This relationship was shown to be very high, and this shows that there is a great link between the economic condition of the country and the outcome of the elections irrespective of the other factors that play a role in the election. (Erikson, 27)
The war in Iraq and the peoples dissatisfaction with the policy of war where the causalities of over a million was not welcomed by the people although it gave the incumbent Bush a better rating. Thus though the war was a drain on the resources it contributed to the sentiments of the voters which brought in a second term to Bush. The 2004 election is a pointer in this regard. The 2000 election had placed Bush in a position...
At the beginning of the millennium Bush became the President inheriting a very strong economy and growing commercialization following the new
globalization. (Crotty, 111)
The economy was thus a favorable factor for Bush and coupled with the fact that he was the incumbent it aided in keeping him in the seat for the second term. However the 2004 elections showed that the democratic nominee Al Gore was popular and Bush won by a slender majority in the
Electoral College. By the time the first year of Presidency was over in 2004, from the period 2000-2004, the economy was beginning to decline and the Democratic Party hoped that the economic conditions may overthrow Bush. But as it is argued all along economic systems do not by themselves influence voters. (Crotty, 117) The economic conditions thus while playing a major role cannot be said to be the only factor or cannot be taken as the prime
