[Honeykiss1974]

Originally posted by TonyB06
I think the exact opposite is true. Presidential elections turn on the economy, and especially in what people perceive as tough economic times. And while foreign policy is usually a distant yawn to domestic politics, I think this year (Iraq/war, WMD?, Senate Intell's 9/11 Report) it will play right along as a top issue in voters' minds.

I think social issues have more "traction" when voters feel "comfortable enough" in their own situations economically. Think back to 1992. A lot of people personally liked G.H.W. Bush, and his prosecution of the Gulf War, but the economy tanked--so they made a change. I think President Clinton's 43 percent win wasn't a majority only because Perot was seen, by some, as a viable alternative. In 1996, the economy was humming---> Bill kept the big white crib.

I think presidential elections, historically, are referenda on the incumbent; folks make a determination on the job he's done, and then, if they don't like it, focus on the opponent and whether he'd do better. NBC ran a story/poll about a week ago that said since 1948? no president has gained re-election with job approval numbers below 50 percent after July 1. Bush's number in the poll was 46 percent.

Nov. 2 is 105 days away. We gon all see what's what.

Good point Tony. However, given the fact that economcially, both Kerry and Bush have the same stance, that's one of the reasons why I think social issues will probably be the "make or break" issue. It will be interesting how the "propaganda machines" turn for both candidates though.