News OnLine » Democrats – James Surowiecki: Can economic recovery save the Democrats in November? http://news365online.com Thu, 24 Nov 2011 16:55:47 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 http://news365online.com http://news365online.com/wp-content/plugins/maxblogpress-favicon/icons/favicon-60.ico News OnLine James Surowiecki: Can economic recovery save the Democrats in November? http://news365online.com/politics/2010/04/16/james-surowiecki-can-economic-recovery-save-the-democrats-in-november.html http://news365online.com/politics/2010/04/16/james-surowiecki-can-economic-recovery-save-the-democrats-in-november.html#comments Fri, 16 Apr 2010 23:45:07 +0000 admin http://news365online.com/politics/2010/04/16/james-surowiecki-can-economic-recovery-save-the-democrats-in-november.html

Given high unemployment and flat wages, no one is going to be singing “Happy Days Are Here Again” any time soon (even if the tune was F.D.R.’s theme song). But we’ve now had three straight quarters of growth, and last month saw the creation of more than a hundred and fifty thousand jobs. That prompted the Harvard economist Jeff Frankel, a member of the committee that officially declares when recessions begin and end, to declare the downturn over. So, with the midterm elections just seven months away, people are starting to wonder how a rebound might shape results in November.

Now, economic performance doesn’t necessarily determine elections; its impact was trumped in 2002, for instance, by 9/11 and in 2006 by Iraq. And its impact tends to be bigger in Presidential races than in midterms. But there is typically a strong correlation between how the economy is doing and how voters feel, with weak economies hurting incumbents and helping challengers. (That’s why Presidents have a tendency to try to juice the economy in election years: in 1972, Richard Nixon pushed through a major increase in Social Security benefits just before the election.) And it doesn’t matter if blame for a poor economy might plausibly be laid on a previous Administration: it’s the party in charge that voters hold responsible. In other words, if the economy is bad on Election Day, blaming George Bush probably won’t work. “The old party gets credit or blame for the first year, and then it’s the new party’s economy,” Larry Bartels, a political scientist at Princeton, says. “By November, it will be the ’ economy.”

Understandably, then, Republicans have been giddy about their prospects this fall. Even if we get a sustained recovery, more than ten million people will still be out of work in November, and few Americans will be better off than they were two years ago. And the weak economy has already helped Republicans, because it’s easier to recruit what John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, calls “quality challengers”—among them, for instance, people who’ve actually held political office before—when the chances of victory look good. While high-profile Democratic incumbents have been stepping down, strong Republican candidates have decided to step up.

A tough November for therefore looks like a foregone conclusion. And yet if the economy really starts to recover this summer a lot could change. For one thing, voters have short memories: when they cast their ballots, their decisions are shaped primarily by recent events. Bartels, in his book “Unequal Democracy,” points out a strong correlation between voting in Presidential elections and income growth during election years, rather than income growth over the full length of a Presidency. Indeed, he narrows it down further: the second and third quarters of the election year seem to matter most. Since the second quarter started just last week, there’s time for moods to brighten substantially by Election Day. Some have argued that an economic rebound won’t matter this year, because things have been so awful that normal growth won’t feel like progress. But, as Sides says, “it doesn’t seem that economic growth matters less when you’re digging out of a crisis. What voters look at is whether things are getting better or worse.”

Even the high unemployment rate may be less important politically than you’d think. Seth Masket, a political scientist at the University of Denver, has found that, in midterm elections since 1950, there’s been no correlation between the unemployment rate and election outcomes. The key economic variable for voters, other studies show, has been income growth, or, more specifically, how fast per-capita G.D.P. is rising. In other words, if income growth is brisk enough, should benefit at the polls even if unemployment stays high. And do have an ace in the hole when it comes to keeping the economy moving: last year’s stimulus bill was backloaded, which means that close to five hundred billion dollars in stimulus money is still to be spent.

That backloading of the bill was good economics: with the Federal Reserve doing less to pump up the economy, an extra half-trillion dollars in fiscal stimulus will help pick up the slack. It was also good politics, since much of that money will be flooding into the economy during the key second and third quarters. Republicans in Congress would presumably block any Democratic attempt to pass another major stimulus, both for ideological reasons and because they have no political incentive to see the economy improve. (While you might expect all incumbents to pay the price for a poor economy, in Sides’s words, “It’s really only the President’s party that suffers when the economy’s bad.”) Pushing much of the stimulus spending off until this year made that less of a problem.

It didn’t guarantee that the economy would be healthy by November, though. So it’s still possible that we may see a replay of the 1982-84 election cycle, when Republicans lost twenty-six seats in the midterm elections, thanks to a weak economy, but Ronald Reagan won reëlection in a landslide two years later. This time around, the recovery could come too late to in November but still be in time to set Barack up well for reëlection in 2012. The economy’s recent signs of life, coupled with all the stimulus money, give the a better chance of avoiding that fate. But economies aren’t machines. The will have to spend the next seven months much the way voters will: waiting and hoping that, at long last, things are finally back on track. ♦

Related posts

]]> http://news365online.com/politics/2010/04/16/james-surowiecki-can-economic-recovery-save-the-democrats-in-november.html/feed 0 Obama Lobbies, Democrats Predict a Win http://news365online.com/business/2010/03/21/obama-lobbies-democrats-predict-a-win.html http://news365online.com/business/2010/03/21/obama-lobbies-democrats-predict-a-win.html#comments Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:55:30 +0000 admin http://news365online.com/business/2010/03/21/obama-lobbies-democrats-predict-a-win.html


March 20, 2010, 8:06 PM EDT




(Adds Van Hollen quote under No Separate Vote sub-headline. For more on the health-care debate, see {EXT2<GO>})

By Ryan Donmoyer and Catherine Dodge

March 20 (Bloomberg) — President Barack rallied House to back health-care legislation that he called “the toughest insurance reforms in history” as party leaders said they would have the votes to pass the overhaul tomorrow.

“We have been debating health care for decades,” told lawmakers today at the U.S. Capitol. “It is time to pass health-care reform for Americans, and I am confident you are going to do it.”

On the eve of the vote on the biggest revamp of U.S. health care in more than four decades, House abandoned plans to avoid a direct up-or-down ballot on Senate-passed legislation after days of accusations from Republicans that they were ducking a politically difficult vote.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said “we believe we have the votes” as leaders resolved a dispute over Medicare payments to states and moved to defuse a row over abortion. He said dropped the idea of holding an indirect vote on the Senate bill and simply “deeming” it approved because “we determined we could do this, and it was a better process.”

The House will vote on both the Senate bill and compromise legislation that amends parts of the Senate measure that House don’t like. The compromise bill then goes back to the Senate, where Majority Leader Harry Reid said today he had the “commitment of a significant majority” of to approve it.

‘Quiet Crisis’

, who has had more than 60 conversations with lawmakers since March 15 to help Speaker Nancy Pelosi round up the 216 House votes she needs, said today many Americans are living a “quiet crisis” because of health-care concerns.

“Now, we’re on the threshold of doing something about it,” said , who has made the issue the centerpiece of his domestic legislative agenda. “We’re a day away.”

“Is this the single most important step that we have taken on health-care since Medicare? Absolutely,” said of the 10-year, $940 billion measure.

Republicans universally oppose the legislation, arguing that are underestimating the cost and pushing though changes that polls show Americans don’t like.

“They do not want the federal government involved in their personal health care, and they do not want a bill that spends over $1 trillion,” Representative Dave Camp of Michigan told the Rules Committee today, which was meeting to set the rules for tomorrow’s floor debate.

‘Kill the Bill’

Outside the Capitol, more than 2,000 people gathered to protest the legislation, chanting “kill the bill.”

Kristie Greco, a spokeswoman for Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, said demonstrators called Representative John Lewis of Georgia, who is black, a racial epithet and spat on another black lawmaker, Emanuel Cleaver, of Missouri.

“I heard people saying things today I have not heard since March 15, 1960, when I was marching to try to get off the back of the bus,” said Clyburn, who is black.

headed off the dispute in their ranks over Medicare payments by agreeing to ease geographic disparities in doctor and hospital payments.

Party leaders also said they were confident they can overcome complaints by some members that language restricting federal funding for abortion isn’t strong enough.

Hoyer said are considering asking the administration to issue an executive order that would expressly say “there will be no use of public funds for abortion” to allay some lawmaker concerns.

No Separate Vote

Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, a leading critic of the abortion language in the legislation, had asked for a separate floor vote to add a stricter ban on such funding. Pelosi ruled that out.

“We’re in the final stretch here,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat. Asked whether need to reach an agreement on an executive order or some other way of appeasing pro-life before a vote, he said “I’m not sure we do.”

The original House bill passed 220-215. Since then, lost four “yes” votes because of vacancies and a switch by the one Republican who backed the bill.

say the legislation will cover 32 million uninsured Americans and curb medical costs. The Congressional Budget Office said it would also reduce the federal deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years.

Insurance Mandate

The legislation requires Americans to get insurance, offering government aid and new purchasing exchanges to help. Insurers such as Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc. would get millions of new policyholders, while being required to accept all customers, even with pre-existing conditions.

All told, 37 sitting voted “no” on the original bill. Another 40 supported the measure while voting “yes” on an amendment calling for stricter controls on abortion funding that Stupak offered at the time.

Representative Dan Lipinski, an Illinois Democrat, said he’s switching his vote to “no” because of the abortion issue. New York Representative Michael Arcuri, who voted for the original House bill, said he’s now a “no” because the new measure doesn’t do enough to control costs. Massachusetts Representative Stephen Lynch is also switching to “no,” the Boston Herald reported.

‘Yes’ Votes

On the other side, John Boccieri of Ohio, Allen Boyd of Florida, Bart Gordon of Tennessee, Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, Suzanne Kosmas of Florida, Betsy Markey of Colorado and Scott Murphy of New York all now plan to vote “yes” after voting “no” in November, according to statements from the lawmakers or their offices.

Two more lawmakers said today they would back the bill.

Representative Harry Mitchell, an Arizona Democrat, issued a statement saying he will vote “yes,” as did another undecided lawmaker, Representative Adam Smith, a Washington Democrat.

–With assistance from Nicholas Johnston, Brian Faler, Kristin Jensen, James Rowley, Ryan J. Donmoyer, Laura Litvan, Jonathan D. Salant, Kate Andersen Brower, Julianna Goldman and Nicole Gaouette in Washington. Editors: Mark McQuillan, Jim Kirk.

To contact the reporter on this story: Catherine Dodge in Washington at cdodge1@bloomberg.net Ryan J. Donmoyer in Washington at rdonmoyer@bloomberg.net;

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jim Kirk at jirk12@bloomberg.net;



Related posts

]]> http://news365online.com/business/2010/03/21/obama-lobbies-democrats-predict-a-win.html/feed 0