1992 Presidential Election
The 1992 presidential election was, certainly in hindsight, a critical one.
George H. W. Bush clearly outclassed his opponent, Bill Clinton,
in foreign policy expertise,
but the American people were persuaded by the media
that that really didn’t matter,
that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
which Bush and his foreign policy team of
Secretary of State James A. Baker III and
National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft
had so ably assisted,
that “The End of History,” at least with respect to foreign policy, had occurred,
and the only issues that mattered any more to America
(or at least to the American voter)
were domestic:
issues, identified by the Clinton campaign and the media
(there was hardly a separation between the two)
as
ensuring the recovery of the economy and
advancing the interests of the primary components of the Democratic coalition:
women, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, labor.
I very much admired President Bush,
for his personal qualities, background, and wise policy choices,
all of which were especially notable in contrast to those of his challenger,
Bill Clinton,
and so watched this campaign very closely.
Although the American media generally tilts to the Democratic Party
and to the issues that they represent,
its coverage of the 1992 Bush/Clinton campaign
was the most slanted that I have ever seen.
For example, the Democrats, with the help of the media,
successfully made the American economy into the major issue of the campaign.
James Carville’s assertion “It’s the economy, stupid” was endlessly repeated,
and taken as gospel by the media,
in their role as megaphone for the Clinton campaign.
But to make Bush’s handling of the economy into a negative,
they had to portray the economy negatively,
which they were ready, willing and able to do.
Many Democratic partisans, and some journalists,
labeled Bush as “George Herbert Hoover Bush.”
The Washington Post, in particular,
outdid itself in doing the Clinton campaign’s work.
Perhaps the most egregious example was the way Post’s news department
spun the last major economic report before the election,
the flash report for growth of the GDP in the third quarter.
Here is how the Post reported it,
followed by the (post-election) stories reporting the q3 and q4 final numbers.
Analysts Surprised; Bush Hails Gain
by Steven Mufson
Washington Post, 1992-10-28 (Wednesday), Page A1
[Paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]
[1]
The Commerce Department yesterday said that
the nation’s economy grew at a surprisingly strong 2.7 percent annual rate
during the third quarter of this year [1992q3],
giving President Bush an unexpected piece of upbeat economic news
just a week before the election.
[2]
The president, campaigning in Des Moines,
held up the latest growth figures and said,
“The Democrats keep telling us that everything is going to hell,
but they are wrong.”
[3]
But many independent economists,
who had expected about a 1.5 percent growth rate,
said the U.S. economy cannot keep up such a pace.
They said the figure was inflated
by Americans dipping into their already meager savings to cover new purchases,
by a temporary boost in military spending and
by increases in unsold stocks of goods at the factory and wholesale levels.
[4]
“Anyone who says that 2.7 percent is now our new growth rate is crazy,”
said Donald Rataczjak,
an economic statistic expert at Georgia State University.
“This is a surprising number - and it is not sustainable.”
[The final GDP growth rate numbers were]
[5]
Charles Lieberman, managing director of Chemical Securities Corp.,
said the Commerce Department would later revise downward its estimate
for the third quarter’s gross domestic product (GDP)
when it collects more information and
issues its final estimate for the July-to-September period.
[6]
In a sign that the recovery remains shaky,
the Conference Board, a New York-based industry group,
reported yesterday that
for the fourth straight month consumer confidence declined again in October.
[7]
The low level of confidence, measured in a survey of 5,000 U.S. households,
suggested that consumers would continue to be cautious about spending.
In the survey,
43 percent of consumers said they put off a major purchase
because of the economy.
Consumers were especially gloomy about job prospects.
[8]
Only 5 percent of those surveyed said jobs are “plentiful,”
while almost 10 times as many said jobs are “hard to get.”
[This is, in part, a reflection of media negativism.]
[9]
“How many quarters of positive growth will it take
before they give President Bush a fair shake?”
asked a Bush-Quayle campaign statement that hailed
“the now-spurting economy.”
[10]
Bush administration officials also point to the continuing low inflation rate
as evidence that
they have laid the groundwork for a long and healthy recovery
without the risk of high interest rates.
[Which, of course, is exactly what happened.]
[11]
Interest rates are at their lowest levels in about 20 years.
[12]
New Labor Department figures yesterday supplied further evidence that
a weak economy was keeping a lid on inflation.
Americans’ wages, salaries and benefits posted the smallest gain in five years
in the year ended Sept. 30.
[13]
George Stephanopoulos,
communications director for the campaign of Democratic nominee Bill Clinton,
said yesterday that
“the sight of George Bush patting himself on the back once again reflects
how out of touch he is with the American people and the American economy.”
[14]
Stephanopoulos said
that half the third-quarter GDP growth came out of individuals’ savings and
that much of the increased consumer spending
went to pay for back-to-school clothes and medical care.
[15]
He noted that even though
there have been six straight quarters of economic expansion,
the growth rate during that time has averaged just 1.8 percent,
well below the average post-World War II recovery rate of 5.8 percent.
[16]
“What does Bush have to brag about?” Stephanopoulos said.
[Answer:
Economic growth without inflation,
what economists and politicians had been seeking
throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s.]
[17]
According to the Commerce Department,
the nation’s economic output has climbed back to the level it achieved
in the second quarter of 1990,
before the recession started.
Getting back to that level has taken a year and a half of growth.
[18]
In the recoveries of 1975, 1980 and 1983
it took six to nine months to get back to pre-slump levels of output,
according to Larry Moran,
an economist at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.
[One might, but of course the WP does not,
note that those more rapid recoveries resulted in renewed bouts of inflation.]
[19]
The Clinton campaign said that because of population growth,
economic output per person was still lower than it was when Bush took office.
[20]
Yesterday’s GDP estimate
met with widespread skepticism among economists.
[21]
Chemical’s Lieberman said,
“I think the economy is somewhat weaker than these numbers suggest.”
He noted that the Commerce Department
used an estimate for September trade numbers
that Lieberman believed was overly optimistic
because of weak economies overseas.
[22]
Lieberman also said the GDP estimate, which is adjusted for inflation,
appeared larger than expected
because the Commerce Department used a very low estimate for inflation.
[23]
In particular, the department said that
prices for producers’ durable equipment fell at a 6.4 percent annual rate,
mostly because of price cuts in computers.
[24]
Georgia State’s Rataczjak said:
“I don’t know any time except the Great Depression
with price declines of that magnitude in the capital sector.”
[25]
Rataczjak also said, “I don’t believe these defense numbers.”
The Commerce Department said
military spending increased at a 6.9 percent annual rate,
the first increase after five quarters of decline.
[26]
Rataczjak said that shipments of military equipment fell in July and August
and that there was no increase in military manpower.
Even if the defense numbers are accurate, he said,
they will soon resume their long-term decline.
[27]
But Commerce Department economists defended their estimates.
[28]
Carl Galbraith,
who follows defense expenditures for the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
said about half the increase last quarter
was the result of increased delivery of missiles to the Air Force
from Hughes Aircraft Co., Raytheon Corp., General Dynamics Corp. and Boeing Co.
[29]
There were also increased deliveries of M1 tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles,
Galbraith said.
[30]
A defense analyst with the Congressional Budget Office said
the Pentagon had planned to increase outlays in two areas over the summer:
depot maintenance and
separation allowances to encourage civilians and uniformed personnel
to retire early.
[31]
While the quarterly increase in defense expenditures
ran counter to the long-term downward trend in the Pentagon budget,
both administration and congressional analysts said
there was no evidence that
spending had been artificially inflated or accelerated during the quarter.
[32]
Commerce Department economists also pointed to
a sharp increase in consumer spending on furniture,
something that baffled many economists.
Businesses stepped up spending on computers as computer makers cut prices.
[33]
Economists drew attention to a $14.7 billion rise in business inventories,
suggesting that
future sales would come from unsold stocks
instead of increases in production.
[34]
The rate of increase in the final sales of domestic goods was 2.1 percent,
a figure that might more accurately reflect the health of the economy.
[35]
The only consolation
for the past three and a half years of sluggish economic growth
has been the effect it has had on inflation.
The stagnant economy and the weak job market
have slowed down the rise in wages,
one of the key elements that can push up inflation.
[36]
The Labor Department yesterday said its employment cost index,
considered one of the best gauges of wage inflation pressures,
slowed to a 3.5 percent advance in the year ended in September.
[37]
That was down from 4.3 percent a year earlier and the smallest increase
since costs edged up 3.4 percent in the year ended in September 1987.
The index had risen 3.6 percent in the year ended last June.
[38]
Even if later Commerce Department estimates confirm a good third quarter,
economists said the economic outlook remains lackluster.
[39]
Lieberman said
capital spending by business remains weak,
investment in buildings continues to decline,
the outlook for exports has worsened and
consumer spending continues to grow faster than personal income,
suggesting that
even the modest level of recovery can’t last.
[40]
“The economy continues to muddle along,” he said.
Staff writer Steven Pearlstein contributed to this report.
By ROBERT D. HERSHEY JR
New York Times, 1992-10-28 (Wednesday), page A1
[Paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]
[1]
The economy grew at a surprisingly brisk pace of 2.7 percent
in the July-September period,
the Commerce Department reported today.
This was the sixth consecutive quarterly advance in gross domestic product,
the most comprehensive measure of economic activity within American borders.
[2]
The dollar value of the output surpassed the pre-recession peak
registered in the 1990 second quarter.
[3]
President Bush and other Republicans immediately seized on the figures,
which are the final important set of numbers
to be published before Election Day,
to contend that
the economy was shaking off its lethargy and that
the United States would “lead the world to recovery.”
[4]
“We have now had six straight quarters of growth in the United States,”
Mr. Bush said as he campaigned through Iowa, Kentucky and Ohio.
“And yet the Democrats keep telling us that everything is going to hell.
And they’re wrong.”
[ Page A16. ]
[5]
Democrats offered a far less optimistic view.
Ronald H. Brown, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,
said Mr. Bush’s reaction was
“another example of a failed President grasping at straws.”
[6]
And specialists working in the campaign of Gov. Bill Clinton,
the Democratic nominee,
noted that growth in the last six quarters had averaged 1.8 percent --
less than one-third the rate for comparable periods
in the other eight postwar recoveries.
They said the third-quarter advance could not be sustained.
[7]
The conventional view of campaign strategists and political scientists is that
voters’ perceptions of the state of the economy are formed and change slowly
and that
it is too late for new economic data
to alter the way people will vote next week.
Some Republican economists acknowledged as much
when asked about today’s output figures.
[8]
Yet this year’s campaign has changed course so many times and
President Bush’s handling of the economy is such a central issue that
the political effect of the figures cannot be gauged with much confidence.
[9]
The G.D.P. data, moreover, were blunted by
a separate report from the Conference Board, a corporate group,
showing that consumer confidence fell in October
for the fourth consecutive month.
With a reading of 53, the index is now at its weakest level since February,
which was the lowest point since the onset of recession in July 1990.
[10]
And other recent economic soundings have been decidedly mixed.
A drop in first-time claims for jobless benefits
to the lowest level in more than two years
raised hopes last week that the job market had finally begun to improve,
and retail sales have also ticked up recently.
But the nation’s trade deficit, reflecting economic slowdowns abroad,
soared to $9 billion in September and
industrial output has fallen two months in a row.
[11]
The National Bureau of Economic Research, the nation’s business-cycle arbiter,
has yet to formally declare the recession’s end --
although most economists believe this occurred sometime in mid-1991.
[See their final judgment here,
with the overall picture here
(note the “announcement dates” in particular).]
[12]
While economists in general are inclined to favor Republicans --
though there are prominent exceptions --
most [economists] tended to agree with the Clinton forces today that
the overall third-quarter G.D.P. results were not as strong
as the 2.7 percent rate of expansion implied.
[13]
“This number is quite decent if it was sustainable,”
Dave Orr, chief economist for the First Union National Bank in Charlotte, said.
“But it’s not.”
[14]
He and others cited in particular a sizable 3.4 percent rate of increase
in what consumers spent on personal consumption,
much of this on clothing, furniture and other household equipment and medical care.
This was in contrast with
a rate of decline of one-tenth of 1 percent for the second quarter.
[15]
But the figures also indicated that
consumers were forced to draw down their savings to make these purchases
since disposable personal income --
running at an annual rate of $3.6 trillion --
edged up a negligible $400 million and, on a per capita basis, no doubt fell.
[16]
The savings rate, meanwhile,
dropped to 4.5 percent from 5.3 percent in the spring quarter,
the Commerce Department’s report showed.
[17]
Another significant source of numerical strength was
a surge of 6.9 percent in the pace of Federal military spending.
This was seen as an aberration
since the preceding four quarters all showed big declines,
averaging 8.8 percent.
[18]
No one interviewed today suggested that
these or any of the other numbers in the report
were “cooked” for political purposes,
though one said the spending itself
could possibly have been timed for maximum effect.
Since these figures reflect actual delivery of goods,
they were not affected by
various military contracts the Administration announced recently
to considerable campaign fanfare.
[19]
Economists skeptical about the sustainability of this summer’s G.D.P. pace
also pointed to a further buildup in business inventories,
which rose at a $14.7 billion rate in the third quarter
after an increase of $7.8 billion in the spring.
[20]
Inventories are subject to differing interpretations --
increases could result both from a buyers’ strike
or aggressive stocking by optimistic merchants --
but most analysts thought the third-quarter buildup was involuntary.
Newly produced goods contribute to G.D.P.
even if they languish on retail or wholesale shelves,
but their existence also tends to retard future production.
[21]
Under Secretary of Commerce J. Antonio Villamil, however, said that
the inventory-sales ratio remains low,
“suggesting that additional increases in demand will be met
primarily by production gains rather than inventory liquidation.”
[22]
Business increased its investment in equipment, the report also showed,
though this was said to consist mainly of computers and was not broadly based.
And the international trade sector continued to drag down performance,
with the department estimating a September deficit
$200 million higher than August’s $9 billion.
Some considered this projection overly optimistic
in light of significant weakening of foreign economies.
[23]
“There’s really nothing here I’m impressed with,”
Lincoln F. Anderson,
chief economist for Fidelity Management and Research in Boston said.
“We won’t get anywhere near 2.7 in the fourth quarter.”
[24]
But there was one element in today’s report, inflation,
that was unambiguously good --
except that it was aided by a weak economy.
As measured by the fixed-weight index,
which assumes that the composition of output does not vary,
inflation retreated to a 2.4 percent rate during the summer
from 3.2 percent in the spring.
[25]
In a separate report today,
the Labor Department said its Employment Cost Index
rose seven-tenths of 1 percent in the third quarter,
slightly less than in the four preceding quarters during which
increases were either eight-tenths or nine-tenths of 1 percent.
[26]
Increases in wages and salaries
decelerated to four-tenths of 1 percent from six-tenths of 1 percent,
while benefit costs rose 1.5 percent
after rising 1.1 percent in the second quarter.
[27]
The rise in G.D.P. --
the total value of the nation’s output of goods and services,
minus income from abroad --
was the fourth biggest of Mr. Bush’s Presidency and
nearly twice as big as the analysts’ consensus.
On the other hand, as the Clinton camp noted,
it was only half the normal pace of the early stages of typical recoveries
and short of the 3 percent pace
considered necessary to push down the unemployment rate.
[28]
“Half the surge in demand came from people dipping into their savings,”
Gene Sperling, economic policy director for the Clinton campaign, said.
“How encouraging is that?”
Clinton Says Plans to Stimulate Economy May Have to Change
by Steven Pearlstein
Washington Post, 1992-11-26, Page A1
[Paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]
[1]
The nation’s economy showed the first signs of a genuine recovery
during the summer months,
according to a government report yesterday,
prompting President-elect Clinton to say
it could affect the need for immediate action
to boost the economy through tax cuts and government spending.
[2]
The Commerce Department,
revising its earlier estimate of the gross domestic product, said
the economy was expanding at the annual rate of 3.9 percent
during July, August and September.
The growth was led by
record exports,
a surge in consumer spending and
a buildup of inventories at stores and factories.
[3]
Earlier, just before the election,
the department had estimated that
the output of goods and services had grown 2.7 percent.
[4]
In Little Rock, Ark., Clinton said
the report “could ... have some impact”
on his plans to provide a short-term stimulus to the economy.
“It’s obviously good news but it requires a lot of analysis,”
the president-elect told reporters.
[5]
Clinton advisers have spoken of a short-term stimulus plan of
as much as $40 billion.
[6]
The 3.9 percent annual growth rate was
the best quarterly performance that the economy has turned in
since George Bush became president.
The news was received with bittersweet irony by the outgoing administration,
which blames economic woes for the president’s defeat in November.
[7]
“I hate to say it, but we told you so,”
said Commerce Secretary Barbara H. Franklin yesterday.
She said the report proves
the administration’s election-year contention that
the economy has begun a sustained recovery.
“It’s ironic, but that’s the way it is.”
[8]
There were notes of caution, however, about
whether the economy really has entered a period of sustained growth.
[9]
A number of economists who have advised the Clinton campaign said yesterday that they would stick by their previous calls for a stimulus package.
The proposals include
an investment tax credit
to spur business purchases of computers and production equipment and
increased government spending on
public works, research and development, and education and worker retraining.
[10]
“I wouldn’t jump off the stimulus bandwagon,”
declared James Tobin, Yale University’s Nobel Prize-winning economist
who endorsed the Clinton economic plan during the fall campaign.
“It’s a nice piece of news compared to what we have had,
but we still have a long way to go
before we get unemployment down to a reasonable level.”
[11]
“I’m not deterred,”
said Lawrence Mishel, research director of the Economic Policy Institute,
a liberal think tank in Washington that has advised the Clinton campaign.
[12]
Robert Solow, an MIT economist who also supports Clinton,
said the report might require the Clinton team to wait a bit
to see how the economy performs in the final three months of the year.
[13]
“A 4 percent annual growth rate is pretty darn good,
and if it would continue, then I’d say you could do without much stimulus,”
Solow said, adding quickly,
“But that’s a big `if’ right now.”
[14]
Most Bush administration officials stressed the positive.
[15]
Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady noted that
for the first nine months of 1992,
the economy grew at an average rate of 2.8 percent,
well above the nation’s average economic growth rate for the past 25 years.
[16]
“Through prudent management,
President Bush has guided the American economy through
a global recession and economic restructuring,”
said Brady.
[17]
“The economic figures made us all feel ... almost vindicated,”
said White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, declaring that
a “Bush recovery” was well underway.
[18]
The administration’s upbeat outlook
was bolstered yesterday by other reports that
unemployment claims had dropped again, while
sales of previously owned homes rose 9.1 percent in October,
to their highest point in four years.
[19]
And earlier this week the government reported
sizable jumps in orders for “big-ticket” durable goods,
while the monthly survey of consumer confidence posted an impressive gain.
[20]
A more cautious Michael J. Boskin,
chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers,
conceded yesterday that the proof of a sustained recovery will come only when
the economy begins generating new jobs again.
[21]
Private economists yesterday also warned against
reading too much into the recent reports -
particularly the report on gross domestic product,
which can swing widely from quarter to quarter coming out of a recession.
[22]
Some economists cautioned that the 3.9 percent growth rate,
while a pleasant surprise,
would probably not hold up in the final three months of the year because of
“one-time” events over the summer that would be unlikely to recur.
[23]
In particular, they pointed to
a 5 percent increase in Pentagon spending during the period,
breaking a two-year decline in defense spending that is certain to resume.
[24]
They also pointed to
a $20 billion jump in business inventories that may reflect
increased optimism on the part of some shop owners and manufacturers,
but just as likely reflects disappointing sales at other firms.
[25]
Others noted that there was little growth - $2.4 billion -
in investment by businesses in new plant and equipment,
while the big boost in consumer spending came as
consumers gave in to pent-up demand
for things like washing machines and new shoes and
temporarily reduced their savings rate,
from 5.3 percent of their income to 4.3 percent, to make purchases.
[26]
“The economy is a little stronger, but this number way exaggerates it,”
said Lawrence Chimerine, economic adviser at DRI/McGraw Hill Inc.
[27]
“The health of the economy is gradually improving,
but there is no doubt in my mind that
the fourth-quarter numbers will be below these,”
said Lyle Gramley,
consulting economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association of America.
[Both Chimerine and Gramley were totally wrong.
1992q3 was 3.9%;
1992q4 came in at 4.8%.]
[28]
Gramley said
an economic stimulus package from the new administration is “still warranted,”
but like many economists contacted yesterday,
he recommended that it should not include
the middle-class income tax cut that Clinton proposed while a candidate.
[29]
Unlike proposals for business tax credits and increased infrastructure spending,
which improve the long-term productivity of the economy,
a tax cut provides only short-term stimulus by encouraging consumer spending.
[30]
Yesterday’s upward revision in the third-quarter gross domestic product
was something of a vindication for the analysts at the Commerce Department,
whose initial calculation that the economy had grown at 2.7 percent
was attacked by some as being
an overly optimistic, election-year ploy to boost the Bush reelection effort.
[31]
When the department prepares its initial estimate,
it often has data only from the first two months of the three-month period,
and has to estimate the results for the final month
for such things as
exports, imports and even spending by federal, state and local governments.
As it turned out,
the analysts had guessed conservatively on all those items,
causing the unusually large upward revision yesterday.
[Note that the Post
did not go back to the gloom-and-doom naysayers
it trotted out before the election,
to ask them why they had been so wrong.]
GDP Increase Is Strongest in 5 Years
by John M. Berry
Washington Post, 1993-02-27, Page C1
Consumer spending and exports in the final three months of last year
helped lead the U.S. economy to its
strongest quarterly growth rate in five years,
according to revised figures reported by the Commerce Department yesterday.
The gross domestic product,
the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States,
advanced at a 4.8 percent annual rate in the October-December quarter,
according to the revised report.
That was substantially better than
the department’s initial estimate last month of 3.8 percent.
The figure was changed because
consumer spending and exports rose more strongly
in the final three months of the year
than the department had estimated previously.
Most analysts said the burst of stronger growth laid to rest worries that
the economic recovery and expansion following the recession of two years ago
is likely to falter again, as it did late in 1991.
...
The new higher growth figure for the quarter will also mean
an upward revision in productivity gains for 1992,
already the largest in about 15 years.
Over the past year,
many employers have been able to increase their production of goods and services
without hiring more workers.
However, with the length factory week at a record high,
many experts believe that if the economy keeps growing
payrolls will have to expand to meet the rising demand.
Between the fourth quarter of 1991 and the fourth quarter of last year,
real GDP increased 3.2 percent,
with growth in the second six months about twice as fast as in the first six.
Now many forecasters are predicting growth this year
will also be slightly above 3 percent.
To see a current government table which shows quarterly GDP data from way back (1947) to the present, click here (which opens an Excel spreadsheet),
then consult the right-most column, headed
Here is an extract of the quarterly dates for the Bush administration plus the first year of the Clinton administration.
The last half of 1992 is in bold.
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg
Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election
by Alan I. Abramowitz
Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Feb., 1995)
[Emphasis is added.]
Abstract:
This article uses data from the 1992 American National Election Study
to analyze
the influence of abortion attitudes
on candidate choice in the 1992 presidential election.
Despite the general belief that
the presidential election was decided almost exclusively on economic issues,
attitudes toward abortion had a significant influence on candidate choice
in the overall electorate.
Although the issue divided supporters of both parties,
far more “pro-choice” Republicans than “pro-life” Democrats
defected from their party’s presidential candidate.
Abortion had a stronger influence on candidate choice
than any other policy issue included in the study,
including affirmative action, social welfare,
defense spending, the Gulf War, and the death penalty.
Furthermore, among voters who were aware of the parties’ positions
and for whom abortion was a salient issue,
abortion had a much stronger influence on candidate choice
than any other issue, including the state of the economy.
2011-07-21:
This is just an observation by the author of this blog.
In the 1992 election, women were highly polarized, voting Democratic, with the Clinton-Gore ticket being considered more favorable to the interests of women than Bush-Quayle.
Looking back, Bush-41 was reviled by women’s groups for his nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
More importantly to the women’s groups, Clinton was viewed, correctly, as being far more disposed to their interests than Bush-41.
In fact, some of the female Clinton supporters used the slogan
“Elect Hillary’s Spouse,” indicating where they thought the power in the marriage lay.
But all this is just for review.
The point of this comment is to note, with hindsight, what happened in each of the 1992 slate’s personal marital lives.
In particular, the Bill and Hillary marriage seems rather distant.
The Gore marriage between Al and Tipper ended in divorce in 2010.
On the other hand, George and Barb seem as stably married as ever, while Dan and Marilyn also have maintained their marriage over the years.
So what and who is “good for women” or “pro-women”?
I know what I believe, but accept that many Democratic women have a different view.
But I think it is of interest to note what happened in their personal lives.
The Comey affair is not “unprecedented.”
By C. Boyden Gray and Elise Passamani
Amercian Conserservative, 2016-11-01
In the wake of FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Hillary Clinton email probe, there has been an explosion of Clinton and media criticism alleging that the investigation could influence the outcome of the election. And at a rally in Florida on Saturday, Secretary Clinton emphatically charged that Comey’s action was “unprecedented.”
Contrary to her claim, she herself contributed to an even bigger influence on an election: the October surprise four days before Election Day in 1992 that helped then-Gov. Bill Clinton defeat then-President George H.W. Bush. This event was the last-minute indictment of Caspar Weinberger, which the Clintons and the press turned into an indictment of Bush. (The prosecutor himself later claimed credit for having affected the outcome of the election.)
As the 1992 race drew to a close, the polls tightened dramatically, and, in spite of the presence of third-party spoiler Ross Perot, it looked as though Bush would pull it off and win reelection.
...
George H. W. Bush clearly outclassed his opponent, Bill Clinton,
in foreign policy expertise,
but the American people were persuaded by the media
that that really didn’t matter,
that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union,
which Bush and his foreign policy team of
Secretary of State James A. Baker III and
National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft
had so ably assisted,
that “The End of History,” at least with respect to foreign policy, had occurred,
and the only issues that mattered any more to America
(or at least to the American voter)
were domestic:
issues, identified by the Clinton campaign and the media
(there was hardly a separation between the two)
as
ensuring the recovery of the economy and
advancing the interests of the primary components of the Democratic coalition:
women, blacks, Jews, homosexuals, labor.
I very much admired President Bush,
for his personal qualities, background, and wise policy choices,
all of which were especially notable in contrast to those of his challenger,
Bill Clinton,
and so watched this campaign very closely.
Although the American media generally tilts to the Democratic Party
and to the issues that they represent,
its coverage of the 1992 Bush/Clinton campaign
was the most slanted that I have ever seen.
For example, the Democrats, with the help of the media,
successfully made the American economy into the major issue of the campaign.
James Carville’s assertion “It’s the economy, stupid” was endlessly repeated,
and taken as gospel by the media,
in their role as megaphone for the Clinton campaign.
But to make Bush’s handling of the economy into a negative,
they had to portray the economy negatively,
which they were ready, willing and able to do.
Many Democratic partisans, and some journalists,
labeled Bush as “George Herbert Hoover Bush.”
The Washington Post, in particular,
outdid itself in doing the Clinton campaign’s work.
Perhaps the most egregious example was the way Post’s news department
spun the last major economic report before the election,
the flash report for growth of the GDP in the third quarter.
Here is how the Post reported it,
followed by the (post-election) stories reporting the q3 and q4 final numbers.
1992-10-28-WP-Mufson
Economy’s Growth Rate StrengthensAnalysts Surprised; Bush Hails Gain
by Steven Mufson
Washington Post, 1992-10-28 (Wednesday), Page A1
[Paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]
[1]
The Commerce Department yesterday said that
the nation’s economy grew at a surprisingly strong 2.7 percent annual rate
during the third quarter of this year [1992q3],
giving President Bush an unexpected piece of upbeat economic news
just a week before the election.
[2]
The president, campaigning in Des Moines,
held up the latest growth figures and said,
“The Democrats keep telling us that everything is going to hell,
but they are wrong.”
[3]
But many independent economists,
who had expected about a 1.5 percent growth rate,
said the U.S. economy cannot keep up such a pace.
They said the figure was inflated
by Americans dipping into their already meager savings to cover new purchases,
by a temporary boost in military spending and
by increases in unsold stocks of goods at the factory and wholesale levels.
[4]
“Anyone who says that 2.7 percent is now our new growth rate is crazy,”
said Donald Rataczjak,
an economic statistic expert at Georgia State University.
“This is a surprising number - and it is not sustainable.”
[The final GDP growth rate numbers were]
[5]
Charles Lieberman, managing director of Chemical Securities Corp.,
said the Commerce Department would later revise downward its estimate
for the third quarter’s gross domestic product (GDP)
when it collects more information and
issues its final estimate for the July-to-September period.
[6]
In a sign that the recovery remains shaky,
the Conference Board, a New York-based industry group,
reported yesterday that
for the fourth straight month consumer confidence declined again in October.
[7]
The low level of confidence, measured in a survey of 5,000 U.S. households,
suggested that consumers would continue to be cautious about spending.
In the survey,
43 percent of consumers said they put off a major purchase
because of the economy.
Consumers were especially gloomy about job prospects.
[8]
Only 5 percent of those surveyed said jobs are “plentiful,”
while almost 10 times as many said jobs are “hard to get.”
[This is, in part, a reflection of media negativism.]
[9]
“How many quarters of positive growth will it take
before they give President Bush a fair shake?”
asked a Bush-Quayle campaign statement that hailed
“the now-spurting economy.”
[10]
Bush administration officials also point to the continuing low inflation rate
as evidence that
they have laid the groundwork for a long and healthy recovery
without the risk of high interest rates.
[Which, of course, is exactly what happened.]
[11]
Interest rates are at their lowest levels in about 20 years.
[12]
New Labor Department figures yesterday supplied further evidence that
a weak economy was keeping a lid on inflation.
Americans’ wages, salaries and benefits posted the smallest gain in five years
in the year ended Sept. 30.
[13]
George Stephanopoulos,
communications director for the campaign of Democratic nominee Bill Clinton,
said yesterday that
“the sight of George Bush patting himself on the back once again reflects
how out of touch he is with the American people and the American economy.”
[14]
Stephanopoulos said
that half the third-quarter GDP growth came out of individuals’ savings and
that much of the increased consumer spending
went to pay for back-to-school clothes and medical care.
[15]
He noted that even though
there have been six straight quarters of economic expansion,
the growth rate during that time has averaged just 1.8 percent,
well below the average post-World War II recovery rate of 5.8 percent.
[16]
“What does Bush have to brag about?” Stephanopoulos said.
[Answer:
Economic growth without inflation,
what economists and politicians had been seeking
throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s.]
[17]
According to the Commerce Department,
the nation’s economic output has climbed back to the level it achieved
in the second quarter of 1990,
before the recession started.
Getting back to that level has taken a year and a half of growth.
[18]
In the recoveries of 1975, 1980 and 1983
it took six to nine months to get back to pre-slump levels of output,
according to Larry Moran,
an economist at the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis.
[One might, but of course the WP does not,
note that those more rapid recoveries resulted in renewed bouts of inflation.]
[19]
The Clinton campaign said that because of population growth,
economic output per person was still lower than it was when Bush took office.
[20]
Yesterday’s GDP estimate
met with widespread skepticism among economists.
[21]
Chemical’s Lieberman said,
“I think the economy is somewhat weaker than these numbers suggest.”
He noted that the Commerce Department
used an estimate for September trade numbers
that Lieberman believed was overly optimistic
because of weak economies overseas.
[22]
Lieberman also said the GDP estimate, which is adjusted for inflation,
appeared larger than expected
because the Commerce Department used a very low estimate for inflation.
[23]
In particular, the department said that
prices for producers’ durable equipment fell at a 6.4 percent annual rate,
mostly because of price cuts in computers.
[24]
Georgia State’s Rataczjak said:
“I don’t know any time except the Great Depression
with price declines of that magnitude in the capital sector.”
[25]
Rataczjak also said, “I don’t believe these defense numbers.”
The Commerce Department said
military spending increased at a 6.9 percent annual rate,
the first increase after five quarters of decline.
[26]
Rataczjak said that shipments of military equipment fell in July and August
and that there was no increase in military manpower.
Even if the defense numbers are accurate, he said,
they will soon resume their long-term decline.
[27]
But Commerce Department economists defended their estimates.
[28]
Carl Galbraith,
who follows defense expenditures for the Bureau of Economic Analysis,
said about half the increase last quarter
was the result of increased delivery of missiles to the Air Force
from Hughes Aircraft Co., Raytheon Corp., General Dynamics Corp. and Boeing Co.
[29]
There were also increased deliveries of M1 tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles,
Galbraith said.
[30]
A defense analyst with the Congressional Budget Office said
the Pentagon had planned to increase outlays in two areas over the summer:
depot maintenance and
separation allowances to encourage civilians and uniformed personnel
to retire early.
[31]
While the quarterly increase in defense expenditures
ran counter to the long-term downward trend in the Pentagon budget,
both administration and congressional analysts said
there was no evidence that
spending had been artificially inflated or accelerated during the quarter.
[32]
Commerce Department economists also pointed to
a sharp increase in consumer spending on furniture,
something that baffled many economists.
Businesses stepped up spending on computers as computer makers cut prices.
[33]
Economists drew attention to a $14.7 billion rise in business inventories,
suggesting that
future sales would come from unsold stocks
instead of increases in production.
[34]
The rate of increase in the final sales of domestic goods was 2.1 percent,
a figure that might more accurately reflect the health of the economy.
[35]
The only consolation
for the past three and a half years of sluggish economic growth
has been the effect it has had on inflation.
The stagnant economy and the weak job market
have slowed down the rise in wages,
one of the key elements that can push up inflation.
[36]
The Labor Department yesterday said its employment cost index,
considered one of the best gauges of wage inflation pressures,
slowed to a 3.5 percent advance in the year ended in September.
[37]
That was down from 4.3 percent a year earlier and the smallest increase
since costs edged up 3.4 percent in the year ended in September 1987.
The index had risen 3.6 percent in the year ended last June.
[38]
Even if later Commerce Department estimates confirm a good third quarter,
economists said the economic outlook remains lackluster.
[39]
Lieberman said
capital spending by business remains weak,
investment in buildings continues to decline,
the outlook for exports has worsened and
consumer spending continues to grow faster than personal income,
suggesting that
even the modest level of recovery can’t last.
[40]
“The economy continues to muddle along,” he said.
Staff writer Steven Pearlstein contributed to this report.
1992-10-28-NYT-Hershey
U.S. ECONOMY GREW AT A RATE OF 2.7% DURING 3D QUARTERBy ROBERT D. HERSHEY JR
New York Times, 1992-10-28 (Wednesday), page A1
[Paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]
[1]
The economy grew at a surprisingly brisk pace of 2.7 percent
in the July-September period,
the Commerce Department reported today.
This was the sixth consecutive quarterly advance in gross domestic product,
the most comprehensive measure of economic activity within American borders.
[2]
The dollar value of the output surpassed the pre-recession peak
registered in the 1990 second quarter.
[3]
President Bush and other Republicans immediately seized on the figures,
which are the final important set of numbers
to be published before Election Day,
to contend that
the economy was shaking off its lethargy and that
the United States would “lead the world to recovery.”
[4]
“We have now had six straight quarters of growth in the United States,”
Mr. Bush said as he campaigned through Iowa, Kentucky and Ohio.
“And yet the Democrats keep telling us that everything is going to hell.
And they’re wrong.”
[ Page A16. ]
Less Optimistic View
[5]
Democrats offered a far less optimistic view.
Ronald H. Brown, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee,
said Mr. Bush’s reaction was
“another example of a failed President grasping at straws.”
[6]
And specialists working in the campaign of Gov. Bill Clinton,
the Democratic nominee,
noted that growth in the last six quarters had averaged 1.8 percent --
less than one-third the rate for comparable periods
in the other eight postwar recoveries.
They said the third-quarter advance could not be sustained.
[7]
The conventional view of campaign strategists and political scientists is that
voters’ perceptions of the state of the economy are formed and change slowly
and that
it is too late for new economic data
to alter the way people will vote next week.
Some Republican economists acknowledged as much
when asked about today’s output figures.
Central Issue
[8]
Yet this year’s campaign has changed course so many times and
President Bush’s handling of the economy is such a central issue that
the political effect of the figures cannot be gauged with much confidence.
[9]
The G.D.P. data, moreover, were blunted by
a separate report from the Conference Board, a corporate group,
showing that consumer confidence fell in October
for the fourth consecutive month.
With a reading of 53, the index is now at its weakest level since February,
which was the lowest point since the onset of recession in July 1990.
[10]
And other recent economic soundings have been decidedly mixed.
A drop in first-time claims for jobless benefits
to the lowest level in more than two years
raised hopes last week that the job market had finally begun to improve,
and retail sales have also ticked up recently.
But the nation’s trade deficit, reflecting economic slowdowns abroad,
soared to $9 billion in September and
industrial output has fallen two months in a row.
[11]
The National Bureau of Economic Research, the nation’s business-cycle arbiter,
has yet to formally declare the recession’s end --
although most economists believe this occurred sometime in mid-1991.
[See their final judgment here,
with the overall picture here
(note the “announcement dates” in particular).]
[12]
While economists in general are inclined to favor Republicans --
though there are prominent exceptions --
most [economists] tended to agree with the Clinton forces today that
the overall third-quarter G.D.P. results were not as strong
as the 2.7 percent rate of expansion implied.
[13]
“This number is quite decent if it was sustainable,”
Dave Orr, chief economist for the First Union National Bank in Charlotte, said.
“But it’s not.”
[14]
He and others cited in particular a sizable 3.4 percent rate of increase
in what consumers spent on personal consumption,
much of this on clothing, furniture and other household equipment and medical care.
This was in contrast with
a rate of decline of one-tenth of 1 percent for the second quarter.
[15]
But the figures also indicated that
consumers were forced to draw down their savings to make these purchases
since disposable personal income --
running at an annual rate of $3.6 trillion --
edged up a negligible $400 million and, on a per capita basis, no doubt fell.
[16]
The savings rate, meanwhile,
dropped to 4.5 percent from 5.3 percent in the spring quarter,
the Commerce Department’s report showed.
[17]
Another significant source of numerical strength was
a surge of 6.9 percent in the pace of Federal military spending.
This was seen as an aberration
since the preceding four quarters all showed big declines,
averaging 8.8 percent.
[18]
No one interviewed today suggested that
these or any of the other numbers in the report
were “cooked” for political purposes,
though one said the spending itself
could possibly have been timed for maximum effect.
Since these figures reflect actual delivery of goods,
they were not affected by
various military contracts the Administration announced recently
to considerable campaign fanfare.
[19]
Economists skeptical about the sustainability of this summer’s G.D.P. pace
also pointed to a further buildup in business inventories,
which rose at a $14.7 billion rate in the third quarter
after an increase of $7.8 billion in the spring.
[20]
Inventories are subject to differing interpretations --
increases could result both from a buyers’ strike
or aggressive stocking by optimistic merchants --
but most analysts thought the third-quarter buildup was involuntary.
Newly produced goods contribute to G.D.P.
even if they languish on retail or wholesale shelves,
but their existence also tends to retard future production.
[21]
Under Secretary of Commerce J. Antonio Villamil, however, said that
the inventory-sales ratio remains low,
“suggesting that additional increases in demand will be met
primarily by production gains rather than inventory liquidation.”
[22]
Business increased its investment in equipment, the report also showed,
though this was said to consist mainly of computers and was not broadly based.
And the international trade sector continued to drag down performance,
with the department estimating a September deficit
$200 million higher than August’s $9 billion.
Some considered this projection overly optimistic
in light of significant weakening of foreign economies.
[23]
“There’s really nothing here I’m impressed with,”
Lincoln F. Anderson,
chief economist for Fidelity Management and Research in Boston said.
“We won’t get anywhere near 2.7 in the fourth quarter.”
[24]
But there was one element in today’s report, inflation,
that was unambiguously good --
except that it was aided by a weak economy.
As measured by the fixed-weight index,
which assumes that the composition of output does not vary,
inflation retreated to a 2.4 percent rate during the summer
from 3.2 percent in the spring.
[25]
In a separate report today,
the Labor Department said its Employment Cost Index
rose seven-tenths of 1 percent in the third quarter,
slightly less than in the four preceding quarters during which
increases were either eight-tenths or nine-tenths of 1 percent.
[26]
Increases in wages and salaries
decelerated to four-tenths of 1 percent from six-tenths of 1 percent,
while benefit costs rose 1.5 percent
after rising 1.1 percent in the second quarter.
[27]
The rise in G.D.P. --
the total value of the nation’s output of goods and services,
minus income from abroad --
was the fourth biggest of Mr. Bush’s Presidency and
nearly twice as big as the analysts’ consensus.
On the other hand, as the Clinton camp noted,
it was only half the normal pace of the early stages of typical recoveries
and short of the 3 percent pace
considered necessary to push down the unemployment rate.
[28]
“Half the surge in demand came from people dipping into their savings,”
Gene Sperling, economic policy director for the Clinton campaign, said.
“How encouraging is that?”
1992-11-26-WP-Pearlstein
New Report on Growth Stirs HopesClinton Says Plans to Stimulate Economy May Have to Change
by Steven Pearlstein
Washington Post, 1992-11-26, Page A1
[Paragraph numbers and emphasis are added.]
[1]
The nation’s economy showed the first signs of a genuine recovery
during the summer months,
according to a government report yesterday,
prompting President-elect Clinton to say
it could affect the need for immediate action
to boost the economy through tax cuts and government spending.
[2]
The Commerce Department,
revising its earlier estimate of the gross domestic product, said
the economy was expanding at the annual rate of 3.9 percent
during July, August and September.
The growth was led by
record exports,
a surge in consumer spending and
a buildup of inventories at stores and factories.
[3]
Earlier, just before the election,
the department had estimated that
the output of goods and services had grown 2.7 percent.
[4]
In Little Rock, Ark., Clinton said
the report “could ... have some impact”
on his plans to provide a short-term stimulus to the economy.
“It’s obviously good news but it requires a lot of analysis,”
the president-elect told reporters.
[5]
Clinton advisers have spoken of a short-term stimulus plan of
as much as $40 billion.
[6]
The 3.9 percent annual growth rate was
the best quarterly performance that the economy has turned in
since George Bush became president.
The news was received with bittersweet irony by the outgoing administration,
which blames economic woes for the president’s defeat in November.
[7]
“I hate to say it, but we told you so,”
said Commerce Secretary Barbara H. Franklin yesterday.
She said the report proves
the administration’s election-year contention that
the economy has begun a sustained recovery.
“It’s ironic, but that’s the way it is.”
[8]
There were notes of caution, however, about
whether the economy really has entered a period of sustained growth.
[9]
A number of economists who have advised the Clinton campaign said yesterday that they would stick by their previous calls for a stimulus package.
The proposals include
an investment tax credit
to spur business purchases of computers and production equipment and
increased government spending on
public works, research and development, and education and worker retraining.
[10]
“I wouldn’t jump off the stimulus bandwagon,”
declared James Tobin, Yale University’s Nobel Prize-winning economist
who endorsed the Clinton economic plan during the fall campaign.
“It’s a nice piece of news compared to what we have had,
but we still have a long way to go
before we get unemployment down to a reasonable level.”
[11]
“I’m not deterred,”
said Lawrence Mishel, research director of the Economic Policy Institute,
a liberal think tank in Washington that has advised the Clinton campaign.
[12]
Robert Solow, an MIT economist who also supports Clinton,
said the report might require the Clinton team to wait a bit
to see how the economy performs in the final three months of the year.
[13]
“A 4 percent annual growth rate is pretty darn good,
and if it would continue, then I’d say you could do without much stimulus,”
Solow said, adding quickly,
“But that’s a big `if’ right now.”
[14]
Most Bush administration officials stressed the positive.
[15]
Treasury Secretary Nicholas F. Brady noted that
for the first nine months of 1992,
the economy grew at an average rate of 2.8 percent,
well above the nation’s average economic growth rate for the past 25 years.
[16]
“Through prudent management,
President Bush has guided the American economy through
a global recession and economic restructuring,”
said Brady.
[17]
“The economic figures made us all feel ... almost vindicated,”
said White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, declaring that
a “Bush recovery” was well underway.
[18]
The administration’s upbeat outlook
was bolstered yesterday by other reports that
unemployment claims had dropped again, while
sales of previously owned homes rose 9.1 percent in October,
to their highest point in four years.
[19]
And earlier this week the government reported
sizable jumps in orders for “big-ticket” durable goods,
while the monthly survey of consumer confidence posted an impressive gain.
[20]
A more cautious Michael J. Boskin,
chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers,
conceded yesterday that the proof of a sustained recovery will come only when
the economy begins generating new jobs again.
[21]
Private economists yesterday also warned against
reading too much into the recent reports -
particularly the report on gross domestic product,
which can swing widely from quarter to quarter coming out of a recession.
[22]
Some economists cautioned that the 3.9 percent growth rate,
while a pleasant surprise,
would probably not hold up in the final three months of the year because of
“one-time” events over the summer that would be unlikely to recur.
[23]
In particular, they pointed to
a 5 percent increase in Pentagon spending during the period,
breaking a two-year decline in defense spending that is certain to resume.
[24]
They also pointed to
a $20 billion jump in business inventories that may reflect
increased optimism on the part of some shop owners and manufacturers,
but just as likely reflects disappointing sales at other firms.
[25]
Others noted that there was little growth - $2.4 billion -
in investment by businesses in new plant and equipment,
while the big boost in consumer spending came as
consumers gave in to pent-up demand
for things like washing machines and new shoes and
temporarily reduced their savings rate,
from 5.3 percent of their income to 4.3 percent, to make purchases.
[26]
“The economy is a little stronger, but this number way exaggerates it,”
said Lawrence Chimerine, economic adviser at DRI/McGraw Hill Inc.
[27]
“The health of the economy is gradually improving,
but there is no doubt in my mind that
the fourth-quarter numbers will be below these,”
said Lyle Gramley,
consulting economist for the Mortgage Bankers Association of America.
[Both Chimerine and Gramley were totally wrong.
1992q3 was 3.9%;
1992q4 came in at 4.8%.]
[28]
Gramley said
an economic stimulus package from the new administration is “still warranted,”
but like many economists contacted yesterday,
he recommended that it should not include
the middle-class income tax cut that Clinton proposed while a candidate.
[29]
Unlike proposals for business tax credits and increased infrastructure spending,
which improve the long-term productivity of the economy,
a tax cut provides only short-term stimulus by encouraging consumer spending.
[30]
Yesterday’s upward revision in the third-quarter gross domestic product
was something of a vindication for the analysts at the Commerce Department,
whose initial calculation that the economy had grown at 2.7 percent
was attacked by some as being
an overly optimistic, election-year ploy to boost the Bush reelection effort.
[31]
When the department prepares its initial estimate,
it often has data only from the first two months of the three-month period,
and has to estimate the results for the final month
for such things as
exports, imports and even spending by federal, state and local governments.
As it turned out,
the analysts had guessed conservatively on all those items,
causing the unusually large upward revision yesterday.
[Note that the Post
did not go back to the gloom-and-doom naysayers
it trotted out before the election,
to ask them why they had been so wrong.]
1993-02-27-WP-Berry
Economy Grew 4.8% In 4th Qtr.GDP Increase Is Strongest in 5 Years
by John M. Berry
Washington Post, 1993-02-27, Page C1
Consumer spending and exports in the final three months of last year
helped lead the U.S. economy to its
strongest quarterly growth rate in five years,
according to revised figures reported by the Commerce Department yesterday.
The gross domestic product,
the sum of all goods and services produced in the United States,
advanced at a 4.8 percent annual rate in the October-December quarter,
according to the revised report.
That was substantially better than
the department’s initial estimate last month of 3.8 percent.
The figure was changed because
consumer spending and exports rose more strongly
in the final three months of the year
than the department had estimated previously.
Most analysts said the burst of stronger growth laid to rest worries that
the economic recovery and expansion following the recession of two years ago
is likely to falter again, as it did late in 1991.
...
The new higher growth figure for the quarter will also mean
an upward revision in productivity gains for 1992,
already the largest in about 15 years.
Over the past year,
many employers have been able to increase their production of goods and services
without hiring more workers.
However, with the length factory week at a record high,
many experts believe that if the economy keeps growing
payrolls will have to expand to meet the rising demand.
Between the fourth quarter of 1991 and the fourth quarter of last year,
real GDP increased 3.2 percent,
with growth in the second six months about twice as fast as in the first six.
Now many forecasters are predicting growth this year
will also be slightly above 3 percent.
2007-08-07-Harbaugh
To see a current government table which shows quarterly GDP data from way back (1947) to the present, click here (which opens an Excel spreadsheet),
then consult the right-most column, headed
Quarterly
(Seasonally adjusted annual rates)
GDP percent change based on chained 2000 dollars
Here is an extract of the quarterly dates for the Bush administration plus the first year of the Clinton administration.
The last half of 1992 is in bold.
| 1989 01 | 4.1 |
| 1989 02 | 2.6 |
| 1989 03 | 2.9 |
| 1989 04 | 1.0 |
| 1990 01 | 4.7 |
| 1990 02 | 1.0 |
| 1990 03 | 0.0 |
| 1990 04 | -3.0 |
| 1991 01 | -2.0 |
| 1991 02 | 2.6 |
| 1991 03 | 1.9 |
| 1991 04 | 1.9 |
| 1992 01 | 4.2 |
| 1992 02 | 3.9 |
| 1992 03 | 4.0 |
|---|---|
| 1992 04 | 4.5 |
| 1993 01 | 0.5 |
| 1993 02 | 2.0 |
| 1993 03 | 2.1 |
| 1993 04 | 5.5 |
http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/var/rgdp-qtrchg
Voting Analysis
Here are some documents and information analyzing the election results.1995-JOP-Abramowitz-Abortion
It's Abortion, Stupid:Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election
by Alan I. Abramowitz
Journal of Politics, Vol. 57, No. 1 (Feb., 1995)
[Emphasis is added.]
Abstract:
This article uses data from the 1992 American National Election Study
to analyze
the influence of abortion attitudes
on candidate choice in the 1992 presidential election.
Despite the general belief that
the presidential election was decided almost exclusively on economic issues,
attitudes toward abortion had a significant influence on candidate choice
in the overall electorate.
Although the issue divided supporters of both parties,
far more “pro-choice” Republicans than “pro-life” Democrats
defected from their party’s presidential candidate.
Abortion had a stronger influence on candidate choice
than any other policy issue included in the study,
including affirmative action, social welfare,
defense spending, the Gulf War, and the death penalty.
Furthermore, among voters who were aware of the parties’ positions
and for whom abortion was a salient issue,
abortion had a much stronger influence on candidate choice
than any other issue, including the state of the economy.
Miscellaneous Comments
Bush, Quayle, Clinton, and Gore
2011-07-21:
This is just an observation by the author of this blog.
In the 1992 election, women were highly polarized, voting Democratic, with the Clinton-Gore ticket being considered more favorable to the interests of women than Bush-Quayle.
Looking back, Bush-41 was reviled by women’s groups for his nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
More importantly to the women’s groups, Clinton was viewed, correctly, as being far more disposed to their interests than Bush-41.
In fact, some of the female Clinton supporters used the slogan
“Elect Hillary’s Spouse,” indicating where they thought the power in the marriage lay.
But all this is just for review.
The point of this comment is to note, with hindsight, what happened in each of the 1992 slate’s personal marital lives.
In particular, the Bill and Hillary marriage seems rather distant.
The Gore marriage between Al and Tipper ended in divorce in 2010.
On the other hand, George and Barb seem as stably married as ever, while Dan and Marilyn also have maintained their marriage over the years.
So what and who is “good for women” or “pro-women”?
I know what I believe, but accept that many Democratic women have a different view.
But I think it is of interest to note what happened in their personal lives.
2016-11-01-TAC-Gray-the-indictment-that-made-bill-clinton-president
The Indictment That Made Bill Clinton PresidentThe Comey affair is not “unprecedented.”
By C. Boyden Gray and Elise Passamani
Amercian Conserservative, 2016-11-01
In the wake of FBI Director James Comey’s decision to reopen the Hillary Clinton email probe, there has been an explosion of Clinton and media criticism alleging that the investigation could influence the outcome of the election. And at a rally in Florida on Saturday, Secretary Clinton emphatically charged that Comey’s action was “unprecedented.”
Contrary to her claim, she herself contributed to an even bigger influence on an election: the October surprise four days before Election Day in 1992 that helped then-Gov. Bill Clinton defeat then-President George H.W. Bush. This event was the last-minute indictment of Caspar Weinberger, which the Clintons and the press turned into an indictment of Bush. (The prosecutor himself later claimed credit for having affected the outcome of the election.)
As the 1992 race drew to a close, the polls tightened dramatically, and, in spite of the presence of third-party spoiler Ross Perot, it looked as though Bush would pull it off and win reelection.
...
Labels: Bush-41, elections, politics, presidential elections, presidents
posted by KHarbaugh at 07:00
<< Home