This doesn't bode well for GWB. I'm certain because of the war in Iraq, voter apathy for this election will be at an all-time low. Hopefully that will translate into a record turnout at the polls.

New Voters Flooding Election Offices

Sep 28, 12:13 PM (ET)

By ROBERT TANNER

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040928/D85CORF00.html

New voters are flooding local election offices with paperwork, registering in significantly higher numbers than four years ago as attention to the presidential election runs high and an array of activist groups recruit would-be voters who could prove critical come Nov. 2.

Cleveland has seen nearly twice as many new voters register so far as compared with 2000; Philadelphia is having its biggest boom in new voters in 20 years; and counties are bringing in temporary workers and employees from other agencies to help process all the new registration forms.

Nationwide figures aren't yet available, but anecdotal evidence shows an upswing in many places, often urban but some rural. Some wonder whether the new voters - some of whom sign up at the insistence of workers paid by get-out-the-vote organizations - will actually make it to the polls on Election Day, but few dispute the registration boom.

This doesn't bode well for GWB. I'm certain because of the war in Iraq, voter apathy for this election will be at an all-time low. Hopefully that will translate into a record turnout at the polls.

New Voters Flooding Election Offices

Sep 28, 12:13 PM (ET)

By ROBERT TANNER

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040928/D85CORF00.html

New voters are flooding local election offices with paperwork, registering in significantly higher numbers than four years ago as attention to the presidential election runs high and an array of activist groups recruit would-be voters who could prove critical come Nov. 2.

Cleveland has seen nearly twice as many new voters register so far as compared with 2000; Philadelphia is having its biggest boom in new voters in 20 years; and counties are bringing in temporary workers and employees from other agencies to help process all the new registration forms.

Nationwide figures aren't yet available, but anecdotal evidence shows an upswing in many places, often urban but some rural. Some wonder whether the new voters - some of whom sign up at the insistence of workers paid by get-out-the-vote organizations - will actually make it to the polls on Election Day, but few dispute the registration boom.

Higher registration and voter turnout typically helps Democrats, but Arnold's election here was with a record turnout. Go figure.

Higher registration and voter turnout typically helps Democrats, but Arnold's election here was with a record turnout. Go figure.

But Doug, you had rolling blackouts, record monthly energy bills, an administration that created huge deficits, and a very angry voter populous.

So think about it. Bush also has high gas prices, record deficits, record jobless rates, and a very unpopular war on his hands. Outcome should be the same.

I can't gain much hope from this here article.

...record jobless rates ...

?!?!?!?!?!

Uh, no. This one may move to the top of your many ridiculous comments.

?!?!?!?!?!

Uh, no. This one may move to the top of your many ridiculous comments.

Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover with a net job loss.

?!?!?!?!?!

Uh, no. This one may move to the top of your many ridiculous comments.

Unemployment is still less than the average under Clinton.

The 30's were pretty bad, if we are talking about "records".

Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover with a net job loss.


The chart doesn't account for the Roosevelt terms...

Also, anyone want to describe a cause and effect of any net job loss?

The chart doesn't account for the Roosevelt terms...

Only because I didn't find a chart that contained that data. Nonetheless the American economy gained jobs under every president since Hoover, except for Bush.

. . .and hasn't beat the records achieved during the Great Depression, that excuses his s----ty performace? Amused by statistical sophistry? Sounds like like someone is comfortably insulated from the economic stress and insecurity that has replaced the "irrational exuberance" of the Clinton years.

The chart doesn't account for the Roosevelt terms...

Also, anyone want to describe a cause and effect of any net job loss?

Doug, the parallels between Arnold's win in California and Bush's loss come November are strikingly similar.

The chart doesn't account for the Roosevelt terms...

Also, anyone want to describe a cause and effect of any net job loss?
Change the chart to show house and senate majorities. Tells a different story.

Change the chart to show house and senate majorities. Tells a different story.

Care to demonstrate?

Care to demonstrate?
Check back in a few hours. (still at work)

Oops, See Bo-Jones' thread for a more elequent discription.

Ohio's (Republican) Registar of voters is attempting to invalidate as many of the new regs. using an old state law stipulating the minimum thickness of the paper stock the registration forms must be. This was law was implememted when all registration forms were stored and the thickness ensured longevity while stored. Now the forms are scanned & stored in E-format.

If you can't win, steal.

george bush campaign slogan: at least our economy isn't as bad as the great depression.

. . .and hasn't beat the records achieved during the Great Depression, that excuses his s----ty performace? Amused by statistical sophistry? Sounds like like someone is comfortably insulated from the economic stress and insecurity that has replaced the "irrational exuberance" of the Clinton years.


We all know better than to look at figures in a vacuum. The 90's saw a tech explosion; janitors were driving Ferrari's with money from their stock gains. IPOs were once a day. Stocks were going up faster than people could track. Government spending was relatively in check. Tax revenues were way up, with all this new tech driven wealth created. However, it was somewhat of a house of cards, and when it started to fall, it fell hard and fast. So, the 90's saw somewhat of a "fake" or temporary explosion, really, that can neither be blamed or credited to Clinton or anyone else, except maybe Bill Gates. Bush inherited an economy already on the slide, worsened by 9/11. Still, despite all that, unemployment under Bush is still less than the average under Clinton, and less than that of Clinton at the end of his first term.

Which is more meaningful, citing to one number, or examination of the facts and circumstances?

I don't know what they were reporting in Fresno, but I assure you that your impression of the tech boom is cartoonishly distorted.

I've heard the excuses. Other than run up debt and kick back money to his campaign contributors, what has Bush done?

Let them work at Walmart. Voila, unemployment is down!

Care to demonstrate?

O.K. I lied. I'm going to need a few days to get it all organized. My chart uses more than just one economic indicator and more than just one public official. Basically it shows the county is at its best when neither party has a large majority. Quite interesting, but its still just a chart that either side could pick apart to use to their advantage.

Unemployment is still less than the average under Clinton..........

Back during the Reagan years, the labor dept changed the way they classified people as "unemployed". Before, anybody who wasn't working and was not on disability was considered "unemployed". Back then, during a recession, unemployment numbers of 8% or 9% were quite often quoted.

Since then, anybody who hasn't looked for work in 6 months is no longer considered unemployed. This worked great for Reagan during the difficult times of his first term, where this accounting trick took better than 2% of the population off the listing as being unemployed.

In deep economic downturns such as the one we are still struggling to get out of, the ranks of the long-term unemployed grows. The ironic thing about this is that, just as things get worse, this method gives us "improving" unemployment numbers. GWB's administration has continually talked about "adding jobs", yet the total number of employed has fallen, as has the total amount earned. This is the only figure that really matters. The rest is all partisan smoke-and-mirrors.