The NYT, whose domestic political coverage has really deteriorated over the last few years, is still worth reading for the sheer volume of information it provides and which allows a reader to draw her own conclusions. This
story, which argues that a likely economic recovery would put the Democrats in a real pickle, is a great example of the
Times being useful despite itself:
The rapid change in the outlook -- underscored by figures released on Thursday showing the fastest quarterly economic growth since 1984 -- is already forcing the Democratic presidential candidates to calibrate their attack on Mr. Bush's economic record in ways they did not have to just a week ago. It has also left them in danger of looking as though they were clinging to economic gloom.
Rather than simply lamenting the economy, the Democrats now say that one good quarter does not erase three sluggish years. The growth has not caused a rebound in the job market, they note, and large budget deficits loom for years.
The story provides no reasons to dismiss the Dems' expectations that the economy will still be weak next year other than the Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisors saying the nation's economic fundamentals are sound. The article also makes several comparisons to 1992, when by most measures the economy was in much worse shape. However, it never acknowledges that voters' perceptions of an issue are far more important in shaping their decisions than the actual facts. The issue of the economy isn't whether it will be bad as it was in 1992. What matters is whether the economy will be poor enough that a sufficient portion of voters in the swing states conclude that Bush has mucked up the economy and should be replaced by the Democrat.
Which brings us to the NYT giving us great information despite its occasional facile interpretations and misguided conclusions:
"Compared with the rest of the country, jobs have disappeared more quickly, and incomes and house prices have grown more slowly in the nine states won by the winner in the last three presidential elections, according to Economy.com, a research company. Besides New Hampshire, the states are Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Tennessee and West Virginia.
"They're just getting pummeled by global competition and off-shore outsourcing," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Economy.com."
The economy may be booming in Texas and Massachusetts next year, but in terms of Electoral College politics, who cares? Texas will vote for Bush, and Massachusetts' electoral votes will go to any sentient candidate as long as there's a "D" after his name. But this election will almost surely be decided by states that border the Ohio and Mississippi rivers, plus New Hampshire, Arizona and Nevada. With these states lagging behind the rest of the country in economic growth, job creation and increases in home values, there are still ample grounds for believing the economy will be a serious obstacle to George W. Bush's reelection.