Comments on: Misery Loves Company: Incumbents, Inflation and Unemployment

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Wed, 20 Jul 2011 00:40:01 +0000

Travis Jacobs writes:

“Hi Matt,

I’m out of town and catching up on email–I don’t minimize economic indicators in the 1976, 1980, and 1992 elections, but the historian in me wants to make a few, if not thought out, comments. Carter, in spite of Playboy, had an awful lot going for him with Watergate and Ford’s inability to escape the Nixon pardon. In 1980 in some ways it is amazing Carter hung in there as long as he did, considering the hostages and his ineptitude, besides the horrible economy. And in 1992, while the Bush people badly misjudged when the economy would pick up, Perot badly distracted the Bush effort, even if he did not cost Bush the election. Again, no effort to downplay the economic issues.

And you are working harder this summer to get things done than the people you write about in Washington!

Best,
Travis

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 18:26:42 +0000

Addi – Again, we are in basic agreement. After all their hand wringing and complaining, Obama’s base is not going to vote Republican. Some of them may choose not to vote, but lacking a primary opponent, there’s no doubt that he will retain the bulk of his base in 2012. That’s one reason why he has moved so far right in the debt negotiations, essentially acceding to almost all the Republicans’ requests. He’s much more worried about losing independents than he is angering his base (again!).

We shall see, in the end, just how much enthusiasm Republicans will muster for their eventual nominee…

By: Brendan Sullivan

Brendan Sullivan — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:27:17 +0000

Professor, have you seen any insightful studies on the relative attractiveness of the leading Republican candidates to independent voters (with historical extrapolations)? I would imagine the 2012 election will be largely determined, as in previous elections, by the sizeable independent bloc which tends to be more moderate, as well as the voter turnout from registered party voters. In such a polarized environment, I can’t envision too many registered voters switching sides.

By: Addison DiSesa

Addison DiSesa — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 17:05:09 +0000

I suppose you are right, to an extent. But at this stage, the Republicans hardly like their own candidates. At the same time, you might say the same about many liberals who feel betrayed by the President. I am not sure, however, that despite the tough talk, the Rachel Maddows of the world would ever NOT vote for a person like President Obama.

By: Matthew Dickinson

Matthew Dickinson — Thu, 14 Jul 2011 19:53:43 +0000

Addi – You are correct that it is too early to be making realistic projections based on current economic data although I am more confident than you, I think, that the 2012 election will turn primarily on assessments of the economy. It is possible, of course, that something like a terrorist strike might alter that, but otherwise I think Obama’s perceived stewardship of the economy will be the central issue. I also don’t want to totally dismiss the relevance of Obama’s opponent. But presuming they pass the smell test as a legitimate candidate, their campaign strategy will essentially be to focus on Obama and the economy. I would also caution against dismissing the current Republican field as a bunch of intellectual lightweights, ideologues and unknowns. Once the field narrows and the nominating process begins, the candidates who survive the initial scrutiny will be perceived as strong contenders. In short, I think the voting calculus will turn primarily on assessments of Obama, and only then turn to the qualifications of his opponent.