For some liberal political strategists, the focus on the monthly federal jobs report that will come out later this morning is much ado about not all that very much. The unemployment and job creation numbers are, they say, just statistics that don’t necessarily tell us all that much about the economy and perhaps even less about the sentiment of voters. To which the sensible observer can only respond: Like hell, they don’t.
The question about why we’re all so obsessed with economic statistics this summer was the conceit of a New York Times feature that served to preview the latest jobs report due out on the first Friday of every month. According to many of those quoted by the paper, the problem with the jobs numbers obsession is they aren’t a true measure of the worthiness of President Obama’s economic program. Their fear is that the latest report as well as those that preceded it and those that will follow in the coming months may merely reflect a caprice of fortune in which a few ill-timed economic statistics can ruin the chances of an otherwise praiseworthy president to gain re-election. The experts consulted seem divided between those who think the predictive power of these stats is overrated and those who think they do mean a lot but aren’t necessarily fair to the president.
But this analysis misses the obvious. The numbers matter because they are the tangible measure of the success or failure of any administration in proving the country is in better shape than it was when they took over the big fancy offices in Washington after the last presidential election. If voters take these numbers seriously, it’s because along with personal experiences, they help form the voters’ overall impression of the state of the economy. The key here is not so much the details of each report as it is the trajectory of the nation’s finances. Moreover, given the fact that we are just four months away from the November election, it’s that point in time when, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, politicians begin to understand that “it gets late early out there.” Once the electorate accepts the verdict that the economy is either on the decline or on the rise, a possible change in the fall (with the exception perhaps of a collapse on Wall Street such as occurred in September 2008) is unlikely.
If, as some economists think and worried Democrats fear, the jobs reports will continue to spread gloom, attempts to spin the statistics as either arbitrary or misleading won’t work. Nor will President Obama’s claim the economy has been recovering for three years on his watch. If three straight summers of recovery leave the country in worse shape than the president found it in January 2009, then the only arguments to be made for his re-election will revolve around the historic nature of his presidency and attempts to smear Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Though it will, as Bill Kristol rightly noted yesterday, take more than a bad economy to elect Romney, a president who can’t run on his record in the midst of an ongoing economic crisis isn’t likely to be re-elected.
President Obama will have to hope the July numbers will be kind to him and pray the first Friday of August and September will not do him more damage. But whether they help or hurt him, it’s no good for Democrats to pretend the sinking employment figures aren’t a fair measure of the administration’s competence.
You and Kristol are both wrong in arguing that Romney can't win on the economy alone. n nPeople vote based on what's most important – to them. While there are some people who care most about a non-economy issue, such as abortion, gun rights, foreign policy or the environment, these voters have already made up their minds. Thus, there's nothing to be gained by using valuable media time on these topics. n nThe vast majority of undecided/leaning voters will be voting based on economic-related reasons (included in this basket is employment, health care costs, energy prices and general inflation). People worried about keeping their jobs aren't going to vote based on a candidate's position on Syria. In particular, they're trying to think of which of the two candidates will make things better – for them – and in the area they feel they most need help… the economy. n nIn order for Romney to win, he needs to not just make the case that things are not going well, which isn't hard, but that the lousy recovery is Obama's fault. He needs to take on Obama's assertion that everything is Bush and the GOP's fault and that Obama has been doing a masterful job of handling the recovery. Romney needs to convince people that it is okay to blame Obama (and in particular, that they aren't racists for doing so). n nOnce Romney does this, it becomes a lot easier to not only sell his economic plan to these voters, but to reinforce the idea that another four years of Obama will only result in more of the same. n nNote: just as liberals are accused on living in the 'liberal cocoon', in which they fail to grasp what is going on across the country, conservative wonks such as Kristol and yourself simply have to get out more. You guys immerse yourself in policy and politics… but most voters, and in particular, those whose votes are still up for grabs, have other things on their minds. If you're going to persist in offering advice, you need to think of what matters to those voters.
Un-Employed, the Un-Employment rate is 100 per cent; and the number subcides from there., All other figures are merely statistics, just like U-r to me. A faceless name, given only a cursory number in quantity. nWhat will elect Mr. Obama? FEAR. Fear of loss of 'what ever' you are gven by Government. nWhat will elect Mr. Romney? FEAR. Fear of loosing what ever U got, that's Health Care Cost. nNeither, in my opinion, has the ability to lead. nMr. Obama had the opportunity to be Great, but was not up to the task at hand. nMr. Romney will not be Great, for he is too perplexed with inability to thought. n