Thacker’s earlier post?

“Political watchers can also note from this story that Democratic candidates Dean, Clark, and Gephardt (of course) all cricitized lifting the tariffs.”

The Democrat Party is now committed to protectionist measures. This is not the economic platform the Bill Clinton of 1992 ran on. Have we already forgotten NAFTA? I realize that Brad DeLong is something of a Democrat ideologue. Nonetheless, he is for free trade!

Tommy: OK, I was actually tracking with you, catsy, much as I would be prone not to, until your 'Clark Support' thing.

You are apparently out of your mind. Clark has support from whom again?

For one, he's putting up a strong showing in South Carolina, although Edwards has been making good headway on him. That's an important state to carry for him. He also commands respect from many self-identified conservatives and a sizable portion of veterans because of his record, and it gives him uniquely strong credentials on foreign policy.

Personally, I don't want to see Clark as the nominee. I think he'd be a strong SecDef, possibly even a running mate for Dean, but he simply doesn't have enough good ideas on domestic issues for me to support him for the presidency. But that doesn't mean I'm blind to the support he /does/ have.

Did you fail to read John Thacker’s earlier post?

No, I simply failed to understand its relevance to what you were saying due to your hyperbolic choice of words.

The Democrat Party is now committed to protectionist measures. This is not the economic platform the Bill Clinton of 1992 ran on. Have we already forgotten NAFTA? I realize that Brad DeLong is something of a Democrat ideologue. Nonetheless, he is for free trade!

I'd hardly categorize these opportunistic statements by these three as meaning the Democratic /Party/ is committed to protectionist measures. That's a pretty big stretch, and it completely logically contradicts the point you seem to have been trying to make--that these three are no longer "welcome" in the Democratic Party.

Personally, I disagree with what they said, and I've written their campaigns to tell them so. But I think you'll find that if any of them take office, this talk of protectionism will vanish into thin air. None of them will be willing to risk putting themselves in the same position Bush did: putting tariffs in place to pander to a narrow demographic, only to risk serious backlash from the WTO.

There is a danger of relying on these opinion polls too strongly when arguing about whether or not Bush will be re-elected. A useful comparison would be to look at past presidents' approval ratings at this point in their terms. I heard somewhere (please support or refute this point if you have solid data either way) that Bush compares favorable to many two term presidents when viewed in this way.
I must admit that I view Bush as a lock for next year's election, barring unforseen catastrophe or miracle, depending on your side of the aisle. I agree with D.T. in the premise that the democrats are virtually unelectable. It is undisputed that both parties have their strong bases of support and that the war in Iraq has re-aligned the political spectrum on many levels. However, I think the all important swing votes will move towards Bush because of the democratic candidates have had to take strong, public stances to the left of mainstream America.

“Personally, I disagree with what they said, and I've written their campaigns to tell them so. But I think you'll find that if any of them take office, this talk of protectionism will vanish into thin air. “

Are you truly implying that these candidates might be deceiving the American public? I think you need to reread your comments. Are essentially saying that we should expect the Democrat candidates to lie during a campaign---and do something entirely different after the election? And I thought I was a cynic!

It doesn't swing many votes in Michigan.

Are you truly implying that these candidates might be deceiving the American public? I think you need to reread your comments. Are essentially saying that we should expect the Democrat candidates to lie during a campaign---and do something entirely different after the election? And I thought I was a cynic!

No, I'm quite aware of what I said, thank you. I'm saying that if Dean and the others are saying they are in favor of illegal tariffs and plan on implementing them, then they are lying and playing politics, because none of them would be /stupid/ enough to do the same thing Bush did and risk the same kind of backlash.

However, I don't think that's the kind of statement they're making. As an example, here's a link to Dean's positions on free trade, with some quotes in his own words.

I'm completely willing to admit that Democrats often spin complete bullshit out of whole cloth when they think people want them to take a particular position, or it makes them look good vis-a-vis their opponent.

Are you willing to concede the same basic truth about the GOP? If you are, then we're both honest enough to continue this.

Robert: There is a danger of relying on these opinion polls too strongly when arguing about whether or not Bush will be re-elected. A useful comparison would be to look at past presidents' approval ratings at this point in their terms. I heard somewhere (please support or refute this point if you have solid data either way) that Bush compares favorable to many two term presidents when viewed in this way.

Here's a similar graph with even more detail, showing the averaged approval ratings of every president in recent history.

It's difficult to draw too many specific parallels between these and Bush's downward trend, since the two-term presidents with sharp downward trends in popularity (Nixon, LBJ) had Vietnam and severe civil unrest at home to deal with, not to mention Watergate--this makes the data a bit difficult to apply here, unless you want to draw uncomfortable Vietnam/Iraq comparisons.

So let's look at two others: Reagan and Clinton, in 1983 and 1995, respectively.

In the first few years of his first term, Reagan was in a free-fall much like Bush's, which bottomed out at a bit above 50%, and continued to waver between 50-60% in '82. Throughout 1983, however, Reagan was running an incredibly strong upward trend in popularity. 1983 was a pretty quiet year aside from our airstrikes in Lebanon, and the Democratic candidates in the '84 election were absolutely laughable. His approval ratings, which started the year low, were constantly on the upsurge, and this continued throughout '84 to carry Reagan to one of the biggest landslides in electoral history.

Clinton's early presidency was a roller coaster of up and down--a series of very controversial and unpopular decisions early on killed him in the polls during the first half of '93, only to see a complementary upswing. '94 was a terrible year for him, and for good reasons. Clinton in late 1995 was an embattled president, though not so much as he would become. The GOP congress was taking a hard stance on Clinton's budget, and Clinton was threatening to veto anything which included provisions or cuts he didn't like, forcing a stalemate that shut down the functioning of the legislature for several months. Despite this, his approval rating looked very similar to Reagan's in his pre-election year--and despite a /huge/ hit he took during the budget crisis, his approval returned to that steady upward trend throughout '96, and continued to do so even through the Lewinsky scandal.

Contrast this with Bush's absolutely consistent (aside from the popularity spikes that accompanied 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war) downward trend throughout the last two and a half years, and there's simply no comparison to either Reagan or Clinton.

If someone has data to suggest a different interpretation, I'm open to it.

I think it's pretty clear that Dean, like many others in the Democratic field, has been sliding towards protectionism to win favor in the Democratic primary. His rhetoric has taken a definite pro-protection turn. I also think it's fairly close to ridiculous at least in the case of Gephardt to say that he wouldn't actually favor tariffs and oppose free trade, considering that he tried to kill NAFTA and nearly every other free trade bill.

In any case, "playing politics" can come back to affect people's actual position.

I guarantee, Catsby, that Candidate Bush's statements were at least as pro-free trade as Dean's. But he's "played politics" just like Dean is "playing politics" with his comments right now.

Now, there is a decent argument to be made that a Democratic President can afford to upset the unions and others by being pro-free trade and get hurt less politically than a Republican, so perhaps that could come into play.

I guarantee, Catsby, that Candidate Bush's statements were at least as pro-free trade as Dean's. But he's "played politics" just like Dean is "playing politics" with his comments right now.

Now, there is a decent argument to be made that a Democratic President can afford to upset the unions and others by being pro-free trade and get hurt less politically than a Republican, so perhaps that could come into play.

This is a valid point, but I think the Internet and its ease of archival and retrieval has decreased the degree to which politicians can dissemble like this without getting called on it. Plus, the nature of Dean's campaign structure is such that if he pulled bullshit of this caliber--doing such a dramatic about-face on an issue for which Bush had already been zinged hard--a lot of his support base would walk, or at the very least make themselves very noisy.

Catsy wrote: "Contrast this with Bush's absolutely consistent (aside from the popularity spikes that accompanied 9/11 and the start of the Iraq war) downward trend throughout the last two and a half years, and there's simply no comparison to either Reagan or Clinton."

I don't get where you see Bush's absolutely consistent downward trend. Pre-9/11, he polled in the low to mid-50's. Currently, he polls in the low to mid-50's. Given the 3+% error margin in these polls, his approval seems to be little changed. The consistent downward trend is a result of crisis spikes, not a long-trend outlook.

Five other comments:

1. We are a long way from November 2004. I ain't predicting anything this far out.
2. These polling data come from the general population, not voters. Predicting election results from them is hazardous.
3. Elections differ from the Presidential rating poll in that the former is comparative. A person may not approve of Bush, but also not like the opponent better. Those people stay home on election day.
4. The significant thing that has changed in the polls is the number of people registering disapproval of Bush. Also, the number of "no opinion" votes is astonishingly low. This suggests that the number of fence-sitters is low, the electorate polarized, and little movement is to be had, except in voter turnout.
5. The best election predictor is the perception of the state of the economy. However, Bush's approval is not tracking the improving economy. Is there a lag or is Iraq/war on terror simply a more significant factor?

The tariffs were bad political strategy from day one. Their entire purpose was to somehow pacify or buy support from the unions. They failed, utterly and predictably, to do this - the unions are anti-Republican and will never change. Their opposition to Bush was not reduced one iota by the tariffs, and Bush's chances in Pennsylvania and other steel/union states were not affected one iota either. It was stupid of Karl Rove to believe otherwise.

Just as instituting the tariffs did not change the electoral equation, repealing them will likewise not change the electoral equation one bit.

BTW, gang, Bush's approval ratings are over 60% these days, following good economic news and the Thanksgiving news cycle.

Bush's job approval was at 61 percent in the National Annenberg Election Survey conducted the four days after the holiday, up from 56 percent during the four days before Thanksgiving. Disapproval of the president dropped from 41 percent to 36 percent, according to the poll released Tuesday.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/12/02/national1730EST0659.DTL

Sadly, this development probably junks about 80% of the posts in this thread. Even more sadly, the posters nattering on about Bush's low approval seem to be filtering information that doesn't fit their thesis.

Catsy writes to Thompson:

"Could you please explain to me what you were trying to convey by any of that? It strikes me as hyperbole almost entirely devoid of content."

I am increasingly feeling like this comments section needs a warning label. something like, "Comments by David Thompson are entirely ideological and do not reflect anything other than partisan kneejerk reactions"

I hate to get all personal here, and if I were a better person I would just ignore it, but I am cranky this morning so I am going to call him on this. To say that Bush is going to win this election in a walk is just silly. It might happen, but it is far from a foregone conclusion. This is based on things getting a lot better in Iraq in 3-4 months? We have been there for almost 8 months now, there is limited progress towards our end goal of establishing a democratic government, so why the optimism. I actually hope that you are right, but I see no evidence that you are.

Or is Bush going to win because the economy is turning around? I sure hope it is turning around, after all we had a huge amount of tax cuts pumping money into the economy. The question is what next? How are we going to get our spending at least close to in line with revenues? There are many ways this can be done, but which will Bush choose? If he doesn't make the choice his economic recovery will not be a huge campaign strength. If he does make a choice it is bound to piss off some people.

If I were betting, I still would not put money against Bush unless I was getting good odds, but to say that he doesn't have a minefield to walk through in the next 11 months is naive.

And finally there are a whole host of other things that could blow up in the President's face. From what actually went on behind closed doors in Cheney's Energy Task Force to which politico in the Bush administration released Valerie Plame's identity to Novak. The Bush Administration has skeletons in the closet, they may not be substantive issues, but they could cause significant political damage.

"Comments by David Thompson are entirely ideological and do not reflect anything other than partisan kneejerk reactions"

Oh wow, I guess I’m not the one who has adamantly criticized President Bush for the earlier steel protectionist measures and still existing silly illegal drug policies? Moreover, who praised Bill Clinton for possessing more courage than the current President regarding free trade?

“And finally there are a whole host of other things that could blow up in the President's face. From what actually went on behind closed doors in Cheney's Energy Task Force to which politico in the Bush administration released Valerie Plame's identity to Novak. “

Only the far left crazies even dwell upon “what actually went on behind closed doors in Cheney's Energy Task Force.” The vast majority of Americans do not even recognize this as an issue. It makes perfect sense for the Vice President to ask the energy professionals to assist him in further understanding the energy sector. As for Valerie Plame: you must be kidding? Republicans can only hope that Democrats try to bring up this make believe “scandal” in 2004.

Would I, like Terry McAuliffe, allow my political inclinations to cloud my judgment on the likely presidential election results of 2004? Nope, I still have my pride. I don’t wish to be embarrassed by being proven wrong. After all, I’m sure you would remind me of my mistaken prediction. Eating crow is bad for the digestive system!

Rich,
I agree with the DT comments (nuff said). However, I have a few quibbles with your post. For one thing, have you seen the photos of glam-rockers Wilson and Plame in Vanity Fair? That non-issue is now effectively dead. Move on. Secondly, Cheney's task force...who gives a crap? The Energy bill is so larded, and by so many different porkers (mostly in the House) that I doubt more than 5 people would even read a list of Cheney's "contacts" should it be published tomorrow on the White House webpage. I'm not saying I don't care that he covers his tracks (he's a sneaky b**tard and I'd like to see him replaced next year, fat chance), or that he isn't in the pocket of big energy (duh!), it's just so ancient history.

To swing this back to the original post about big steel being miffed, I have a few thoughts. First, the union workers weren't going to vote for Bush, even if he served them turkey dinner in the commissary. The big bosses may gripe, but they've probably given some agreement to toe the line (maybe by not supporting Gephardt in his hour of need? who knows). More to the point, the consequences of letting the tariffs stand would have been astronomical--that WOULD have cost him the election.

I actually think (and I'm no David Thompson) that Bush imposing the tariffs in the first place, and removing them when they met stiff resistance abroad, will help him next year by demonstrating flexibility regarding free trade. Flexibility that is, as others have pointed out, sorely lacking in the leading Dem. candidates. Die hard freetraders like Dan balked at the tariffs (and made some good points) but they don't win elections. Die hard anti-freetraders, on the other hand, are more populist but alienate much of the moneyed elite. Bush came down in the middle somewhere, but closer to the former than the latter (much moreso than any of his rivals). That will stand him in good stead next year.

"Comments by David Thompson.."

"and I'm no David Thompson"

It's David Thomson, not Thompson. My mommy is very upset---and you don't want to get her angry. She is even meaner than me!

BTW, gang, Bush's approval ratings are over 60% these days, following good economic news and the Thanksgiving news cycle.

Sadly, this development probably junks about 80% of the posts in this thread. Even more sadly, the posters nattering on about Bush's low approval seem to be filtering information that doesn't fit their thesis.

You know, the really funny, ironic thing about this statement is that I did a lot of the research that resulted in my opinions on his approval patterns /precisely/ after reading the NAES survey and going looking for more information.

First of all, the methodology in the NAES is a little suspect, given the way several of the questions are weighted towards positive answers.

Second of all, the 61% approval rating of the job Bush is doing as president completely contradicts the rest of the poll results. This same poll reports that people think this country is on the wrong track by 51% to 41%--and this is despite the fact that the question was worded to weight people towards a positive response. Similarly, approval of the job the president is doing in Iraq (49% approve, 48% disapprove), whether it was worth going to war over (49% yes, 46% no), and his handling of the economy (50% approve, 48% disapprove) are a statistical tie.

So if a majority of people in the /same poll/ think the country is heading in the wrong direction, and their opinions on Iraq policy and the economy are evenly split down the middle, how to explain the 61% job approval? Simple: it's a bump resulting from his Thanksgiving visit to the troops, which also bump approval of Iraq from net disapproval to statistical tie. In other words, it's just like any other event-driven rise in the polls--and as soon as everything goes back to business as usual, the previous trends will reassert themselves.

This is my prediction based on all of the available data. Since the NAES poll is the only one that's come out so far post-Thanksgiving, we don't really have anything else to work with.

So, let's give it a few weeks or so. Let's see what happens when this bump wears off. I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong on this, and if the downward trend fails to reassert itself (absent another major news event), I /will/ concede the point.

RCDean
The tariffs were bad political strategy from day one. Their entire purpose was to somehow pacify or buy support from the unions. They failed, utterly and predictably, to do this - the unions are anti-Republican and will never change. Their opposition to Bush was not reduced one iota by the tariffs, and Bush's chances in Pennsylvania and other steel/union states were not affected one iota either. It was stupid of Karl Rove to believe otherwise.

That only applies if it was intended to appeal to the unions. It could be that the tariffs were meant to appeal to protectionism-supporting Republicans. It was still bad politics as it annoyed the free-traders in the party, but it might not have been meant for the unions.

I'm not saying thats what happened, I'm just thinking out loud here. It is an interesting idea though.

“Similarly, approval of the job the president is doing in Iraq (49% approve, 48% disapprove), whether it was worth going to war over (49% yes, 46% no), and his handling of the economy (50% approve, 48% disapprove) are a statistical tie.”

The bottom line is this: every Democrat candidate would eagerly trade polling results with the President! There is also a misunderstanding concerning what a 50% approval rating means for the current White House incumbent. If President Bush gets only 50% of the vote on election day---then he is easily reelected. The Democrat candidate will be splitting up the remaining votes with the Naderites, Socialists, the Bed Wetters, or whatever.

Another factor in President Bush’s favor is his likeability. The majority of Americans trust him and fell confident that he is doing his best for the nation. Only the hard Left hates him. Never underestimate what this means on election day---when the swing voters make their ultimate decision.

The bottom line is this: every Democrat candidate would eagerly trade polling results with the President! There is also a misunderstanding concerning what a 50% approval rating means for the current White House incumbent. If President Bush gets only 50% of the vote on election day---then he is easily reelected. The Democrat candidate will be splitting up the remaining votes with the Naderites, Socialists, the Bed Wetters, or whatever.

This is a false deduction, based on the assumption that GOP voters will hold the party line while independent voters will lean towards Bush. This is simply not borne out by the evidence. In terms of fiscal and foreign policy, Bush has strayed /drastically/ from the tenets of traditional conservatism; it is already hurting him with conservative voters, and it will continue to.

His only prima facie nod to fiscal conservatism has been the staggering tax cuts--for which he has been unwilling to reduce spending to compensate. Deficit spending, within limits, can work as an economic stimulus--but only if the resulting effect on the economy stimulates enough increased revenue to make up the shortfall. Bush seems to be practicing faith-based economics, where he proclaims faith that the American economy will right itself without actually having a plan for doing so. This is not fiscal conservatism. This is as irresponsible as the "tax-and-spend" mentality the GOP used to denounce in Democrats, except now it's "borrow-and-spend".

Similarly, foreign policy has done a 180-degree about face from traditional conservative views on the matter. Bush's recent conversion to the cause of bringing Democracy to the world and claims of wanting to intervene in Iraq for humanitarian reasons are highly suspect, coming from someone who claimed during the 2000 campaign that America "should not send our troops to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide outside our strategic interest." His cowboy interventionism is /precisely/ the kind of foreign policy that conservatives have spent the last ten-plus years denouncing from liberals.

Consider this LA Times poll conducted a few weeks ago. 42% of registered voters indicated they would vote for any Democrat over bush, while Bush commanded 38% of the vote. With the 3%+/- MOE, this is a statistical tie. But then, factor in the other 20%: 12% answered "don't know", 2% answered "neither/other", while 6% answered that it would depend on the Democrat.

Furthermore, while 83% of registered Republicans voiced support for the President, only 58% of self-identified conservatives did so--fully 21% indicated they would vote for a Democrat, with most of the remaining 21% as yet unsure. Half of all moderates indicated support for any Democrat over Bush, with only a third supporting the President, while independents remain split on the issue, with a strong lean towards voting Democrat.

Of course when I make a personal attack I screw up all kinds of stuff. David, I am sorry I got your name wrong, although all things considered I guess it is one situation where you probably don't care that I get it wrong.

My point with the Energy task force and the Plame situation is not that those things will cause the President grief, but that they (or something similar) MIGHT. And not even that there will be something serious, but that there will be the appearance of impropriety.

You are totally right to say that the President does very well in likability. He ran based on trust, and showed some damn good "leadership" right after 9/11. I would dispute that only the "hard left" doesn't like him, I think if you look at the numbers and talk to people is some large eastern cities you will find that a lot of mostly moderate people loathe the President. But not enough to lose an election.

The thing with likability and trust is that it is fragile. If a semi-scandel breaks there will be ample opportunity for the general image of Bush to shift, and then he is really going to have a challenge to win re-election. I am not predicting this, but if I was a good, paranoid Bush political operative it would keep me up at night.

In the end it was not your prediction that I took issue with, but the certainty with which you stated it. My only point is that there is a lot that is going to happen between now and next November. Who knows which candidate these things will favor.

It's important to remember that, politically, the economic numbers that seem to matter most are not the GDP or retail sales or housing starts.

It's jobs.

And the story is not very good there.

For an economy of our size we need about 200,000 new jobs just to keep up with population growth. Every month.

We are nowhere near that. And given that we have lost so many jobs in the last 3 years we need even more than that to catch up.

Remember that the economy was growing pretty well under Bush I in 1992. But employment wasn't. And that killed him.

“We are nowhere near that. And given that we have lost so many jobs in the last 3 years we need even more than that to catch up.”

1.) And what might the Democrats do to increase the number of decent paying jobs? Which presidential candidate offers the best hope?

2.) Also, why did we lose so many jobs in the last three years?

What Bush has done regarding steel tariffs ain't as important as what he's about to do - which is increase tariffs on Chinese furniture soon as reported by the WaPo. It's pretty clear that this President has no commitment at all toward a coherent trade policy. His policies are dictacted by the political expediency and opportunism of the moment. This may get him re-elected, and it must be said that if the election were held today most likely he would win, but it is damn bad economic policy.

Read Fiddling while the dollar drops, by Ignatius in the WaPo op-ed section. For the record, I've been against the mindless push to make the dollar a reserve currency at the cost of trade-balance, but this rather thoughtless switch in policy is creating significant tensions in the financial markets. If one wants to readjust international currency exchanges, this is a stupid way to go about doing it!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37123-2003Dec4.html

Oldman -

How would you do it, then? Or would you? I'm not arguing with you -- this is something I've been following closely, and I'm just curious to hear your thoughts.

- Alaska Jack

Well Jack the problem is a broken market system, which is something you'll find few people pointing their fingers at since there are very few people advocating fair and robust regulation of markets. Protectionists don't like it, b/c it would lead to a genuine opening of markets. Liberalists don't like it on idealist grounds, or b/c their investor buddies can't use a fair and level playing ground to loot entire countries.

Well, the root of the problem is that the FOREX currency trading system is unstable. Financial speculators, hedge funds, and arbitrage often dominate the exchange dynamics of currencies. This makes all but the most stable economies have currencies which prone to instabilities. It is reacting against this instability, that causes countries like China to peg their currencies.

Solve the instability problem, say by introducing a small volume based tax on currency transactions and countries can then afford to let their currencies float without fear of excessive speculative instability. As it turns out a very small tax would be unnoticeable for a vacationer turning dollars into euros, but would cut very deeply into the highly leveraged trades speculators like to make.

Once you have a fair stable marketplace where speculators cannot rob countries blind, then natural market currency adjustments will fix much of the problem. For instance, the huge growth of the Chinese economy would lead to their currency rising in value and therefore their cost of labor rising creating an equilibrium where shipping jobs overseas would eventually see a netloss and therefore stop. It wouldn't solve everything, but it would be one huge step.