Election 2012: It is (or isn't) the economy
As we approach the first debate night (Wednesday) I notice that little has changed in the polls for the election at this point. Some more polls released today have President Obama ahead by a few percentage points. The following poll numbers were released today:
CNN/Opinion Research: Obama 50% Romney 47%
ABC News/Washington Post: Obama 49% Romney 47%
Politici/GWU: Obama 49% Romney 47%
Gallup: Obama 49% Romney 45%
Rasmussen: Obama 50% Romney 47%
These polls are remarkably consistent, but what they don't tell is how firm each candidate's support is, and whether the debates may loosen some votes in either direction. Some polling numbers released in some swing states also show the President with a slight lead over Governor Romney (again, these numbers were released today):
PPP-Ohio: Obama 49% Romney 45%
Gravis Marketing-Florida: Obama 49% Romney 48%
WeAskAmerica-Iowa: Obama 48% Romney 44%
WeAskAmerica-Colorado: Obama 49% Romney 46%
PPP-North Carolina: Obama 48% Romney 48%
ARG-North Carolina: Romney 50% Obama 46%
These numbers suggest to me that President Obama is ahead, but some voters may be reconsidering and moving to Romney. The President has a lead, but this election is by no means in the bag for him.
I would also direct you to two articles with contradictory points of view about the impact that the economy will have on this election. Firstly, David Harsanyi of the blog Human Events in an article entitled Make Obama Own the Economy, the author gives Romney unsolicited advice that, in the debate, he should turn every question back to the economy. Harsanyi writes:
More than that, the economy has only seen a net gain of around 300,000 jobs over the course of your entire administration. If you’re telling the American people that it takes trillions in extra government spending to create those 300,000 jobs, I say your philosophy is an abject failure. Considering those numbers, it is, in fact, more likely that your policies have hampered the private sector economic growth then helped it.
Obama boasts about spending for stimulus and bailing out industry, but takes no credit for the cost of these enterprises. Recently on 60 Minutes, the president asserted falsely that “over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”
Ninety percent, you say? Now, if I may, Romney might retort: Mr. President, no one is disputing the fact that you inherited debt; what we’re arguing is that you’ve dramatically expanded it. George Bush didn’t promise the American people to cut the deficit in half during your administration’s first term. You did. And George Bush didn’t increase the nation’s accumulated debt by over 40 percent these past four years. You did. You, not George Bush, added 6 trillion dollars to the debt in a single term as president—without any plan to pay for it. You, not any other president, oversaw a trillion dollar deficit every year of your administration.
Conversely, bloggers Ben Smith and Zeke Miller of Buzzfeed Politics in an article entitled How the economy collapsed (as a political issue) say that "it's not the economy, stupid" in this election. They write:
And while the Romney campaign made the economy the core of their campaign earlier this year, they’ve recently diversified after struggling — mostly in vain — to persuade voters despite a steady stream of negative data points. Now, the economic argument is part of a broader case the campaign tries to make, all the while swiping at any shiny object that glitters past, whether Chinese intellectual property theft, alleged cuts to Medicare, or foreign policy crises.
The most recent Romney tack, though, is to link the economy to the deficit, which is typically seen as a less compelling issue than voters own experience.
“What has actually helped us with independent voters has been the connection we've made between the debt and deficits the president has piled up and slower economic growth and job creation,” said senior advisor Kevin Madden.
One thing the campaign is no longer simply about: The economy or, as Bill Clinton’s aides once had it, “the economy, stupid.” And even as Romney’s campaign seeks a more nuanced argument tying that economy to other issues, the partisan perceptual divide seems to be deepening.
Will the bad economy come back to torpedo President Obama's re-election, or is it a non-issue to voters? Stay tuned!
CNN/Opinion Research: Obama 50% Romney 47%
ABC News/Washington Post: Obama 49% Romney 47%
Politici/GWU: Obama 49% Romney 47%
Gallup: Obama 49% Romney 45%
Rasmussen: Obama 50% Romney 47%
These polls are remarkably consistent, but what they don't tell is how firm each candidate's support is, and whether the debates may loosen some votes in either direction. Some polling numbers released in some swing states also show the President with a slight lead over Governor Romney (again, these numbers were released today):
PPP-Ohio: Obama 49% Romney 45%
Gravis Marketing-Florida: Obama 49% Romney 48%
WeAskAmerica-Iowa: Obama 48% Romney 44%
WeAskAmerica-Colorado: Obama 49% Romney 46%
PPP-North Carolina: Obama 48% Romney 48%
ARG-North Carolina: Romney 50% Obama 46%
These numbers suggest to me that President Obama is ahead, but some voters may be reconsidering and moving to Romney. The President has a lead, but this election is by no means in the bag for him.
I would also direct you to two articles with contradictory points of view about the impact that the economy will have on this election. Firstly, David Harsanyi of the blog Human Events in an article entitled Make Obama Own the Economy, the author gives Romney unsolicited advice that, in the debate, he should turn every question back to the economy. Harsanyi writes:
More than that, the economy has only seen a net gain of around 300,000 jobs over the course of your entire administration. If you’re telling the American people that it takes trillions in extra government spending to create those 300,000 jobs, I say your philosophy is an abject failure. Considering those numbers, it is, in fact, more likely that your policies have hampered the private sector economic growth then helped it.
Obama boasts about spending for stimulus and bailing out industry, but takes no credit for the cost of these enterprises. Recently on 60 Minutes, the president asserted falsely that “over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but 90 percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”
Ninety percent, you say? Now, if I may, Romney might retort: Mr. President, no one is disputing the fact that you inherited debt; what we’re arguing is that you’ve dramatically expanded it. George Bush didn’t promise the American people to cut the deficit in half during your administration’s first term. You did. And George Bush didn’t increase the nation’s accumulated debt by over 40 percent these past four years. You did. You, not George Bush, added 6 trillion dollars to the debt in a single term as president—without any plan to pay for it. You, not any other president, oversaw a trillion dollar deficit every year of your administration.
Conversely, bloggers Ben Smith and Zeke Miller of Buzzfeed Politics in an article entitled How the economy collapsed (as a political issue) say that "it's not the economy, stupid" in this election. They write:
And while the Romney campaign made the economy the core of their campaign earlier this year, they’ve recently diversified after struggling — mostly in vain — to persuade voters despite a steady stream of negative data points. Now, the economic argument is part of a broader case the campaign tries to make, all the while swiping at any shiny object that glitters past, whether Chinese intellectual property theft, alleged cuts to Medicare, or foreign policy crises.
The most recent Romney tack, though, is to link the economy to the deficit, which is typically seen as a less compelling issue than voters own experience.
“What has actually helped us with independent voters has been the connection we've made between the debt and deficits the president has piled up and slower economic growth and job creation,” said senior advisor Kevin Madden.
One thing the campaign is no longer simply about: The economy or, as Bill Clinton’s aides once had it, “the economy, stupid.” And even as Romney’s campaign seeks a more nuanced argument tying that economy to other issues, the partisan perceptual divide seems to be deepening.
Will the bad economy come back to torpedo President Obama's re-election, or is it a non-issue to voters? Stay tuned!