It may be true that most people don't start paying active attention until a few weeks before the election, but a lot of the work is done before then. The poll numbers will go up and down, and--despite the fact that the vast majority of people aren't actively participating or paying attention--the way a campaign is run and the way issues are presented does make a difference.

Plus, there's always Nixon's "run to the right in the primaries, then to the middle in November." I think the difference is that, nowadays, every last word uttered by any candidate anywhere is on videotape. So, even if Dean (or whoever) runs to the middle, the GOP will have plenty of fodder for TV commercials.

And, yes, the "out" party is always counting on things being bad. Only JFK managed to run on a "sure, it's great now--but it could be even better" strategy and pull it off. And even that required the bogus "missile gap."

"A weak economy, trouble in Iraq, a successful attack on American soil, and the public might well turn on Bush."

It's sad when a political party bases all its' hopes on bad things happening. Unfortunately, the Dem's haven't had a new idea in decades.

"...the real turnaround began last month..."

I agree with most of what you've said here, Dean, but in two days I start my eightteenth month of unemployment -- this time. All told, I've been unemployed all but four months since May of 2001. I know an awful lot of people in the same boat I'm in, all around the country. An economic turnaround doesn't mean jack shit to me if there aren't jobs to go with it. And I think that a turnaround doesn't mean much to a lot of people who are worried or paranoid that their jobs might still go away, as the current unemployment figures highlight.

I don't like Howard Dean one bit, but in a straight-up fight between him and Bush, I'll vote Dean every time. It would be easier to hold my nose and vote for Dean than it was for me to hold my nose and vote for Gore.

Chad,

Perhaps you should stop voting for people whose economic model increases unemployment? Just a thought.

I was 6 months out of work in 2001-2002, then took a job taking less than half what I was making prior to that. Life sucks that way. But I am astounded by people who think that the President is at fault, or can come up with some ingenious plan to make it all better.

It continues to amaze me that anyone thinks that an economy that has, in three years, suffered the dot-com bubble burst, the worst corporate corruption scandal eruption in decades, the single most economically destructive attack in the nation's history, and the massive slowdown of free trade caused by heightened security would be anything but in horrible shape, no matter who was in the White House or what he did about it. Not to mention the SARS scare slowing down trade with the Pacific Rim and the frightening buildup to war in Iraq.

From that perspective, I am utterly amazed that unemployment stands at only 6.2% today--which by historic standards is moderate. I also know people who've had to take lower-paying jobs, jobs for cash under the table, and tighten their belts, just like I have. I'm simply not inclined to believe that Bush is responsible for this--nor have I seen any rational explanation of how he could be responsible for it.

(And to be blunt, I cannot even fathom the mind which says that the Bush tax cuts caused our economic woes. I am utterly flabbergasted by that line of thinking, which is not based on any rational economic theory I've ever heard in my life.)

In the meantime, there are no bread lines, no massive mortgage foreclosures, no record-breaking runs on banks. Simply: a lot of frustrated people who either can't find work or (much more commonly, from what I see) refuse to take work they consider beneath them.

Still, more and more of the data we have on hand indicates that we're starting to rebound. An important component of understanding recoveries, though, is that unemployment is a lagging indicator: so-called "jobless recoveries" are generally a myth; what happens is that the economy recovers in terms of growth and expansion, and a few months after that companies finally start hiring, when they're sure they'll be able to afford it.

Given the severe body blows this country's undergone, I'm honestly amazed we aren't in far worse shape.

I know people are frustrated and scared. So am I. But I, frankly, think this President has done a marvelous job on the economy, and don't think his critics give him enough credit for that. Given everything we've been through, I'm amazing unemployment isn't at 12%, inflation isn't through the roof, and that we aren't talking about food rationing. I really am.

Dean,

I completely agree that the President's (any President's) ability to profoundly affect the economy is highly overrated. However, psychology plays a big role in consumer/business spending, which in turn drives the economy. Bush's tax cuts were an effort to bolster consumer confidence and spending. Deflation was/is a looming threat. If you believe the price of an item will go down in the future, you wait to make that purchase, which hurts the economy in the short-term and further dampens consumer confidence. Bush was doing what little he could to prevent this from happening by putting a few bucks in our pocket. We'll see how it plays out.

I'm not worried about the deficit right now. If, however, the economy recovers fully and Bush is still in favor of increasng deficit spending, then I'll start to worry.

I don't see another terrorist attack on American soil really hurting Bush except possibly if it does more economic damage than it does physical and emotional damage.

The Democratic party, rightly or wrongly, is the party that has consistently harped on the Patriot Act and civil rights erosion, caught most of the blame for slowing down federalizing airport screeners, and screams the most loudly that we use our military too often. If, god forbid, an attack was to happen, I doubt those blue collar Reagan Democrats are going to be whipped into voting for what's likely to be a "dove" Democrat candidate.

I think it was almost a universal opinion that after Sept 11, there would be more massive attacks on the US to follow. The Bush administration deserves a lot of credit that there hasn't been. You might argue that the cost was too high on civil liberties, or that we've fomented more hate that will cause greater attacks in the future, or that Bush is just lucky, but if the average joe is reminded that we are still living in dangerous times by another attack, I think Bush will win in a landslide.

Dean,

I'm glad for you that you were able to overcome the adversity of unemployment.

I don't, however, recall blaming President Bush, in whole or in part, for being unemployed. My contention is that an "economic turnaround" isn't much of a turnaround if it doesn't generate jobs. You say that the turnaround just started. The government on the other hand, says it started fifteen months ago. That's a hell of a big myth of a jobless recovery.

I saw an economist on television Monday morning. She was asked what one thing would make the economy recover faster. Her answer was that a lowering of the prices of oil would do the trick; everyone uses it, and if the price comes down its like another tax cut.

And you know, she's absolutely right. I don't know what exactly the administration can do to lower oil prices, but I do know they've dropped the ball on west coast electricity.

You yourself mentioned the biggest corporate scandal in American history. I feel, just like every other resident of Washington, Oregon and California, the impact of that scandal every time I open a bill from City Light. Pre-California Energy Market crisis, I paid $40/month in electricity, I now pay over $200. Washington state lost an entire industry sector because it was more profitable for that industry to sell back the electricity rights it had than it was to manufacture product.

Gee, I wonder if that has anything whatsoever to do with the fact that the west coast has higher unemployment rates than the rest of the nation. I wonder if Boeing isn't looking at that factor while considering where to build post 777-series jets. They'd be insane not to.

I for one, would love to get a job doing anything. I don't know who these people are who refuse to work at jobs they consider "beneath them", I certainly don't know of any. The most recent jobs I've applied for have been as a pizza cook, a tow-truck driver, a sales clerk at a mall-based cooking utensils shop and as a sales clerk in a used-clothing shop. Were I actually to land one of these wonderful $8/hour jobs, I'd be making less than one-third what I made in my last job, which paid me less than half what I made in the job before that -- the job I held when Bush took office.

As far as the foreclosures go, I am on the brink of losing my house. The only reason I still have a roof over my head is because my parents are paying for it out of their retirement fund. I know another fellow, unemployed as long as I have been, who -- the last time I talked to him -- had sold everything in his house, furniture, books, keepsakes, everything except one pot, one fork, one spoon, one knife and his radio in order to keep the house.

We're the lucky ones. All I have to do to point out the unlucky ones is drive down to Fred Meyer. On the road out behind the store, every day, is a long line of dilapidated RV's and vans that people are living out of. They weren't there a year ago. Most weren't even there six months ago, and that's certainly not the only group of them.

There aren't any bread lines, sure. But the local food charities are being crushed with applicants for aid, and several news reports have quoted these agencies as saying that many of their new cases had been their donors in past years. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if you're an aid charity and you're giving out to people that had been your donors, you have less to give.

Finally, you yourself point out that Dean has "a moderate, even moderately conservative, record, on a lot of issues". So, even if you are right, and Bush is doing alright by the economy, why should I think that Dean couldn't do better?

And m.j., don't worry, I stopped voting Republican a few years ago.

Chad: And you know, she's absolutely right. I don't know what exactly the administration can do to lower oil prices, but I do know they've dropped the ball on west coast electricity.

So, now we know one reason you dislike Davis. But what's your beef with Bush?

Chad,

You either live in a very strange part of the country, or there's something wrong with you...I took me about 36 hours to get a second job the other day (did it because I just wanted to earn more money and retire some old debts)...36 hours from the "ya know, I could take a second job, honey, and we'd have all these bills gone in about 6 months" to "Mark, I think you'll fit in perfectly here; can you start Monday?". Move somewhere else or adjust your attitude.

Dean,

But Dean (the screwball Democrat, not you) is a total nutter - he wont be able to make a gracious remark about President Bush if you put a gun to his head. No matter what happens, he'll be harping away at what a lousy job the President has done...this will ring just a bit hollow if the economy is chugging along next year and President Bush is on his way to attend the innaguration of Iraq's first democratically elected President, no? But, no matter - Dean will do it; and he's going to get the nomination (or, lead a walk-out of the screwball left from the Democratic Party...or, in the very odd chance that Dean doesn't get it and stays put, Nader will grab a huge chunk of the Democratic vote...remember, Democrats add Gore's total to Nader's and figure on a 51% win for whomever can convince the Naderites to vote Democrat...forgetting, because they're stupid, that a Democrat who appeals to Naderites wont appeal to 49% of the overall electorate).

But, if there is a bad economy, another large attack on the US and Iraq is a continuing problem...then GW will still win; he's the man, ya know? He's the guy who took on the de-facto incumbant running on great economic times and beat him in his home State. He's the guy who turned the normal mid-term loss into an electoral triumph for his party. GW is, quite simply, a hell of a lot smarter than anyone at the top of the Democratic party and he'll run rings around whomever they nominate, regardless of the underpinning circumstances.

Well look, people are going to think what they're going to think.

From my perspective, I simply do not see how the President can be blamed for our economic woes. Others will thing it.

However, there was an interesting analysis recently from Econopundit that I'll probably link later. It pretty much showed that despite the fact that economic growth has been present for a bit more than a year, it's been sluggish and has not overcome the massive job losses caused by the 1999-2001 body blows we suffered--but shows how it did start to recover in July.

We'll see. I'll probably link it later.

"You either live in a very strange part of the country, or there's something wrong with you..."

While this wasn't addressed to me, I will comment on it. At one point, while the economy was still relatively strong, I went looking for a job with my (almost new-minted) diploma in my hand. And got turned down. And got turned down. And got told that my transcript was wonderful, absolutely amazing-- but there were no jobs. And got told that my college diploma was actually *detrimental* to my getting hired because "college graduates want more."

And after five months of searching FINALLY landed a part-time, minumum wage job. So after seeing the finances slip slowly into the hole, we finally bit the bullet, moved in with my in-laws, and sent my hubby off to another state to sleep on floors until he found a better-paying job. It worked, and we're slowly climbing out of the hole.

That entire time I was ready to take ANY job, but the whole area was horrible. That was Oregon, which now has one of the worst unemployment levels (this is the official statistic; the reality is worse) in the nation. I don't know where you're living, Chad m'lad, but I'd say you may want to take a chance and leave, no matter how much you like the region. Even though my new location is supposedly in an economic slump, every friend in the area who has lost a job has found a comparable (or better) one within two weeks.

Mark:

You either live in a very strange part of the country, or there's something wrong with you...I took me about 36 hours to get a second job the other day

Well, that wasn't addressed to me either, but I'll take a crack at it too.

I've been through stretches of unemployment myself. How quickly a person can find a job depends on a number of factors, including what line of work of you're in, what your family situation is, how far afield you're willing or able to relocate, etc., etc.

As I know from past experience, certainly a person can find a stopgap job in a couple of days-- by going through a temp agency, for a short-term job or for temp-to-hire. Putting aside the whole topic of "temp workers' hell" and the 101 ways a temp agency can screw you over, there were times in my life when I was damn thankful for a temp agency paycheck.

But I am much more thankful, now that that period in my life is (knock on wood!) behind me. The position I'm now in-- it suits me and I'm suited for it-- took a while to turn up. A position like it might have turned up a bit sooner, but by the law of averages in my field, probably not much sooner.

BTW... true incident from my bad old temp days. A friend of mine, a dear soul but liberal as sin, took me aside to admonish me: "Now, Paul, why do you keep voting for those Republican politicians? They're not going to find you a job!"

My reply (sorry, I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but...): "Hey, I've got news for you. No politician, Republican or Democrat, is going to find me a job. If I'm going to find a job, I'm going to have to get out and find it myself."

With an attitude like that, it's no wonder I usually vote GOP. ;)

Ah, the freedom of not having a college degree and not having a "career" I'm trying to advance.

Wanna know what I know how to do? I can operate a computer. That sums up by technical skills - after that, its all up to me...to be a bit more aggressive; to be a bit more willing; to be a bit more self-motivated. I've increased my base pay by 40% over the past two years - working in an industry I was entirely clueless about two years ago.

Unless you're to be a doctor or some sort of specific technical person (auto mechanic, lawyer, what have you) then what you do for a living is up to you - and the only thing that limits you is your mind.

Sorry to be harsh about things - but failure is inexcusable save by mental and/or physical incapacity - and that, of course, is not actually failure. This country of our slops over with wealth and all you have to do is go get it.

Down, boy! Down! :-)

Actually, Mark, I see your point, sort of. And I do treasure my weird old days when I "fell into" the world of wholesale sports merchandise, and was working just for the paycheck and the hell of it. I mean, those were the days when the Packers were going to the Super Bowl, and we used to stay up till all hours of the day and night, readying shipments of Packer merchandise to go out to the stores. Talk about opportunities for overtime!

However. For me that was simply a detour on the road of life. I'm glad that in recent years I'm back to making a living doing what I love. Which is, yes, one of those specific professional positions.

Some people (and my hat's off to them) don't much care what they do for a living, as long as it's honest work and it provides a big paycheck. While other people are drawn to pursue a particular calling-- they may (as I did) take any honest work that comes to hand if need be, but fulfilment and service in their chosen vocation mean more to them than the size of their paycheck.

I don't think either of these outlooks is superior to the other. I think it's just two different, equally valid personality types. It just depends on which of those two types of personality God created you with. Though unemployment and unplanned changes in employment are often more wearing on type #2.

Paul,

Hey, no problem if you feel a calling and/or want to take the time to learn a specific trade - My hat's off to people who can take the time and effort to become a doctor; or who work very long hours to become, say, a sculptor even if there's not much money in it. Of course, you also don't get a lot of whining out of such people - we do get a lot of whining, however, out of people who get an MBA and then don't land a 50K a year job right out of college....can't tell ya the number of times I've run across people with Masters degrees in literature or some such who are just furious about how low the pay is for such a degree....someone once sold them on the idea (and it was probably the money-grubbing college they attended) than any degree is an open sesame to high pay and the swell life.

As for me - I don't work too hard; its not in my interest to do so. Oh, I'm capable of vast amounts of work at need (and I'm about to go through one of my periodic flurries of very hard working) but my main belief about life is that (a) it wont matter 100 years from now how many widgets (or their equivalent) I made and (b) at any rate whomever dies owing the most money, wins.

Chad,

"don't worry, I stopped voting Republican a few years ago."

At least you've identified your problem. Reps aren't great, but the Dems couldn't find their ass with both hands as you see by your examples of west coast economic incompetence. The basic issue between Reps and Dems is free-markets vs socialism. Neither is a perfect proponent of either policy, but nevertheless they are clearly differentiated on such an axis. Do you want an economy where you can find a job or an economy where you get unemployment benefits for a year?

"I don't know what exactly the administration can do to lower oil prices, but I do know they've dropped the ball on west coast electricity.

Interesting. State governments have control over energy policy, yet you manage to blame the Administration. Just looking for a convenient place to lay the blame? Most people would say the ridiculously oppressive regulation combined with the state shielding consumers from the effects caused the crisis. The Federal government is required to make good on state and local F ups?

Durbin: What field is your degree in?

Well, as one addicted to these blogs & e-surf ... and now in a much lower paying job ...
STOP READING THIS BS. (As far as personal job issues, 99.99% of blog advice, including this one, cannot be too relevant. Time spent reading on the web is mostly "wasted".)
(yes, I should follow my own advice, but I'm an addict)

Don't have a job -- how about some part-time volunteer/ unpaid work for a local charity? At least you keep up the work habits, and see real folk who really have daily needs prolly worse than yours.

Yeah, maybe move. The illegal aliens are finding jobs ... green carders, too.