At the end of his piece, Matt notes:
And of course, the ramifications this has on the midterm elections are huge. People will wrongly attribute this recovery to the Pelosi/Obama $3 trillion boondoggle, and Democrats will maintain healthy majorities in both houses of Congress. Sadly, the economy still would have recovered even without having to beg other countries to please continue purchasing our trillions of dollars of debt, but now a majority of Americans will never be able to assent to that fact and will reward those who spent us into oblivion.
Not so fast.
Never forget that the public has no idea what it’s talking about. George H.W. Bush was kicked out of office because of the ‘bad economy’ despite the fact that the recession had ended a year before Election Day 1992. In Spring 2007, right as the Dow was closing at 13,000, there was only a nine percent gap between the number of people who believed that the economy was in a recession and the number of people who believed that it wasn’t.
Quite frankly, people don’t understand even rudimentary economics. To the public, a “recession” means “a bad economy” (not that the public is good at evaluating when the economy is doing poorly, as witnessed by that Rasmussen poll that I linked to) and a “depression” means “a really, really, really bad economy.” Economic indicators don’t exist, unemployment figures don’t exist, prediction models don’t exist — quite frankly, I’m not worried at all that the public will not catch on by November 2010 that the economy is recovering. It’s a win-win situation: the economy recovers, but we’ll benefit from the public’s wrongheaded perceptions — just like the Democrats did in 2006.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Hey Knepper, what do you think about this Santelli guy and this Chicago Tea Party stuff? I’m ambivalent about it because it strikes me as a more upscale version of the Plumber. It’ll help us ding up Obama among conservatives and push his unfavorables to around 45% but I don’t think it’s very helpful to claiming back the 5% that’s open to us but sticking with Obama as of right now. I thought the whole point of the Plumber was that Obama got stumped by a plumber and exposed as a total socialist. But then, McCain took it to its extreme.
I think Santelli, like the Plumber, hit a good point but taken too far, things such as tea parties and Weimar Republic (I’m hitting your boy right here, I cannot believe he said that stuff to the Politico), will only devolve into what happened between McCain/Plumber and keep us at 45-46%.
The idea seems to be we have to promote a hardcore fiscal conservative/anti-government/Barry Goldwater economics platform; I agree with that platform for the most part but it’s pretty easy to beat back if Obama just moderates a little bit. Of course, Obama may not moderate and that’ll allow for us to keep on pushing hardcore fiscal conservatism but I have to yet to see evidence through numbers and data, besides Rasmussen polls, that would support the idea that it’s the way to go. Rasmussen is good on national presidential polling but his issues data has never really been put to the test.
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:59 pm
What utter nonsense.
People don’t seem to have a good sense of macroeconomic trends because average people don’t care about, or vote on the basis of macroeconomic trends.
They assess the health of the economy based on their own personal condition, the condition of their friends and relatives, and the general atmosphere around them – which is also based on the personal experiences of average people and businesses in their local communities.
If, in 2010, people are less fearful of losing their job, if local businesses see their receipts picking up, if banks are lending, if there is a general sense that things are getting better, then the Dems will get credit, and will do well – irrespective of what the macroeconomic indicators say.
Average people are not nearly as stupid as you think Alex – they vote for what they perceive as their own interests, and the interests of their local community. If you come to understand that, it would be a big step toward better understanding the dynamics of American politics.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Tano, in April 2007, was the economy in a recession?
Yes or no?
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:02 pm
if i ruled this country, my first order of business would be making everyone take a basic economics class. it would be awesome.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 pm
The economy may well begin to recover in early 2010 – but Obama will be luck if the recovery is felt by the time ’12 starts.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Tommy,
As someone who worked on the floor of the then-Chicago Mercantile Exchange, I think people in general have a somewhat inaccurate opinion of people like Rick Santelli. While many, especially those on the left, may equate Santelli with the archetypal “evil” Wall Street banker or trader, my experience showed me that, in fact, most of the people who work on the floors of the exchanges more closely align with Joe the Plumber than Gordon Gekko. A lot of the older floor traders and brokers don’t even have college degrees; rather, they started at low-level positions and worked their way up. Take Santelli, for instance: although he did graduate from the University of Illinois, he began his career as a runner (basically, a clerk that delivers trading cards to traders and runs errands). While you do obviously have a wealthy, yacht-owning trader here and there, most of the men on the floor worry just as much, if not more (due to the fact that an error on their part can cost them thousands of dollars), than the average worker about paying for their mortgage, their kids’ college tuitions, etc.
In the end, although I do believe that the general public’s negative perception of anything having to do with Wall Street may prevent this event from gaining a large amount of traction across the country, I do think that it will resonate with certain people. For an example, check out what James Pethokoukis has to say in this Capital Commerce entry: http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2009/2/21/rick-santelli-rant-the-chicago-tea-party.html
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Even if the economy is in the tank, a majority of Americans won’t blame Obama if he appears ccol, competent, reasonable, proactive and bipartisan in his approach.
This is Obama’s strategy — that the people will stick with him for at least a few yars — and I’m guessing it may very well work. The Republicans may have fewer victories than they expect in 2010, especially with mediocrities like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner in charge.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
We’ll do fairly poorly in 2010 in the Senate, but will stage a wonderful comeback in 2012.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Obama’s support hasn’t held very well. He’s already below 60% approval.
People will stick with Obama for a few months, possibly even to the 2010 election – its unlikely, however, that they will remain with him through 2012 without significant improvement.
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
The one flaw in this picture is that media will carry water for Obama et al like they always have. Under bush, the media continuously repeated the “economy is terrible” line. That is why the public believed it. In 2009 and 2010 the media won’t be harping on the economy nearly as much. Heck haven’t we already seen the Time covers about the ‘the man whose going to save the economy’ or some such garbage.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
I can think of one problem with this argument, Alex.
During the 2004 Presidential campaign, when the unemployment rate was around 5.5 per cent, the economy was described on CNN as “troubled”. When the unemployment rate was at 5.6 per cent it was described as “low” by the exact same network.
In other words, if we are experiencing positive GDP growth by 2010 that will be the lead in all economic stories, regardless of whether the unemployment rate recovers by then. The media only reinforces the cognitive dissonance when a Republican is President.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
National poll numbers for Rush Limbaugh: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_National_223.pdf
46/43 Favorable/Unfavorable
17/73 Democrats
43/44 Independents
80/12 Republicans
I’m stunned that Rush is in the black for favorable/unfavorable. I guess he’s made a comeback with independents, hahahaha. PPP is pretty damn solid when it comes to state-by-state polling (I trust PPP and Daily Kos for state-by-state polling rather than Rasmussen who’s more solid for national presidential polling).
Someone has to poll Santelli, Romney, and Huckabee. We haven’t seen a poll of their favorables since the election.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
If I had to predict now, I say that we have a pretty solid chance of winning back both houses of Congress in 2010, the Obama recession will drag down Democrats similar to what the Clinton recession did in 1994′s midterms, ushering in a wave of Republican support. The economy will tank and we can say, “see I told you so.” If the economy improves slightly (unlikely) we can say that our policies would have improved things more and spurred greater economic growth through tax cuts and spending cuts.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Limbaugh-Coulter ’12?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Limbaugh:
56/37 Men
37/49 Women
48/42 White
43/54 African-American
35/47 Hispanic
55/34 Other
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm
JA Pruce, we have no chance of winning back the Senate in 2010.
Have you seen who’s up for re-election?
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Look at that poll’s crosstabs, hahahaha
There is probably no more popular Republican than Limbaugh among blacks, Hispanics,or other (Asians)!!!! Limbaugh has a white problem, hahahah.
No Knepper, Limbaugh/Santelli ’12!!
I bet you though Limbaugh is polling better than Romney, I’m going to take fire from the Rombots now so I better duck out of here.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Senate in 2010 is another good one for Dems, as Alex says.
2012 will see the class of 2006 (Webb, Tester, et al) come up for their first re-election. That will be interesting, although quite a few may hold on, particularly if Obama still has coat-tails. 2014 should be very good for Republicans.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Alex,
It may be an uphill climb, but if the economy declines and Obama racks up deficit spending, Americans will be crying out for fiscal responsibility and will turn to the Republicans and once the wave starts it will crescendo into a manifest tsunami of populist economic conservatism and opposition to spending increases, tax increases and executive pay caps.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:29 pm
The 2012 Senate class is interesting. Which of the following Dems (elected on teh 2006 wave) are most under threat?
- Cardin (MD)
- Sanders (VT)
- Brown (OH)
- Casey (PA)
- Webb (VA)
- McCaskill (MO)
- Klobuchar (MN)
- Whitehouse (RI)
- Tester (MT)
Its an amazing line-up really. The only new senator that year on the GOP side was Corker, who’s good work in the car mmess should hold him in good stead. The likes of Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Sanders & Cardin won’t be tested in deep blue states, but the others are all from potentially swingy states.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
- Cardin (MD)
- Sanders (VT)
- Brown (OH)
- Casey (PA)
- Webb (VA)
- McCaskill (MO)
- Klobuchar (MN)
- Whitehouse (RI)
- Tester (MT)
Cardin’s not beatable, Sanders is not beatable, Brown is beatable, Casey is probably not beatable, Webb is probably not beatable, McCaskill is beatable, Klobuchar is probably not beatable, Whitehouse is probably not beatable, Tester is beatable.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Let’s remember why Tester (barely) won: because he was running against Conrad “Abramoff” Burns.
McCaskill barely won, and she only won because it was a Democratic wave.
Brown won decisively, but he can be defeated by the right candidate.
We don’t have any good candidates to go against Klobuchar, Cardin, Sanders.
Webb and Casey are probably not in trouble, but, well — do we have any good candidates? It doesn’t look like it.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Someone sitting next to me in class: “What about Ehrlich [against Cardin]?”
But we both agree that Ehrlich could almost certainly not beat Cardin.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Alex, who do you think can take out McCaskill? She’s viewed as a rising star, is close to the President (in a year where he’s up for re-election and probably keen to win MO having just missed out) and has a 53%/43% approval rating. Not the greatest, but certainly enough to hold on you would think.
Mind you, if OBama completely tanks, her ties to him won’t help much.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Folks, we can take back the House in 2010, but I’ve looked over the Senate races, the only way we take back the upper chamber is if President Obama has a 10% approval rating.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Isn’t Ehrlich running for Governor in 2010? Hard to turn around to 2012 that fast, particularly if he lost.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Folks, races such as the midterms in 2010 are all about bench-building and thinking outside the box. We need to recruit interesting and unconventional candidates and “rock star” candidates who can compete for attention and forge a new path forward. We need to nurture and grow the next Reagan.
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:57 pm
In fact, given O’Malley’s approval ratings (`30%) you’d think if Ehrlich wanted a race he could win, the governors re-match in 2010 would be much better than the 2012 senate race.
And Steele is unlikely to want a re-match with Cardin. He’s busy (although he’d be a good Governor candidate)
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Alex is right. The economy may really begin to comeback in the 2nd Half of the year in terms of growth numbers, but jobs will take longer. Clinton’s 1994 mid-terms happened two years after the economy had begun to recover.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:24 pm
#13, the Senate will probably be impossible to win back until at least 2012. Republicans would have to pick up 10 seats and do so in states like Delaware, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, and California which are deep blue states.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:26 pm
#29, the economy was not an issue in the 1994 election. The unemployment rate fell from 7.5% in early 1993 to 6.0% in fall 1994. The election was about Clinton’s social liberalism and scandals.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pm
“The election was about Clinton’s social liberalism”
And we nominated, of all people, Bob Dole.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:27 pm
The reason Clinton won in 1996 was not the nomination of Bob Dole, it was the fact that Republicans controlled Congress. Clinton’s whole campaign in 1996 was against the Republican Congress. Whenever Dole criticized Clinton for something, Clinton would always respond by saying taht the Republican Congress was reason why he didnt get it done.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Ron is absolutely correct. Anybody remember HillaryCare? Brady Bill?