Pundits repeat over and over again that "the election will be determined by the economy" as if its true, but the fact is that this conventional wisdom is nothing more than an amalgamation of various assumptions cobbled together. In reality, economic conditions always influence presidential elections. But how determinitive they are also depends on other variables, including candidates, campaigns, international events, cultural issues, and the context the public is evaluating the economy against. Follow me below the fold.
For arguments sake, let's use a rough approximation of the RCP average: Obama 47.5, Romney 44.5. That leaves 8 percent of the electorate that is undecided as of right now.
People (mostly pundits) assume that because polls show voters are most concerned about the economy, then undecided voters will be determined mostly through how the economy performs between now and election day.
There's a few problems with this.
1) It's already baked in the cake. We're 3 months from the election. Do people think that these 8 percent of folks are unable to comprehend a general sense of how the economy is doing? Do folks think that they are sitting in a luxury box like Caesar waiting to give a thumbs up or thumbs down on the economy based on some non-farm payroll or manufacturing index data to come in from BLS or BEA in October to tell them what they think?
The obsession with minor fluctuations in econometrics is a Washington one. For all intents and purposes, undecided voters have already come to have an entrenched opinion on the state of the economy. They aren't about the reality of their economic lives, they're just undecided about what to do about it in the voting booth. There will not be some last minute verdict.
2) The Presidential election is not an economic referendum for any voter. Just because undecided voters realize the economy is poor, it does not stand to reason that they will vote for Anybody But Obama. For evidence of that, see the RCP average. Romney has yet to make the sale that he has any new solutions to the problems that Obama is facing. If it were as simple as the election being a referendum on the economy, Romney would have a 5 point lead.
3) Voters understand context better than the pundits give them credit for. Voters get that the Presdient is not responsible for the entirety of the economy generally, and particularly in this case. Polls indicate that Wall Street, the GOP Congress, President Bush, and President Obama all share blame. Of course, that's not distributed evenly, and if the undecided voters who will yet determine this election blamed President Obama first and foremost, they wouldn't be undecided voters.
4) Elections are about the future. Voters know that things haven't been going well for them economically for years -- going back to the first George W. Bush administration, really. They also know that we face some pretty big choices, and have a considerable sense of anxiety about our debt and long-term growth. They know that there is a reckoning coming where people are going to have to sacrifice even more. There's a lot of pessimism out there.
You might think this contradicts the idea that "the economy" is determining the election. I continue to believe that this anxiety is actually setting up a key part of Obama's campaign theme. The chips are coming down... who do you trust to be on your side? Who do you trust to look out for YOUR interests in this brave new world? On whose dime are we going to dig ourselves out of this mess? Should we save our fiscal future by asking the wall street bankers to pay their fair share, or should we take it out of the health and retirement benefits of the declining middle class?
An undecided voter is likely to be thinking "Both parties got us into this mess... who do I trust to look out for my needs now that we're in it?"
5) Candidates and Campaigns matter. This brings me to the final point. Romney as a candidate and as a campaign is particularly mal-suited to handle this moment in history and capitalize on stagnant economic conditions. Voters never vote for the less likeable candidate. I've never seen it.
But beyond that, Romney in particular is someone that lacks all empathy for how the middle class is experiencing this recession. Every decision he makes cements this. If voters trusted him to look out for their needs, he would be leading right now -- but there is a lack of trust in the notion that he even understands what their needs are or how they live their lives. Here's a guy who told unemployed college grads to get creative and just borrow $20k from their parents and start a business. He might as well be speaking in Klingon as far as the middle class is concerned. The tax issue, the offshore dummy coporations and Swiss bank accounts, the "retroactive retirement" from Bain all feed into this portrait.
In the end, while Obama's 3 point lead is small, it has been enormously steady through all the twists and turns and shiny objects that have driven the media narrative. The number of folks who are undecided at this point is small, and there will be little in the way of new data to sway them. They by and large are disappointed with the President, but strongly dislike Mitt Romney. Some of these folks will vote for Obama out of personal faith in his ability to "get" the problems of people like them. An equal number may well vote for Mitt because they want to try something new. Still more undecideds -- maybe even the majority -- will stay home.
I think that this race has been frozen and will continue to be frozen for some time. There is no economic enlightenment that will drive voters in one direction or another. Much like the economy, this election campaign will be a long, hard stagnant, slog. Obama will take it, 51-48. What we have now is what we will have in November.