On The Upswing?
George W. Bush apparently decided to seize on a week of mixed (as opposed to uniformly bad) economic indicators to argue that the economy’s turning around. I could try to offer a rebuttal, I suppose, but I’m always a bit taken aback by how dominated political arguments are by disputes about the present state of the economy. The economy was, uncontroversially, doing pretty well in 1998 but pretty much everything progressives would put on the table today would also have been a good idea ten years ago. There’s never a good time for your country to have an inefficient, unfair health care finance system and there’s never a bad time to find economically viable ways of mitigating future environmental catastrophe. Or for those on the other side of the aisle, if lowering the tax burden paid by rich people will have a beneficial “supply-side” effect that sparks broad-based economic growth, then this is a good thing to do whether the economy’s faring well or poorly.
For the most part, good ideas are good ideas rain or shine. Of course the overall economic situation is shown to have impact on voting behavior, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that the causal mechanism is the objective economic conditions facing undecided voters, not disputes between politicians about how to characterize the situation. After all, in a continent-spanning country of about 300 million people lots of individual families’ economic circumstances will deviate from the mean no matter what.
23 Responses to “On The Upswing?”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 30th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
You know, there’s surprisingly little evidence that economic voting takes place at the individual level. People always say they are concerned about the economy, but statistical studies of voter behavior that attempt to link objective economic indicators to voter preference generally show a weak effect (weaker than party identification or class). This led a whole bunch of political scientists to conclude that subjective indicators (do you feel like you’re better off now than X years ago) are better predictors of vote choice. These models performed better, but are still unconvincing, and of course it undermines the supposedly rational connection between economic performance and a particular political candidate.
The only models that show a strong link between vote choice and economic performance are aggregate models, and they tend to have serious methodological flaws. In other words, President Bush’s cynical approach is probably right as a political strategy, but once again demonstrates his lack of interest in governing responsibly.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Braden is right — the polisci consensus is that voters’ perception of the state of the economy matters far more than their individual economic circumstances. Which explains entirely why the parties argue about it all the time.
August 30th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Manipulated electricity prices drove Gray Davis from office. The dodgy mortgage crisis might drive (fill in the blank) from office.
Gordon Brown?
August 30th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Knock it off you whiners, things are going fine.
More proof of what I’ve long suspected – George Bush doesn’t give a hoot about the Republican Party and its electoral chances, he’s only concerned with his own legacy and image.
August 30th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
A good idea is a good idea forever.
August 30th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Deflator of 1.2%. According to the GDP, we have experienced the lowest inflation in 5 years. The lying is so bad that not even Barron’s believes the crap statistics the government provides anymore. They are calling the GDP “gross deceptive pap”.
But of course, I don’t want to discourage the Republicans from claiming the economy is getting better. And McCain should agree with them.
August 31st, 2008 at 10:26 am
Re: statistical studies of voter behavior that attempt to link objective economic indicators to voter preference generally show a weak effect
Because people do not experience “economic indicators”. They experience what’s happening with their job, with their savings and/or debts and with their bills. If unemplopyment ticks up a percentage point, that means only 1 out of a 100 voters have lost their job (or less: some of those unemplopyed may well be non-citizens). Ditto for foreclosures: the vast majority of people are in no danger of losing their home. On the other hand there’s a definite link between the increase in gasoline prices and voting: almost everyone experuences that fact quite directly.
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:49 am
levitraIncredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:30 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am
tramadol
I want to say – thank you for this!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:09 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:07 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra