Once again, it's the economy, Stupid!

Poll: Economy Top Election Issue

Nov 3, 2:19 PM (ET)

By The Associated Press

The economy is clearly the top issue on voters' minds in the waning days before elections, according to a new poll that suggests neither party has gained a clear advantage in the fall campaign.

The CBS-New York Times poll released Saturday night showed the economy and jobs were the top issues on voters minds when deciding who to vote for Tuesday, followed by terrorism and national defense - considered one category in the survey - and then by education.

While Democrats have been working to make the economy the main issue, that may not have the effect of helping Democratic chances in the elections.

When asked which party they think is more likely to make sure the country is prosperous, they were evenly split with about four in 10 picking each party. Voters favored Republicans on the issues of fighting terrorism and keeping military defenses strong. They favored Democrats on the issues of Social Security and prescription drugs.

Their view of President Bush's handling of the economy was mixed, with people about evenly split on whether they approve or disapprove.

Almost six in 10, 57 percent, said they thought the president should be paying more attention to the economy. About the same number said the Republican Party is more interested in protecting the interests of big corporations, while more than half thought the Democratic Party was more interested in protecting the interests of ordinary people.

But Democrats haven't convinced voters that they have a clear plan for the country if they gain control of Congress. Half said the Democrats don't have a clear plan and almost a third said they do. Voters were about evenly split on whether or not Republicans have a clear plan if they take control of Congress.

When likely voters were asked which party's candidate they would support in congressional elections, they leaned Republican by 47-40 - slightly more than the error margin for that group.

The poll suggested voter enthusiasm for the elections is generally low, suggesting a light turnout - which is typical for midterm elections.

Anxieties about the possibility of another terrorist attack in the next few months remain high, with three-fourths saying such an attack is likely. Four in 10 said Bush has a clear plan for the campaign against terrorism, while half said he's just reacting to events as they occur.

The poll of 1,018 adults was taken Oct. 27-31 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points, larger for subgroups.

 

The Dems have screwed up by not concentrating more on the economy as an issue during this year's elections. It is clearly what most voters are concerned about. The Dems had the opportunity to pounce on it, and they failed to do so. As time goes on, it seems that there is less and less of a difference between Republicans and Democrats. Bring on the third party, and the fourth, and the fifth. Give voters a clear choice, and you give them a reason to vote.

 

Hey giddyup, where are you from?

I'm from Raleigh, I thought i was the only Rockets fan in this state.

 

Interesting...I read the other day that James Carville's recent letter to democratic strategists told them to STOP focusing on the economy, because people don't seem to care.

 

People realize that the Bush administration:

1) inherited a blooming recession
2) had a further economic setback with 9/11
3) has actively addressed the economic issue with tax cuts, a focus on corporate crime, and an aggressive budget (which the democrats in the Senate are still sitting on)

Hopefully Mondale will fall on his face in the debate this morning and Minnesota will go to Coleman. I think that is the pivotal race right now.

 

Which people are you talking about? The truly delusional?

BTW, most economists would regard #1 as nonfactual. But if it works for you, more power to you.

BTW2, Bush's "focus on corporate crime" is precisely why he is rattling the sword at the Iraqis. Bush is clearly in Corporate America's pocket. Bush has already stated that he will opt out of the system when he runs for reelection. so we can also conclude that he will remain in Corporate America's pocket.

BTW3, The statement that Bush actively addressed the economic issue with tax cuts is revisionist history (I am being gentle here.) Bush had to hard sell his tax cuts for the rich by using his bully pulpit to tell Congrees and the nation that the economy was on the ropes, which nobody bought at the time. Is it coincidence that shortly after the President kept hammering the public about how bad the economy was that the economy actually tanked? Is this type of leadership that the public wants in the White House?

The tax cuts were also not efficacious. The purported purpose was to prevent or mitigate a recession. Before 9/11, it is arguable that the tax cuts were not having their desired effect.


This is not even mentioning the Bush Admin huge screw ups in foreign policy. I will leave that for another thread.

 

No Worries -- what economists say that we weren't headed towards a recession? did you actually believe the Clinton line that he had created an economy that would NEVER again have a recession? did those economists read all the economic indicators that started pointing towards this trend while clinton was still in office?

 

what economists say that we weren't headed towards a recession?
Economist have strict definitions of what constitutes a recession. Using these definitions, the recession started in March 2001. I think that most economists were saying that we were in an economic slowdown, where Bush took office. I do not think that the consensus opinion of economists was that a recession was inevitable and eminent, when Bush took office. Again remember that when Bush was dogging the economy to get his tax cuts, most people (and economists) did not buy it.

did you actually believe the Clinton line that he had created an economy that would NEVER again have a recession?
No and he would be a fool to have said that.

did those economists read all the economic indicators that started pointing towards this trend while clinton was still in office?
Consensus opinion of economists was that the economy was in a slowdown.

 

1. it was in a downward trend...i don't know if any economist ever says anything is inevitable. but the downward trend was well-acknowledged

2. i have no source to back it up..but clinton did say that..or something substantially close

 

When I am less busy at work I will shoot down No Worries fallacies. Unfortnately I don't have the time. You will not escape unscathed, No Worries, after this string of lies which you have just posted.

 

Worries:

First, the economy was showing signs of slowing in the last year of the clinton administration. Then, it had three major pushes that caused it to slow even further:

1. The dot com implosion. Of course, everyone knew the dot.coms would collapse because they didn't actually make any money but they still helped push the market uncharactaristicaly high (and then contributed to it's fall).

2. 9-11 sucked a lot of life out of the economy.

3. The misrepresentation of corporate earnings sucked even more life out of the economy.

The dot.com stupidity and the misrepresentation of earnings all happened before Bush came into office. However, it's the Bush administration that is actually prosecuting the people who committed those crimes. Where was Janet Reno? Oh yeah, going after Microsoft.

Remember that saying "Judge a man's character by what he does, not what he says?" Bill Clinton talked a lot of talk but look at the facts: He didn't do anything (even when Allan Greenspan was warning us that the market had to correct itself soon - "unbridled enthusiasm" is what I think he said) to investigate the dot.coms. Also, where was Janet Reno when all those criminals were mis-represented their corporate earnings? Clinton was so concerned about the economy looking good while he was president that he didn't do anything to "rock the boat".

You say that Bush is in the pockets of the large corporations, yet it is Bush that is prosecuting them! Not Clinton!

I'm not even trying to give Bush any credit here! If Gore was president we'd be in the SAME EXACT BOAT were in now. Only the Democrats would be blaming Bush, Sr. or the Republicans in Congress.

Also, this whole Republicans are with business but Democrats aren't is such bull. They ALL get money from those corporations. Clinton got money from Enron and Global Crossing. All politicians are slaves to their doners - Democrats and Republicans alike. Neither is better or worse about it.

 

111chase111,

You might want to reread what I wrote. Nowhere am I saying that Clinton was an economic mastermind and Bush is not (translation for Phi83: I am not saying "Democrats good; Republicans bad").

I am not trying to take a partisan shot at Bush.

What I really took issue with TJ was his rewriting history to suit his partisan reasonings/agenda. He wants everyone to believe we were in a recession in January 2001, which we were not.

WRT corporate earnings scandal, neither Clinton nor Bush were proactive in dealing with this problem. Bush has reluctantly focused on the corporate scandals since they have been disclosed. This issue certainly was not in Bush's campaign platform (or Gore's). Bush is also reluctant to increase the SEC budget to proactively go after corporate cheats. This is where the rubber meets the road (or not).

WRT to the dot com bubble, that bubble burst in the spring of 2000 or there abouts, with it finding a bottom in the spring of 2001 (the tech heavy NASDAQ has actually gone lower since then). Thus, the high tech implosion has been an ongoing thing since the spring of 2001, which impacted the economy in Clinton's last year and Bush's first year in office.

Finally wrt Republicans being in Corporate America's pocket, I did not say that the Democrats were not. The Democrats are also to a lesser extent (as measured by the amount of contributions) in Corporate America's pocket.

 

No Worries -- Given the technical definition, no one here is saying we were in a recession during the clinton administration...that's not what's being said. The point is more that the dems want to blame bush for the economy...TJ was just pointing out why that's unfair criticism. Criticism we all predicted would come to the new president (whether it be bush or gore) back during the election.

 

Worries:

Well then, Cool!, We agree on a lot of things. However you said:

But earlier you said a couple of things that sounded partisan. For example:

and

Both of those statements sounded very critical of Bush and since you didn't attribute them to another source, one has to conclude they were your opinions.

The economy is a very complex thing. I don't really think Presidents by themselves can do all that much to help or hurt it. Some economists think that two things government <i>can</i> do to help the economy are tax cuts and spend more - the reasoning being that either way the government is simply putting more money into the economy. But Presidents can't do either. It takes Congress to make it happen.

I don't give Clinton credit for the economy of the 90's nor do I blame Carter for the economy of the 70's. There are just too many factors involved (foreign events, Congress' mood, how the people feel, possibly how the media reports events).

Plus (and this is not a shot at you - just another rant), I really hate politicians trying to take credit or lay blame for things they have no control over! Both sides are equally at fault with this.

 

I am taking a shot at Bush. Its just not partisan.

Here is a nonpartisan shot at the Congressional Democrats:

If we go to war with Iraq, much of the blame will be laid at the feet of the Democratics for not standing up for their constituents.

 

Some economists think that two things government can do to help the economy are tax cuts and spend more - the reasoning being that either way the government is simply putting more money into the economy.
IMO the federal reserve's monitary policy has even a bigger effect than tax cuts or gov. spending.

I agree that it is unfair for Presidents to be held accountable for the economy. Despite what I believe, most voters vote their pocket book on Election Day.

 

TJ wrote
the Bush administration inherited a blooming recession.
Thus, TJ is no one.

 

blooming may be the key word there, Worries...not that it was one, but that it was certainly blooming into one.

unless he meant blooming as the english do...as a curse word!