  I've blogged numerous times,  both urlLink here and on urlLink Polipundit. com ,  about the direct relationship between consumer confidence and election results.  The most important factor that plays into the level of consumers' ( and therefore voters')
 confidence is,  of course,  the job market.  Above all else,  when companies are hiring,  and layoffs are tame,
 and job security abounds,  and new jobs are available,  people,  in general,  and the people that actually decide elections,  specifically,
 feel good about their personal financial conditions.  And when regular Americans feel good about their personal financial conditions,  incumbent Presidents not only win,  they win by vast landslide margins.  Yes,  theoretically,
 there could be circumstances under which an incumbent Prez might lose a re- election bid,  even in the midst of a good job market.  It's just that that's never happened.  Ever!  And we've had Presidents win re-
election bids or successive terms because of good job markets,  even during periods of:  ( a)  immense racial strife ( LBJ)
 ( b)  costly,  unpopular wars ( Nixon)  (
c)  Cold War tensions ( Reagan)  and ( d)  foreign and internal bombings,
 sieges,  and terrorist attacks ( Clinton)  The other major component of how mainstream Americans view their financial situations is inflation.  Inflation directly affects purchasing power.  In periods of high inflation,
 people see the value of their wages diminished,  their ability to purchase things hindered,  and the profitability of their businesses degraded.  High inflation means less confidence on the part of consumers and,  from a political standpoint,  less confidence amongst voters.
 Until oil prices started getting out of hand lately,  we did not hear much if anything about inflation from the partisan- liberal/ Democratic media.  That's not surprising.  They've done their homework.
 In the modern political era ( post- WWII)  only one President -  Bush 41 -  ever has lost a re-
election bid while presiding over urlLink benign inflation ( click on " CPI Inflation Calculator"  In every other instance,  low inflation meant a landslide win for the incumbent President,  and high inflation meant defeat.
 And,  regarding Bush 41,  keep in mind,  however,  that he was presiding over a horrible job market (  urlLink 7.
5 percent average unemployment rate -  in 1992)  there was a third- party candidate who siphoned nearly 20 percent of the popular vote;  and,  despite all those headwinds,
 Bush 41 still took 18 states outright,  and a grand total of 57 percent of the country voted against Bill Clinton.  So,  no,  it's not surprising that the media forgot about inflation until they found another meme -  oil and gas prices -
 with which to try to get Kerry elected.  Unfortunately,  for them,  the chapter on inflation for this coming election already has been written,  and the media and their Democratic bretheren already have lost.  We are coming off historically-
low inflation levels.  And,  even with the spike in oil prices,  inflation still is very tame by historical standards.  In fact,  George W.
 Bush has presided over the lowest level of overall inflation than any sitting President,  who sought election to a successive term,  since Lyndon Johnson,  back in 1964.  Furthermore,  a measure of comparative rates of inflation,
 even during the two- year periods immediately preceding a bid for re- election,  still leaves President Bush in very fine shape.  From 2003 to this year,  total inflation is:
 ( 1)  lower than the prevailing rate during the comparable period in Reagan's first term ( 3. 10%  -
 4. 32%  ( 2)  lower than the prevailing rate in the salient time frame in Nixon's first term ( 3.
21%  and ( 3)  almost equivalent to the prevailing inflation rate during the comparable period of Clinton's first term ( 2. 95%
 And,  looking ahead,  inflation is not going anywhere special over the next couple of months.  In fact,  there are indications that it's already peeked,  for the year,
 and urlLink is in the process of declining .  Finally,  here are the raw stats for inflation and the corresponding levels of electoral success,  or failure,  for sitting Presidents:  Ike Total inflation in first term =
 1. 87%  ( 0. 46%  average annual rate)
 Won re- election in a landslide ( over 450 electoral votes)  LBJ Total inflation in first term =  3. 68%
 ( 0. 92%  average annual rate)  Won re- election in a landslide (
61. 5 percent of the popular vote)  Nixon Total inflation in first term =  13. 90%  (
3. 47%  average annual rate)  Won re- election in a landslide ( 49 out of 50 states)
 Ford*  Total inflation in first term =  28. 15%  ( 7.
04%  average annual rate)  Lost election bid by narrow margin ( a shift of less than 50, 000 votes would have given him the Electoral College)  Carter Total inflation in first term =
 35. 97%  ( 8. 99%  average annual rate)
 [ Yikes!  Lost re- election bid in a landslide ( Reagan won 44 states)  Reagan Total inflation in first term =
 14. 30%  ( 3. 57%  average annual rate)
 Won re- election in a landslide ( 49 out of 50 states)  Bush 41 Total inflation in first term =  13. 15%
 ( 3. 29%  average annual rate)  Lost re- election bid in a three-
party plurality contest ( Clinton won a bare majority in only one state:  Arkansas)  Clinton Total inflation in first term =  8. 58%
 ( 2. 14%  average annual rate)  Won re- election in a landslide (
379 electoral votes)  Bush 43 Total inflation in first term =  7. 11%  ( 1.
78%  average annual rate)  Note:  * Ford,  obviously,
 took over for Agnew and then for Nixon,  upon their respective resignations.  Ford presided over high inflation leading up to his bid for the 1976 election.  Merely from 1975- 1976,  inflation came in at an annualized rate of 5.
76 percent.
