John Kerry leads George Bush among LV’s in OH +2 and NJ +8, but lags behind George Bush in MO -6, NV -7 and VA -4, according to a new series of polls by SurveyUSA, conducted 10/16-18.
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.
Where does Zogby say Bush is leading? I heard Kerry leading in all battleground. Is it a Texas thing? I looked over the site. I read on Kos that early voting favored D. Can someone find some public data?
Here are the new battleground states according to Zogby:
Four New Battleground States
Colorado – Bush 2000
Arizona – Bush 2000
North Carolina – Bush 2000
Virginia – Bush 2000
I find that surprising the positive Bush vote reports given the poll trends. NC? VA? In Play? With R incumbent? This is amazing.
And the real Big Dog is on the case – Bill Clinton in action.
Excellent news to see OH moving in Kerry’s favor. We get Ohio or Florida, and it’s a done deal. I think the seniors in Florida will break for Kerry giving us the edge their as well.
It was so hard to see the country clearly in Bush’s favor months ago, praying that people would wake up and see things for what they were. I believe deep down that most everyone believes that Bush mislead the public while he “rushed to war in Iraq”, but that they did not want to fault a United States President for something so horribly wrong. It was almost like they themselves would have to admit they were wrong and partly to blame. Now, with the debates done, people are making decisions for whatever reason they use to justify, but again, deep down, they are voting against Bush because he has lost their trust and can not be trusted as a Commander in Chief.
Look for a significant shift in the polls after this weekend. I look for one more event to effect this election, hopefully it will be a leak or something that is damaging to Bush and then it’s lights out for the Bush experiment.
Point of curiosity. In Zogby today, those who have already voted are 50-48 Bush leading. Where is the majority of early voting going on? Is this significant? Zogby stated that two things that bear watching are this figure, and the newly registered voters being overwhelmingly for Kerry, but I had just assumed that early voting would tend Democratic.
A.
I’d add to this list that SUSA shows the Bush lead at only 3% in North Carolina. Their poll from two weeks before had Bush up 7%. Maybe this is another option for an upset…
Slate gives a list of 10 states that are the tightest. 4 are Bush 2000 states, Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada. 6 are Gore 2000 states. Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Maine, Pennsylvania, Minnesota.
They then give 9 for possible upstates. 5 are Bush 2000 states. Colorado, Missouri, West Virginia, Virginia, and Arizona. 4 are Gore 2000 states. New Jersey, Michigan, Oregon, and Washington.
Of these last 9, all are described as safe or pretty safe to go the same way as 2000, except WV and Virginia. So…Virginia is starting to get some press. That 4% is pretty remarkable. With 13 EV’s, that would be one heckuva a big pickup. Great news.
From the SimonsWorld blog (via Andrewsullivan.com)
Interview with John Zogby, who expressed the following views on the election:
[…]
The Running
* The race is Kerry’s to lose, barring unforeseen events. If he loses, it is only his fault.
* Why? Because Bush’s numbers have not gone above 48%. Three other key polling indicators are all terrible for Bush amongst undecideds:
– Presidential job performance: 35% positive versus 60% negative
– Is the country headed in the right direction? net negative
– Does the President deserve re-election? 15% yes versus 40% no.
These numbers have always been net negative for Bush amongst undecideds. The last 3 Presidents with those numbers were Carter, Ford and Bush snr. None won.
* Another reason: undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Zogby sees them going like in Reagan in 1980, so that the margin is 2% but it is the same in each key state and it is in favour of Kerry, thus the Electoral Vote ends in a decisive victory.
* A higher turnout favours Kerry. 2000 election had 105 million voters. Anything over 107 million this time and Kerry will win.
* The youth vote: always heavily Democrat, this time the youth vote are unusually motivated and may turn out in bigger numbers than expected, tipping the race to Kerry.
* If the focus of the final two weeks is the War on Terror —> Bush wins
If the focus of the final two weeks is Iraq and/or domestic issues —> Kerry wins.
* If the result is like in 2000 there will be masses and months of litigation. Neither side will back down and it will be complete chaos, far worse than 2000.
Nader
* Nader is a spent force and irrelevant to the campaign. He does not take votes from Kerry.
* Voters for Nader would otherwise have not voted at all, so no loss to either side.
I second Greg’s comment. Why doesn’t Virginia get more attention considering the race is as close as other battlegroudn states? I’m biased, of course: I live in Virginia and I’m working to help him win Virginia. But what’s the argument over ignoring Virginia and pursuing Missouri or Colorado?,
RT
I’ve heard this before and in other elections. Evidently the kids are reflecting what they hear at home.
Kids Pick Kerry to Be the Next President (AP)
AP – Kid power! Democrat John Kerry is the winner, and the rest of the country should pay attention because the vote on Nickelodeon’s Web site has correctly chosen the president of the United States in the past four elections.
Yahoo! News | October 20, 2004, 11:01 am
Why isn’t the Virginia number getting more attention? If PA and OH are competitive swing states with similiar spreads, why not VA?
Obviously, given it’s history VA is traditionally more red, but still, I’d love to see the headline “Bush vulnerable in VA”