"The recovery is still shaky at best. Disapproval of Obama on the economy — the number one issue in this election — continues to run high, though that’s changing. Large majorities of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. How can Obama possibly be winning ?"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line
As Sargent has documented well, the trouble is that Americans don't buy the Romney campaign theory that this is a pure referendum that's all the President's fault. Indeed, they've given up on that idea probably the day after the DNC convention when the BLS payroll numbers were only 96,000 and the country yawned.
Today Krugman looks at how this election has surprised:
"This really isn’t looking like the election anyone expected. Obviously it’s not the election Romney and the Republicans expected and wanted; but it’s also looking very different from what Democrats expected."
"What Romney & Co. expected was a simple rejection of Obama because of the weak economy. As Greg Sargent often reminds us, this isn’t how it has played at all. On one side, voters tend to react to recent trends, not the absolute level — and the economy has gotten better in some ways over the past year, though obviously not by a lot. On the other, people do remember the crisis of 2008, which they still blame on Bush, and remain willing to cut Obama substantial slack."
"But as the polls move strongly in Obama’s direction (yes, I know, it’s all a liberal conspiracy that somehow even includes Fox News), it’s clear at least to me that there’s more going on."
"The conventional wisdom — which I too bought into — was that Democrats were going to support Obama, but grudgingly and without much enthusiasm. There had been too many disappointments; the golden aura of 2008 was long gone. Meanwhile, Republicans would show their usual unity and discipline, and at best it would be Obama by a nose."
"Instead, the Republicans appear to be in a shambles — while the Democrats seem incredibly united, and increasingly, dare I say it, enthusiastic. (Mark Blumenthal sees this in the polls, but it’s also just the impression you get.)"
"How did that happen? Partly it’s because this has become such an ideological election — much more so than 2008. The GOP has made it clear that it has a very different vision of what America should be than that of Democrats, and Democrats have rallied around their cause. Among other things, while we weren’t looking, social issues became a source of Democratic strength, not weakness — partly because the country has changed, partly because the Democrats have finally worked up the nerve to stand squarely for things like reproductive rights."
"And let me add a speculation: I suspect that in the end Obamacare is turning out to be a big plus, even though it has always had ambivalent polling. The fact is that Obama can point to a big achievement that will survive if he is reelected, perish if he isn’t; health insurance for 50 million or so Americans (30 million from the ACA, another 20 who would lose coverage if Romney/Ryan Medicaid cuts happen) is enough to cure people of the notion that it doesn’t matter who wins."
"All of this in turn has an implication that Republicans won’t like — assuming that Rasmussen doesn’t have a special insight into the truth denied to all other pollsters, and that Obama does in fact win with a solid margin. The right is already set up to blame poor Mitt, claiming that he lost because he wasn’t conservative enough. But that’s not what we’re seeing; it looks as if voters are rejecting the right’s whole package, not just the messenger."
"As I said, not the election anyone was expecting — but a happy surprise for some, and a nasty shock for others."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/not-the-election-they-were-expecting/
No doubt the deire to define this as bad messaging by Romney is going to be very strong and it won't shock me if the GOP settles on it. Remember that even now they're in denial about why George W. Bush's Administration was such a flop.
What it comes down to I think is that Americans are a lot more sophisticated about the economy than was imagined. This simply referendum has been a flop:
"One way to explain what’s happening can be found in Ron Brownstein’s epic, detailed piece this morning examining how Americans view the economy and the recovery. There’s a lot to chew on in here — Brownstein explains why voters may not be seeing Mitt Romney’s “are you better off” question as a relevant one. Brownstein digs into recent National Journal polling to show Obama is leading not just among those who are better off, but also among those who say their economic status is unchanged. How can that be? Here’s his explanation:
many Americans feel the economy is experiencing fundamental changes beyond the reach of any president to reshape quickly, or perhaps at all. Although some respondents said they believed that the 2012 election would determine the level of opportunity available for future generations, many others said that the nation’s economic trials reflect problems that have accumulated over time and are unlikely to be resolved soon.
"I continue to believe commentators are being overly simplistic in interpreting what voters mean when they say they disapprove of Obama’s economic performance. Obviously many of them see that performance as disqualifying; nearly half the country will vote for Romney. But many may simply be expressing disappointment with Obama for his inability to engineer a faster recovery, while simultaneously finding that understandable, given the circumstances. They have dialed down expectations of a president’s ability to fix the economy quickly. As a result, they are not only willing to give Obama’s approach more time and are open to the idea that he has put us on the path to recovery; they are subjecting Romney’s claim that he has answers that can magically engineer a quick turnaround to more skepticism. Other polling bears this out."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line
No comments:
Post a Comment