Who would get blamed for an economic downturn resulting from the debt ceiling standoff? John Sides, a political scientist at George Washington University, has argued that incumbents tend to get blamed by voters for bad economic conditions even under divided government. New York Times blogger Nate Silver responds that a debt-induced crisis "would not be a normal case":
Whatever else the 2012 election would be if the debt limit is not raised in a timely fashion, it would not be a normal case. There's no especially appropriate precedent for the economy tanking by such an immediate and direct result of action (or inaction) in Washington. One reason the public tends to score strong economic performance in favor of the president, and poor economic performance against him, is because the United States economy is incredibly complicated -- it's hard for the public to discern cause and effect...
This would be different, however. The stock market could drop by thousands of points. Some major corporations, particularly in the financial services sector, might go under. Although the consequences might take some time to filter through the broader economy, there would nevertheless be a number of immediate and extremely visible effects. Many voters would feel as though they had perfectly reasonable grounds to connect the dots.
You'd have to weigh two things against each other: the additional damage to the economy, which is bad for the president all else being equal, and the additional ownership of the economy that Republicans would take for it, which is bad for them all else being equal. I don't know which effect would win out, but it's not a risk that either side should feel happy about taking.
It's certainly true that the current standoff seems relatively unprecedented, but as Jonathan Bernstein (another political scientist) notes, "There's always going to be some slightly new twist to almost any political phenomenon, and in most cases the new twists are a lot less important than the similarities." Over the years, people have come up with lots of stories about why the president won't get credit for a good economy or why the opposition will be blamed for a bad economy, but things rarely work out that way.
In this case, it's worth thinking through the mechanics of how Republicans would be blamed instead of Obama. As Silver notes, the economy is incredibly complex. Even if there were a debt default, the process by which it would affect the economy would be difficult for people to understand. Both sides would no doubt blame each other for the outcome and create elaborate stories about why the other side is to blame, which would then be reinforced and amplified in the press. Then more than a year would elapse before November 2012, and both sides would continue to blame each other for failing to adequately address the consequences of the default. In the meantime, many people will forget the details of what happened, but will know that Obama is the president and the economy is in bad shape. Under those conditions, how likely is it that people who would normally blame Obama for the poor economy will instead blame the GOP when they show up at the polls? Presidential forecasting and approval models aren't perfect, but I think the burden of proof is on their critics to explain why we should expect a deviation from the normal pattern of economic voting.
[Cross-posted to brendan-nyhan.com]
Follow Brendan Nyhan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/brendannyhan
Dr. Cara Barker: Beyond the Blame Game: Are You Willing to Play?
Good enough, they have awaken our interest to deal with them in the coming elections. Enough of their playing on American people's intelligence, making us look foolish in the eyes of the World.
The longer they drag all this issues the more we know how good President Obama has intended
for this great Country. GOP in the quest of destroying Obama may have destroyed Republican party. Extreme hatred is all they have for the president who has a better plan for this country than most previous presidents, Republican or Democrat. Raising debt ceiling which was done about 7 times during the President Bush's time was never heard. Why has it become a taboo under a president that inherited one of the worst economy that any American president ever inherited. Who is fooling who? An economy that was messed up for good 8 yrs cannot be fixed in less than 3 yrs, as a matter of fact it cannot be fixed even in 8 yrs but Obama was heading well until the GOP decided to be the clog on his wheels and I can see them crushed by his wheels.
There is no magic 14th Amendment fix.
If the debt ceiling is not raised, then Obama and Geithner have to decide what part of the monthly $320 billion dollar federal nut to cut. Obama can blame the GOP all he wants but it will be his administration making the cuts. His name will be on them. All it will take is about 5% of the electorate that is 'undecided' to blame Obama. C'ya Barack.
further i was wondering in your overzealous republican pride if you've ever heard of ronald reagan, george h w bush or george w bush. all republicans (two apparently republican gods) who all raised the debt ceiling multiple times. bush I and reagan raised taxes multiple times and bush II spent money like a drunken rich boy with a blank check which he was. so you may want to check your sanctimonious arrogance at the door.
And any plan that includes social security which is and always has been a separate pool of money and is not in trouble is nothing short of theft.
It's not like Americans are all for the massive increase in spending we've seen through Bush and now Obama.
Then complain the bottom half doesn't pay. We have no money! Pay us decent wages, if we're paid at all, and we will contribute. Make cuts and layoffs so more money can go to the top or you can hoard, of course we aren't contributing, we can't! Add in kids, the disabled, and the retired, there's your half. Your half has all the money, you wonder why you pay so much and we want you to pay more. The GOP wants to cut from people already suffering, and they wonder why it's suddenly unpopular.
Not to mention who ran up most of the debt in the first place.
Budget Expert: Paul D Ryan
Scientific Expert: James W DeMint
Marriage Expert: David B Vitter
Potatoe Expert: Benjamin E Quayle
So with this small list in mind I blame the Democrats. LOL
Mike
Treasury Expert: Tim the tax cheat
Banking Experts: Dodd & Frank (The ones who set up the housing collapse)
Communications Expert: VP Biden (What a joke)
Health Care Expert: House Minority Leader Pelosi (Sign the bill now and read it later)
Justice Expert: Eric, look the other way on racial crimes against whites, Holder
Homeland Security Expert: My man Jan (Nepalitano) who says the border is secure.
and the list goes on and on and on and on.................
Mike
And, if they don't get what they want, we default.
Who gets the blame? The Republicans deserve blame (if there is a default) whether they get it or not.
(and it's clear that many of them don't "get it")
As far as Bush, you seem to forget 9/11 and the repercussions on the economy. Airlines alone, lost 350,000 jobs and the fight against terrorism wasn't cheap. Even if the Iraq War hadn't taken place, we would have used those same resources in Afghanistan. And the Community Reinvestment Act, started by Carter and enforced under Clinton was the beginning of the end for the housing market. It merely exploded at the end of Bush's term.
http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed
http://alecexposed.org/wiki/Democracy,_Voter_Rights,_and_Federal_Power
"This page shows how ALEC bills or resolutions would disenfranchise Americans and give corporations great powers to influence elections in our democracy. These "model bills" include the infamous "Voter ID" bills pushed through this year by new governors, many of whom have ties to ALEC. Through ALEC, corporations have both a VOICE and a VOTE on specific state laws affecting your voting rights and elections through these model bills. Do you? "
As far as another Obama administration, look for higher taxes and not just on the rich, but on the middle class. There aren't enough "rich," to tax for all their programs, and those same "rich," and corporations give heavily to their campaigns, and they expect something in return or they'll take their ball and go home. Who are some of the richest members of congress-Pelosi, Feinstein, Kerry, to name just three-all Democrats. Obama is getting us further involved in Middle Eastern countries-can ground troops be far behind? The healthcare bill is over 2000 pages and not one congressman admits to having read it page by page until they signed it-wait until we learn that the bill is just another, "road to hell paved with good intentions." As much as I want us to leave Iraq and Afghanistan, look for those countries to crumble back into despair once we're gone.
Because of these traits, the Democrat party, which is made up of "people on the left" (who have the above described mentality) always seeks to blame the GOP for whatever problems we may be having at any given time. No matter how much power the Dems have, they are somehow never responsible for troubles. Never. Obviously this is absurd, but that is how they operate.
For these reasons, the Dems are living in denial about our financial realities, and/or they just want to paint the GOP as being "evil and mean-spirited" people who "want to cut programs." Pure politics, and very dangerous.
The Dems: let's kick the can down the road.
Republicans: Let's face this and deal with it while we can.
Just like your party.