Good News, Bad News

GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS

the best overall indicator of the vulnerability of an incumbent president has always been the "right track, wrong track" question. the latest polls show that the president is in trouble. 53% say the country is on the wrong track. not as important, but reinforcing that result, is bush's approval rating, also at 53%, it's lowest since before 9/11.

but there are more ominous signs for the democrats. the lead economic story today is the robust corporate earnings report and the reinvigoration of the economy in general. this was also the story in sunday's times. this is a quote from today's article:

"the strong corporate profits are being reported as the economy
appears to have had its strongest quarter of growth in almost three
years [OUCH], spurred in part by the tax cuts earlier this year [DOUBLE
OUCH]. when government data are released later this month, economists
are expecting to see growth in the gross domestic product near 6% for
the third quarter, and they are forecasting strong growth--if slightly
lower--for the remaining three months of the year."

let's be realistic. the democrats have no shot, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada, of winning back the white house if these figures, or anything like them, hold up in 2004.

in a healthy two-party system them's the breaks. sometimes you're the windshield and sometimes you're the bug. as has been said here before though, what the democrats have to avoid is illegitimacy and the appearance of illegitimacy.

and there's more bad news on that front. some democratic poobahs were on the diane reem show this morning handicapping the candidates. the first significant sign this political season that howard dean was going to be a force were the early reports of his phenomenal fund-raising. this year he has raised more money than any democratic candidate EVER besides bill clinton in 2000.

what i did not know is that there is an iron law of politics: whoever is the fundraising leader at the end of the year preceeding the start of the primaries (that would be this year) has NEVER failed to win either party's nomination, and unless something really unexpected happens, that is going to be howard dean.

this is on top of the bad news that two major centrist figures, gen clark and sen lieberman, have decided to bypass the iowa caucuses. say what you will about that political strategy; what it can't help but do is dampen efforts by both to raise more money. that great snapping sound you just heard? that was the sound of wallets throughout the Democratic Nation snapping shut when lieberman comes calling for cash.

this page has spoken often and at length at the disastrous prospect of a dean nomination on the democratic party. so to avoid repeating myself, i'll let david brooks say it this time. his column today is titled "rescuing the democrats" it deserves to be quoted at length.

"john edwards has the most persuasive theory [of what's wrong
with the democrats]. he argues that most voters do not place
candidates on a neat left-right continuum. but they are really
good at sensing who shares their values. they are really good at
knowing who respects them and who doesn't. edwards's theory
is that the democrats' besetting sin over the past few decades
has been snobbery."
...


"edward draws an implicit contrast between himself and howard
dean and johny kerry...

"he draws an explicit contrast with george bush, arguing that the
bush administration rewards wealth and punishes work. this is
not about economics, he says; it is about values. the bush admini-
stration disrespects working americans. it lowers taxes for people
who sit around the pool and collect capital gains..."

this is EXACTLY right. the one thing i would disagree with brooks on is the following. after acknowledging that edwards campaign has not caught on he writes,

"but that doesn't mean edwards's theory is wrong, OR THAT THE
DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY VOTERS ACCURATELY UNDERSTAND THEIR
PLIGHT."

it's not that they, the democratic primary voters, don't understand the party's plight. they do. they're very "bright." it's that they don't care. they are selfish, self-centered elitists and they have one of their own in howard brush dean III and they don't care what happens to the democratic party.

brooks quotes edwards as saying "not only will i run for the real america, i will run in the real america...democrats too often act like rural america is just someplace to fly over between a fund-raiser in manhattan and a fund-raiser in beverly hills."

the problem for edwards and the democrats is that those elitist jet-setters are overwhelmingly influential in the democratic primaries.

brooks ends his column with this:

"except for bill clinton, democrats have nominated presidential
candidates who try to figure out middle american values by
reading the polls, instead of feeling them in their gut. if they do
it again, the long, slow slide will continue."


-benjamin harris