I see some thoughtful analysis going on here.
As I've stated in another thread, the state of the economy explains the greatest amount of variance in vote choice outside party affiliation. And since strong partisans tend to cancel each other out at both ends of the political spectrum, it's that middle core of weakly partisan voters who really matter for presidential elections. These are also the people who tend to vote with their wallets the most.
If Bush hopes to electorally benefit from the economy, he's going to require some sort of good economic news soon. Pocketbook voters tend to
retrospectively evaluate incumbent presidents based on their handling of the economy. As such, Bush probably needs at least some period of solid growth rather than prospects for growth going into the election.
Conversely, voters evaluate opposition candidates
prospectively based on how they feel the candidate will handle the economy in the future. It's possible, of course (and plausible given the disarray among Democrats), that the Democratic candidate will fail to show how the future economy stands to benefit by his or her election. But assuming some level of campaign competence, the economy
at this point benefits Democratic candidates rather than Bush.
Given Karl Rove's familiarity with political science and electoral behavior research, it's not surprising that Bush's strategy for 2004 recognizes that the economy hurts them and attempts to shift the agenda from a losing issue to a winning one for Republicans.
The big picture will become much clearer a year from now.
-- Todd/Leviathn
