So everyone (probably both candidates included) thought that recent past and current economic numbers would have an important impact against the President. Yet the poll numbers don’t seem to bear this out (which is probably a big reason why Republicans are contesting them - in that sense, I actually can’t blame them for their disbelief), especially ones I’ve seen quoted online on who’s more trusted to handle economic issues.
So what does that mean for bad numbers that come out between now and November, like these? Certainly hay will be made of them, and rightly so, but will it make a difference? What can Romney or Obama credibly do with the economic numbers to help their cause? Or, as some have argued, is it too late for anything but a major catastrophe (and perhaps not even that) to turn the election severely one way or the other?
This election is giving the Standard Model for elections a jolly good rogering. The Standard says that an incumbent in a time of severe economic distress is going to lose, that people naturally blame the incumbent.
WAG: that bile was expended in the mid-terms, resulting the “shellacking” of the Admin, and the huge influx of T party wackadoodles. And it didn’t help, perhaps it even impeded progress. So maybe that’s it, or maybe the Standard Model was wrong all along. There appears to be much evidence abroad that most Americans understand that Obama was elected Captain of the Titanic just after it hit the iceberg, and its not his fault.
I don’t think it would be enough to say that Obama didn’t cause it. the question would still remain. if he hasn’t been able to fix it in 4 years, what makes you think he can do it in 8? If not for the obvious republican obstructionism, I don’t think Obama would be doing so well.
My theory is this: Despite all the Republicans’ shouting, most people aren’t feeling that terrible today. I know in my own circle, people were a lot more worried back in 2009-2010 than they are right now. For instance I knew a lot of layed off people back then; now they all have jobs.
So it’s not so much that things are good now, but they’re better than a couple of years ago. And people sense that.
The thing is, the economic model essentially pits the incumbent against a generic challenger, one who has no economy-related baggage of his own. While Romney was not in any governmental position to influence the national economy during the meltdown, to a great many people, he is representative of the Wall Street “fatcats”, a group to whom they attach more blame for the meltdown than they really do to either political party. On the ground level, hatred of the fatcats is bipartisan–consider how often politicians on both sides are accused of being in the bankers’ pockets.
Romney is rich, he’s shut down companies, he’s laid people off, and he’s evasive (so to speak) about his taxes. He’s practically the avatar of the forces people blame for our economic woes, and he’s not a good enough actor to project a different image. I would not expect the economic numbers to help him as much as they would a generic Republican at this point.
Well, from that article, " Much of the downward revision to the second-quarter growth figures was because of the effects of the nation’s worst drought in 50 years. "
While that’s one specific example, I think most people are at least equally apportioning the blame on the economy between Congress, Obama, and the previous administration. (I like the quip that the arsonists are blaming the contractors for not putting the house back up fast enough.)