I just happened to read this article int he Post and it explains all about how voters sometimes defy numbers on issues like the economy. It suggests voters might even be able to predict better than prognositcators. There were two very interesting parts of the article to me. First, even Republican interviewees appeared to think we were spending far too much on Iraq, suggesting that their confidence would not return unless we leave that country.
Second? I couldn't believe this interview with a guy from Tuscaloosa:
During the Clinton years, Jeremy Tuck said he had been selling mobile homes in Tuscaloosa, Ala., and, at $45,000 a year, making good money. Last year, he was assembling mobile homes, earning $15,000 and living hand-to-mouth. But Bush has his vote this November. Had Gore been elected in 2000, Tuck said, "we would've been taken over by Saddam Hussein or [Osama] bin Laden."
"You make more money in plain terms when Democrats are in office," Tuck said with a shrug, "but Republicans are stronger on the military, and that's why I'm voting for President Bush."
Now which is it. Is the guy stupid, suggested by him not recognizing that neither Iraq nor Al Qaeda had the power to take us over, or is he simply stupid because he can't find it in himself to vote with his wallet? Or is he so much a Yellow Dog Republican that it doesn't matter?
I guess the Republican propaganda worked with this guy.
