all what was written in your article "What do the Economic Indicators say about Dubya's chances" cannot be described better, though it's true that not only macroeconomic indicators are playing role in any elections. I personally believe that nobody really thinks objectively in the time of presidential elections. Anyway, there is always certain delay between the event and its emotional response, which causes lower correlation between presidential election results and some macroeconomic indicators.
I only hope that overstressed patriotism and consequences of dreadful 9/11 will not be overemphasized and the better candidate will be chosen.
---
You failed to mention the storms over Fla. & the Carolina's recently, plus all the flooding in states affected. Don't you feel this has had somewhat of impact on the job rate?
Also, Clinton didn't have Wall Street going through lawsuits, because of false account statemnets. Nor did he have several buildings collapse from terrorists attacks, nor did he have a war to wage, and a country to rebuild.
You also failed to mention the rising cost of oil, the problems of our farmers from weather & disease. Which, in my opinion, are not a direct cause of President Bush's policies.
Under these circumstances, & looking at your numbers, I, and apparantly 60% of Amercia think that things are not as bad as the numbers say.
---
I think the comparison between Clinton and Bush cannot be exact based on the 2nd term as president, since we are in a war and also post 911. The country did not face those two factors at one time at any time in recent history. Thus, it is almost rewriting how the country perceives economy, the president and the nation's security. If we have a good economy but are not safe, is that better than safety in a temporarily poor economy?
---
