The headline from the most recent AP-Gfk Poll (June 2012), "Obama loses advantage over Romney as economic anxieties increase," doesn't tell the full story about what's NOT happening with public opinion. My read of the data shows that despite economic concerns the public has shown little movement in 2012, and Romney's message about the economy hasn't changed much at all. So, let me offer a few points about interpreting numbers from the poll; and, just to foreshadow my point, I'm asking, "where's the Romney effect?"
First, the most understated finding from the poll is that Romney's horse race numbers from December 2011 to June 2012 are down from 46% to 42% among all respondents. Moreover, the poll shows no change in Romney's horse race numbers from March 2012. Where is the Romney effect? But, okay, let's move to some patterns from the poll's results.
The Obama economic approval numbers for the AP-Gfk poll have remained mostly constant (1% point decline) since June 2010 and have actually increased by 4% points since June 2011 (neither of these changes are outside the MOE). If Romney's message on Obama's economic performance is having an effect, why haven't Obama's numbers dramatically changed?
When respondents were asked who they "trust to do a better job on handling the economy," Obama and Romney are tied now, just like they were in March of this year. Moreover, Obama's unemployment approval numbers are up 5 percentage points from June 2011, and have not changed (again, considering the MOE) in all of 2012. Once again, where is the effect of Romney's "Obama is weak on the economy" message?
Last point about the AP-Gfk Obama numbers: I'd be willing to bet that controlling for party ID (including independents), gender, and race-ethnicity, there is a weak (if any) correlation between Obama's economic ratings, and his favorability, his horse race support, or even Romney's favorability. And, while the "direction of the country" numbers are declining this year, they are similar to their June 2011 levels, and not necessarily tied to Obama outside of partisanship. In other words, the election is more about partisanship and demographics than views on the economy.
The "Obama is the problem" message is a primary, rather than general election, strategy. It doesn't resonate with Democrats, and isn't really moving independents and moderates (many of whom are former Republicans); thus, counter to many narratives broadcast throughout the media, Romney's message is having virtually NO EFFECT.
One really has to ask to what extent is the economy a crystallized issue? Saying the economy will be the main issue in the election is like saying social relationships will be everything in life; there are many bits and pieces that matter more or less in life just as they do in the economy. Talking in broad terms about the economy doesn't give one much direction, and thus, people are lost trying to figure it out.
As the AP-Gfk poll shows, just as many people believe that the economy will weakly (50%) impact ("just some/a little/no impact") the November election as believe it will heavily (48%) impact it ("a lot/a great deal"). Forget where's the beef, it's really, "where's the economy?"
My theory is that the negative framing of the economy around Obama is getting lost because 1) the U.S. economy has actually gotten better even if the global economy is still untenable, and 2) the Republicans haven't offered any unified theory (message) to the public that would lead to a belief they, or Romney, could do better. It's true that there are strong concerns about the economy, but the public understands that the issue is complex, and not entirely due to Obama.
In political communication, messaging really does matter. From my reading of many polls, the public sees the GOP as offering nothing new or coherent, and their positions come across as more anti-Obama, than pro-help America out of the recession. Pinning your entire message on "out with Obama" is a losing strategy among independent and moderate voters because they'll look at the GOP's record and say, "well at least the Democratic led Congress did something" even if they don't like everything that was done.
Romney is also losing the "truth" messaging war. He consistently says Obama's policies haven't worked even though the economy has actually improved since Obama took office (just look at any unemployment rate chart). Romney really means that Obama's policies haven't solved everything; but of course, you can't say that because it implies the policies (i.e., economic stimulus) have solved some things. He can't continue this strategy moving forward because his misinformation will come to characterize his candidacy and take him off message post-debates (assumption: the media will do its job).
Lastly, a point about how to test some of the real implications about perceptions of the economy and presidential candidates in forthcoming polls. [Those squeamish about polling matters can skip to the end.]
Even given the old pocketbook model (i.e., my economic concerns drive my candidate preference), I wonder how the implied correlation works for Romney. For example, a sort of retrospective framing of "if Mitt Romney were president do you think the economy would be better, worse, or about the same?" Then provide some comparison via the data. Right now, there's a one-sided economy and leadership message which implies "economy does bad, so does Obama." But this isn't the case if people think that Romney would be no different in the current situation (i.e., "no Romney effect").
As we move to September and Romney is pressured to give specifics -- some of which have already been dismissed as ineffective, as well as more damaging than the status quo -- these early numbers about the economy and Obama's ability to handle the broad range of issues may prove less meaningful. So, it would be nice to have some comparative (i.e., Romney) context (i.e., any different) to judge these numbers.
UPDATE (6/22): The Washington Post has polled on some comparative questions and found that the public sees no difference between Obama's and Romney's economic skills. Further evidence that the "Romney as economic champion" message is not driving support differences between he and Obama.
See Results: Do you have a favorable or unfavorable impression of Mitt Romney's (Barack Obama's) plan for the economy?
All in all, the real question seems to be if things are so horrible and bad with the economy why haven't Romney's numbers jumped through the sky and Obama's numbers plummeted? I don't think that any smart reader of polls can tell you today who will win in November, but campaign research suggests that Romney will have a much tougher time than Obama moving forward because of VP pick scrutiny, national debate prep, changing national and international issues will require him to be more specific in his positions, and the like. Obama has the advantage of incumbency and stronger favorability than Romney; Romney's main political advantage is that he's not currently in any elected office to see how he'd perform in this economy.
Again, if business background is a winning message, where's the Romney effect?
Follow David C. Wilson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcwilsonphd
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
http://ap-gfkpoll.com/uncategorized/our-latest-poll-findings-3
According to NBC/Wall Street, 51% believe the economy is recovering vs. 44% say that it is not recovering.
Both of those polls were taken after the ap-gfkpoll you referenced.
btw Why would you think President Obama 'failed' ?
2. Pushed through a health care bill that is dividing the country because of poor 'inclusion'. Many don't understand its impact on them + or -.
3. Financial reward to those who caused the economic downturn (admittedly a continuance of a bad republican plan).
4. Failed attempt to bring political pressure on republicans to follow his economic agenda (probably needed to happen, but he used up his 'cred' trying).
5. Failure to address 'straw man' arguments republicans have put into the mainstream to sidetrack attention from actual fiscal causes of the current environment (eg. union workers and state public employees cause the federal budget problems because of overpay, laziness, and inflated benefits (all lies, btw)). This is more a party failure than presidential, though.
Just as big oil was Bush and Cheney's secret base, Wall Street and the banks were Obama's secret base. These groups were served to perfection. Bush and Obama were not there to serve you and I, but to do the bidding of powerful monied interests.
So, Obama most likely will win, and I most likely will vote for him unless my town dog catcher runs as a third party candidate.
He made promises.
He didn't keep them.
He knew the mess we were in.
He failed.
I look at a candidates intelligence, personality, history, and they way they conduct themselves and their campaigns. In a previous election cycle I voted against the Democratic candidate for governor because he was an @ss. I voted third party. I wasn't the only one because we ended up with T-Paw!
The misery index is at a 28-year high.
The standard of living for Americans has fallen further and more steeply over the past three years than at any time since the government began recording it five decades ago.
We have endured the longest stretch of high unemployment since the Great Depression.
The share of the eligible population holding a job has reached its lowest level since July 1983.
Chronic unemployment is worse than in the Great Depression.
Almost 26 million are either unemployed, marginally attached to the labor force, or involuntarily working part-time – a number experts say is unprecedented.
Black unemployment is at its highest level in 27 years, with black youth unemployment now closing in on 50 percent.
The rate of economic growth under Obama has been only slightly higher than the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression.
The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty has seen a record increase on President Obama's watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.
The share of Americans without health coverage is just a shade under 50 million people, the largest in more than two decades.
And so on. The economic recovery is like a unicorn. You can talk about it all you want; but that doesn't make it real.
http://youtu.be/Tvtdcn9wONA
unsigned) it would create 3 million new jobs. The Republicans don't want the economy to
improve, because they think it will help Romney win in November. I think they're wrong.