John Kerry leads George Bush 48-44 percent of Florida RV’s, according to a new Florida Insider Poll conducted 10/12-14 — a 7 point gain over the previous Insider poll taken just before the 3rd presidential debate.
Thanks for signing up!
TDS Strategy Memos
Latest Research from:
tds-wwc-roundtable
Editor’s Corner
By Ed Kilgore
-
July 21: Don’t Dismiss the Power of Inflation Politics
All the talk of renewed inflation brought back some terrible memories for me, and I wrote about them at New York:
When I was a freshman college debater at Emory University in the fall of 1970, the national debate topic was not Vietnam, but the desirability of wage and price controls. Little did we know that just months ahead a Republican president would impose a wage-price freeze, long the anti-inflationary prescription of the left wing of the Democratic Party. But the surprise known in financial circles as the “Nixon shock,” nearly a half-century ago (on August 15, 1971) showed how pervasive the fear of inflation — running at just over 5 percent in 1970 — had become.
That’s ancient history now, even to those of us who remember the double-digit inflation of the late 1970s, and the particularly horrid scourge of “stagflation” (high inflation and unemployment simultaneously). Inflation seems to have been tamed by wise monetary policies. The periodic warnings from 21st-century conservatives that low interest rates and federal budget deficits would create inflation didn’t much bother me. It was like hearing an old priest chant a forgotten litany in a lost language — just one among many ritualistic arguments for the tight credit and reactionary social policies these people favored instinctively as a sort of class self-defense posture.
The current surge in consumer prices doesn’t necessarily change that picture; the current post-pandemic (we hope) economic environment was sure to produce a spike in wages and prices that cannot be projected into a future where something approaching normalcy will surely return (though the real-estate bubble is indeed troubling). But now I am beginning to hear echoes of the inflation panics of the not-so-distant past, which make me tremble.Like Tim Noah, I suspect there may be a generational lapse in understanding the politics of inflation:
“I don’t care to be condescended to by a bunch of Gen Xers and Millennials about my ’70s-bred fear of inflation. It feels too much like the condescension we Boomers directed toward Depression babies whenever they warned us that we were playing with fire in deregulating the financial markets. Poor dears, we thought, traumatized for life by the 1929 crash and one-third of a nation ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished.
“The Depression babies turned out to be right, of course.”
Noah makes it clear he’s not arguing inflation per se is bad for the economy. It is, however, bad for progressive politics, and not just because “stagflation” probably killed the Carter presidency and ushered in the Reagan era far more than the Iranian hostage crisis or other better-remembered Democratic foibles. The deflationary economic strategies of the 1980s weren’t called “austerity,” but rather a corrective for undisciplined policies that fed wage and price spirals which in turned hammered the value of savings, the living standards of those on fixed incomes, and the political case for federal domestic spending.
Most lethally for progressivism, the conservative supply-side tax-cutting when combined with inflationary fears can create enormous pressure for public disinvestment and the shredding of safety nets (which is why reactionaries happily labeled the intended result “starving the beast”). We are still living with some of the long-term consequences of anti-inflationary backlash. As Noah points out, California’s Proposition 13 ballot initiative in 1978 and similar “tax revolts” were a by-product of price spirals that boosted tax assessments on property and income alike.
But sometimes lost in an examination of the right’s exploitation of inflation fears is the abiding fact that the left has no clear prescription for dealing with it, either, other than by denying its existence or significance (sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly). Ironically, that was made most evident by the supposedly illiberal Richard Nixon’s surprising use of the great liberal instrument for taming inflation.
The veteran ex-conservative economic and political analyst Bruce Bartlett has penned an exceptional explainer on the background and consequences of the “Nixon shock,” particularly its international dimensions, and the role played by Treasury Secretary John Connally, who like his boss and ally Nixon was more focused on short-term politics than on long-term economic realities. What’s clear is that Nixon was convinced a recession induced by the Eisenhower administration and its Federal Reserve Board appointees designed to kill inflationary pressures also killed his 1960 presidential candidacy. As prices spiked in 1970, he was terrified the same thing could happen in 1972.
Nixon had inherited (and temporarily extended) an income-tax surcharge from LBJ that was designed to pay for the skyrocketing costs of the Vietnam War, but its effects were limited. So with his signature televised bombshell reveal (the one he deployed a month earlier to announce his trip to China), amid great secrecy, Nixon rolled out a combo platter of initiatives to fight inflation and international economic instability. They included a suspension of fixed currency exchange rates and the convertibility of the dollar to gold (to head off a raid on gold supplies triggered by a British demand for a major conversion); an import surcharge (to prevent a worsening of the trade balance); and most significantly for most Americans, a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to be followed by an indefinite period of controls by federal panels.
As political theater, Nixon’s speech announcing a “new economic policy” was, well, Nixonian. He began with dessert: an assortment of tax breaks and job-creation incentives balanced by mostly unspecified spending cuts; only then did he mention the wage-price freeze. After promising to “break the vicious circle of spiraling prices and costs,” Nixon moved on to his international proposals, which he downplayed as “very technical,” while assuring viewers that “if you are among the overwhelming majority of Americans who buy American-made products in America, your dollar will be worth just as much tomorrow as it is today.”
Nixon’s wage and price controls were initially very popular (as polls had told the White House they would be) and did indeed hold down inflation through the reelection year of 1972, when Nixon won his famous landslide reelection over poor George McGovern, in part by goosing federal appropriations to create a mini-boom. By then the administration had moved on to a more discretionary system for regulating wage and price increases, which generated rumors of employers currying favor with generous donations to CREEP (the Committee to Reelect the President), the notoriously corrupt operation heavily complicit in the Watergate scandals that brought down the Nixon presidency. Between the suppressed and eventually unleashed inflationary pressures and the oil-price shock Nixon’s international economic policies helped create, the country paid a very high economic price for the brief respite from inflation the wage-price freeze earned him. He sowed the wind with even greater inflation, and his successors Gerald Ford (whose feckless “Whip Inflation Now” campaign was widely mocked) and Jimmy Carter reaped the whirlwind.
Before you dismiss these events from 50 years ago as irrelevant, consider how much Nixon’s short-sighted approach sounds like something President Donald Trump might have done if inflation had became a political problem during his tenure (or in, God help us, a future term). Indeed, any president mulling Nixon’s choice of recession-inducing fiscal or monetary policies might be tempted to resort to the easy-to-understand, if dangerous, strategy of wage and price controls in which the pain is mostly back-loaded, particularly in or near an election year. Old folks remember how it preceded Nixon’s landslide 1972 win, followed by a decade of economic pain and multiple decades of political misery for progressives.
Despite Strategic Vision’s leanings, the Boca Raton News story has SV admitting that Kerry picked up 5 points in Ohio from the debates. No other specifics were given about their Ohio numbers.
The Newsweek poll that showed Kerry with a lead among men while Bush leads among women simply shows that that poll is absolutely worthless. Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that the gender gap is about 8-10 points and that there is simply NO chance that Kerry will win the men while losing the women. Can’t possibly be true and any poll that shows otherwise is a complete waste of newsprint. The most ridiculous part is that Newsweek editors print this result with a straight face, without even bothering to mention that if true it would be an immense historic shift in voting patterns!
In answer to the Texeira pronunciation question, on the assumption that Ruy is too busy crunching numbers to respond, I have it on good authority that his last name is pronounced Te-SHER-a.
I will take a stab at the question about the newly registered voters:
According to zogby, Kerry has a small lead among newly registered voters 49-42.
I suspect that most of the undecides among the newly registered voters will go to kerry. I think it will end up being something like 55-45.
http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=10022
Hopefully this will help the democrats change the 39D to 35R. to 40D 34R, and with the massive get out the vote effort, maybe even a little better.
Teixeira, a Portuguese (and Brazilian) surname is pronounced “Teshera.”
partial answer to Bob H —
I’m sure you know much of this generally and are looking for specific numbers, but the polls of late have been showing an increasing divergence between ‘sure to vote’ voters — Bush lead, all the way to ‘registered’ — Kerry lead, sometimes substantial. It is difficult to say what level of turnout means which candidate gets what since it depends on WHOSE supporters turn out! A lot of the ‘registered’ voters not turning up as likely are probably recent registrants, including a large proportion of them young and concerned about the draft. THAT demographic’s turnout may well determine the presidential AND the Congressional outcome.
I understand that the number of new registered voters in CO. is so huge that the Sec. of State has said that people will have to work night and day to complete the data entry before 11/2. That augurs well for Ken Salaszar and Kerry/Edwards in that more new voters in that state are more likely to be Dem supporters than not. Anyone have a view on that?
I have been wondering about the simple advantage of always having your name listed first in the publishing of survey after survey. In the asking of the questions the names are usually rotated, but in reporting results Bush is almost always listed first. Bush, then Kerry? Why not Kerry, then Bush?
Hi everyone,
Well, I am very happy to see this poll as I live in Palm Beach County (Jupiter) Florida and I have to say that I was getting very worried about Kerry’s numbers and him not being able to gain any ground on Bush. I also have to say that the Repulicans down here are very hungry for a Bush win and I see more Bush stickers on cars that I do Kerry stickers. I am apart of the democratic club down here and the democrats don’t appear to be very motivated. I can’t believe it since this was such a democratic county. Julia
If you track Dale’s Electoral College Breakdown, the numbers slowly get better and better. He doesn’t post this latest florida result, and if he did Kerry would be ahead. I also agree that the Bush/Rove campaign is spinning in circles right now trying to get a grip! Yes!
Much Kudos to Our Guy for a brilliant performance in the debates with an historical result of turning the race around!
“He would rather protect his rich friends than help you all in the middle class”
That’s a democratic campaign that stands up and fights!
I think this election will be determined by two factors: turnout and fraud. Maybe the high Democratic turnout will cancel out the Republican fraud.
Neither factor can be assessed by polls right now.
New newsweek poll puts kerry down by 2 among reg. voters, and down 50-44 among likely voters.
However, This poll seems extremely strange. It has Bush with a lead among women, and kerry with a lead among men. I somehow don’t believe it.
This election has reached the tipping point. BC04 is flying apart at the seams, the media (pathetic as they are) have juicy stories just landing in their lazy laps — Voter highjinx abounding, more Bush docs, Iraq spiraling and the Dow puckering. Is there enough time? Kerry 52% Bush 46%, Kerry +40 EVs
How does one pronounce
TEIXEIRA?
The new Newsweek poll shows Bush ahead by a few points with registered, more ahead with likely, voters.
What was interesting in the article, and the first time I’ve seen it broken down was this concerning new voters: “Kerry now leads Bush 57 percent to 36 percent among those who identify themselves as first-time voters”
Turnout.
Addy
Can Ruy make some comments about how turnout is likely to affect the race, and what he guesses it might be? Kevin Philips discussed this last night on NOW, and seemed to imply that a 55% turnout combined with Bush approval at 47% or so means Bush is swept into the trash. 55% would seem to favor the good guys?
Altough this post is not about polling I felt it was an important read in attracting conservative swing Republicans.
“The conservative case for Kerry ”
Clyde Prestowitz
Washington, DC
http://tinyurl.com/4g7ov
As a former Reagan-administration official, registered Republican, born-again Christian, and traditional conservative, I am going to vote for John Kerry. So are many other old-line Republicans. Here’s why…
TERROR … Oct.27 …. I’m not afraid of no stinkin terror, I have a handy supply of duck tape & plastic
It’s been noted on another thread already, but the Washington Post poll (ending Oct. 10) shows a tie, both in LV and RV in Florida.
This is all great news to me. In my heart, I think I’d started to concede Florida to Bush. Having it in play is huge. Assuming Kerry gets Pennsylvania (and I saw one report that Bush was pulling out of there to focus on Ohio and Florida), then either Ohio or Florida would likely be enough to put him over the top. It gets a bit tricky with other states, but it would look awfully good. I’m very excited about having two big targets to pursue instead of just one.
Speaking of seniors in the swing states, there are huge numbers of “snow birds” who travel between FL and the northern swing states of OH, PA, MO and WI. And many of them have children who are aware of the health care problem.
It makes sense that Rove wants to keep inserting distractions like Mary Cheney in order to prevent focus from resting too long on any substantive issues.
I guess we should expect that on October 27 there will be a “terror alert”.
Furthermore, Strategic Vision is a Republican pollster. More so than other pollsters, Strategic Vision show stronger support for Bush. Yet even they say that Kerry picked up many points in Ohio, Wisconsin etc
This poll is particularly encouraging, partly because Insider pollster Matt Towery is a Republican. The analysis argues compellingly that health care reform gives Kerry serious traction with seniors, who have the highest turnout rates. I hope the Dem campaign takes note and runs strong health care reform ads in OH, PA and MO, as well as FL.