Conclusion:
Bush to win.
Background:
This blog's preferred predictive model is based on the work of Margaret Fisk, author of the 1976 work The Gambler's Bible. With some tinkering to account for results post-1976 (thanks Jacques Black) what is clear is that the 2004 Presidential election is likely to be decided by three issues:
Bush to win.
Background:
This blog's preferred predictive model is based on the work of Margaret Fisk, author of the 1976 work The Gambler's Bible. With some tinkering to account for results post-1976 (thanks Jacques Black) what is clear is that the 2004 Presidential election is likely to be decided by three issues:
- Will the traditional Republican vote-getters of foreign policy and limited wars hold up?
- Will voters perceive the static unemployment rate in 2004 as a Bush failure?
- Will Kerry suffer from the Nader Effect?
Discussion:
For Kerry to win, it's an all or nothing task. If the model holds, Bush needs but one of the three issues to be resolved in his favour to win.
It is difficult to see Iraq providing votes for Bush. However, that's a non-American view influenced by the international press. It is not entirely obvious that wavering amongst early supporters of the war will translate into significant anti-war electoral opposition for Bush.
More complex is the economy. There is no question that the Bush administration applied great stimuli in 2003 to the economy. The effects have been mixed though positive, with the real beneficiaries being equity markets:
For Kerry to win, it's an all or nothing task. If the model holds, Bush needs but one of the three issues to be resolved in his favour to win.
It is difficult to see Iraq providing votes for Bush. However, that's a non-American view influenced by the international press. It is not entirely obvious that wavering amongst early supporters of the war will translate into significant anti-war electoral opposition for Bush.
More complex is the economy. There is no question that the Bush administration applied great stimuli in 2003 to the economy. The effects have been mixed though positive, with the real beneficiaries being equity markets:
- Real income per capita growth 2001 to 2003 is over 6.5%; and 2000 to 2003 (including Clinton's final year) is 8.4%
- Stocks bounced over 20% in the calendar year 2003 but are treading water in 2004
- Credit is still cheap (and the Federal Reserve signaled its intent to keep it that way)
- Consumer spending is strong
- On the other hand, job creation has been patchy, and it is the rate of unemployment that unsurprisingly correlates most with Electoral College votes won by incumbents in election years.
Developing that last point, unemployment has stood at 5.6% for every month this year bar one. It is well down from the June 2003 rate of 6.4%. Is it conceivable that US voters will punish the President for this, even if accompanied by a potentially skillfully waged "Two Americas" campaign? At worst the effect ought to be neutral but with no benefit for the Democrats.
Finally, the Nader effect. Only wild-eyed optimists would argue that this is anything but a potential vote-loser for the democrats. Can Nader be completely co-opted by them? Perhaps, but it is a net non vote-winning factor for Kerry even if accomplished: he'll only collect votes he ought to pick up anyway.
0 comments
Post a Comment