Column: Will 'It's the economy, stupid' bite Democrats back?

The phrase "It's the economy, stupid" isn't exactly Churchillian, but it is as deeply embedded in American political wisdom as "never raise taxes in a recession" or "the rising tide lifts all boats." In this case, the phrase-maker was Democratic political consultant James Carville, who admonished Bill Clinton in 1992 to focus relentlessly on the economy as the key to victory over President George H.W. Bush.

  • James Carville, political consultant for the Clinton campaign in 1992, and his wife, Mary Matalin, who was a consultant for the Bush campaign.

    Albert Cesare, AP


Albert Cesare, AP


Sponsored Links

Carville is not associated with Barack Obama's re-election campaign, but echoes of his advice resonate eerily during the presidential campaign. Could the economy upend Obama as it did Bush?

Many economists and political scientists have producedformulas that purport to predict the likely outcomes of presidential elections based on various kinds of data. Most include the unemployment figure. So if Carville's utterance were applied only to the jobless rate, Obama would be toast. Fortunately for Obama, it is rarely cited as the sole determinant of an election's outcome. Typically, other indicators are thrown in such as disposable income and inflation. But even based on those numbers, Obama's chances still look pretty bleak.

The history of presidents seeking second terms shows that they are twice as likely to be re-elected than defeated. But when incumbent presidents suffer defeat it is because of a bad economy.

That was the story for Herbert Hoover in 1932, Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992.

Factors beyond economy

There are certainly other factors that sway voters: the political party with which they identify, the issues they care about and the personal qualities of the candidates. But when viewed collectively, no distinct advantage is evident for either Obama or Mitt Romney.

Party identification is a strong predictor of how voters will cast their ballots. But the strength of the two national parties is rather meaningless in a system in which the winner is the candidate with the most electoral votes. And while knowing the partisan breakdown in swing states helps, how independents might vote, as well as uncertainty over turnout, makes predictions more difficult.

Issues, of course, matter most. But, unfortunately for Obama, the economy and jobs are voters' No. 1 concern.

Personal qualities matter

As for personal qualities, polls have shown that Obama's traits are preferred to those of Romney. But likability or empathy are "soft" indicators, and forecasters feel more comfortable relying on economic data.

So how does the party that gave us that stern admonition refocus voters' attention on something other than the disappointing job numbers and the loss of purchasing power by the middle class?

First, Democrats should remind voters how we got into this mess, though this approach can take them only so far. Americans want some sign the future will be brighter, and though it is true the economy went into the ditch under a Republican president, the blame for the 2008 economic crisis tends to be more personally focused on former president George W. Bush rather than Republicans in general.

Second, the Obama campaign should lay blame for the arrested recovery on the opposition of Republicans in Congress to almost every corrective Obama sought to adopt.

Third, counseling patience might not be such a bad message when it is coupled with the warning that GOP plans for the economy pose the danger of driving the nation back into a deep recession. Fear of the unknown is a greatly underestimated emotion, one that Bill Clinton skillfully raised in his convention speech.

But no reminders of historical calamities or dark hints of the consequences of electing Romney will, on their own, suffice. The hard numbers really do matter. The candidate who voters believe will best get us out of this economic mess could make the difference. The latest unemployment figures did trend downward, but only because many people had stopped looking for work.

As a consequence, to gain even a little advantage, Obama will need to emphasize his less-tangible personal qualities, and, while not nullifying the hard economic numbers, present to Americans with candor a picture of our present situation, how we got into it and how we can climb out.

To borrow another phrase, economists like to use the term "on the margins." And in a cliff-hanger election, the margins are what it is all about.



Posted | Updated


Sponsored Links