Well, this campaign starts to look like an even bigger circus than the last one. Let's see, On the same day as the USA Today "likely voter poll" (the same that predicted a decisive Dean victory in Iowa) shows both Kerry and Edwards ahead of Bush by as much as 11% (interesting, since only 19% of Democrats stated they would vote for Edwards, but do not let math confuse you), the Rassmussen poll shows Bush ahead by 6%. And as the first poll continues to show Kerry consistently ahead of Bush since Iowa, the second shows that Bush was behind only for a couple of days (Feb. 10-12). What's going on? Well, the democrats are trying to paint Kerry as a sure winner to keep the momentum and the republicans are trying to show it ain't so. Funny, that the USA Today poll came up just after Wisconsin caucus where Kerry barely squeak by Edwards.

Anyway, I find The Gallup poll the most accurate in the last 3 elections, and as of now they cannot make up their minds. However, this is my analysis of the Gallup data:

Essentially, since around July '03, Bush lost 4% of the independent votes and these went directly to Kerry. Here are the basis- the average (by "eyeballing") support of Bush since 2000 was around 55% (taking the "low periods" only) with around 45-47% of independents being positive. At the same time, his match up with Kerry ended up being something like 53% to 44%. The February 10, 2004 poll (quoted in the USA Today article) showed that Bush's approval rating was at 51%, and his matchup with Kerry was 49% Bush, 48% Kerry with 41% of independents going for Bush. Interestingly, Bush had a support of 89-94% of Republicans (it doesn't get any better than this) and about 13-15% of Democrats. This leads me to believe, that as I predicted , about 4-10% of undecided independents will decide this election.
Bush cannot afford to lose any more support, but he is working hard to do just that (the employment predictions are one example). In addition, the Republicans look like the Philadelphia Eagles at Half time of their latest loss- panicked and confused.
Why, I have no idea, because theoretically, they are much stronger. However, after 6 month of incessant pommeling in the press (when was the last time you heard a positive news about Iraq-and there is PLENTY arond- or a republican NOT being shouted over by a liberal host?) it looks, like the Reps and the pres are on the defensive. In other words, it's the 1992 again. Why, I have no idea.

I think Bush can still win if :
1) we actually will pull out of Iraq before the election ("mission accomplished")
2) unemployment will drop below 5% or even 4.5% (it would be difficult to argue about loss of jobs if unemployment falls)
3) we get Osama.
4) (Bonus) the NYSE will reach all time high (what the heck was that, anyway- 11,000??)

Well, feel free to tell me how I'm wrong- I'm sure I'll get it this time from both sides...

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Normally I vehemently disagree with you, however on this I think that you are right. But I wouldn't hold my breath on number 1. I once said that we would'nt get Osama. I now suspect they already know where he is and it's just a matter of election year timing.

don't you hate it when you have to agree with somebody you just LOVE to disagree with??
I had to do this 3 or 4 times on this forum. feels weird, but at least you know that the opposition (whatever is your viewpoint) is not simply nuts.

__________________
1985 190D 2.2l Sold-to Brother-in-law
1996 Mustang 3.8l -"thinks it's a sports car"
1988 Grand Wagoneer - Sold (good home)
1995 Grand Cherokee Ltd -"What was I thinking??!!"

Yeah it's killing me.

Piotr,

Your #2 item has already come to pass....Unemployment has been decreasing for quite some time now--despite what the Democrats want you to think.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Polls keep pollsters in business

So what is this a Pole Poll?

...who knows or cares what Dems think, but reality runs rampant around these parts...no disputing that.

Job Loss, Rising Inequalities Dog Bush Administration
by Emad Mekay

WASHINGTON - The wealth gap between the rich and poor and the sluggish job market in the United State are looming as major problems for President George W. Bush as he campaigns for another term in office, analysts here say.
According to the latest figures, the wealth gap has been growing over the past decade, despite a boom in housing and the stock market, while the job situation, another important economic indicator, has also worsened.


There is a significant, and growing, wealth gap between lower-income households and the rest of America, said a report released Tuesday by the Consumer Federation of America, Credit Union National Association and the National Credit Union Foundation.


Between 1992 and 2001, the net wealth of low-income U.S. households increased by only seven percent--from $6,261 to $6,720. By comparison, the net wealth of all U.S. Households increased by 42 percent--from $60,695 to $86,100, said the report.


In 2001 the net wealth of the typical poor household was $6,720 compared to $86,100 for the typical U.S. household, a wealth gap of thirteen to one, it added.


While the findings are unlikely to feature highly in the ongoing heated debate between Democrats and Republicans in the run-up to the November presidential election, experts say it is likely to have a psychological effect on consumers already worried about job losses.


Increasingly the focus in debates between Democratic contenders for Bush's job and between the president and the opposition has been the unemployment rate.


Under Bush's presidency, the unemployment rate has shot up from 4.2 percent in 2001 to 5.6 percent now, a 33 percent increase, and above the five percent rate that many economists consider to be the natural jobless rate.


The Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research estimates that at the current rate of job creation it will take two-and-a-half more years just to regain the jobs lost under the current administration.


The center also says that Bush could become the first president in more than 70 years to accumulate a net loss of jobs during his term.


Today some eight million Americans are out of work.


And although Bush told workers this week there is an undeniable sense of economic optimism across the country, a new ABC News/Money Magazine poll found that consumer confidence took its biggest plunge in more than 18 years of polling.


On everything from shipping U.S. jobs overseas, to stripping worker protections, to rewarding companies for reducing health benefits for their employees, the Bush administration has racked up a spectacular record of exacerbating the already difficult economic challenges Americans are facing, said the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank founded by members of the administration of former President Bill Clinton.


This week, the administration received sharp criticism over its approval of the growing trend of companies relocating U.S. Jobs overseas.


Many of these firms move their production lines to developing countries, where they profit from cheaper labor cost. Many U.S. technology companies, for example, use Indian tech workers instead of their more expensive U.S. counterparts.


Late last week Democratic Senator Tom Daschle introduced a bill that would hamper the offshoring of jobs.


The legislation requires any company that plans to lay off 15 or more workers and send those jobs overseas to disclose how many jobs are affected, where the jobs are going and why they are being offshored.


Firms would also be required to give dislocated workers three months warning and notify federal and state agencies responsible for helping laid-off workers.

Embattled administration economist N. Gregory Mankiw on Tuesday had to defend comments he made last week praising the shipping of jobs abroad as a long-term benefit for the U.S. economy.

Economists and non-economists speak two different languages, Mankiw, chairman of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, told the National Economists Club.

Republicans, including House of Representatives Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, joined forces with opposition Democrats to criticize Mankiw for describing outsourcing of jobs as a new way of doing international trade.

Creating an environment for robust job creation is a paramount goal of the president and his economic team, he added.

Bush took the same message last weekend to Florida, a swing state whose votes in 2000 helped put him in the White House.

The president said the economy under his watch has become lively, and could be further boosted with tax cuts, one of his favorite economic measures.

But Democrats were quick to point out that the President, who promised that tax cuts would create 131,200 jobs in Florida, failed to mention that only 61,800 jobs have emerged, a shortfall of almost 70,000 jobs in the state.

Other administration officials followed the same script in early campaigning for the vote. Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, Commerce Secretary Don Evans, Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao, and Small Business Administrator Hector Barreto are now visiting the U.S. northwest, one of the regions hardest-hit by job losses, to promise that their plans will eventually create jobs.

On Wednesday, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan stressed Bush's record on job creation. At a press briefing in Washington he told reporters that more than 366,000 jobs were created in the last five months.

The unemployment rate continues to decline, he said. It is now at the lowest point it has been in two years, and it is below the average of the '70s, '80s, and '90s.

But the U.S. Labor Department reported that only 1,000 jobs were gained in December, far below the expectations of some experts, who had predicted growth of 150,000 posts.

The White House on Wednesday refused to repeat forecasts that the administration will be able to add 2.6 million jobs to the economy by the end of this year.

When asked whether the White House still stands behind the forecast issued nine days ago by the Council of Economic Advisors, McClellan declined to back the figure.

I think that people can debate the numbers all they want, he said. The President is focused on acting on policies to create as robust an environment for job creation as possible, so that we can help those who are hurting because they are looking for work and cannot find a job.

The Democrats strongest contender to date for Bush's job, John Kerry, poked fun at the prediction.

George Bush is saying he's going to create 2.6 million jobs this year alone--and his advisers are saying, 'what, you didn't actually believe that did you'?

© Copyright 2004 IPS - Inter Press Service

That's great.....so who is Emad Mekay, and what makes him the authority on this subject?

Also, what makes him, and apparently you, and apparently Tom Daschle, think that anyone has the right to tell employers who to hire, and where to hire them, and for how much?

A "job" does not belong to you. It belongs to the employer. Your skills, knowledge, and time belong to you, and you "rent" them to an employer in exchange for money and/or benefits. The position that you fill in the company is not yours, it belongs to your employer.

An employer is in business for PROFIT. If an employer can find a way to get the same job done for less money, why should he not take advantage of it? Would he not be, in fact, foolish to not take advantage of it?

If you are concerned about losing your job to someone else--whether that "someone else" lives right down the street or in Taiwan makes no difference--then you need to either acquire new or improved skills and/or knowledge that are in demand by your employer and/or the current job market, or find a new way to make yourself more useful and essential to the continued success of the company that you work for, or lower your price in order to compete.

Your job skills and knowledge and time are your commodity. Like any other commodity that you might consider buying, the best commodity at the lowest price is always preferable to a buyer. Why should an employer be obligated by law to purchase your commodity (job skills) when he can get someone else to do the exact same job just as well for much less money?

If one store sells a product that you need for $1, and another store down the street sells the exact same product for $4, which one are you going to buy?.....

Why should an employer who is shopping for labor think any differently?

Either make sure your "product" (job skills) are still worth the price you're asking, or lower your price, or shut up.

If you want REAL job security, then BECOME THE EMPLOYER. Otherwise, you're at the mercy of whomever comes along and offers skills comparable to yours at a lower price.

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

Mike, you're clearly a 'good' capitalist, that is, you're primarily interested in profit, and people are merely tools for you to acheive your interest. Good for you.

Earlier you contended that unemployment rates were declining, yet the real world data doesn't seem to support that position. Even the administration is backing away from its own rosy prognostications.

How long do you think this country can 'bleed' jobs overseas before our long-term economic health suffers? Back in the '90's folks in the 'old-tech' manufacturing sectors were told to get 're-educated' into the 'hi-tech' field, yet even these jobs are now being exported. How long can we sustain this, or is that just a 'people' question, and not as inherently important as profit?

C'mon Z, the world doesn't stand still.

By your logic, buggy whip manufacturers should have been helped by the government to maintain manufacturing for the good of employees.

Typewrite manufacturers sould have stayed in business.

The one thing the USA has that is better than any other place on Earth is the entrepreneurial crucible. Bringing ideas to market is what we do. We give big rewards to people who take a chance. We give big rewards to people to join the game early in its growth. When it is mature, the world follows. We will never, ever compete with the world in any industry that is labor-intensive.

B

Why be in business, if not for profit? Otherwise, it is either charity, or just a hobby.

The Bush administration backing off from their overly-enthusiastic predictions is irrelevant. Doesn't change the fact that unemployment is still down.

People have always feared change...New technology, new business models....Any major change in paradigm freaks people out, but there will always be new kinds of jobs eventually to replace the obsolete ones. Always have been, always will be.

If we stayed up at night crying over every type of job that had become obsolete for one reason or another....we'd lose a LOT of sleep!

Anyone need a switchboard operator? How 'bout a blacksmith?........Should we start a government program to subsidize people who hand-milk cows?....After all....what are they going to do for work now that machines are doing their job?

Mike

__________________
_____
1979 300 SD
350,000 miles
_____
1982 300D-gone---sold to a buddy
_____
1985 300TD
270,000 miles
_____
1994 E320
not my favorite, but the wife wanted it

www.myspace.com/mikemover
www.myspace.com/openskystudio
www.myspace.com/speedxband
www.myspace.com/openskyseparators
www.myspace.com/doubledrivemusic

B, c'mon already-already, the world (according to man) obviously hasn't stood still, in fact, industrial technology has grown at an accelerated pace that's almost exponential since the 'buggy-whip' days. We've been over this before, but here we go again...

Buggy whip/horse carriage/bridle--etc. mfg's all either either tailored their biz model and products to the emerging horseless carriage industry, or they perished--that was then. Back then, these producers became the satellite industries surrounding the central hub of car mfg's, supplying them with individual components used to build cars. We saw the same process for clocks, pianos, radios, appliances, etc.--but that was then.

Now, we have the so-called hi-tech industry with it's similar hub n' spoke system, but the satellites are disappearing far sooner than their earlier bretheren, and they're not being replaced with anything other than stripmalls and burger franchises. There doesn't appear to be emergent industry that'll backfill all the lost jobs we're bleeding overseas, thus I believe this is an unsustainable trend.

It's the same, only it's different. We have no historical parallel to what's happening right now.

Society doesn't see an emergent market until after it emerges, else we'd all be billionaire prognosticators. It may already be upon us and we haven't yet recognized Whatever the "next big thing" is, we wont know it until its already upon us.

The history of industry is a continually unfolding lesson of policymakers and citizens missing the change and then trying to control it to protect the old, threatened paradigm. I have complete confidence that our political leaders will follow exactly the same trajectory.

Botnst

The Neoliberal economic model is built upon theories and your kind of wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the devastating reality is encroaching, or dare I say "emerging" far faster than your wishful hope-upon-hope can keep up...gawd help us all when the whole $h!thouse collapses in on itself.