“W, you ain’t no H”
In 1992 William J. Clinton defeated the incumbent George H. W. Bush because of economics. In 1991 "H" had just come off the Gulf War with approval ratings approaching a glass full of electorate, which usually translates to carry the college. Indeed "H" was well suited to the job. Not only was he a WWII veteran, but he was a storied war hero with the T-shirt and video to prove it. "H" was also the former Director of the CIA, the former US Ambassador to the UN, the former Chief Liaison in Communist China, a Phi Beta Kappa Yale grad, oh yes, and cant forget that "H" was also the Vice President for eight years and the President for four. In a nutshell, "H" was about as well qualified to be The President of The United States of America as any person since the Founding Fathers, maybe even the most qualified person to be President ever.
"J" on the other hand was a bit of a bubba. A southern twang coupled with an overly personable persona, not to mention a wife whom many perceived to be about as warm as a marble statue. Considered by many, mostly his enemies, to be a bit of slickster, Slick Willy to be exact. "J" was accused of being a draft dodger, a womanizer, and while he made no claims to being able walk on water, he did claim to being able to breathe without inhaling. Few at the time thought "H" would have anything to worry about ten months pre-inaugural, least of all any worries from some bubba. But as the saying goes: so goes the Greenback, so goes New Hampshire - or in the infamous words of James Carville: "it's the economy stupid.".
In fact "J" was able to jump onto Carville's Cajun catch crawl and ride that "H" bomb all the way down to terra firma like Slim Pickins in Doctor Strangelove. As a result, "J" became the 42nd President of the United States doing what went against all standards of Oval decorum: "J" defeated a sitting President, and a rather qualified one at that.
Aside from the novelty of wondering who would have been number 43 had "H" actually won a second term, my question is:
will the 2004 Presidential election in US be true to economic form or take some other form?
Economics is a tricky business, at any given moment you can never really claim for certain if more or less goods and services are coming or going. Which is why safe habor statements proliferate, but no one really seems to pay attention to them. Historically one of the strongest correlations, and thus predictive lead indicators as to the outcome of a Presidential election is the state of the economic Union, specifically, the state of the Union's GNP or GDP. Recent economic indicators are truly an unprecedented hodge-podge. Massive growth only it's a jobless growth, at least to date.
To my way of thinking economics will remain the definitive indicator as to which candidate the ramparts red glare will shine upon this November. Personally, I don't think the American public will be fooled by steroid-based economic numbers that don't also translate into tangible cardiovascular fitness, AKA people, not numbers, at work in the USA. This time the Cajun two step is even more succinct:
It's jobs stupid. If the living and breathing job numbers don't keep pace with their anabolic stimuli, then it's deja vu all over again.
But there is something else lurking in the marble that paves the walkway to the inaugural address. There is a marble portrait statue in the Rotunda of the Capitol Building in Washington DC. On it are carved the busts of three influential women in American History: Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. These women are cast immortally in stone in recognition of their efforts in the women's rights movement in the US, namely the right for women to vote. But if you look closely at the portrait monument there is an unmistakable chunk of unfinished marble jutting out in the background. Rumor has it that this fourth edifice is reserved for the first woman President of the United States.
Who knows, maybe this game of he said - he said is about to be played out like a completely predictable game of chess: "H", "J", "W", and... "R"? Or to paraphrase the infamous words once directed at "H. W's" Vice: 'W, you ain't no H' . Only in this case perhaps this time round that "H" stands for someone whose presence actually works in "W's" favor; to their mutual favor; a lady in waiting. Politics, it makes for strange bedpersons - indeed!
(And in case you doubt my economic forecast, why not check it out for yourself: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/rotunda/suffrage_1.htm)
"J" on the other hand was a bit of a bubba. A southern twang coupled with an overly personable persona, not to mention a wife whom many perceived to be about as warm as a marble statue. Considered by many, mostly his enemies, to be a bit of slickster, Slick Willy to be exact. "J" was accused of being a draft dodger, a womanizer, and while he made no claims to being able walk on water, he did claim to being able to breathe without inhaling. Few at the time thought "H" would have anything to worry about ten months pre-inaugural, least of all any worries from some bubba. But as the saying goes: so goes the Greenback, so goes New Hampshire - or in the infamous words of James Carville: "it's the economy stupid.".
In fact "J" was able to jump onto Carville's Cajun catch crawl and ride that "H" bomb all the way down to terra firma like Slim Pickins in Doctor Strangelove. As a result, "J" became the 42nd President of the United States doing what went against all standards of Oval decorum: "J" defeated a sitting President, and a rather qualified one at that.
Aside from the novelty of wondering who would have been number 43 had "H" actually won a second term, my question is:
will the 2004 Presidential election in US be true to economic form or take some other form?
Economics is a tricky business, at any given moment you can never really claim for certain if more or less goods and services are coming or going. Which is why safe habor statements proliferate, but no one really seems to pay attention to them. Historically one of the strongest correlations, and thus predictive lead indicators as to the outcome of a Presidential election is the state of the economic Union, specifically, the state of the Union's GNP or GDP. Recent economic indicators are truly an unprecedented hodge-podge. Massive growth only it's a jobless growth, at least to date.
To my way of thinking economics will remain the definitive indicator as to which candidate the ramparts red glare will shine upon this November. Personally, I don't think the American public will be fooled by steroid-based economic numbers that don't also translate into tangible cardiovascular fitness, AKA people, not numbers, at work in the USA. This time the Cajun two step is even more succinct:
It's jobs stupid. If the living and breathing job numbers don't keep pace with their anabolic stimuli, then it's deja vu all over again.
But there is something else lurking in the marble that paves the walkway to the inaugural address. There is a marble portrait statue in the Rotunda of the Capitol Building in Washington DC. On it are carved the busts of three influential women in American History: Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony. These women are cast immortally in stone in recognition of their efforts in the women's rights movement in the US, namely the right for women to vote. But if you look closely at the portrait monument there is an unmistakable chunk of unfinished marble jutting out in the background. Rumor has it that this fourth edifice is reserved for the first woman President of the United States.
Who knows, maybe this game of he said - he said is about to be played out like a completely predictable game of chess: "H", "J", "W", and... "R"? Or to paraphrase the infamous words once directed at "H. W's" Vice: 'W, you ain't no H' . Only in this case perhaps this time round that "H" stands for someone whose presence actually works in "W's" favor; to their mutual favor; a lady in waiting. Politics, it makes for strange bedpersons - indeed!
(And in case you doubt my economic forecast, why not check it out for yourself: http://www.aoc.gov/cc/art/rotunda/suffrage_1.htm)
