Can McCain Win if There’s a Recession?

Reader Comments
Back to blog

last election.....diebold voting machines were proven to be fraudulent and the company had to shell out over 2 million, this was proven by a paper trail. Now they changed there name and are still being used in primaries and the election. Guess what....the difference this time around was that largely the paper vote receipt was eliminated, no way to prove fraud now, how convienent. This government is corrupt and in my opinion guilty of commiting terrorism against it's own people...killing more then 3000. We are no better then N Korea....were just talk a good game. Things are going to get alot worse....better research concentration camps in america and chip implants......and that will start you down the road of horrifying facts and discoveries.

Daniel of GA 9:52PM March 28, 2008

Notice that the downturn didn't start until the Democrats took control of the House and Senate.
I imagine that the prospect of the Democrats also winning the White House and being able to enact their extreme left legislation is frightening to people in business.
To quote that great philosopher, Betty Davis, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be an bumpy ride."
Keep your passport current and your assets liquid.

John D of OR 5:50AM March 09, 2008

Why put ALL the blame on the president (Bush)? Have the Dems any responsibility for helping the economy tank, e.g. energy (lack of) policies, taxes (increasing), spending (you think the Republicans were bad), and increased entitlements (yes, vote-buying)?
ANSWER: Yes, they do. McLain in 08!

FOB (Friend of Bush) of OH 11:49PM March 08, 2008

OF, try reading the whole sentence.
"We have had only one election since 1900 where there was no president or vice president on the national ticket and also there was a recession in the year of election."
Note the words after "and also".
Now note that there was no recession in 1952.

Warmongering Lunatic of MI 5:55PM March 08, 2008

Media polls are only good for measuring one thing, how brainwashed people are by the propaganda beings spewed by a left-tilting media. Is it any wonder that people and even a good number of financial "experts" believe we're on the cusp of a recession since that's about all the liberal media has been pounded out on its drum for the last two or three years?
Sometimes perception preceeds reality and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I work for a vendor who does big business with a domestic motorcycle manufacture and all the talk has been the last six months is to "recession proof" your business ... blah, blah, blah. Yet just this week business is booming and the boss is saying, "Where's that recession."
BTW, it's interesting how the liberal media (see the December 2005 UCLA report on media bias titled "A Measure of Bias -http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm)
Isn't it interesting how the liberal media failed to report the three quarters of economic recession which happened right before Bush was inaugurated in 2001. There was also the dot.com bust which the media gave only cursory coverage. Yet here we are now, the media finding "experts" who say we are in recession and now it only takes two quarters of economic downturn to equal a recession. Well, how can we now be in a "recession" if we haven't been suffering an economic downturn of six months much less nine months which is officially a recession?
I used to think the threats to our liberties and way of life can only come from a despotic left-wing government. Now I'm fully convinced, given the power of persuasion even a severely discredited liberal media still has, a biased national media largely controlled by leftist activists editors and journalists pose an even greater threat to our liberties because these fifth columnists have a far greater impact on public perceptions and opinions than does government. The only time an entity can pose a public threat to the liberties of a free people is if it has a larger public mouthpiece than its competitors. And if anyone thinks the national media leans right and has been the lap dog of a "right-wing" government instead of the lap dog of the radical leftists in the Democratic party has smoked one too many reefers.
Regards,
Hank from the People's Republic of Illinois

HANKMEISTER of IL 2:02PM March 08, 2008

If the economy is in recession on Election Day, voters will probably blame Bush and the former Republican Congress. They will probably be right.
The public has already dumped the Republican Congress, and Bush's approval ratings are low. Nevertheless, voters might not hold McCain accountable. His maverick reputation might let him escape pigeonholing--the Democrats will try--as Bush's wannabe successor and a member of the rejected Republican Congress.
McCain can't attack his own party's legislative and executive performances, but he can't run on those records either. The maverick tag might let him attract independent voters without alienating the core GOP constituencies.
That precipitous path might be McCain's only way to my vote. (After leaning strongly toward the GOP for 30+ years, today I consider myself a true independent.)

gs of MA 1:21PM March 08, 2008

Neither Eisenhower nor Stevenson were presidents or vice-presidents

of 12:48PM March 08, 2008

While many of us are complaining and using unhumorious comments to talk about the canidates, we should look at the root cause of many of our problems. We as a country has allowed the most horrible silent war to take more lives than any other war in US history. Abortion is destroying innocent lives every minute. Our own parents were prolife because we are even able to be her to give our opinions. The blood is on our hands and we don't even seem to care. We are only worried about ourselves. We vote democrat and millions more babies will be killed. The blood is on our hands. Jesus is the answer. He shows us how to love one another.

Ray of GA 12:47PM March 08, 2008

"I mean, is there anything in the political history of the past 50 years that suggests recessions are NOT really bad news for the presidential candidate of the incumbent party?"
Well...Bush won in 2004 despite the recession. Oh wait, there wasn't a recession in 2004. There was actually record growth. The old-print media was just obsessing and twisting over non-existent economic problems to get the Democratic nominee elected. Huh.
Republicans have done much to undermine their reputation as the party of fiscal responsibility, but most people understand that, fundamentally, raising taxes and creating new entitlements isn't going to "fix" the deficit *and* it might very well cost them a job as those dastardly rich have less money to invest.

hitnrun of PA 11:40AM March 08, 2008

There is a recent analogy that indicates that this old rule of thumb might not be so ironclad: 2000. In 2000, the dot-com bubble was bursting, stocks were heading south, and I recall it being well understood that the country was heading into a recession. Indeed, it was an issue in the election - that's why Bush ran on tax cuts.
So what was the result? Superficially, the rule was vindicated. The incumbent party lost the White House. But we all remember how close it was. The electoral vote went to Bush by the narrowest of hanging chads, and the incumbent party famously won the popular vote such that many partisan Democrats still claim 2000 as a win. The rule, if it functioned at all, functioned very weakly. One less sigh and roll of the eyes by Gore and we might have been saying now that the rule was dead.

of 10:42AM March 08, 2008