Manipulation of Events?

In reading through political news of the past week, one of the topics that came to my head is the potential of the GOP to alter the direction of events, namely in regards to the economy and Iraq, immediately before the election in a last ditch effort to make a huge difference. A study released this week showed that the highest levels of violence in Iraq around that time period were right before the election. Perhaps that would make Bush look weak but it could also be used to persuade voters that a strong President is needed. I see much of the same shaping up for this election. With the economy teetering on the brink of full-blown recession, democrats are calling for more stimulus measures while Republicans are saying that the first stimulus checks have not been sent out yet. While this is obviously an exaggeration, what happens if the checks arrive the week before the election? That would probably convince more than a few people to Republican. Likewise, events in Iraq could likely be manipulated, for better or worse, to help meet GOP needs as the election looms. While this might be a bit of a “conspiracy theory,” it is certainly interesting to think about the steps parties will take to try to portray events in their favor.

Economic Forecast

An article posted today on Bloomberg discusses a model developed by Yale University professor Ray Fair that allows him to predict the outcome of Presidential elections based on several factors, including inflation, economic growth, how long the incumbent party has held office, and the unemployment rate. Since 1916 Fair's model would have been wrong in only three instances, and none of these mistakes were by very wide margins.

Fair, like other analysts, believes that the economy will be the driving force for this election, as a recession nears, personal life savings decline, gas prices rise over $4 a gallon, and the number of home foreclosures increases. Fair's model says the Democrats are in a favorable position, even if the economy does improve marginally, as he sees them getting 52 percent of the vote in November. That is because of the fact that any improvement to the economy between now and November will likely be minor, and anything done to improve the economy now will likely not have a major impact for quite some time to come. Analysts see the hard economic times continuing, with wages down and an increasing numbers of job cuts on the horizon, and Fair believes that voters will be walking into the voting booth with the economy firmly on their minds.

What hurts John McCain the most in this situation is that he is a member of the party currently in power, which is the one that is being blamed by many in the public for leading us into the dark economic times we are now in. Stuart Rothenberg agrees and is quoted in this article as saying, "the president's party usually gets a disproportionate amount of the blame." Also, McCain has explained his interest in continuing much of Bush's economic policy, including making his tax cuts permanent. His main new ideas include reducing the corporate rate and eliminating congressional earmarks, which do not appear to be wildly popular ideas to the public and will not seem like major changes to the system. Also hurting McCain, in the present, and surely down the road in this campaign, is his sound bite from December, when he stated, "[The economy issue] is not something I've understood as well as I should." It would clearly not be a surprise to see this quote reappear in several Democratic campaign ads heading into November.

The Democrats are trying to portray McCain as a member of "the party of old" and unable to turn the economy around with the same old methods that President Bush has tried. According to the article, that is why the "change" message seems to be working so well, especially for Obama-- because it's becoming evident that what's in place now isn't working. Obama and Clinton, therefore, have an advantage as long as the economy remains a significant issue to voters, which Ray Fair and others quoted in this article believe it will. Clinton has taken the issue to Bush, and Republicans in general, by accusing him of "fiscal irresponsibility" and stating that, on oil prices, "there is no sense of urgency or presidential leadership." Clearly Clinton and Obama want to pin the blame of the current economic woes on the Republicans, despite their own recent run in power in Congress.

However, neither Clinton nor Obama has yet to offer a broad plan to pull the nation out of the current economic recession, but such a move would make sense in the near future. They have already offered proposals on taxes and the mortgage market, as Obama has pushed for a $1,000 tax cut for lower-income people, while Clinton, has called for a moratorium on home foreclosures. Moving forward, it is seen that the Democrats will have an advantage in this election due to the prominent role that the economy will play in the minds of voters, but Obama and Clinton must capitalize on this advantage by coming out strong with new ideas and an overall plan that will highlight their ability to lead the country out of our current dark economic times. It appears to be their advantage to utilize or squander.

The other election issue

Since September 11, foreign policy has been the overwhelming focus of many political discussions, including the 2008 Presidential election. What is the best way to deal with the Iraq situation? How strong is Al-Qaeda? Is there a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan? How strong can Obama be on foreign policy? Why did Hillary flip-flop on Iraq? While all of these issues will certainly play a role in the election, I think the economy may turn out to be the overriding factor in the election. With oil prices quickly approaching $110 a barrel, the inevitable drag on consumers via high energy prices will not be ignored. This emphasis on the economy could prove problematic for McCain. While he is no doubt strong on foreign policy, his economic resume is quite light. In fact, his hawkish foreign policy could like continue instability in the Middle East, ensuring oil prices stay high. McCain should quickly seek to develop complex economic strategies beyond stereotypical conservative slogans like free trade if he wants to win the election.

This article contributed:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8942.html

the stupid economy

From the start of the race until now, what we call "Iraq" has become a less prominent issue in this campaign and the economy has become more prominent. When people are asked what's important to them (check the polls linked to the blog for evidence) they say, to paraphrase the Clinton campaign of 1992: it's the economy, stupid. On one level, this is not unexpected. People need to feel, deeply, the consequences of federal policy before they see connections between themselves and national political races. And few issues run as deep and broad those concerning the pocketbook. I also find the rise of the economy as a campaign issue disheartening, for it means that many Americans can forget or ignore Afghanistan and Iraq and the devastating consequences of our foreign policy. The pocketbook is an everyday, felt reality but the wars can be turned off.

But for a moment, let's live with the economy as a hot-button issue. There's certainly plenty to make of it. According to The Nation, in the last year prices of staples in the American diet like oranges, eggs, bread, and milk have risen double digits (10-20 percent). For families living month-to-month, paycheck to paycheck, this is a painful blow. As we all know, the current administration's economic policies favor tax cuts for the top one percent, who've become richer during the administration of President Bush. And now we see an attempt to stimulate the economy and plans to bail out the banks who carelessly lent money to high-risk home buyers with bad credit because those loan recipients are now, quite predictably, defaulting. According to the same Nation article, real wages have been declining since 2000 when adjusted for inflation--your money just won't go as far. Add to this the related and even steeper rise of gas prices--which adds to the retail cost of many consumer products--and you've got a snowball of seemingly small-time economic issues that erect serious obstacles in front of every working family.

Echoing Billy Joel, Oratorical Animal says the problems with the economy in this campaign are rhetorical and boil down to a matter of trust: the candidate who can communicate on the economy question will win the nomination.

Let us hope one of them emerges. Clearly John Edwards' platform makes him the undisputed champion of the working class in this race, but his candidacy is floundering against the glitz of two fellow Democrats. Lacking Edwards, can basic economic issues energize supporters of a winning ticket? We know the GOP will be shouting "class warfare" and will be happy to make Iraq a second or third most important issue. (Immigration, anyone?) Democrats interested in winning cannot let them get away with it, and the best way to do this is to be faster and better at talking about and talking to the people who've been losing out in this economy for years.